Buddah?
Only in the very loosest sense could one say that if you are a happy Christian, then you are also a Buddhist, and vice versa. It is possible to be both, since Christianity is a revealed religion, and Buddhism is, at its source, a philosophy, not a religion. (When someone asked Gautama Buddha to discuss his view of gods, cosmology, etc., he declined to do so, saying that it did not have anything to do with what he was trying to teach: his philosophy.) Many people now identify as both Christians and Buddhists. They worship Christ and follow the Middle Way as well. But to say that Christianity and Buddhism are the same thing is, in my humble layperson's opinion, rather misleading and not correct.
Here's an excellent little book: "The Lotus and the Cross: Jesus Talks with Buddha" by Ravi Zacharias
No person or thing can be compared to God, and to do so is pure sacrilege. (In Catholic tradition it was St. Michael the Archangel who challenged Lucifer when he compared himself to God, by saying: "Who is like unto God"?)
But these are pagan times we live in, and God and truth are merely what people happen to believe in today, not something that is eternal and unchangeable.
Buddah?
Next thing you know they will be pushing St Germaine and all the so called Ascended Masters nonsense upon an unsuspecting public!
Nopeski.
Not a lot of family resemblance. I say ixnay on the brother thing.
On coming back and reading this article more closely, and realizing that many people who are not familiar with Buddhism will take it literally word for word, I wanted to correct at least one of the misinterpretations in this article.
One of the principal foundations of Buddhism is indeed the tenet that "Life is suffering" ... except that "suffering" in English and the original word that is being interpreted as "suffering" do not have the same meaning, and it really skews the meaning of the whole concept. I have forgotten the original word (not being a Sanskrit speaker myself) but the word being interpreted in English as "suffering" is a word that means, literally, a wagon wheel that is not working properly, that is a little bumpy and not giving a smooth ride. It should probably be interpreted more closely as "unsatisfactory." And I think that there are few people in this world who would disagree that our life in this world is often unsatisfactory. Whereas to say that life is *suffering* implies a very self-defeating and nihilistic point of view, to say the least.
Also, to say that Buddhists seek "extinction" is really an extreme interpretation. As a matter of fact, in the prayer of the Three Refuges, Buddhists ask to become a Buddha themselves, solely "in order to benefit all sentient beings." This implies continued existence in some form, as well as a selfless wish to be of use to all self-knowing beings.
I just wanted to comment on that a little. Buddhism has a bad rap as a nihilistic religion, and it is neither nihilistic nor, really, a religion.
Jesus is the Son of God and Savior of the world by His death on the cross (John 3:16). Buddha isn't.
Well, yes, in the most expansive sense. All human beings are one family by descent, including Jesus Christ as a human person, and the human philosopher called "the Buddha".
What I was thinking before I got to this paragraph. Buddhism is a fine religion as religions go, but it doesn't conatin all the Truth.
"1. Life is suffering."
Wrong. The Lord created life and saw that it was good.
2. The cause of suffering is desire.
Wrong. The cause of suffering is rejection of the Lord.
3. To be free from suffering, we must detach from desire.
Wrong. Only through Christ's one oblation on the Cross may we be saved.
4. The "eight-fold path" is the way to alleviate desire.
Wrong. We must take up our cross and follow Christ.
Budda had an eating disorder.
No, but they're Super Best Friends!
I needed a laugh this morning.....
Monsignor: "No, Your Holiness,"
Dalai Lama: "You believe in a personal God, and I do not."
Why would the Monsignor even address him as "Your Holiness"? Wouldn't "Mr. Lama" be more appropriate?
Divine Grace is the key to Christianity. Buddism is too childish and simplistic to be called a sibling.
Why do Catholics feel the need to turn to Buddhism to understand contemplating God? We have so many saints who show us the way. Trouble is that these saints are often too real, too earthy, too human for some. I think those who look to Buddhism believe wrongly that any sensual experience is to deny the spiritual. Therefore meditation and contemplation must have as its aim not only union with God but total separation from our earthly selves. This is not what Christianity teaches. We are not complete despite being flesh and spirit but because of it. Christ elevated our bodies through His incarnation.
I also feel confident in stating that probably most Catholics who turn to Buddhist practices do not believe or outright reject the doctrine of the Real Presence in the Eucharist.