I didn't really know where else to stick this so I'll ask the Bible Discussion Forum.
I was wondering what the differences were between Buddhism and basic Protestant Christianity besides the role of Christ? If a practicing Buddhist believed that Jesus was the Son of God, would this make him both a Christian and a Buddhist?
Please only post if you have an "ok" knowledge about Buddhism as I'm looking for pretty accurate answers. Example: you already know that Buddha isn't a god to Buddhists.
I guess there are a few things.
One is that, in almost every branch of Buddhism rejects the idea of one God, as per Judeo-Christendom. Classical Buddhism basically doesn't enter into whether or not there is a God (although as I recall Siddhartha Gautama rejected the authority of the Vedic writers and thus we can conclude he rejected the Hindu pantheon), but some branches of modern Buddhism are effectively polytheistic.
The idea of reincarnation (common to most of Hinduism) is another problem, as it effectively teaches that you can perfect yourself throughout the journey through samsara, and thereby reach nirvana on your own merit. This conflicts with the biblical teaching that man cannot save himself, salvation comes only through the atonement provided by and in Christ.
Another difference that is minor in some respects, but I think underpins the respective world views of the two religions , is the cause of suffering. Buddhism says that the cause of all suffering, and thus the cause of the perpetuation of samsara and karmic effects, is desire. People have attachments to the physical world, or even an attachment to being apart from the world, and when these desires are not met (as Buddhism says is inevitable), one suffers. This suffering results in both physical, emotional and spiritual suffering. Thus, the solution is to eliminate desire.
Buddhism, like most Hinduism, particularly Vashnaivism, promotes duty and good deeds, and the noncommittal out of bad deeds, but its particularly focus is to do good without desire of outcomes, to do simply because it is. Enlightenment is attained by detachment, which frees you from samsara and allows you to achieve nirvana.
It's interesting to note that what kind of desire is felt is mostly irrelevant, because desire in toto will perpetuate suffering, regardless of whether we would think of them as good or bad desires. Any attachment to existence will result in desire and suffering, and so is to be avoided. Nirvana is thus more an existentially desirable end, not an emotional or spiritual per se.
Where I think this clashes ever so subtly with Christianity is that desire in itself is not condemned in the scriptures. God himself desires things, as does his people. What matters is a) how do these desires square with God's will and b) what are desires designed to point toward and fulfill? Buddhism is not interested in fulfilling desire - it is interested in removing it. Christianity is about fulfilling desire.
Also, for Christianity, the cause of suffering is not desire in itself. It is in a very specific kind of desire, rebellion. Thus, in Christianity, suffering moves from having a broad, existential cause to having a personable cause that impacts on existence. Instead of suffering resulting from the reality of material existence itself, suffering begins with conscious attitude, and specifically the attitude of man to God.
The irony is, of course, that Buddhism tries to take the cause of suffering inside and personal (that is, it is our individual problem because of desire), but in reality I think it actually removes the problem of suffering from humanity. Suffering is an existential problem in Buddhism, not a personal one, simply because all human beings desire. Thus, existence itself is the problem.
In Christianity, we have a cosmic drama between God and man, but the problem of suffering really is with man, both corporately and individual. Every time we rebel, a conscious act, we are affirming the first cause of suffering. Thus when we see suffering, we must also acknowledge the role that humanity causes directly in the very existence of suffering, not simply out of primal desire, but conscious, committed, wilful depravity.
At that level, Buddhism, I don't think, can really deal with evil, or the role humanity plays in the creation of suffering.
____" type of mentality must end.
