Did Christianity "borrow" from Buddhism?

[Sambojjhanga]

Like many here, I started life out as a Christian, primarily because that was the religion of my family. Fortunately for me, they were what I'd call a "moderate to non-practicing" Christian household.

I realized at an early age that there were a lot of problems and issues with Christianity, though for me, personally, Jesus Christ always represented what I later learned to be the 4 Brahma Viharas.

I consider myself a Theravada Buddhist who primarily practices in the methods of the Thai Forest tradition and, specifically, the teachings of Ajaan's Geoff, Brahm, and Sumedho. I look at Jesus Christ as a realized Buddhist Master.

My own belief is that since both Christ and Buddha spoke of this path, current or religion as existing before they did, I think it fair to consider that Christianity, at least in SOME of its forms, describes the same path that Buddhism, again, at least in SOME of its forms, does.

Christianity, of course, has gone through its own changes, re-writes, etc., etc., just like Buddhism. But still, at both their cores, we're dealing with two men, Jesus and Buddha. In my own reading of the Christian Scriptures, I don't find Jesus Christ claiming to be anything in relation to God the Father that any of us aren't, or can't be. The idea that Jesus Christ IS God, I think, is a later addition to the doctrine. In Buddhism, we always here how Buddha isn't God, never claimed to be, etc., etc. and this is, of course, true, especially from Sid Gotama's POV! Again, the Mahayana doctrine has added a bit more "spiritual" and "godly" attributes to Buddha, Buddhism, and the idea that there is some eternal spirit out there (again, not unlike Christianity, especially some of the more esoteric versions.)

So what do you all think? I realize my subject post is did Christianity borrow from Buddhism? I think it did. I think SOME of it may be honest, contemplative humans discovering "the path".

Here is what I think. I think that the problem with the idea of "God" is that we are describing an intelligent and good process. Some call this nature. Some call it the dhamma (which is more the rules of its functioning, rather like the Tao.) Some call it the Tao. Some call it Buddha Nature. Some call it God (God the Father.) I do not believe that there is a PERSONAL, INDIVIDUAL divinity, God, Allah, etc. I DO believe that there are Brahmas who are deluded into believing they are such (think about it...this would explain a LOT of the weird stuff in the Bible!)

Anyway, I'm having a "down day" from work today and just thought I'd get the opinion of my dhamma friends as to what they think.

Metta

[James the Giant]

I was interested in this idea 5 or 6 years ago, triggered by a lot of new age friends who were keen on drawing historical links and explaining the missing decades of Jesus' life.
I poked around to see what I could find, but unfortunately I learned that there is no historical evidence that Buddhism had any influence on Christianity. (Unfortunate because it would have been cool if it did.)
There were travellers in the area who were Buddhist, but there's no hint that their ideas made their way into the Christian world-view.

[LonesomeYogurt]

I see it less as evidence for any kind of verbal or cultural transmission and far more as evidence for the eternal truth being available to all wise people who seek to discover the truth.

[Digity]

I've always felt that Buddhism encompassed Christianity nicely. The Buddha never denied the existence of hell or heaven and gods. So, in a sense, a lot of what Christianity teaches does fit into Buddhism. Maybe that's why you think Christianity "borrowed" from Buddhism. However, the critical difference is the teachings on the end of suffering...Christianity doesn't teach about Nibbana and going past all realms of rebirth. In Christianity your goal is to be reborn in heaven, but in Buddhism even rebirth in heaven is considered a lowly goal. The true goal is the putting out of the flame altogether. In that sense, the path in Christianity and Buddhism are NOT the same. Sure, "some" aspects are similar, but the real meat and potatoes of Buddhism is actually in the parts that are different from the two.

[Ben]

In answer to your question,I think that its natural to see parallels,given that the first occidentalists who encountered the myriad forms of what later became known as 'Buddhism' were Presbyterian Christian scholars. Their I,pact was so profound that the Buddha was redefined according to their perceptions. Not just in the west, but in the east as well. Modern American or western Buddhism is a direct result of that cross-cultural connection.
Kind regards,
Ben

[Kim O'Hara]

I was interested in this idea 5 or 6 years ago, triggered by a lot of new age friends who were keen on drawing historical links and explaining the missing decades of Jesus' life.
I poked around to see what I could find, but unfortunately I learned that there is no historical evidence that Buddhism had any influence on Christianity. (Unfortunate because it would have been cool if it did.)
There were travellers in the area who were Buddhist, but there's no hint that their ideas made their way into the Christian world-view.

If you keep poking long enough, you find some quite strange connections. IIRC, the Buddha appears to have been canonised (under a different name) as a Christian saint
However, there really wasn't much connection and what there was is poorly documented - and trying to track it down leads you to some very places http://www.thiaoouba.com/tomb.htm. Don't say you weren't warned
Better to just say they have a fair bit in common and get on with your practice.


Kim

[Kusala]

According to Ajahn Brahm, Jesus was a Buddhist...

[Mawkish1983]

In my opinion, the two religions are as different as chalk and cheese. One teaches Anatta, Dukkha and Anicca. The other talks of immortal souls, original sin and eternal life.

The ONLY similarity is the 'be nice' instruction found in almost all surviving religions. Well, plenty in the Bible directly contradicts that 'be nice' instruction, so, realistically, just how similar are they?

[daverupa]

In my opinion, the two religions are as different as chalk and cheese. One teaches Anatta, Dukkha and Anicca. The other talks of immortal souls, original sin and eternal life.

The ONLY similarity is the 'be nice' instruction found in almost all surviving religions. Well, plenty in the Bible directly contradicts that 'be nice' instruction, so, realistically, just how similar are they?

Indeed! That teaching peculiar to the Noble Ones is wholly absent from the Tanakh, the New Testament, the Quran, the Analects, the Laozi & Chuangzi, and so on...

[plwk]

I sometimes wonder on the legend of Barlaam & Josaphat, revered as saints in the medieval Catholic days and up until today the Orthodox Church still reveres them, perhaps someone might have gone ' ...it's the Buddha, right?'

[barcsimalsi]

I DO believe that there are Brahmas who are deluded into believing they are such (think about it...this would explain a LOT of the weird stuff in the Bible!)

Brahmas from the jhana realm are highly intelligent beings. If not for the help of Mahabrahma, Gautama Buddha would probably gone into Nirvana without preaching. Ok i don wanna sound like a Hindu...

[mogg]

I was interested in this idea 5 or 6 years ago, triggered by a lot of new age friends who were keen on drawing historical links and explaining the missing decades of Jesus' life.
I poked around to see what I could find, but unfortunately I learned that there is no historical evidence that Buddhism had any influence on Christianity. (Unfortunate because it would have been cool if it did.)
There were travellers in the area who were Buddhist, but there's no hint that their ideas made their way into the Christian world-view.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Regarding Jesus, Josephus was the nearest thing to a contemporary historian, and the earliest extant documents of his work trace back to 1000AD only. The fact is, we do not know what the real teachings of Jesus were. If you look at the work of Origen and some of the early Church fathers, it is a very different Christianity to that practiced today, (not to mention the Gnostic gospels which are very similar to Buddhist teachings).
I think it is extremely unlikely that Jesus wouldn't have come into contact with Buddhism.

For a long time I have suspected that all the worlds great religions are really just corrupted and modified versions of the dhamma. I think its likely that the early Brahmanic and Vedic religions were corrupted teachings of Kassapa and other previous Buddhas, watered down and ritualised after thousands of years of filtration and progressive wrong view.
I have no proof, its merely conjecture.

[Monkey Mind]

I'll throw in with an unconventional source:
"Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal", by Christopher Moore
http://www.amazon.com/Lamb-According-Ch ... moore+lamb

It's a hilarious comedy, if you don't mind humor about religions, and a great read. In the book, a young Jesus Christ sets out on a quest to find the "Three Wise Men" from the tales of his famous birth. One of the wise men turns out to be a meditation master. In the author's notes at the end of the book, Moore outlines his research process into theology and biblical scholarship related to The Wise Men and the mysteries of Jesus's childhood and teenage years. My point is: who knows? Moore's comedy could be as accurate as anything else that has been written on the topics.

[Coyote]

There was a website I saw a while back that tried to compare scenes from the gospels from that of the pali canon - I believe there are Christian sayings, whether from the gospels or epistles or a non-canonical source that are very similar to Buddhist sayings. I'll try and find the website later as I find the subject quite interesting. There are certainly themes in common, but I think this has far more to do with archetypes and themes that many cultures hold in common than any actual cultural transmission. For example Christian treatment of the problem of suffering and injustice- certainly recognized more than in other religions and a major theme running throughout the gospels and early christian soteriology. Could this be Buddhist influence or just natural reaction to Dukkha? The religious climate at the time certainly shows Indian influences on hellenic-roman religious cults of which early Christianity could be considered one. I have also read theories, how well supported I don't know, that suggest cults like the essenes (I think) were Indian, perhaps Buddhist influenced.

Edit: Monasticism - thats one thing we can say with more certainty was influenced by Indian religions such as Buddhism, though I don't know much about the subject.

[Kim O'Hara]

Monasticism - thats one thing we can say with more certainty was influenced by Indian religions such as Buddhism, though I don't know much about the subject.

Hi, Coyote,
I know the parallels are very close but I have never come across any evidence that European monasticism was based on Indian models.
Can you point me to your sources?


Kim

[mogg]

Monasticism - thats one thing we can say with more certainty was influenced by Indian religions such as Buddhism, though I don't know much about the subject.

Hi, Coyote,
I know the parallels are very close but I have never come across any evidence that European monasticism was based on Indian models.
Can you point me to your sources?


Kim

There were Greeks present at early Buddhist councils, so no question that Buddhism was the genesis of European monasticism IMO. Buddhism was the first 'world religion' with an extensive geographical span.
Watch the Ajahn Brahm videos above, I think its in those vids where he discusses the presence of Buddhist monks in medieval European artwork.

[Kim O'Hara]

Monasticism - thats one thing we can say with more certainty was influenced by Indian religions such as Buddhism, though I don't know much about the subject.

Hi, Coyote,
I know the parallels are very close but I have never come across any evidence that European monasticism was based on Indian models.
Can you point me to your sources?


Kim

There were Greeks present at early Buddhist councils, so no question that Buddhism was the genesis of European monasticism IMO. Buddhism was the first 'world religion' with an extensive geographical span.
Watch the Ajahn Brahm videos above, I think its in those vids where he discusses the presence of Buddhist monks in medieval European artwork.

That is an extraordinarily weak argument, Mogg. They were there so they must have been responsible? Nope.
I do know about the cultural transmission between the Greeks and the Indians (and Arabs and Chinese, for that matter) but the fact that something could plausibly have happened does not mean that it did happen. Of course, it doesn't mean it didn't happen, either. I would just like something more akin to evidence one way or the other.


Kim

[mogg]

Hi, Coyote,
I know the parallels are very close but I have never come across any evidence that European monasticism was based on Indian models.
Can you point me to your sources?


Kim

There were Greeks present at early Buddhist councils, so no question that Buddhism was the genesis of European monasticism IMO. Buddhism was the first 'world religion' with an extensive geographical span.
Watch the Ajahn Brahm videos above, I think its in those vids where he discusses the presence of Buddhist monks in medieval European artwork.

That is an extraordinarily weak argument, Mogg. They were there so they must have been responsible? Nope.
I do know about the cultural transmission between the Greeks and the Indians (and Arabs and Chinese, for that matter) but the fact that something could plausibly have happened does not mean that it did happen. Of course, it doesn't mean it didn't happen, either. I would just like something more akin to evidence one way or the other.


Kim

Its not weak at all Kim, its called circumstantial evidence. Sometimes people want to think that someone will discover a time capsule with all the detailed step by step processes outlined whereby A led to B. It doesn't happen like that. The reality is, there is no history of monasticism of any kind in Christianity aside from individual hermits. Buddhism enters Europe, unquestionably, and then at some stage Christian monasticism appears. Is it 100% certain? Of course not. Is it the most plausible explanation available? In my opinion, yes.

[Kim O'Hara]

Its not weak at all Kim, its called circumstantial evidence. Sometimes people want to think that someone will discover a time capsule with all the detailed step by step processes outlined whereby A led to B. It doesn't happen like that. The reality is, there is no history of monasticism of any kind in Christianity aside from individual hermits. Buddhism enters Europe, unquestionably, and then at some stage Christian monasticism appears. Is it 100% certain? Of course not. Is it the most plausible explanation available? In my opinion, yes.

Hi, Mogg,
With the knowledge I have got, convergent evolution is as good an explanation as your hypothetical Buddhist influence.
You say, "Buddhism enters Europe, unquestionably," but I don't know of any evidence for that. Then you say, "and then at some stage Christian monasticism appears," but Christian monasticism didn't begin in Europe. And you give no evidence and no dates. I don't expect - or even want - a time capsule. I would just like something more akin to evidence one way or the other.


Kim

[PeterB]

And you will find none beyond the Jesus -went -to -Kashmir fringe of syncretic New Ageism.
There is no biblical scholar of any repute , whether Christian or Jewish, religious or secular, who accepts any influence either way, other than at a rare and individual level, between Christianity and Buddhism... until the 19th century.
If there were such an influence you would need to explain how Christianity aped the outer form of Buddhist monasticism..but came to diametrically opposed views about the nature and existence of God.
There is a group of concepts called " Parallelism " which concerns itself with similarities that are apparent....but have no basis in reality.
The roots of Christian monasticism are well known and well described..they lie in the practices of figures like Elijah, through John The Baptist, and start to be seen as early as the second century AD in the Desert Fathers..
There simply is no need for a more exotic explanation.
And those exotic explanations are..if I might borrow a Buddhist concept..papanca.