Question: "What is Buddhism and what do Buddhists believe?"
 

Question: "What is Buddhism and what do Buddhists believe?"

Question: "What is Buddhism and what do Buddhists believe?"

Answer: Buddhism is one of the leading world religions in terms of adherents, geographical distribution, and socio-cultural influence. While largely an “Eastern” religion, it is becoming increasingly popular and influential in the Western world. It is a unique world religion in its own right, though it has much in common with Hinduism in that both teach Karma (cause-and-effect ethics), Maya (the illusory nature of the world), and Samsara (the cycle of reincarnation). Buddhists believe that the ultimate goal in life is to achieve “enlightenment” as they perceive it.

Buddhism’s founder, Siddhartha Guatama, was born into royalty in India around 600 B.C. As the story goes, he lived luxuriously, with little exposure to the outside world. His parents intended for him to be spared from the influence of religion and protected from pain and suffering. However, it was not long before his shelter was penetrated, and he had visions of an aged man, a sick man, and a corpse. His fourth vision was of a peaceful ascetic monk (one who denies luxury and comfort). Seeing the monk’s peacefulness, he decided to become an ascetic himself. He abandoned his life of wealth and affluence to pursue enlightenment through austerity. He was skilled at this sort of self-mortification and intense meditation. He was a leader among his peers. Eventually, his efforts culminated in one final gesture. He “indulged” himself with one bowl of rice and then sat beneath a fig tree (also called the Bodhi tree) to meditate till he either reached “enlightenment” or died trying. Despite his travails and temptations, by the next morning, he had achieved enlightenment. Thus, he became known as the 'enlightened one' or the 'Buddha.' He took his new realization and began to teach his fellow monks, with whom he had already gained great influence. Five of his peers became the first of his disciples.

What had Gautama discovered? Enlightenment lay in the “middle way,” not in luxurious indulgence or self-mortification. Moreover, he discovered what would become known as the ‘Four Noble Truths’—1) to live is to suffer (Dukha), 2) suffering is caused by desire (Tanha, or “attachment”), 3) one can eliminate suffering by eliminating all attachments, and 4) this is achieved by following the noble eightfold path. The “eightfold path” consists of having a right 1) view, 2) intention, 3) speech, 4) action, 5) livelihood (being a monk), 6) effort (properly direct energies), 7) mindfulness (meditation), and 8) concentration (focus). The Buddha's teachings were collected into the Tripitaka or “three baskets.”

Behind these distinguishing teachings are teachings common to Hinduism, namely reincarnation, karma, Maya, and a tendency to understand reality as being pantheistic in its orientation. Buddhism also offers an elaborate theology of deities and exalted beings. However, like Hinduism, Buddhism can be hard to pin down as to its view of God. Some streams of Buddhism could legitimately be called atheistic, while others could be called pantheistic, and still others theistic, such as Pure Land Buddhism. Classical Buddhism, however, tends to be silent on the reality of an ultimate being and is therefore considered atheistic.

Buddhism today is quite diverse. It is roughly divisible into the two broad categories of Theravada (small vessel) and Mahayana (large vessel). Theravada is the monastic form which reserves ultimate enlightenment and nirvana for monks, while Mahayana Buddhism extends this goal of enlightenment to the laity as well, that is, to non-monks. Within these categories can be found numerous branches including Tendai, Vajrayana, Nichiren, Shingon, Pure Land, Zen, and Ryobu, among others. Therefore it is important for outsiders seeking to understand Buddhism not to presume to know all the details of a particular school of Buddhism when all they have studied is classical, historic Buddhism.

The Buddha never considered himself to be a god or any type of divine being. Rather, he considered himself to be a ‘way-shower' for others. Only after his death was he exalted to god status by some of his followers, though not all of his followers viewed him that way. With Christianity however, it is stated quite clearly in the Bible that Jesus was the Son of God (Matthew 3:17: “And a voice from heaven said, ‘This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased’”) and that He and God are one (John 10:30). One cannot rightfully consider himself or herself a Christian without professing faith in Jesus as God.

Jesus taught that He is the way and not simply one who showed the way as John 14:6 confirms: “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except by me.” By the time Guatama died, Buddhism had become a major influence in India; three hundred years later, Buddhism had encompassed most of Asia. The scriptures and sayings attributed to the Buddha were written about four hundred years after his death.

In Buddhism, sin is largely understood to be ignorance. And, while sin is understood as “moral error,” the context in which “evil” and “good” are understood is amoral. Karma is understood as nature's balance and is not personally enforced. Nature is not moral; therefore, karma is not a moral code, and sin is not ultimately immoral. Thus, we can say, by Buddhist thought, that our error is not a moral issue since it is ultimately an impersonal mistake, not an interpersonal violation. The consequence of this understanding is devastating. For the Buddhist, sin is more akin to a misstep than a transgression against the nature of holy God. This understanding of sin does not accord with the innate moral consciousness that men stand condemned because of their sin before a holy God (Romans 1-2).

Since it holds that sin is an impersonal and fixable error, Buddhism does not agree with the doctrine of depravity, a basic doctrine of Christianity. The Bible tells us man's sin is a problem of eternal and infinite consequence. In Buddhism, there is no need for a Savior to rescue people from their damning sins. For the Christian, Jesus is the only means of rescue from eternal damnation. For the Buddhist there is only ethical living and meditative appeals to exalted beings for the hope of perhaps achieving enlightenment and ultimate Nirvana. More than likely, one will have to go through a number of reincarnations to pay off his or her vast accumulation of karmic debt. For the true followers of Buddhism, the religion is a philosophy of morality and ethics, encapsulated within a life of renunciation of the ego-self. In Buddhism, reality is impersonal and non-relational; therefore, it is not loving. Not only is God seen as illusory, but, in dissolving sin into non-moral error and by rejecting all material reality as maya (“illusion”), even we ourselves lose our “selves.” Personality itself becomes an illusion.

When asked how the world started, who/what created the universe, the Buddha is said to have kept silent because in Buddhism there is no beginning and no end. Instead, there is an endless circle of birth and death. One would have to ask what kind of Being created us to live, endure so much pain and suffering, and then die over and over again? It may cause one to contemplate, what is the point, why bother? Christians know that God sent His Son to die for us, one time, so that we do not have to suffer for an eternity. He sent His Son to give us the knowledge that we are not alone and that we are loved. Christians know there is more to life than suffering, and dying, “… but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel” (2 Timothy 1:10).

Buddhism teaches that Nirvana is the highest state of being, a state of pure being, and it is achieved by means relative to the individual. Nirvana defies rational explanation and logical ordering and therefore cannot be taught, only realized. Jesus’ teaching on heaven, in contrast, was quite specific. He taught us that our physical bodies die but our souls ascend to be with Him in heaven (Mark 12:25). The Buddha taught that people do not have individual souls, for the individual self or ego is an illusion. For Buddhists there is no merciful Father in heaven who sent His Son to die for our souls, for our salvation, to provide the way for us to reach His glory. Ultimately, that is why Buddhism is to be rejected.

ˆ Copyright 2002-2015 Got Questions Ministries


Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Printer/...#ixzz3XZWwnVlP

*Matthew 3:17 "And a voice from heaven said, ‘This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased’”)

Întrebare: Ce este budismul și ce cred budiștii?

Răspuns: Budismul este una dintre religiile principale ale lumii în ceea ce privește adepții, distribuirea geografică și influența socio-culturală. Cu toate că în mare parte este o religie „estică”, budismul devine din ce în ce mai popular și mai influent în lumea vestică. Este o religie unică printre religiile lumii, deși are multe în comun cu hinduismul, prin faptul că ambele învață karma (etica cauză-efect), maya (natura iluzorie a lumii) și samsara (ciclul de reîncarnări). Budiștii cred că țelul cel mai înalt al vieții este să dobândească „iluminarea”, după cum o percep ei.

Fondatorul budismului, Siddhartha Guatama, s-a născut în familia regală din India în anul 600 î.Cr. După cum se povestește, a trăit în lux, având puțin contact cu lumea exterioară. Părinții săi au vrut ca el să fie ferit de influența religiei și protejat de durere și suferință. Totuși, nu după multă vreme, adăpostul său a fost penetrat, și a avut viziuni cu un om în vârstă, un bolnav și un cadavru. Cea de-a patra viziune a fost cu un călugăr ascetic liniștit (unul care respinge luxul și confortul). Văzând liniștea călugărului, a decis să devină și el ascet. A abandonat viața de bogăție și de prosperitate, pentru a urmări iluminarea, prin austeritate. Avea înclinație pentru automortificare și meditare intensă. A fost lider între colegii săi. În cele din urmă, eforturile lui au culminat cu un gest final. S-a „răsfățat” cu un bol de orez și apoi s-a așezat sub un smochin (numit și copacul bodhi), pentru a medita până fie va dobândi „iluminarea”, fie va muri în încercarea sa. În ciuda chinului și a tentațiilor, în dimineața următoare, dobândise iluminarea. Astfel a ajuns cunoscut ca „cel luminat”, sau „Buddha”. În lumina noii lui realizări, a început să-i învețe pe colegii lui călugări, între care dobândise deja o mare influență. Cinci dintre colegii săi au devenit primii săi ucenici.

Ce descoperise Gautama? Iluminarea se află pe „calea de mijloc”, nu în răsfăț de lux sau în automortificare. Mai mult, el a descoperit ceea ce urma să ajungă cunoscut ca „Cele patru adevăruri nobile” – 1) a trăi înseamnă să suferi (dukkha), 2) suferința este cauzată de dorință (tanha, sau „atașament”), 3) suferința poate fi eliminată prin eliminarea tuturor atașamentelor și 4) acest lucru este dobândit urmând calea nobilă cu opt brațe. „Calea cu opt brațe” constă din a avea 1) o vedere, 2) o intenție, 3) o vorbire, 4) o acțiune, 5) un trai (viața de călugăr), 6) un efort (energii corect direcționate), 7) o înțelegere (meditare) și 8) o concentrare (focalizare) corectă. Învățăturile lui Buddha au fost strânse în tripitaka, sau „trei coșuri”.

În spatele acestor învățături distinctive sunt învățăturile comune și hinduismului, și anume reîncarnarea, karma, maya și o tendință de a înțelege realitatea ca fiind panteistă în orientarea ei. Budismul oferă de asemenea o teologie elaborată a zeităților și a ființelor înălțate. Totuși, asemenea hinduismului, budismul poate fi greu de definit în ceea ce privește felul în care Îl vede pe Dumnezeu. Unele curente de budism ar putea fi numite în mod legitim ateiste, în timp ce altele ar putea fi numite panteiste, iar altele teiste, cum este Budismul Țării Pure. Totuși, budismul clasic tinde să păstreze tăcerea cu privire la realitatea unei ființe supreme și, prin urmare, este considerat ateist.

Budismul de astăzi este foarte divers. Este, în mare, divizibil în două categorii vaste: Theravada (vas mic) și Mahayana (vas mare). Theravada este forma de călugărie care rezervă cea mai înaltă iluminare și nirvana pentru călugări, în timp ce budismul Mahayana extinde acest țel al iluminării și pentru laici, adică pentru cei care nu sunt călugări. În cadrul acestor categorii pot fi găsite numeroase ramuri, printre care Tendai, Vajrayana, Nichiren, Shingon, Țara Pură, Zen și Ryobu. Prin urmare, este important ca cei din afară care caută să înțeleagă budismul să nu presupună că știu toate detaliile unei anumite școli budiste, când tot ceea ce au studiat este budismul clasic, istoric.

Buddha nu s-a considerat niciodată pe sine dumnezeu sau vreun fel de ființă divină. Mai degrabă s-a considerat un „arătător de cale” pentru alții. Numai după moartea sa a fost ridicat la rang de dumnezeu de către unii dintre urmașii săi, deși nu toți urmașii săi l-au văzut în acest fel. Totuși, în ceea ce privește creștinismul, în Biblie se afirmă în mod clar că Isus a fost Fiul lui Dumnezeu (Matei 3.17: „Și din ceruri s-a auzit un glas care zicea: «Acesta este Fiul Meu preaiubit, în care Îmi găsesc plăcerea»”) și că El și Dumnezeu sunt una (Ioan 10.30). Nimeni nu se poate numi pe sine creștin, dacă nu mărturisește credința în Isus ca Dumnezeu.

Isus i-a învățat pe oameni că El este calea, nu doar unul care arată calea, după cum confirmă Ioan 14.6: „Eu sunt Calea, Adevărul și Viața. Nimeni nu vine la Tatăl decât prin Mine.” La vremea la care Guatama a murit, budismul devenise o influență majoră în India; trei sute de ani mai târziu, budismul cuprinsese majoritatea Asiei. Textele sacre și cuvintele atribuite lui Buddha au fost scrise la aproximativ patru sute de ani după moartea sa.

În budism, păcatul este în mare parte înțeles ca fiind ignoranță. Și, în vreme ce păcatul este înțeles ca „greșeală morală”, contextul în care sunt înțelese „binele” și „răul” este amoral. Karma este înțeleasă ca fiind echilibrul naturii și nu este pusă în aplicare în mod personal. Natura nu este morală; prin urmare, karma nu este un cod moral și păcatul nu este în esență imoral. Astfel, putem spune, folosind gândirea budistă, că greșeala noastră nu este o problemă morală, devreme ce, în cele din urmă, este o greșeală impersonală, nu o infracțiune interpersonală. Consecința acestei înțelegeri este devastatoare. Pentru budiști, păcatul este mai degrabă un pas greșit decât o ofensă adusă naturii Dumnezeului sfânt. Această înțelegere a păcatului nu este în acord cu conștiența morală înnăscută că oamenii sunt condamnați, datorită păcatului lor, în fața unui Dumnezeu sfânt (Romani 1-2).

Devreme ce susține că păcatul este o eroare impersonală și reparabilă, budismul nu este de acord cu doctrina depravării, o doctrină de bază a creștinismului. Biblia ne spune că păcatul omului este o problemă cu consecință eternă și infinită. În budism nu este nevoie de un mântuitor care să salveze oamenii de la păcatele care îi condamnă. Pentru creștin, Isus este singura cale de scăpare de la condamnarea eternă. Pentru budiști există doar trăire etică și apeluri în meditație către ființele înălțate, în speranța că, poate, vor dobândi iluminarea și, în final, nirvana. Mai mult ca sigur, vor trebui să treacă printr-un număr de reîncarnări, pentru a plăti imensa acumulare de datorie karmică. Pentru adevărații urmași ai budismului, religia este o filosofie a moralității și a eticii, cuprinsă într-o viață de renunțare la sine. În budism, realitatea este impersonală și nonrelațională; prin urmare, nu este iubitoare. Nu doar că Dumnezeu este văzut ca fiind iluzoriu, ci, socotind păcatul ca o greșeală amorală și respingând toată realitatea materială ca fiind maya („iluzie”), chiar noi înșine ne pierdem „sinele”. Însăși personalitatea devine o iluzie.

Când a fost întrebat cum a început lumea, cine a creat Universul, Buddha se spune că a păstrat tăcerea, pentru că în budism nu există început și sfârșit. În schimb, există un ciclu nesfârșit al nașterii și al morții. Ar trebui să ne întrebăm ce fel de Ființă ne-a creat ca să trăim, să îndurăm atât de multă durere și suferință și apoi să murim din nou și din nou? Ar trebui ca acest lucru să trezească un semn de întrebare asupra rostului unor astfel de lucruri. Creștinii știu că Dumnezeu Și-a trimis Fiul să moară pentru noi, o singură dată, ca să nu trebuiască să suferim noi o veșnicie întreagă. El Și-a trimis Fiul ca să ne dea cunoștința faptului că nu suntem singuri și că suntem iubiți. Creștinii știu că viața înseamnă mai mult decât suferința și moartea: „...dar care a fost descoperit acum prin arătarea Mântuitorului nostru Cristos Isus, care a nimicit moartea și a adus la lumină viața și neputrezirea, prin Evanghelie” (2 Timotei 1.10).

Budismul învață că nirvana este cea mai înaltă stare de existență, o stare de existență pură, și că este dobândită prin mijloace care țin de fiecare individ. Nirvana sfidează explicația rațională și ordonarea logică și, prin urmare, nu poate fi predată, ci numai realizată. În contrast cu aceasta, învățătura lui Isus cu privire la cer este foarte specifică. El ne-a învățat că trupurile noastre fizice mor, dar că sufletele noastre se înalță, ca să fie în cer, împreună cu El (Marcu 12.25). Buddha i-a învățat pe alții că oamenii nu au suflete individuale, pentru că sinele sau eul este o iluzie. Pentru budiști, nu există niciun Tată ceresc iubitor, care Și-a trimis Fiul să moară pentru sufletele noastre, pentru mântuirea noastră, pentru a ne deschide o cale prin care să ajungem în gloria Lui. În esență, iată de ce budismul trebuie respins.

Cristi, (de ce "stooge"?)

Pasajul propus spre citire este aceeasi mostra de principii alterate atribuite budismului, cu grave erori de interpretare.

In acest gen de texte (analize comparative budism-crestinism) pare sa fie o vadita inclinatie spre distorsionarea sensurilor, evident in scop propagandistic.

Cautarea sincera a sensurilor este exclusa atunci cand doresti sa combati o anumita perspectiva de gandire.

Ochiul cauta defectul nu adevarul.

-----

De exemplu, budismul nu considera dorinta ca fiind ceva negativ,
ci prin "tanha" se intelege patima, compulsiunea.

Dar este mai usor sa sugerezi ca budismul este o religie care mutileaza aspiratia si afectul, ca "zombifica" - si atunci care este oare calea corecta?

O minte de inteligenta medie poate sesiza cu usurinta acest tip de tehnica manipulativa.

In budism sunt o multitudine de rationamente menite sa cultive, sa amplifice dorintele/aspiratiile virtuoase odata cu bucuriile profunde asociate acestora.

Insa acest tezaur ramane inchis atunci cand pe usa de la intrare se pune un stigmat.

Taṇhā (Pāli; Sanskrit: tṛṣṇā, also trishna) is a Buddhist term that literally means "thirst," and is commonly translated as craving or desire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ta%E1%B9%87h%C4%81

Pai scrie-le nene la astia de la Wikipedia ca s-au inselat si doar tu esti cunoscator adevarat al budhismului.

Ca nu se mentioneaza si de "chanda" in articol nu cred ca are prea mare importanta.

Mai bine leaga-te de restul aspectelor ca sunt mult mai importante.

La fel de bine ti se poate reprosa ca tu fiind atasat sentimental de o idee, care este opusul ratiunii, nu poti analiza obiectiv un articol critic.

Ca in afara de o obiectie f. relativa de care te-ai agatat ca inecatul de pai, nu ai venit cu nici o critica argumentata punctual.

Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism
(from Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions, Harvest House, 1999)

Info at a Glance
Name: Buddhism (B); Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism or Nichiren Shoshu of America (NS).

Purpose: (B) To eradicate suffering and attain enlightenment; (NS) to receive material benefits and find happiness.

Founder: (B) Gautama Siddhartha (ca. 563-483 B.C.); (NS) Nichiren Daishonin (1222-1282 A.D.)

Source of authority: (B) The Pali canon and other Buddhist Scripture, personal experience; (NS) The Lotus Sutra and Nichiren Daishonin’s writings (Gosho), personal experience.

Claim: (B) Through the Buddha’s teachings, one can attain true enlightenment and find contentment; (NS) to represent the only true Buddhism.

Revealed teachings: (B) No (early Buddhism), Yes (later Buddhism); (NS) Yes

Theology: (B) Nontheistic or atheistic (early Buddhism), polytheistic (later Buddhism); (NS) polytheistic.

Occult dynamics: (B & NS) Altered states of consciousness, ritual, psychic powers, spiritism.

Key literature: (B) The Pali Canon, various other scriptures; (NS) The Lotus Sutra, the writings of Nichiren Daishonin, Daisku Ikeda and principal periodicals: The Seikyo Times, The World Tribune NSA Quarterly (defunct).

Attitude toward Christianity: Rejecting.

Note: In America today, there are an estimated 1,000 plus Buddhist centers and millions of practicing Buddhists. “Later,” or Mahayana Buddhism, is predominate in the West, and this includes Zen, Tibetan/Tantric and Nichiren schools of Buddhism.

DOCTRINAL SUMMARY

God: Ultimate reality is a condition of “existence” called nirvana; no supreme God exists. In NS, the equivalent is an impersonal life essence “incarnated” in the Lotus Sutra and Ghonzon.

Jesus: A wise sage (perhaps enlightened), whose teachings were distorted by Christian myths.

Salvation: Through occult meditation and ritual to attain enlightenment or true understand*ing of and control over “reality.”

Man: In his true essence and enlightenment, one with the Buddha.

Sin: Ignorance.

Satan: An impersonal force within Nature, personification of “evil.”

Bible: Generally, a scripture containing true and false teachings.

Death: Reincarnation into nirvana.

Heaven and Hell: Temporary states of mind or places.

Buddhism vs. Christianity
 

In an era pregnant with tolerance for everything, some Christians have embraced Bud*dhism while numerous attempts have been made to “unify” Buddhism and Christianity by ecumenically minded members of both faiths. Friendly Buddhist and Christian encounters are the vogue on some university campuses. Through no fault of its own, however, “Chris*tianity” is frequently the loser in such encounters. Thus, mainline Christians, who have no real comprehension of biblical Christianity but are fascinated by the alluring or mystical nature of Buddhist metaphysics, may leave their “faith” and become Buddhists. Or, they may maintain a rather odd mixture of both religions, one that is ultimately unfaithful to both. On the other hand, Buddhists who “accept” Christianity merely redefine it into their own Buddhism. Professor of Buddhism and Japanese Studies at Tokyo and Harvard Universi*ties respectively, Masaharu Anesaki illustrates this by his assimilation of Jesus with the Buddha:

In short, we Buddhists are ready to accept Christianity; nay, more, our faith in Buddha is faith in Christ. We see Christ because we see Buddha.... We can hope not in vain for the second advent of Christ [that is] the appearance of the [prophesied] future Buddha Metteya. [1] (italics in original)
Nevertheless, rather than seeking a “unity” among these religions, the truth is much closer to the gut feeling of Zen Buddhist D.T. Suzuki, who states, as he undoubtedly re*flects upon the Buddhist concept of suffering: “Whenever I see a crucified figure of Christ, I cannot help thinking of the gap that lies deep between Christianity and Buddhism.” [2]

The truth is that purported similarities between Buddhism and Christianity are only apparent or surface. For example, many have claimed a similarity between Jesus Christ’s saving role in Christianity and the Bodhisattva’s savior role as given in later Buddhism. But these roles are entirely contradictory. In Christianity, “Christ died for our sins” (1 Cor. 15:3). This means He saves us from the penalty of our sins by taking God’s judgment of sin in His own Person. Jesus paid the penalty of sin (death) for sinners by dying in their place. Thus, He offers a free gift of salvation to anyone simply for believing and accepting what He has done on their behalf (Jn. 3:16). The central ideas involved in Christ’s saving role—God’s holiness, propitiatory atonement, forgiveness of sin, salvation as a free gift of God’s grace through faith in Christ, etc., are all foreign to Buddhism.

The Bodhisattva’s role of savior is thus entirely different than that of Christ’s. The Bodhisattva has no concern with sin in an ultimate sense, only with the end of suffering. He has no concept of God’s wrath against sin or the need for a propitiatory atonement. He has no belief in an infinite personal God who created men and women in His image. He has no belief in a loving God who freely forgives sinners. His only sacrifice is his postponement of entering nirvana so that he can help others find Buddhist enlightenment. Having achieved self-perfection, the Bodhisattva could freely enter nirvana at death. Instead, he chooses to reincarnate again to help others attain their own self-perfection and nirvana more quickly.

Thus, those who argue there is an essential similarity between Buddhist and Christian concepts of savior are wrong. In fact, at their core, Buddhism and Christianity are irreconcil*able, as far removed as the East and West. Indeed, virtually every major Christian doctrine is denied in Buddhism and vice versa. We would therefore suggest that a merging of the two traditions results in a disservice to both.

For their part, Buddhists have long recognized the differences between the two faiths. The knowledgeable Buddhist is aware that the doctrines and teachings of bibli*cal Christianity are an enemy rather than a friend, for Christian faith openly teaches those things which Buddhists reject as mere ignorance and/or as spiritual hindrances; further Christianity openly opposes those things which Buddhism endorses an essential for genuine enlightenment.

For example, Christianity is interwoven with the monotheistic grandeur of an infinite, personal God (Jn. 17:3; Isa. 43:10-11, 44:6); Buddhism is agnostic and practically speak*ing, atheistic (or in later form, polytheistic).

In Christianity, its central teaching involves the absolute necessity for belief in Jesus Christ as personal Savior from sin (Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12; I Tim. 2:5-6); Buddhism has no Savior from sin and even in the Mahayana tradition, as we have seen, the savior concepts are quite dissimilar.

Christianity stresses salvation by grace through faith alone (Jn. 3:16; Eph. 2:8-9); Bud*dhism stresses enlightenment by works through meditative practices that seek the allevia*tion of “ignorance” and desire.

Christianity promises forgiveness of all sin now (Col. 2:13; Eph. 1:7) and the eventual elimination of sin and suffering for all eternity (Rev. 21:3-4). On the other hand, Buddhism, since it holds there is no God to offend, promises not the forgiveness and eradication of sin, but rather the elimination of suffering (eventually) and the ultimate eradication of the individual.

Wherever we look philosophically, we see the contrasts between these faiths. Christian*ity stresses salvation from sin, not from life itself (1 Jn. 2:2). Christianity exalts personal existence as innately good, since man was created in God’s image, and promises eternal life and fellowship with a personal God (Gen. 1:26, 31; Rev. 21:3-4). Christianity has a distinctly defined teaching in the afterlife (heaven or hell, e.g., Mt. 25:46; Rev. 20:10-15). It promises eternal immortality for man as man—but perfected in every way (Rev. 21:3-4).

On the other hand, Buddhism teaches reincarnation, and has only a mercurial nirvana wherein man no longer remains man or, where, in Mahayana, there exists temporary heav*ens or hells and the final “deification” of “man” through a merging with the ultimate panthe*istic-cosmic Buddha nature. But Christianity denies that reincarnation is a valid belief, based on the fact of Christ’s propitiatory atonement for sin. In other words, if Christ died to forgive all sin, there is no reason for a person to pay the penalty for their own sin (“karma”) over many lifetimes (Col. 2:13; Heb. 9:27; 10:10, 14; Eph. 1:7).

Consider further contrasts. Biblical Christianity rejects pagan mysticism and all occult*ism (e.g., Deut. 18:9-12); Buddhism accepts or actively endorses them.

In Christianity life itself is good and given honor and meaning; in Buddhism one finds it difficult to deny that life is ultimately not worth living—for life and suffering are inseparable. Thus, in Christianity, Jesus Christ came that men “might have life and have it more abun*dantly” (Jn. 10:10); in Buddhism, Buddha came that men might simply rid themselves of personal existence.

In Christianity, God will either glorify or punish the spirit of man (Jn. 5:28-29); in Bud*dhism no spirit exists to be glorified or punished. In Christianity, absolute morality is a central theme (Eph. 1:4), in Buddhism it is secondary or peripheral.

Buddhism is essentially humanistic, stressing man’s self-achievement. Christianity is essentially theistic, stressing God’s self-revelation and gracious initiative on behalf of man’s helpless moral and spiritual condition. Thus, in Buddhism man alone is the author of salva*tion; Christianity sees this as an absolute impossibility because innately, man has no power to save himself (Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5).

We could go on, but suffice it to say the form of romantic humanism that inspires liberal religionists to see basic similarities in the two faiths is no more than wishful thinking. It is not utterly surprising, however, that Western religious humanists would promote Buddhism, for in both systems man is the measure of all things (a god of sorts), even if in the latter the end result is a form of personal self-annihilation. But to the extent both are humanistic, they compass the antithesis of Christianity, whose goal is to glorify God and not man (Jer. 17:5; Jude 24-25).

As far as knowing and glorifying God is concerned, this is unimportant and irrelevant to Buddhists. But biblically, to the extent God is ignored or opposed, to that extent man must correspondingly suffer. Here we see the ultimate irony of Buddhism: in ignoring God, Bud*dhists feel they can escape suffering; in fact this will only perpetuate it forever. This is the real tragedy of Buddhism, especially of so-called Christian Buddhism. The very means to escape suffering (true faith in the biblical Christ) is rejected in favor of a self-salvation which can only result in eternal suffering (Mt. 25:46; Rev. 20:10-15).


NOTES
 Masaharu Anesaki, “How Christianity Appeals to a Japanese Buddhist,” in David W. McKain (ed.), Christianity: Some Non-Christian Appraisals, (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1976), pp. 102-103.
 D.T. Suzuki, “Mysticism: Christian and Buddhist,” in McKain (ed.), p. 111.

Ma bucur ca ai facut efortul sa verifici.

Apreciez ca este un progres sensibil din partea ta.

Oare ce cuvant alegem pentru a traduce tanha - intre "craving" (poftire ) si "desire" (a dori) cand vrem sa combatem budismul?

In engleza "desire" este mult mai apropiat ca sens de "craving" (pofta).

In romaneste legatura semantica dintre "dorinta" si "pofta" nu este asa de stransa.

In romaneste " dorinta" este evident legata fonetic de "dor" - sugerand mai mult o extensie afectiva nu o patima.

Deci este mai mult o problema de evocare a sensurilor in limba romana decat o problema in engleza.

Asa ca cei de la wikipedia nu gresesc cand spun "craving".

Dar textele care traduc intentionat cu "dorinta" - si isi construiesc pledoaria din aceasta perspectiva - pacatuiesc, cu voie sau fara de voie.

Alin, daca tu ai priceput, eu unul sunt multumit.

Domnul fie cu tine!

Buddism part 1
 

The first in a series of articles explaining the teachings and practices of Buddhism.
Info at a Glance
Name: Buddhism.

Purpose: To eradicate suffering and attain enlightenment.

Founder: Gautama Siddhartha (ca. 563-483 B.C.).

Source of Authority: The Pali canon and other Buddhist Scripture, personal experience.

Claim: Through the Buddhas teachings, man can attain true enlightenment and find contentment.

Revealed Teachings: No early Buddhism, Yes (later Buddhism.

Theology: Nontheistic or atheistic (early Buddhism) polytheistic (later Buddhism)

Occult Dynamics: Altered states of consciousness, ritual, psychic powers, spiritism.

Key Literature: The Pali Canon, various other scriptures

Attitude Toward Christianity: Rejecting

Quote: "Rely upon yourself: do not depend upon anyone else. Make my teachings your light. Rely upon them: do not depend upon any other teaching."[1] -- The Buddha

"This whole world of delusion is nothing but a shadow caused by the mind."; "...there is no world…outside the mind."; "To Buddha every definitive thing is illusion." "….things have no reality in themselves but are like heat haze."[2]

Note: In America today, there are an estimated 1,000 plus Buddhist centers and millions of practicing Buddhists. "Later" or Mahayana Buddhism dominates in the West, and this includes Zen, Tibetan or Tantric, and Nichiren schools of Buddhism. In this chapter we will first examine Buddhism in general from a Christian perspective and then proceed to discuss the most influential Buddhist sect in the U.S., Nichiren Shoshu of America (NSA or NS). A discussion of Zen Buddhism can also be found in part I and a brief treatment of Tibetan Buddhism can be found in part II. Our present chapter also has appended the testimony of a former Tibetan Buddhist and why she became a Christian.

Because we cover three different Buddhist sects, we felt a general treatment of Buddhism was warranted, although as a world faith, Buddhism is not properly included in a text on cults and new religions. This was especially necessary to indicate how far removed from "true" Buddhism NSA is. Thus, the NSA emphasis on materialism, promotion of and seeking ones desires by worship of the Gohonzon, etc., would have been strongly repudiated by the Buddha.

Notes
 "Last Teachings" Bukkyo Dendo Kyoka (Buddhist Promoting Foundation), The Teaching of the Buddha (Tokyo, Japan, Rev., 1988 p.18.
 Ibid, pp. 86, 100, 104, 108.

Ce am priceput este ca te-ai agatat ce un lucru relativ minor si ai evitat sa contra-argumentezi la celelate aspecte mult mai importante.

Basic explanations of the Buddhist faith.
Doctrinal Chart
God: Ultimate reality is a condition of "existence" called nirvana; no supreme God exists.

Jesus: A wise sage (perhaps enlightened), whose teachings were distorted by Christian myths.

Salvation: Through occult meditation/ritual to attain enlightenment or true understanding of and control over "reality".

Man: In his true essence and/or enlightenment, one with the Buddha.

Sin: Ignorance.

Satan: An impersonal force within Nature, the personification of "evil".

Bible: Generally, a scripture containing true and false teachings.

Death: Reincarnation into nirvana.

Heaven/Hell: Temporary states of mind and/or places.

Buddhism is growing ever stronger roots in America and the West. American entertainers are especially becoming fascinated—including such people as Steven Seagal, Richard Gere, Martin Scorsese, Tina Turner, Oliver Stone and Courtney Love. What are the teachings and practices of this religious movement?
Buddhism - An Overview and Introduction
A recent cover story of Time magazine was titled "America's Fascination with Buddhism." It noted that Buddhism was now growing "ever stronger roots" in America and the West, pointing out that American entertainment had also "become fascinated with Buddhism." Indeed celebrity Buddhists, or those interested include Steven Seagal who was declared the reincarnation of a 15th Century lama by the head of the Nyingma lineage of Tibetan Buddhism; Richard Gere, the most famous disciple of the Dalai Lama; director Martin Scorsese of The Last Temptation of Christ fame; rocker Tina Turner, who follows Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism; Adam Yauch, the punk rock singer of the Beastie Boys; movie producer Oliver Stone; Phil Jackson, the Chicago Bulls coach who refers to himself as a "Zen-Christian" and is author of Sacred Hoops, and grunger Courtney Love.

Other indications of Buddhism's increasing popularity include the Internet bookstore search engine, amazon.com, which lists over 1,200 titles on Buddhism. Living Buddha, Living Christ alone has sold over 150,000 hardcover copies. A supposedly non-religious Buddhist meditation is now taught to hundreds and probably thousands of business executives in such companies as at Monsanto, where the potentially dangerous Vipassana meditation is said to be offered. Finally since 1988--the number of English language Buddhist teaching centers in America has increased from 429 to over 1200--almost threefold.

(The same issue of Time further observed that Jewish, Protestant and Catholic Buddhists believe that "Buddhist practice can be maintained without leaving one's faith of birth," however insofar as Buddhist practice tends to support and/or inculcate a Buddhist worldview,[1] we will see that such a view is incorrect.)

Introduction: Buddhism in America
The reason we have included the topic of Buddhism in an encyclopedia on cults and new religions is because there are so many new Buddhist religions in America. Although estimates of practicing Buddhists in America range from 1-6 million, it is safe to say that millions of Americans are either practicing Buddhists, syncretists who combine Buddhism with Christianity, or have been seriously impacted by Buddhism in their worldview (See e.g., est/The Forum). Hawaii and California have significant Buddhist influence and large Buddhist populations. (The Asian population and tourism are so large in Hawaii that a Buddhist "Bible" can be found next to every Gideon Bible in hotel rooms-- The Teaching of Buddha, donated by the Buddhist Promoting Foundation of Tokyo.) The American Buddhist Directory published by The American Buddhist Movement in New York and other sources list over 1,000 Buddhist groups and organizations currently active in the United States. (Each major school is represented--Theravadin, Mahayana and Tibetan/Tantric.) Men like D.T. Suzuki, the late Chogyam Trungpa, Daisku Ikeda and the Dalai Lama are having considerable impact through their writings and translations and/or as founders/leaders of American Buddhist religions.

The 1960s - 1990s also saw an increase in academic studies of Buddhism and in the offering of numerous courses in Buddhism at American colleges and universities. A number of Buddhist schools were founded (e.g., the fully accredited Naropa Institute in Denver, Colorado, the Institute of Buddhist Studies in Berkeley, California, and the College of Oriental Studies in Los Angeles.) Publications promoting Buddhism are on the rise. One of the most influential of Buddhist publications is the quarterly Tricycle. Buddhist psychotherapy is prominent within the pages of The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, the most scholarly periodical of the so-called "fourth force" psychology (behind psychoanalysis, behaviorism and humanistic psychology). There are now publishers who have devoted themselves to expanding Buddhist literature and influence in the United States (e.g., Shambala of Boston). Buddhism also has many indirect influences, as in Werner Erhard's est and The Forum[2] In the official biography of Erhard by philosopher William Warren Bartley, III, Werner Erhard The Transformation of a Man: The Founding of Est, Erhard is quoted as saying, "...of all the disciplines I studied, practiced and learned, Zen was the essential one.... It is entirely appropriate for person's interested in est to also be interested in Zen."[3] (For a thorough analysis of est/the Forum, see chapter.)

Perhaps all this explains why there are now so many Buddhists in the U.S. How did America come to smile on Buddha?

After the landmark meeting in Chicago of the "World Parliament of Religions" in 1893, Buddhist teachers and missionaries began to arrive, namely, D.T. Suzuki, Nyogen Senzaki and others who in turn helped originate a growing Buddhist subculture in America. The new faith was soon popularized by American devotees such as Christmas Humphreys and Alan Watts and "beat writers" Alan Ginsberg, Jack Kerouac and Gary Snyder. (Like many others, Alan Watts had maintained that Buddhism enabled him to "get out from under the monstrously oppressive God the Father.") The recent waves of Indochinese war refugees continued to bring Buddhist peoples to America. Between 1970 and 1980, the U.S. population increased by 11 percent; in that same period the Asian population increased by over 140 percent. In the year 2000 there are over 10 million Asians living in America, making them the third largest minority, behind blacks and Hispanics. These facts alone underscore the need for the Christian church to undertake an active encounter with Buddhism. Hundreds of thousands of mainline Christians have already converted to Buddhism or some form of hybridization.

Notes
 See John Ankerberg/John Weldon, Encyclopedia of New Age Beliefs, chapter on Meditation.
 Werner Erhard acknowledges his indebtedness to many religious systems, however, "I don't think that any one of them in particular was more important than any other with the possible exception of Zen being the most influential." Werner Erhard Interview, New Age Journal No. 7, p. 20.
 William Warren Bartley, III, Werner Erhard the Transformation of a Man: The Founding of Est (New York: Clarkson N. Potter, 1978) p. 121, italics in original.

Part 4 Buddhism in the world
 

By: John Ankerberg, John Weldon; ˆ2000
Buddhism encompasses both the teachings ascribed to Gautama Siddhartha as well as the subsequent thoughts of Buddhists in later centuries.
Buddhism in the World
Buddhism encompasses both the teachings ascribed to Gautama Siddhartha (the Buddha) (563-483? B.C.) as well as the subsequent if questionable development of this thought by Buddhists in later centuries. (Such an assessment assumes we know the true teachings of the Buddha--a number of scholars argue the late nature of the Mss. and other factors make it virtually impossible to know what the Buddha taught.) Almost innumerable forms exist. Some 200 sects can be found in Japan alone, many of them opposing one another in doctrine or practice. Our analysis must be recognized as being general, for there is no doctrinally precise Bud*dhism in the same sense that there is a doctrinally precise Christianity.[1] Still, nearly all Buddhism accepts certain key teachings. These are a) the four noble truths, b) the eight-fold path, c) the impermanence and/or ultimate nonexistence of all dharmas (things, events), and d) the need for enlightenment (liberation through awareness) in one form or another. We will discuss these later.

Other common beliefs in Buddhism involve the following:

The Three Jewels--(also known as "the Three Refuges"), Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. These refer to 1) following the Buddha, the enlightened one; 2) accepting the Buddha's Dharma or teaching; and 3) living in harmony with the Sangha, the Buddhist community. In other words, one finds refuge in the Buddha, his teachings and the Buddhist community.
The Five Precepts--These involve rules of ethical practice (e.g., abstaining from harming all living things (ahimsa), false speech, sexual misconduct, etc.).
The Ten Precepts--These include the five precepts but add to them the aspiration to abstain from certain activities e.g., accepting gold or silver, taking untimely meals, dancing and singing, forms of personal adornment and taking high seats or seats of honor.
The hundreds of millions of Buddhists worldwide can be divided into two broad schools, the Theravada and Mahayana.[2] While the Mahayanist is by far the largest, the Theravada is generally held to be "original," i.e., "true," Buddhism. (According to the majority opinion then, Mahayanism developed centuries later.) The Theravada school is the only survivor of some 18 sects that arose in the first four centuries after Buddha's death. The sects were collectively termed Hinayana or "lesser vehicle" by the Mahayanists (meaning "greater vehicle"). According to some, the term Hinayana was used because in the Hinayanist perspective enlightenment (or "salvation") due to the rigors of the path, was possible for only a select few, whereas the later Mahayanists made enlightenment the possibility of all. According to others, the terms are used as follows: Hinayana Buddhists are those who seek to reach enlightenment merely for their own personal welfare, whereas Mahayana Buddhists seek to help others attain enlightenment as well even though this involves the obligation to reincarnate time and time again until all "sentient beings" have attained enlightenment.

Geographically, Theravada is "Southern Buddhism" (the national religion of Siam, Ceylon, Laos, Cambodia and Burma); Mahayana is "Northern Buddhism" (China, Korea, Japan, Tibet, Nepal). In the U.S., two typical Mahayanist schools are Zen and Nichiren Buddhism.

Although Buddhism may be broadly classified into these two schools, the Theravada and Mahayanist, many Buddhist scholars refer to three schools, adding the controversial Tibetan or Tantric Buddhism as a separate school.

The first Buddhist scriptures were written down by Theravadin monks about 400 years after the Buddha lived. These scriptures were written on palm leaves and became known as the Tipitaka or Pali Canon. The former term means "three baskets" and refers to the three-fold division of the scriptures termed Vinaya Pitaka, Sutta Pitaka, and Abhidhamma Pitaka.

The first division, the Vinaya Pitaka, involves discipline for Buddhist monks concerning the 227 rules by which they are to live. The second division, the Sutta Pitaka constitutes the teachings of the Buddha on the four noble truths and the eight-fold path, as well as popular Buddhist literature that comprises the Dhammapada and the Jataka Tales (the Dhammapada constitutes an anthology of the Buddha's sayings while the Jataka Tales are stories of the previous lives of the Buddha). The Abhidhamma Pitaka involves philosophical teachings that underscore how Buddhists understand the meaning and purpose of life.

As Buddhism spread outward in different geographical directions, a number of different doctrines and scriptures developed. The Theravada school believes that scriptural authenticity is determined by the texts that were allegedly derived from the Buddha's teachings. However, the Mahayana school added additional scriptures it claimed were just as authoritative, even though these scriptures had little to do with the Buddha's teaching as handed down by the Theravadin school. These scriptures characteristically seemed to have originated by mystical revelations and "vary in form and introduce both mythological and philosophical features not found in the Theravada."[3] Some general differences between the Theravadin and Mahayana schools include:

Theravada Mahayana
Buddha is a human teacher Buddha is an enlightened, supermundane eternal being and/or "god"
Complete self-effort for enlightenment Self-effort is necessary, however additional help from Buddha, Bodhisattvas, (Buddhist "saviors") and Buddhist gods is accepted
Gods are rejected Gods are accepted
Prayer equals meditation Prayer may also be petitionary
Anti-supernatural The supernatural is accepted
Attains the state of Buddhahood (Nirvana apart from the world; one can only help oneself) Attains the state of Bodhisattva (Nirvana in the world; e.g., a bodhisattva postpones Nirvana to help others find it)
Atheism/agnosticism Atheism, agnosticism and/or polytheism
Nirvana replaces Samsara (existence) Nirvana is Samsara (existence)
Notes
 For example, biblical Christianity everywhere has the same beliefs concerning the nature of God (infinite-personal/triune), the Person and work of Jesus Christ (incarnate, atoning Savior), the means of salvation (by grace through faith alone), etc. </nowiki>Buddhism, on the other hand, has within itself quite different views as to the nature of ultimate reality, the nature of the Buddha, the means of salvation, etc. Considered historically, of course, there are endless sects and cults of Christianity from gnosticism, modalism and Arianism in the early centuries to their counterparts today: e.g., Christian Science, "Jesus Only," and Jehovah's Witnesses. But none are truly Christian. By contrast, almost all Buddhists sects, even those Buddha himself would probably or certainly not accept, are considered Buddhist by Buddhists today.
 Buddhist terms are frequently spelled differently because the Buddhist scriptures are divided into those of the Theravadins, which use the Pali language and those of the Mahayanists, which use the Sanskrit language. Thus, nirvana in Sanskrit is Nibbana in Pali. The Buddha is Siddhartha Gautama in Sanskrit but Siddhatta Gotama in Pali, etc.
 Clive Erricker, Buddhism (Chicago, IL: NTC Publishing, 1995), p. 65, cf., 61-65.

The Buddha and His Teaching/The Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path
 

For the Buddha, the essential problem of humanity was not one of sin, but of suffering and misery. But how could suffering be alleviated? His “enlightenment” on the matter led him to formulate the four noble truths and the eightfold path that are the foundation of Buddhism.

According to Buddhist history, Siddhartha Gautama was raised in a wealthy family, sheltered and protected from life's unpleasantness and tragedies. One day, however, he saw the world as it really was. In observing a decrepit old man, a corpse, a diseased man and a beggar, he realized the fundamental condition of man was one of suffering. For the Buddha, the essential problem of humanity was not really one of sin or selfishness or rebellion against God, as Christianity teaches. It was suffering and misery. But how could suffering be alleviated? This occupied the Buddha's thoughts and he eventually received "enlightenment" on the matter. Buddha formulated the foundation of Buddhism: the four noble truths and the eightfold path.


From a Christian perspective, Siddhartha attempted to find a solution to the symptoms of man's problem instead of the basic or underlying problem itself . Thus, in Christianity, suffering and misery in life are caused largely by sin and rebellion against God. By rejecting God and the dynamics of man's relationship to God, Buddha's only option was to deal with symptoms (e.g., suffering) instead of causes (e.g., sin). This basic misdiagnosis conditions everything subsequent in Buddhism.

In brief, the four noble truths are:

all life involves suffering,
suffering is caused by desire (e.g., "selfish" craving defined, in part, as the desire to exist as an independent self),
desire can be overcome, and
the means to overcome desire is the eightfold path.
The eightfold path consists of the proper or correct exercise of eight conditions or actions which aim at eliminating desire and hence suffering. These include:

right vision (knowledge or views,)
right conception (aspirations,)
right speech,
right behavior (conduct),
right livelihood,
right effort,
right concentration or mindfulness, and
right one-pointed contemplation (or meditation).
However, we must remember to interpret these eight requirements from a Buddhist rather than a Western or Christian perspective. Since these are defined in light of a Buddhist worldview and its presuppositions, they take on distinctly Buddhist implications. As such, they are implicitly or explicitly non-Christian. In fact, given Buddhist premises, the Christian world view is easily considered a spiritual detriment or evil.[2] For example, right understanding is the correct understanding and acceptance of the four noble truths and the Buddhist perception of the world and self. Right concentration or mindfulness in the sense of awareness of one's own actions is achieved by meditation (often leading to occult states of trance and/or development of psychic powers). Right morality "does not consist in passive obedience to a code imposed by a God..." but is determined by tradition (ultimately determined by the Buddha, i.e., the first Buddhist traditions).[3] In fact, according to Buddha, belief in the Christian God and morality are delusive, harmful beliefs. He thus argued, "It is no wonder that people holding these conceptions lose hope and neglect efforts to act wisely and avoid evil."[4]

The Law of Dependent Origination
 

The dilemma of man's suffering is exemplified by the Buddhist "law of dependent origination" which asserts that, in a vicious cycle, existence itself perpetuates suffering. Thus, existence itself (which is comprised of an ever impermanent flux of phenomena, both mental and physical) causes corresponding effects. These effects result in more impermanent phenomena. These in turn cause ignorance of the Permanent state (nirvana). Such ignorance of reality brings more harmful desires--which results in suffering--which brings karmic rebirth. All this causes the perpetuation of a bondage to individual existence from which there is no escape.

In The Teaching of Buddha we read the following statements by Buddha:

Because of ignorance and greed, people imagine discriminations where, in reality, there are no discriminations. Inherently, there is no discrimination of right and wrong in human behavior; but people, because of ignorance, imagine such distinctions and judge them as right or wrong....As a result, they become attached to an delusive existence....In reality, therefore, it is their own mind that causes the delusions of grief, lamentation, pain and agony. This whole world of delusion is nothing but a shadow caused by the mind.... It is from ignorance and greed that the world of delusion is born, and all the vast complexity of coordinating causes and conditions exists within the mind and nowhere else. Both life and death arise from the mind and exist within the mind....An unenlightened life rises from a mind that is bewildered by its own world of delusion. If we learn that there is no world of delusion outside the mind, the bewildered mind becomes clear; and because we ceaseto create impure surroundings, we attain Enlightenment.....Since everything in this world is brought about by causes and conditions, there can be no fundamental distinctions among things. The apparent distinctions exist because of peoples absurd and discriminating thoughts....In action there is no discrimination between right in wrong, but people make a distinction for their own convenience. Buddha keeps away from these discriminations and looks upon the world as upon a passing cloud. To Buddha every definitive thing is delusion;..[5]
So how does the Buddhist escape from the endless round of desire, karma and more desire? In order to understand the Buddhist solution, we must further understand how Buddhism views reality.

In Buddhism, existence is believed to be made up of extremely temporary, ever changing phenomena or aggregates. These are termed dharmas or skandhas. Dharmas constitute experiential moments, i.e., the building blocks of existence. (In another definition, Dharma means Buddhist Law, i.e., Buddha's teachings).[6] Skandhas refer to the five aggregates making up the person--1) the body, 2) feelings, 3) perceptions, 4) volition; impulses and emotions, 5) consciousness.[7] It is maintained that existence, by its very nature, is so fleeting that none of its components can, in any sense, be held to be permanent. Such phenomena (broken down to their constituent parts) exist for so short a time (e.g., nano-seconds) that they cannot be said to constitute anything even resembling permanence. However, reality must be something permanent if it is to be real. That which is impermanent cannot be real. Hence, one must transcend all impermanence and arrive at nirvana, the only permanent and real state of existence.[8]

Naturally, if our existence is impermanent and "unreal", the logical solution is to eradicate our personal existence and achieve permanence, that alone which is real. As noted this is the Buddhist goal: to attain the state of nirvana. The Buddha, who sometimes had little love for common sense, argued that existence is unreal and to therefore treat it as real is absurd. To treat it as real is a grave error preventing enlightenment. And so, he scolded the ignorant masses for their ignorance in believing the world is real: "It is a mistake to regard this world as either a temporal world or as a real one. But ignorant people of this world assume that this is a real world and proceed to act upon that absurd assumption. But as this world is only an illusion, their acts, being based on error, only lead them into harm and suffering. A wise man, recognizing the world is but an illusion, does not act as if it were real, so he escapes the suffering."[9] Again, the Buddhist view of phenomenal existence (things, man, the universe) is that it is in such a state of constant flux and impermanence that, ultimately, it has no reality in any meaningful, personal, eternal sense. It is not, for example, that the ego does not exist; it "exists" as the sum of its various constituents which are in constant flux, and as such it can be perceived and distinguished as a separate entity. Still, our existence has no reality in the sense of being something permanent, for the Buddhist concept of impermanence does not believe anything phenomenal can be permanent long enough to be real. Everything is the delusory creation of our minds. Thus, even the perception of the individual self is a delusion: "Separate individual existence is really an illusion, for the self has neither beginning nor ending, is eternally changing, and possesses only a phenomenal existence."[10] And, "Existence consists of dharmas, things or objects, but what can be said of these objects? They are all impermanent and changing, and nothing can be said of them at one moment which is not false the next. They are as unreal as the atman [self] itself."[11]

One Buddhist scripture complains that the "foolish common people do not understand that what is seen is merely (the product of) their own mind. Being convinced that there exists outside a variety of objects...they produce false imaginings."[12] Reminiscent of advita Vedanta, other scriptures liken conventional reality to a magical illusion, a mirage and a dream.[13] Buddhism tells us that since reality as we perceive it does not exist, one should arrive at this awareness and come to that state which alone is permanent, the state of nirvana. Ostensibly, this state lies somewhere "in-between" personal existence (which it isn't) and complete annihilation (which it also, allegedly, isn't). Recognition of this Buddhist truth is held to be an enlightened state of being, for one now understands what is real and what is not real.

Essentially, Buddhism is a religion with one principal goal: to eliminate individual suffering by attaining the permanent state. In attaining this goal it does not look to God for help, but, paradoxically, only to the impermanent: to man himself. From the delusory mind, the illusory world appears, but "from this same mind, the world of enlightenment appears."[14] (One wonders how a mind so deluded and disordered that it creates a world of illusion, could ever discover an enlightenment from that depth of delusion?) In spite of its denial of any permanent reality to man, Buddhism is essentially, if paradoxically, a humanistic faith that, in the end, destroys what it virtually worships: man as man. As Hendrik Kraemer, former professor of the History of Religions at the University of Leiden, Netherlands, asserts: "Buddhism teaches with a kind of prophetic rigour that what really matters is man and his deliverance, and nothing else....Behind the screen of sublime philosophies and mystical and ethical 'ways' to deliverance, or in the garb of fantastic textures of magic and occultism, man remains the measure of all things."[15]

hence men and women only need look inward for deliverance. "Since Buddhism does not have a God, it cannot have somebody who is regarded as God's prophet or messiah."[16] Buddhism, then, is:

atheistic practically speaking,
agnostic, in that most Buddhists don't really care if a supreme God exists (irrespective of the polytheism of later Buddhism),and
anti-theistic in that belief in a supreme Creator God as in Christianity is something evil because it prohibits personal liberation.
We now turn to a discussion of Buddhist and Christian philosophy where these ideas and their implications are seen more fully.

Notes
 For a description of these in more detail see Richard A. Gard (ed.), Buddhism (NY: George Braziller, Inc., 1961), pp. 106-167.
 F.L. Woodward, trans., Some Sayings of the Buddha (NY: Oxford University Press, 1973), pp. 124-125.
 Alexandria David-Neel, Buddhism Its Doctrines and Its Methods (NY: St. Martin's Press, 1977), p. 25; Charles Prebish, "Doctrines of Early Buddhists," in Buddhism: A Modern Perspective (ed.), Charles S. Prebish (University Park & London: Pennsylvania University Press, 1975), p. 30.
 The Teaching of Buddha, p.88.
 Ibid., rev., 1988, pp. 84-104.
 See e.g., T.O. Ling, A Dictionary of Buddhism: A Guide to Thought and Tradition (NY: Charles Schribners' Sons, 1972), pp. 96-97.
 Ibid., pp. 156-158.
 Nyanatiloka, Buddhist Dictionary (Colombo, Ceylon: Frewin and Company, Ltd., 1972), pp. 105-107.
 The Teaching of Buddha, p. 112.
 J.N.D. Anderson (ed.), The World's Religions (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman's Publishing Co., 1968), p. 124. See the Dhyayitamushti-sutra quoted in The History of Buddhist Thought, Edward J. Thomas, (London: Reutledge and Kegan Paul Ltd, 1975), p. 223.
 Edward J. Thomas, The History of Buddhist Thought, p. 218. He cites, Sutta-Nipata 1119; Majjhima 121, 122 Samy. iv, 54; the two Prajnaparmita-hrdaya-sutras, etc.
 Edward Conze et al. (eds.), Buddhist Texts Through the Ages (NY: Philosophical Libary, Inc., 1954), p. 212 citing Lankavatara Sutra, 90-96.
 Ibid., pp. 215-216 citing Asanga Mahayanasamgraha II, 27, including Vasubandhu's comments.
 TB, p. 86.
 Hendrik Kraemer, The Christian Message in a Non-Christian World (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publ., 1977), pp. 174-175, 177.
 Walt Anderson, Open Secrets, A Western Guide to Tibetan Buddhism (NY: Viking Press, 1979), p. 23.

In buddhism man has no savior but himself.

Asta nu suna asa rau, sa fiu sincer. Poate fi chiar inspirational :)

Pentru un ateu, poate.
E dovada ca si ateismul poate fi o religie :)

Intr-adevar! Orice crez poate fi transformat in religie daca exista cineva, undeva, care o face intr-un mod "organizat".

Spre surprinderea mea, am aflat ca exista biserici atee (da, chiar asa isi zic, athiest churches) in statele unite. Mi se pare amuzant, dar si ingrijorator pentru intelectul rasei umane...

Oricum, sintagma aceea poate fi ceva motivational in a te face sa muncesti pentru ceea ce iti doresti.

Buddhism and Jesus Christ
 

Buddhism has little directly to say about Jesus. It does acknowledge that He was a great person. On the other hand, there is a sense in which Buddhism explicitly rejects Jesus Christ.



As a whole, Buddhism has little directly to say about Jesus Christ. It does acknowledge what most men do: that He was a great person. For the most part however, His Gospel teachings are largely ignored and a more convenient Jesus is accepted: one who, along with the Buddha, smiles serenely.

But on the other hand, there is a sense in which Buddhism explicitly rejects Jesus Christ. What Christian belief in a personal Savior from sin represents to Buddhism is a serious form of personal ignorance. Personal Savior? No "person" exists. So what is there to save? And no genuine Savior can exist either, for we must ultimately save ourselves. The central message of Christianity (Jn. 3:16) is thus dismissed as remnants of beclouded consciousness.

After all, one could expect that in Buddhism the biblical Christ would be rather objectionable, for he rejects what Buddhism accepts and accepts what Buddhism rejects. He stresses sin and repentance before God (Jn. 5:34; Mt. 4:17). He believes in a loving, infinite-personal Creator who makes moral demands upon and judges His creatures (Lk. 12:5). He denies the possibility of self-perfection and refers to himself alone as the Savior of the world (Mt. 20:28; 26:28; Jn. 6:29, 47; 14:6). He not only believes in a creator God, the creator God is His personal Father (Jn. 14:5-6); He is God's unique and only Son (Jn. 3:16, 18). Spiritual enlightenment and salvation come only by Him (Jn. 14:6) because Jesus is "the true light" of the world (Jn. 1:9; 8:12; 12:46). It is impossible that these could come through Buddha and his philosophy, or through Bodhisattvas and their sacrifice of remaining in the world, or through any other self-achieving method (cf., Mt. 19:24-26). Jesus Christ utterly rejects polytheism and paganism (e.g., Mt. 6:7; 22:37; Lk. 4:8). His worldview is thoroughly based on moral absolutes and it is by His moral standards that all creatures, heavenly and earthly, will be judged and required to give an account (Jn. 5:22-29; Col. 1:16-18; Lk. 10:19-20; 1 Cor. 6:3). Jesus accepted the permanency (Mt. 25:46) and utility of suffering (Heb. 2:10; 5:10)--indeed it is by suffering alone that the world is redeemed and through which (in part) God sanctifies His people (1 Pet. 2:21, 24; 3:18; 4:1; Phil. 3:10).

Although ecumenically minded people would find it difficult to accept, the Jesus Christ of history is not merely un-Buddhist; He is anti-Buddhist. If we could bring Jesus and Buddha together for a discussion, neither Jesus nor Gautama would find the other's worldview acceptable. According to Christ, Buddha would certainly not have been spiritually enlightened--far from it. His rejection of a creator God would classify him as a pagan unbeliever, however adept he was at philosophical speculation. Again, "the fool has said in his heart, there is no God" (Ps. 14:1). Men who deny God's existence deny the obvious and would thus require repentance and faith in the one true God (Jn. 17:3). In other words, Jesus' view of Buddha is that he would require salvation--just like everyone else.

And conversely, Buddha would have no need for Christ as Savior, for Buddha taught total, unswerving self-reliance. As we quoted earlier, "Rely upon yourself: do not depend on anyone else." Compare this with Jeremiah 17:5--"Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind and makes flesh his strength and whose heart turns away from the Lord." Thus, in discussing Buddhism's appeal to modern man, Stephen Neill is correct in observing that this appeal is based squarely upon prideful self-sufficiency:

For the modern man one of the most attractive things in this scheme is that in it he is entirely cast back upon himself. "Therefore, O Ananda, take the self as a lamp; take the self as a refuge. Betake yourselves to no external refuges. Hold fast as a refuge to the truth. Look not for refuge to anyone besides yourself. Work out your own salvation with diligence." So the Maha-Parinibbana-Sutta, one of the most famous of Buddhist classics....The Buddha attained to enlightenment by his own intense concentration; he called in no help from any god or savior. So it must be with the disciple. God has been abolished, at least as far as any possibility of a practical relationship to him is concerned. There is no hope for a man outside of himself--or rather in his inner apprehension of the meaning of the Buddha, the Law and the Order. "Man for himself." That is the modern mood. The last thing that a modern man desires is to be told that he needs to be saved, or that he requires the help of a savior....So naturally Buddhism has attractive power....[1]
Whereas Theravada views the Buddha as an enlightened man (more enlightened, no doubt, than the biblical Christ, but still a man) Mahayanists have placed Buddha on the level of a divine being who rivals Christ in his deity, although still falling far short of the biblical concept.

The Mahayana text Matrceta Satapancasatkastotra I, 2-4 states of Buddha: "To go to him for refuge, to praise and to honor him, to abide in his religion, that is fit for those with sense. The only Protector, he is without faults or their residues; The all-knowing, he has all the virtues, and that without fail. For even the spiteful cannot find with any justice any fault in the Lord--in his thought, words or deeds."[2]

The Lotus Sutra (Saddharmapundarika) says of him "He thus becomes the Saviour of the world with its Gods" (XXIV, 17).[3]

Finally, in the area of miraculous, we find another disagreement with Christian faith: "It may be fairly said that Buddhism is not a miraculous religion in the sense that none of its central doctrines depend on miracles."[4]

By contrast how many Christological themes or doctrines depend upon the miraculous? Messianic prophecy (Isa. 9:6; Ps. 22), the incarnation (Phil. 2), virgin birth (Mt. 1:25), Christ's miracles as proof of his Messiahship (Mt. 8:15-17), the miracles associated with the crucifixion (Mt. 27:50-53), resurrection (Lk. 24:36-39) atonement/new birth (e.g., the miracle of regeneration), the ascension (Acts 1:9-10), the second coming (Mt. 24), etc. The differences are again striking.

In conclusion, Buddha and Jesus are not just a little bit short of being friends. The suffering and exaltation of Christ is hardly equivalent to the serene peacefulness of the Buddha entering nirvana. Jesus came to save the world, not himself (Jn. 12:27). Indeed, Jesus said, "He that would save his life will lose it" (Mt. 16:25). He obeyed and glorified the very God whom Buddha so contentedly and forcefully rejected (Jn. 17:4).

@stoogecristi

Sa inteleg ca ai avut o altercatie mai putin placuta recent cu un budist? Sau audienta ta tinta consta intr-un anumit membru al forumului, poate un oltean pe care l-am sarbatorit de florii?

Talking with Buddhists
 

Buddha is quoted as saying, “analyze as far as possible and see whether what I’m saying makes sense or not. If it doesn’t make sense, discard it….” Ankerberg and Weldon look at some of the Buddha’s teachings to see if they “make sense.”

The weaknesses of Buddhism are so vast and the strengths of Christianity so powerful that anyone with a grasp of the details of Buddhist and Christian philosophy should at least be able to give their Buddhist friends something to think about. Clive Erricker, a lecturer and prolific writer in the field of religious studies with a special interest in Buddhism, writes accurately of the Buddha when he discusses what the Buddha did not claim. In stark contrast to Jesus (See appendix): "Indeed, he did not even claim that his teachings were a unique and original source of wisdom;....[Citing John Bowker in Worlds of Faith, 1983] Buddha always said, 'Don't take what I'm saying [i.e., on my own authority], just try to analyze as far as possible and see whether what I'm saying makes sense or not. If it doesn't make sense, discard it. If it does make sense, then pick it up.'"[1]

In the material below, we will employ the Buddha's own admonition and see whether or not what he taught "makes sense." If it does not, we must also follow his admonition and discard his teaching. To begin, let's consider the following statement by noted theologian J. I. Packer in light of what we know about Buddhism so far:

God's world is never friendly to those who forget its Maker. The Buddhists, who link their atheism with a thorough pessimism about life, are to that extent correct. Without God, man loses his bearings in this world. He cannot find them again until he has found the One whose world it is. It is natural that non-believers feel their existence is pointless and miserable....God made life, and God alone can tell us its meaning. If we are to make sense of life in this world, then, we must know about God. And if we want to know about God, we must turn to the Bible.[2]
Buddhism, of course rejects both God and the Bible and thus finds itself in the dilemma mentioned by Packer. So how do we attempt to reach Buddhists who reject so much that is Christian? By stressing what the Buddhist has no possibility of rejecting: his creation in the image of God and all this implies.

Arguments against Buddhism (historical, logical, theological) will not necessarily persuade the convinced Buddhist, many of whom have little love for logic, though they may be effective with a recent Western convert to Buddhism. They do, nevertheless, help the Christian to emphasize the differences between Buddhism and Christianity and to strengthen the Christian's own conviction as to the truth of his faith.

One of the most fundamental problems in Buddhism is that no one is certain what "True Buddhism" is. First, the manuscript evidence is far too late and unreliable. Buddha's words were never recorded. It is therefore impossible to ascertain if what we have are the genuine words of Buddha, or merely those of his unenlightened disciples centuries later. ("While the [illusory] surroundings created by Buddha are pure and free from defilement, those created by ordinary men are not so." Second, the manuscripts we do possess are so contradictory one despairs of ever finding truth. Charles Prebish is Professor of Religious Studies at Pennsylvania State University and editor of Buddhism: A Modern Perspective. In his essay, he points out that Buddha told his disciples they could "abolish all the lesser and minor precepts."[3] Unfortunately, he never identified them, leading to great confusion among his disciples and innumerable sects. Buddhism has thousands of works that claim the authority of the Buddha and yet contain endlessly contrary teachings. So where does the Buddhist turn to find truth?

Then there are the many internal contradictions of Buddhist philosophy. As Buddhist scholar Edward Conze noted in Buddhist Thought in India, the Mahayanists "prefer lucid paradoxes which always remain mindful of logic and deliberately defy it. For they do not mind contradictiong themselves."[4] Buddhism teaches reincarnation but denies the soul, so what can possibly reincarnate? Spiritually "enlightened" Bodhisattvas vow to work for the enlightenment of all beings, fully knowing such beings never existed to begin with. So how can we grant "wisdom" among those who forsake nirvana to have compassion on non-entities? Why should enlightened beings toy with illusions? And why help save a thing which, according to Buddhist philosophy, must save itself solely by its own efforts? But it doesn't really matter, for nothing is saved and no soul exists to be enlightened. Then what of the Buddha and his mission? Does it have any relevance? And then what of Buddhism--what's the point to all its efforts? The truth is, given Buddhist assumptions, it makes no difference at all whether Buddha, Bodhisattvas, or Buddhism ever existed. They do absolutely nothing for the world and they are as much an illusion as everything else.

There are many other contradictions. By definition, sense perceptions do not exist in Nirvana. What then exists to perceive nirvana? And even in samsara, without a soul what permanently exists to perceive suffering? And how can samsara possibly be nirvana? Or, how can Buddhism logically uphold morality when its own philosophy requires it to conclude that even the most noble and virtuous actions can be evil-- because all unenlightened actions produce suffering and self-defeating karma by definition. Conversely, by definition, the enlightened, supposedly, can do no evil. But is this what we see among the ranks of the enlightened? To the contrary! They are as subject to evil as the rest of us, often even moreso, if the reports of former disciples are to be believed.[5]

One of the greatest problems of Buddhism is its logically derived social apathy. Professor of Religion Robert E. Hume was correct when he wrote in The World's Living Religions that, in one sense, "the main trend in Buddhist ethics is negative, repressive, quietistic, non-social."[6] Christmas Humphreys, the influential Western Buddhist admits this but seems to argue that the alleged self satisfaction offered by Buddhism is reason enough to become a Buddhist: "It may be asked, what contribution Buddhism is making to world problems, national problems, social problems, appearing among every group of men. The answer is as clear as it is perhaps unique. Comparatively speaking, none. And the reason is clear. One man at peace within lives happily."[7]

But a man content and at peace with himself who does nothing for anyone is perhaps the worst man of all. Personal contentment is hardly sufficient reason to remain indifferent to the world's problems. Jesus Christ provides all the personal contentment one can ask for, but he also commanded his disciples to be salt and light in the world. Jesus impells men and women into society to help others not only to achieve this same peace with God, but to help the poor, the needy, the discouraged, the lost by whatever means. The Christian loves his neighbor, and indeed all men, because the God who is there loves them also and because they are made in his image.(James 3:9-10). Because God cares, they care. Because He acts, they act.

The Buddhist, perhaps, senses the indifference that ultimate reality has towards mankind and acts accordingly. If men are delusions, and Nirvana has no concern with them, why should the Buddhist? In fact, a number of Buddhists have recognized the superiority of Christianity at this point. Monk Shojun Bano confesses that "Buddhism is far behind Christianity...Buddhism should learn more from Christianity" while the noted popularizer of Buddhism in the West, D. T. Suzuki, agrees that "Buddhism has a great deal to learn from Christianity."[8]

But to learn from Christianity is a betrayal of Buddhism. Indeed, the reason Buddhism cannot logically show the compassion Christianity has is because Buddhist philosophy proscribes it. Likewise, the reason Christianity has done the world immeasurable good is because of its theology, illustrated in such scriptures as John 3:16, 1 Cor. 10:24, Romans 5:1-10, 1 Tim. 6:18, etc. The eminent Christian historian Kenneth S. Latourette was certainly correct when he wrote the following in Introducing Buddhism: "Christianity has been the source of far more movements and measures to fight chronic evils and improve the lot of mankind than has Buddhism....Christianity has been the motivating impetus behind anti-slavery campaigns, public health drives, relief activities in behalf of sufferers of war, and the establishment of the nursing profession. It has been responsible for the building of institutions to care for the mentally ill, hospitals, schools and universities, and for the reduction of more languages to writing than can be ascribed to all other forces put together....more than any other religion, it has made life this side of the grave richer."[9]

By comparison, Buddhism has done virtually nothing for the world. No Buddhist anywhere can logically escape the vast individual and social implications of his own philosophy. Again, if the ego is entirely illusory and exists only to be destroyed, why should any individual ego be loved and care for? Why should a society comprised of such egos be improved? Indeed, the frequently abominable political and social condition of Oriental peoples is largely the sad result of their own religions--which, for some reason, they now insist on bringing to the West. All this is not to say individual Buddhists never do social good. It is to say their philosophy cannot logically establish social concerns and that when this is achieved, they are acting more like Christians than Buddhists. In light of this, and by Buddha's own admonition, Buddhists should forsake Buddhism and become Christians (see closing paragraph to this section).

No one who enjoys life and understands what Christianity offers can logically think Buddhism offers more-- not even Buddhists. Christianity promises not just abundant life now, but a specific kind of abundant life forever. It offers a personal immortality in a perfected state of existence where all suffering and sin are forever vanquished and the redeemed exist forever with a loving God who has promised they will inherit all that is His. By contrast, Buddhism only promises an arduous, lengthy road toward personal non-existence in a nebulous nirvana. In essence, Christianity offers a gracious, instantaneous, free gift of eternal life that Buddhism can never offer.

Buddhism holds that this life, in the final sense, is ultimately not worth living since it is inseparable from suffering. But the core of Christian teaching is that this life, even with suffering, is eminently worth living. (See 1Pet. 4:19) "Life" is the goal--for God exists, He inhabits eternity and never changes, He is love and He loves us. He died for us that we might have life in a special way both now, and forever. He offers salvation from sin, not from life itself. He offers us an eternal heaven.

Thus, Jesus said He came that we might have life and that more abundantly (John 10:10). The Buddhist seeks to "avoid" life. Jesus taught He would redeem the personality, enrich it, and make it beautiful in every way. Buddhism begins by stating the personality is ultimately non-existent.

Consider the contrast provided by Clive Erricker in comparing the Buddhist nirvana and the Christian heaven: "There is a continuing selfhood in heaven which Nirvana denies; there is a tendency to understand heaven as a future state, following on from earthly life, that Nirvana is not; there is a belief that heaven is, at least to some degree, understandable in earthly terms, whereas, Nirvana is not even the opposite of Samsaric existence. Samsaric existence entails the cessation of everything. The problem we then have is that Nirvana sounds dreadfully negative, as though everything precious to us is denied and destroyed."[10]

Erricker's statements are true. Since the goal of Buddhism is to destroy the individual person, merely an illusion, everything precious to us as individuals is indeed "denied and destroyed." But notice the Buddhist response to this unlovely state of affairs: "The Buddhist response to this is that speculation of this kind is simply unhelpful."[11] In other words, Buddhist teaching does deny and destroy all that is meaningful to human existence but Buddhism has no answers as to the implications. It merely retreats into its particular world view declaring that critical evaluation is "unhelpful."

Former Buddhist J.I. Yamamoto observes: "My hunger and my thirst cannot be satisfied in Buddhism because I know that the Buddha neither created me nor offers for me to live forever with him....Beyond the Buddha is the void, and the void does not answer the needs of my humanity."[12] As one Buddhist convert to Christianity remarked, "I did not want nirvana. I wanted eternal life." Nor would most people, one assumes, want nirvana.

But there is a deeper issue in Buddhism that must be addressed--the real problem of humanity and the implications of Eastern notions of karmic "justice" and morality.

At this point, the Buddhist needs to understand that the problem of humanity is much deeper than ignorance or even suffering; the problem is sin--rebellion against God. He needs to understand the absolute necessity of forgiveness through Christ and the loving sacrifice He made at the cross. The Buddhist has never said, "nirvana is love" because love is foreign to Buddhist ultimate reality and to its gods. But it is not just that the Buddhist has never said "nirvana is love," it is that he logically cannot say it. Buddhist "love" is impersonal; it exists without relationships. But if a God of love really exists, why would one exchange this God for an impersonal Reality --and/or indifferent, and not infrequently wrathful or evil[13] Buddhist deities? In essence, the Buddhist needs to understand that their basic analysis of the human condition is flawed. Far from accomplishing its goal--the ending of suffering--Buddhism has no real solution to suffering.

To begin with, Buddha's analysis of the human condition was incomplete. His surface perception was valid, that suffering was universal. But his perception was not yet adequate. Why was the man old? Why was the man sick? Why was the beggar suffering? Why had the man died? Buddhism rejects the possibility of separation from God, human sin and a cursed world as explanations for the condition of mankind. When Buddha did seek an answer to the "whys," he concluded falsely: that personal existence itself was the cause of all suffering. Therefore the goal was to annihilate personal existence. Yet in offering so radical a solution as the destruction of individual existence, Buddha clearly went too far. Again, people don't want to be annihilated, they want to live forever, hopefully in a much better place--exactly what Christianity offers.

In essence, Buddha was wrong on most counts, at least theologically and anthropologically: the existence of God, the problem of humanity and the solution to the problem, to name a few. Again, individual existence is not the cause of suffering, it is sin. Human extinction is not the solution, it is redemption and immortality. A desire for personal existence is not evil, nor is suffering wholly bad.

Biblically, of course, there is also a great deal that is predicated upon the satisfaction of desires and the hope for personal immortality. It is good and right to desire the glory of God, personal salvation and sanctification, love for others, eternal life, etc.). Consider just a few biblical scriptures which tells us that God is there, that He is personal, that He is gracious and that He desires we enjoy life. That God is good to all men is indeed the scriptural testimony. God desires that "none should perish" and that men should "love life and see good days" (1 Pet. 3:10). God "gives to all men generously and without reproach" (Js. 1:5). In all past generations, God "did good [to you] and gave you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness" (Acts 14:17). "I know that there is nothing better for men than to be happy and to do good while they live. That everyone may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all his toil--this is the gift of God "(Ecc. 3:12-13). Truly, "the earth is full of the goodness of the Lord" (Ps. 33:5). "The Lord is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love. The Lord is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made....The Lord is faithful to all his promises and loving toward all he has made. The Lord upholds all those who fall and lifts up all who are bowed down...You open your hand and satisfy the desires of every living thing" (Ps. 145:8-9, 13-14,16).

Of course, while God is good and loving, this is not necessarily true of men and it is certainly not true of the devil and his demons. These are the source of most evil and suffering in the world.

To digress a moment, whenever there are problems or tragedies in life and God does not seem to be "kind and good," so to speak, when we see famines or crime or evil governments or natural disasters, we should not suspect God's goodness (e.g, See John Wenham, The Goodness of God; C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain.) These things result from a fallen natural order, our sin, the devil, or the folly of men, not from God. Either the greed and stupidity of men cause calamities such as famines in Communist and socialist regimes, or the evil done by dictators, drug runners, etc., destroys thousands or millions of lives. Sometimes evil reaches such proportions God is literally forced by His own righteousness to send judgment in various forms through weather calamities, economic hardships, etc. Of course, natural and social disasters are not always the direct judgment of God, but if God did not uphold His own holiness and punish evil, things would be far worse. As it is, God is much more merciful and longsuffering than we deserve and far more merciful and longsuffering to evil men than most of us would be. Further, the Bible tells us all men intuitively know God is good despite the evil in the world (e.g., Rom. 1:18-21; 2:14-16; 3:4-6). If God were truly evil, there would be no hope and the conditions of life and our sense of things would be quite different. This is why we never ask, "Why is there so much good in the world?" It's always, "Why is there so much evil in the world?" We know that evil is the aberration in a universe whose Ruler is good and righteous. (And in fact, the evil that exists is not as prevalent as suggested by our instantaneous, worldwide media reporting and, again, it could be much worse were it not for God's restraining hand (2 Thess. 2:6-7) and His common grace. On the other hand, things generally are much worse than they need to be because the world rejects God and His law and our children are raised in an environments of paganism, relativism, etc., that can justify almost any behavior.)

Next, the Buddha promised, "If you follow these teachings, you will always be happy."[14] One wonders, how many of the 400-600,000,000 Buddhists in the world are always happy? At best, their lot in life is rather like the rest of the world. It is difficult to assume their pessimistic philosophy, and the outworking of Buddhist ideas in their cultures would offer blessings of happiness. If Buddhism does not cease suffering even in this life; how can there be a guarantee it will do so in the next life?

Ironically, due to karmic belief which says suffering is inevitable due to misdeeds in a past life, Buddhism may not only ignore the suffering of others but, in another sense, actually perpetuate it. Although given a Buddhist perspective, karma does uphold a form of morality, in another sense karma merely becomes the dispenser of pain. It justifies the acts of the sin nature as inevitable. In an ultimate sense, there are no victims and acts of evil represent people "fulfilling" their karma. Thus, it is a law of "justice" which ordains that the murderer in this life be e.g., murdered in the next: a "justice" which perpetuates crime and evil on the very pretension of satisfying justice. Karma, unlike the Holy Spirit, does not sanctify; it "justifies" the evil men do. It also camouflages the reality of the Fall and sin. Sin is unavoidable, because it is the result of our misdeeds in past lives, the consequences of which we are not easily capable of vanquishing. The sensuality and sorcery of Tantrism, the crass materialism of Nichiren Shoshu's Buddhism, the pessimism of Buddhism generally, each in their own manner induces pain and difficulty into believer's lives. In part, then Buddhism itself perpetuates the very suffering it seeks to alleviate. Buddhists may indeed reject God, but it is still His universe in which they must live.

There are definite consequences for suppressing the truth about God, a truth that even Buddhists innately know (Rom. 1:18-32). To live contrary to the truth will, sooner or later, also bring suffering into one's life (Gal. 6:7). In fact, as noted, in the end Buddhism causes the most terrible form of suffering imaginable: eternal suffering. While Buddhism seeks to put an end to suffering, it maintains this can be accomplished apart from the cross. Such an attitude will only insure suffering for those who adopt it. The only means to truly end suffering is to look at, and accept, the suffering at the Cross (Jn. 3:16).

The simple fact is that Buddhists cannot destroy their "image of God," their ego, or their personality. They will exist eternally after death. And outside of Christ, they will not end their suffering.

From a Christian view, the irony here is that the two greatest desires of the Buddhist are the two things that can never be attained: cessation of personal existence and cessation of suffering. As long as one remains a Buddhist one can do nothing to prevent the former and can only insure the latter. The one thing that will end their suffering (faith in Jesus' atonement) is rejected on philosophical and "theological" grounds.

Buddhists need to know that personal immortality is a possibility, without the necessity of a concomitant suffering. In fact, God has promised this as a free gift to those who believe in his Son (Jn. 6:47).

The fact that the gift is free means it cannot be earned. Buddhists, of course, hope to gain merit in this life by pilgrimages to Buddhist temples, assisting monks, giving alms to the needy, preaching Buddhism, etc. One also strives to attain nirvana by one's own efforts. But it is precisely this kind of works salvation which is so condemned biblically:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. (Romans 3:28)
to the one who does not work [for salvation] but, believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness. Just as David also speaks of the blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works. (Romans 4:5, 6)
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! (Galatians 1:8)
Nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified. (Galatians 2:16)
Finally, above all else Buddhism is an experientially based religion founded in subjectivism. Its "confirmation" lies in the realm of inner experience, not divine revelation.

Buddhism is not primarily a religion of faith or obedience to a superior being. It stresses the importance of personal experience of the goal. While in the earlier stages of the religious life the Buddhist must of necessity take the teachings of Buddhism on faith, it is agreed that finally these teachings must be validated through the experience of enlightenment and nirvana.[15]
Buddhism...does not make a strong distinction between objective and subjective reality....[16]

How can any Buddhist have the assurance of final success based upon a highly speculative philosophy sustained only by mystical experience? Apart from the subjective experience of a mercurial "nirvana," Buddhism offers not the slightest bit of evidence that its religious doctrines are true. And if, in the end, no one ultimately exists to experience nirvana, what's the point?

In conclusion, perhaps we may best close by citing the Buddha once again: "Do not believe [me] merely because I am your master. But when you yourselves have seen that a thing is evil and leads to harm and suffering then you should reject it." Buddhism itself, unfortunately, fits the description because it denies the one true God to whom glory is due, it denies the Son of God who gave his life for us, and it denies man himself as an illusion and the moral standards by which a society is blessed. Based on the Buddhas own words then, Buddhists should logically reject Buddhism. But the Buddha also went on to say, "And when you see that a thing is good and blameless, and leads to blessing and welfare, then you should do such a thing."[17] Buddhists, then, who agree that Christ was good and blameless, should consider His life and words far more more soberly than they do. And Buddhists who agree that Christianity has far outstripped Buddhism in positive social works, and accomplished great good for mankind, should also look more closely at its message.

Buddhists may indeed be content to live within the confines of the Buddhist worldview. But look what they are missing--eternal life in heaven! Unfortunately, continued indifference to Jesus will cost one dearly. As Christians, we have the privilege of sharing the truth about Jesus with our Buddhist friends, in the hope that they too may inherit eternal life. What could be more wonderful for a Buddhist?

Notes
 Erricker, pp. 2-3.
 J. I. Packer, Hot Tub Religion, p. 22.
 Charles Prebish, Buddhism: A Modern Perspective, essay, p.21.
 Edward Conze, Buddhist Thought in India, p. 262.
 In our Encyclopedia of New Age Beliefs we showed how Eastern philosophy logically increases evil by denying that evil has any reality and maintaining the disciple must go beyond good and evil to find enlightenment (Chapters on Altered States of Consciousness, Eastern Gurus, Enlightenment, Meditation, Yoga.)
 Robert E. Hume, The World's Living Religions, p. 73.
 In F. L. Woodward, Trans., Some Saying of the Buddha (New York: Oxford University Press 1973), p. X. X. I. I.
 Dom Aelred Graham, Conversations: Christian and Buddhist, p. 172; T.N. Callaway, Zen-Way, Jesus-Way, pp. 147-48.
 Kenneth S. Latourette, Introducing Buddhism (1956), p. 59.
 Erricker, p. 51.
 Ibid.
 J. Isamu Yamamoto, Beyond Buddhism (Dowers Grover, Il: Intervarsity Press, 1982), p. 118, 123.
 e.g., C. Burrows, "The Fierce and Erotic Gods of Buddhism," Natural History, April, 1972, pp. 26 ff.
 TB, p. 20.
 Francis H. Cook, "Nirvana" in Prebish (ed.), p. 133.
 Walt Anderson, p. 36.
 Kalama Sutta, in D.T. Niles, Buddhism and the Claims of Christ, p. 20.

Detaliul care face diferenta - Nu-i asa?

=====

Fiecare, de obicei, pricepe ceea ce vrea sa priceapa si refuza sa valideze ceea ce a fost argumentat corect - dar ii contrazice perspectiva.

Ce alegi sa contra-argumentez, faptul ca Iisus nu a contrazis reincarnarea, ci a grait contextual in logica acesteia?

Sacrificiul ca forma de compensare?

Invierea?

Alegerea iti apartine.

Nop.

Nu ti se aplica?

Tot.
Si pacatul (stramosesc).

Si divinitatea lui Iisus vs. Budha.

Si ateismul budhist.

Si cred ca mai sunt si alte puncte daca apuc sa citesc tot materialul postat.

Testimony of a Former Tibetan Buddhist
 

The testimony of Katja Oberwelland, a leading disciple of Jamgon Kontrul Rinpocha.


We now complement the conclusions we arrived at earlier by sharing the testimony of Katja Oberwelland, a leading disciple of Jamgon Kontrul Rinpocha. In 1995 Katja converted from Buddhism to the Christian faith. The reasons for this should be of interest not only to Buddhists but also to Christians.

Always looking for a deeper meaning in our existence on this planet earth, I became interested in various philosophies in my early puberty and later was drawn increasingly towards Eastern spiritual disciplines. My Christian background in Germany seemed shallow and in fact was spiritually uninspiring. Christians often seemed narrow-minded, judgmental and self-righteous. The hypocrisy bothered me the most. As far as the Christian faith was concerned, Europe seemed spiritually dead, either because the churches which claimed to be Christian had no heartfelt connection to the living Jesus of the Gospels or because they tried to confine him into some rigid old-fashioned frames and rituals, diminishing his uniqueness and majesty more than exalting it.
Christianity appeared to be a nice comfort zone for simple-minded people who thought that there really was a personal and loving creator God. But this assumption already bothered me. Now could there be such a God? How could He create this broken world with all its pain, poverty, injustice and despair? And how could he just watch this chaos going on? How could this God be a truly loving God, a God who cares? Besides that the crucifixion did not make any sense at all to me: The idea of God brutally crucifying his own son, so we would be redeemed of our sins, seemed to be the ultimate karmic escape fantasy, an easy cop-out deal on a pretty cruel basis.
Buddhism made a lot more sense. Karma and the cycle of samsara including the assumption of numerous reincarnations explained the evil in this world and the possibility of liberation in a far more reasonable way. As far as I could see, Buddhism offered the only truthful path towards real enlightenment. So I became deeply involved with Tibetan Buddhism through a friend of mine in Germany. I liked its vastness of symbolism and variety of meditation practices and learned that this world is a samsaric network of conglomerated karmically trapped minds whose inherent, diamond-like, radiant Buddha-nature can only be revealed through a strict discipline of meditation and ethically pure motivated actions, offering us at least a chance to free ourselves from this useless merry-go-round of reincarnation.
For almost seven years I became entirely devoted to the Buddhist tradition of the Karmapa, the Karma Kagyu Linage (similar to the Gelgpa-Lineage of the Dalai Lama). My teacher was the third Jamgon Kontrul Rinpoche, one of the four "heartsons" of the Karmapa. The concrete path of different meditation tools and the close connection to a teacher who had mastered the transformation from samsara to nirvana was very appealing to me. Besides that I was blessed with a truly beautiful being accepting me as a disciple. I also saw the benefits of a consistent practice of contemplation and meditation in my own mind: more stability, clarity, inner peace and a sparkling sensation of joy. The purifying effect of the so-called Ngandra, the four preliminary practices with hundred thousand repetitions each, impressed me. I was convinced to finally have found the right spiritual path towards the perfect union of ultimate wisdom and compassion.
But unforeseen changes were already lurking. Through an unusual set of circumstances, I ended up moving to the island of Maui in Hawaii. My next-door neighbor was an interesting man with a fascinating background. About three years ago I asked him why he became a Christian since I knew that he also denied the existence of God for many years. (I didn't know at the time that he had been praying to God that I would ask him that question.) In response, he told me that no other spiritual teacher ever had the impact that Jesus Christ did, neither did anybody ever claim to be what he claimed to be, namely the unique son of God. I just laughed, because somebody who claimed to the unique son of a God who did not even give evidence for his own existence seemed more a lunatic than anything else to me.
However, as a Buddhist I was soon to be faced with my own spiritual perplexities. The sudden and entirely unexpected death of my young, spiritual teacher, Jamgon Kongtrul Rinpoche, in a car accident in Sikkim, northern India, was devastating. It also irritated me deeply, because when I saw him the last time three months before his death, he gave me no warning of his death or any upcoming threat that he had to face. Instead he reassured me several times that he would come to Europe in the coming fall, where I was supposed to meet him again. But I was taught that an enlightened being had perfect insight into the future and makes careful preparations for his death as well as gives careful last instructions to all his disciples. So what went wrong? And why?
The whole linage entered into a time of intense mourning. Then something wonderful happened. But instead of uplifting hope, despair and confusion were heightened when the recent incarnation of the Karmapa was finally found in eastern Tibet after years of intense searching and brought back to his original monastery in central Tibet near Lhasa. The reason for confusion instead of hope was due to the fact that another one of Karmapa's "heartsons", Sharmar Rinpoche, refused to accept the boy as the true incarnation and proposed a different candidate. That started a roller-coaster of power-struggles in the linage, ending in a severe political split. (Although the Dali Lama and the Chinese government (for the first time in the history of Tibet) agreed in the acknowledgement of the Tibetan boy as the only legitimate, official reincarnation.)

In addition, several personal experiences during a four months retreat created more questions and doubts concerning Buddhism. For example, it brought out all the contradictions I stumbled over in Buddhism to the forefront when one of my Buddhist friends quoted a highly respected Lama: "Vajrayana [the Tibetan Buddhist path] is like a jump between the two World Trade Centers. If you make it to the other building--amazing! Otherwise it's a long fall down."
Buddhists do not at all soften the outlook on reincarnation. The human realm is--according to their teachings--the only realm out of six in which you can reach spiritual enlightenment. Nevertheless, "the human birth is as rare and precious as a star in the daytime sky" as every sincere Tibetan teacher will tell you. The chance of a rebirth in one of the other realms, particularly the lower realms is far, far greater. Another illustration gives an even more vivid impression of this: imagine the whole earth was covered by water. Somewhere in this vast ocean stirred up by heavy winds, is one lone turtle swimming beneath the waves. Somewhere else in this vast ocean is a ring floating on the surface, moved by the ocean's currents. The ring fits right around the neck of the turtle. The turtle comes up for air only once every hundred years. The chance of a human rebirth, Tibetans say, is equivalent to the chance of the turtle finding the ring around its neck when lifting its head out of the water! Yet this is only an illustration of the chance of human rebirth not the chance of enlightenment which is far rarer.
In essence, during this retreat I was forced to consider the severe difficulty of the Buddhist path. I also saw firsthand the helplessness and despair created in my spiritual leaders by the split in the lineage and the lack of "enlightened" solutions. My doubts about Buddhism being a path of ultimate truth started to grow. The answers the Lamas gave me in response to my questions were not enough nourishment for my inquisitive mind and all my meditation practices just could not erase them either. Besides that, I felt trapped in a hopeless attempt "to reach the other building", facing "the long fall down", realizing that if my own spiritual leaders as "enlightened beings" in their 12th or 14th consciously chosen reincarnation were not able to find all the answers and clues, I as an ordinary being certainly had even much less of a chance.
Looking at myself with greater honesty, I saw plenty of weaknesses in my own heart and mind. As much as Buddhists rejected the existence of a Creator God, memories of my earlier Christian teachings started to come alive again. If I indeed wanted to find ultimate truth; as I did, I had to consider there may be a permanent factor behind all the obvious impermanence of this world and thus consider the possibility of God's existence.
I started to cry out to Him, to plead and wrestle with Him through numerous prayers. I was almost shockingly surprised when I found them heard and answered, because if this holy God did exist indeed, I knew my shortcomings before Him would be a problem.
Slowly, I began to realize why the Christian message was called the gospel. If such a God existed, it was good news indeed to be able to have your sins forgiven. I cannot even begin to describe the level of my shame before God when--after months of research--I finally realized the Jesus Christ surrendered to that terrifying death on the cross as an atonement for my and ALL of our sins. Simultaneously, my heart was overwhelmed with the deepest joy by the experience of his incredible mercy and forgiveness, and I was even more delighted by the historical evidence of the resurrection of Jesus Christ which gives all of us solid hope for eternal life.
I am now fully convinced that Jesus' death on the cross is the single most transforming spiritual event in the history of mankind. More than anybody else, C. S. Lewis helped me to understand this, looking at it from kind of a Buddhist perspective by evaluating the karmic merit of the Jewish people. He explains in Mere Christianity that the constant failure in perfect obedience by God's chosen people brought the "karmic scales" so hopelessly out of balance that only the spiritual weight of sacrificing himself through a human incarnation and a truly sacrificial death could create balance again and serve as a fundamental hope and inspiration for the redemption of our sins and failures. By the measurement of God's law, the future of mankind was hopelessly lost in sin, but by the gift of His grace--and only by that--we all receive a chance to be saved from final fatal judgement. So God actually did crucify His own Son to spare us the divine judgement due to our sin. But faith in Jesus we could be forgiven and the resurrection of Christ proved it. Suddenly the words from the Gospel of John (Chapter 3, verse 16) became transparent and alive to me in all their truthful, joyous glory: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life." In return, all God expects from us is to accept this and acknowledge Jesus' sacrifice with gratitude while living up to Jesus' level of obedience and surrender the best we can.
My Buddhist friends were puzzled, amused, amazed, partly confused and mostly convinced that I had become deceived in a spiritual mind trap. Buddhists generally do not understand Christianity, as I can well remember. That response was hard to face and still is difficult. Nevertheless, the gift of inner joy that comes with the Christian faith is worth all the price this world extracts. The assurance of eternal life I have through faith in Jesus is indisputably more precious than anything I have ever found in Buddhism, because Jesus Christ is "the true light that gives light to every man" (John 1:9).
For thirty-three years of my life I lived without God. Whatever may happen in the future, I never want to be without Him again. As Jesus once told his disciples, "I am the resurrection and the life: he who believes in me shall live even if he dies. And everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die" (John 11:25-26) and "I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete" (John 15:11), because, as Lewis once wrote, "joy is the serious business of heaven."

Buddhism vs Christianity chart

buddhism vs Christianity chart
 

Buddhism | Christianity
Seeks release from suffering | Seeks knowledge of God and His glory
"Unreal" (impermanent) world | Real world
Nihilistic, pessimistic outlook | Hopeful, optimistic outlook
No God or Savior exists. | One God, one Savior
Apologetic centered in subjective experience | Apologetic centered objective history
Trusts self | Trusts God
Morality self-derived | Morality based on the infinitely holy character of God
Devalues man (e.g., man is a bundle of flux; the body is evil, the mind is deceptive) |Dignifies man (e.g., man is made in God's own image; the believer's body is the temple of the Holy Spirit; the mind is good and glorifies God)
Activity and individual life are "evil" and hamper salvation | Activity and individual life are good and glorify God
Atheistic/polytheistic | Theistic
Impersonal ultimate reality | Personal ultimate reality
Often anti-social | Responsible social action
Enlightened by works | Salvation by grace
Mysticism and the occult are spiritual activities | Mysticism and the occult are rejected as evil and as opposed to God
The afterlife constitutes an impersonal, uncertain nirvana | The afterlife is clearly delineated and involves personal immortality
Spiritual truth is discovered by disciplined effort | Spiritual truth is revealed by God

Buddha vs Jesus Christ chart
 

Buddha | Jesus
Buddha is dead.
In many ways the Buddha is a mystery (no contemporary biographies exist) "apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life."[1] | Jesus was a historic person of whom four reliable, early biographies were penned. "It is a historic fact that Jesus Christ lived and taught what the New Testament says He taught."[2]
Teachings uncertain | Teachings certain
Buddha was only a man: "Notwithstanding his own objectivity toward himself, there was constant pressure during his lifetime to turn him into a god. He rebuffed all these categorically, insisting that he was human in every respect. He made no attempt to conceal his temptations and weaknesses, how difficult it had been to attain enlightenment, how narrow the margin by which he had won through, how fallible he still remained."[3] | Jesus is incarnate God: "I am the light of the world"; "I am the way, the truth and the Life"; "He who believes in Me will never die"; "He who has seen Me has seen the Father." "I and the Father are One." "You believe in God, Believe also in Me." "All that the Father has is Mine." "All power and authority in heaven and earth have been given to Me." -- Jesus
Non-theistic worldview | Theistic worldview
A way-shower; Buddha as a person is unnecessary for achieving enlightenment. | The Savior; salvation is impossible apart from the Person of Jesus.
Encouraged men to follow a philosophy | Encouraged men to follow Him
Never appealed to faith | Stressed the importance of faith in God and Himself (Jn. 17:3)
Rejected God | Called God His own Father
Undogmatic | Dogmatic
Offered a way | Taught He was the only way between the temporal and the eternal
Notes
 David-Neel, p. 15.

 Norman Geisler, A Popular Survey of the Old Testament (Chicaco, IL: Moody Press, 1978), p. 11.
 Smith, The Religions of Man, p. 99.

Buddhist Enlightenment vs. Christian Salvation Chart
 

Buddhist Enlightenment | Christian Salvation
Man's nature remains fundamentally unchanged; the individual Buddhist accomplishes "enlightenment" but this is only a new perspective on life undergirded by carefully cultivated altered states of consciousness (the experience of "nirvana" in meditation) | Man's nature is changed forever. This is accomplished wholly by God and constitutes an inner change of one's nature (regeneration) a new legal standing before God (justification) and, logically, a corresponding "outer" transformation (sanctification)
Eradicates "ignorance" of the truths of Buddhism and ostensibly, in the end, suffering | Eradicates sin
History is irrelevant; salvation is experientially based and possible through mysticism. Inner experience supplants historical concerns. The person of Buddha irrelevant to process of enlightenment | Historically based; salvation is objectively based and impossible apart from the person of Jesus Christ of Nazareth
The believer is saved from life; sin is not forgiven | The believer is saved from divine judgment; all his sins are forgiven
Humanistic: man instituted | Theological: God instituted
Escapist (salvation from the world) | Realist (salvation of the world, i.e., of all believers)
One cannot be reconciled to an impersonal nirvana, one can only "realize" it or "achieve" it; technically, one cannot even experience it. | Reconciliation to God
Eternal existence allegedly constitutes an ineffable existence somewhere in between (i.e., not comprising either) total annihilation or personal immortality | Eternal life constitutes personal immortality and fellowship with a loving God
Derives from a finite source of change utilizing the power of self-perfection | Derives from an infinite source of change utilizing the power of divine grace

Ultimate Reality is the experience of emptiness or ineffable impersonal "existence." | Ultimate Reality is the infinite personal triune God
Faith is denied or placed in Buddhist gods plus works | Based on faith in Christ alone apart from works

Buddhist Teaching vs. Christian Scripture Chart
 

Buddhism Christianity
Those who, relying upon themselves only, shall not look for assistance to any one besides themselves, it is they who shall reach the topmost height.[1] | "Thus says the Lord, 'Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind and makes flesh his strength, and whose heart turns away from the Lord'" (Jeremiah 17:5).
By this ye shall know that a man is not my disciple--that he tries to work a miracle. | "But many of the multitude believed in Him; and they were saying, 'When the Christ shall come, He will not perform more signs than those which this man has, will He?'" (John 7:31).
"One thing I teach," said Buddha: "suffering and the end of suffering....It is just ill and the ceasing of ill that I proclaim." | "But to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing; so that also at the revelation of His glory, you may rejoice with exultation. Therefore, let those also who suffer according to the will of God entrust their souls to a faithful Creator in doing what is right" (1 Peter 4:13, 19).
The self we think to be true and important is pure illusion, and a lie that is the cause of a large proportion of human suffering. | "And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." "Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being" (Genesis 1:27; 2:7).
Perhaps the greatest difference between Buddhism and Christianity is that Buddhism very explicitly does not require an act of faith. | "And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Hebrews 11:6).
There is no permanent self in Buddhism. In fact, nothing is permanent | "Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom and Thy dominion endures throughout all generations." "But Thou, O Lord, dost abide forever" (Psalm 145:13; 102:12a)
Do not believe in that which you have yourselves imagined, thinking that a god has inspired it | "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
According to Buddhism the universe evolved, but it did not evolve out of nothingness; it evolved out of the dispersed matter of a previous universe, and when this universe is dissolved, its dispersed matter--or, its residual energy which is continually renewing itself--will in time give rise to another universe in the same way. The process is therefore cyclical and continuous. The universe is composed of millions of millions of world-systems like our solar system, each with its various planes of existence." | "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." "By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible" (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 11:3).
Notes
 Smith, p. 107, quoting E.A. Burt (ed.), The Teachings of the Compassionate Buddha (NY: Mentor, 1955), p. 50.
 Smith, p. 108.
 Woodward (tr.), p. XXI.
 Ibid., p. 109.
 Walt Anderson, p. 26.
 Ibid., p. 32.
 David-Neel, p. 123.
 Neill, p. 121, citing Maha Thera U Tittila in The Path of the Buddha (ed.), K.W. Morgan, (1956), pp. 77-78.

Cunoastem deja toate tainele crestinismului, in special ale ortodoxiei?

Daca nu, atunci sa mai zabovim oleaca in gradina ortodoxiei:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F42UhRD83BM

It's all about Him, it's not about me. I am captive to the Person of Jesus Christ. That should be the end of it .