Similarities between Christianity and Hindu/Buddhism
 

Christianity and Hinduism/Buddhism seem to be two separate branches of religion. Have you noticed any overlapping of beliefs?

Hinduism and Christianity could not be more different if they were designed that way.

Hinduism:

1. No single founder or guiding doctrine or dogma, or single scripture.
2. Belief that God takes innumerable forms, appearing to devotees differently.
3. Largely henotheistic, i.e. belief in one God, but the belief in other gods and forms of God.
4. Belief that all paths are equally valid for salvation, knowledge, liberation from the cycle of rebirth.
5. No need for salvation, all creation is a manifestation of God and therefore divine and holy.
6. Belief in a cycle of rebirth, i.e. reincarnation.
7. Pantheistic and panentheistic simultaneously; God pervades the universe, is the universe; all life is pervaded by and part of God.
8. No concept of divine judgement, punishment or reward.

Christianity:

1. Jesus Christ and apostles founded Christianity as we know it; the Bible is the only and ultimate authority.
2. Only one God with one form.
3. No other gods are to be worshiped.
4. Christianity and the Bible are the only means to salvation.
5. Man and creation are flawed, sinful, needing redemption.
6. Does not believe in reincarnation; one life, one death; final judgement.
7. God is outside the universe; God is not the universe, the universe is not God.
8. God judges and rewards or punished the soul for its actions in life.

The similarities people like to cite are the birth and life stories of Jesus and Krishna. My own belief is that the Krishna stories, which predate Jesus by several centuries, if not a millennium or more, were carried from India into the Roman world via the Silk Roads and the travelers (merchants, traders, armies, diplomats, migrants) who traveled. Rome, South Asia and East Asia traded and had connections for centuries.

1. Jesus and Krishna were both of royal bloodlines.
2. Jesus and Krishna were both conceived transcendentally by God, Mary by the Holy Spirit, Devaki by Vishnu himself.
3. They were both raised by foster parents; Krishna raised by Yashoda and Nanda, Jesus raised by Joseph, his foster father.
4. Both were prophesied to be the downfall of evil kings, who tried to kill both babies.
5. Their births were announced by divine beings, Jesus by angels, Krishna by Goddess Durga. Goddess Durga took birth as Krishna's baby sister at the same time he was born. She appeared to King Kamsa and announced that Krishna was already secreted away and safe.
6. Joseph was told by an angel in a dream that Jesus's life was in danger and to flee to Egypt.
7. Vasudeva, Krishna's birth father took him secretly to Nanda and Yashoda in another kingdom for protection.
8. Devaki, Krishna's birth mother was not a virgin. She had 6 children before Krishna.
9. Krishna killed his uncle the evil king, his mother's brother, in a duel. Jesus killed no one.
10. Both were adults when they gave their most famous and important teachings, the Sermon on the Mount and the Bhagavad Gita.
11. Krishna did not die by hanging on a tree. He was accidentally shot with an arrow by a hunter.

Buddhism and Hinduism are far closer in beliefs, given that Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism. Siddhartha Gautama, aka the Buddha, was Hindu. The difference between Buddhism and Hinduism is that Buddhism is non-theistic, does not believe in an independent Self as Hinduism does. All three promote the ideas of non-violence and non-injury. However, while Buddhism and Hinduism recommend vegetarianism, Christianity is silent on it.

Buddhism is not an offshoot of Hinduism as we know it today, Buddhism came before Hinduism.

Buddha was a Hindu because he was born in the land/civilization of the 'Indus ' 'the people of the Indies', The religion he was born into was Brahmin.... and not Hinduism as a religion.


Some Buddhists do believe in God and also eat meat, different Schools have different ideas. Buddha ate meat and never denied a God, according to Suttas. In Buddhism there are no ' Rules ' just guides.

I have to disagree. You may be making a distinction between Vedic Hinduism and Puranic Hinduism, but most practicing Hindus don't make any distinction. There is no date on the calendar when it changed from Vedic to Puranic. Vedic rituals are in use today, the marriage ceremony for one. We chant Vedic Sanskrit in temple, and in our prayers and mantras. One might say Puranic Hinduism is an add-on. But they unquestionably overlap.

Puranic Hinduism may be to Vedic Hinduism what Vulgar/Everyday Latin was to Classical Latin, or the prakrits to Classical Sanskrit. The Buddha, believed by many (but certainly not all) Hindus to be the 9th avatar of Lord Vishnu, was born in about 500-480 BCE. "Hinduism" goes back at least 3,000 - 5,000 years prior. The Mahābhārata and Bhagavad Gita are dated to about 3100 BCE, in Vedic Sanskrit.

The Buddha railed against the practices of the brahmins, their sacrifices and misuse of the Vedas and Vedic rituals. He sought to reform Hinduism. As far as non-theism, the Buddha said he could find no evidence for the existence of God. Tibetan Buddhism is replete with deities. Moreover, I did not say Buddhists don't eat meat. I said "...Buddhism and Hinduism recommend vegetarianism ...".

I don't know if you're Hindu or not. If you are, Hinduism has lots of room for lots of beliefs, including atheism, believe it or not. If you're not Hindu, the one thing that rankles Hindus is us being told our own religion and beliefs by those who are not Hindu, especially when it's based on "study" and not practicing/living it.

In Christianity.

1)Love God (Supreme Divinity Deity) with all you Heart,Mind and Soul.
2) Love you neighbor as yourself.

As for Hinduism/Buddhism I can not say.

One often hears it said that the Buddha was born, lived and died as a Hindu or that he tried to reform Hinduism or that Buddhism is just a sect of Hinduism. Before commenting on these claims some clarification is necessary. What today is called Hinduism is the result of centuries of evolution by numerous divergent spiritual movements within India. So varied and different are the various expressions of Hinduism that virtually the only factor they have in common is that they all originated in India, hence the name Hinduism which means 'the belief of Indians'. Being so dynamic and fluid it is true to say that what today is called Hinduism simply did not exist at the time of the Buddha. The main religion at that time was Brahmanism, the worship of the gods mentioned in the Vedas through sacrifices and rituals. The Buddha was highly critical of Brahmanism. While he accepted the existence of the Vedic gods he denied their superiority over man. He disputed the authority of the Vedic scriptures, he severely criticised the brahmin priests and the caste system in general. The brahmin priests for their part condemned the Buddha as the worst type of heretic. Very clearly the Buddha did not perceive himself, nor was he perceived by others as being a part of the prevailing religion.


No I don't follow Hinduism.


Buddha never denied nor confirmed the existence of a God because he never wanted his followers to believe in anything based solely on words/teachings alone.

'but after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.
When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them. '


Kalama Sutta..... Aṅguttara Nikaya of the Tipiṭaka.

Every Hindu child knows it's a living evolving religion, and what its origins are. We know we don't perform animal sacrifices anymore. We know for the most part how many schools and sects there are. We know the name Hinduism is an umbrella term for what may be hundreds of major, minor, local and even unknown beliefs.


Not entirely accurate. "Hindu" comes from the Old Persian name for what we call the Indus River... Sindhu. Persian and Sanskrit have a regular sound shift between h and s. Sapta sindhu/hapta hindu; Hairovati/Saraswati...

The people were named Hindu because they were from beyond/across the Sindhu (Indus) River.

Yeah, as I suspected, nitpicking over a name. We don't draw a time or name distinction between Vedic religion and what we call Hinduism. To us it's all Hinduism, properly called Sanātana Dharma, Eternal Way/Law, whether it's Vedic, "Brahmanic" or Puranic.

Yes, thank you I know all that. Again, you're posturing over a name that I've never heard used in real life. We don't refer to anything as Brahmanism. We don't draw a distinction other than to say "we do this today, we don't do that anymore". Ninety percent of Hindus are "village Hindus"... we practice our religion, pray, worship and live life according to the tenets of Sanātana Dharma. Most Hindus have never read the Vedas or Upanishads. We know parts of them word of mouth.

I suspected as much.

So yes, Buddhism is an offshoot of Sanātana Dharma, which includes the ancient Vedic, Brahmanic and current Puranic religion.

Yes I have heard that some Hindus think it's an ' Offshoot ' but Suttas reveal it isn't, so we can agree to differ.

Well of course the suttas would say that, given that they refute the tenets of Sanātana Dharma. If Buddhism doesn't have its basis and origin in something they reject, whatever it's called, where did it come from? Spontaneous convergent evolution? Nah, I don't think so. So let's call it by its true name, Sanātana Dharma, because the term Hinduism seems to not sit well. Sanātana Dharma has its basis in the Vedas and Upanishads, which Buddha clearly rejects.

Now then, Buddha was born into the Kshatriya varna, varna being a Vedic concept that still exists. So it's safe to say Buddha was born a Sanātana Dharmi, a Hindu. It's undeniable that Buddhists distance themselves from Sanātana Dharma, colloquially called Hinduism. Hindus and Buddhists both claim the Buddha to be an avatar of Lord Vishnu in order to draw certain groups away from the misuse and misinterpretation of the Vedas; Hindus and Buddhists both deny the Buddha being an avatar of Lord Vishnu who appeared in order to draw certain groups away from the misuse and misinterpretation of the Vedas. Given that, it's word games, hair-splitting and semantics.

I see no difference between this and the Reformation, and the relationship between Protestantism and the Roman Catholic Church. Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic priest. He objected to the practices of the Roman Catholic Church of the time, and taught a different way, a way he thought to be better. The Roman Catholic Church of his time was not the same as it is today. Those practices have been abandoned. Much as the Vedic practices the Buddha railed against are no longer practiced. Yet the underlying basis is still there. I don't think that anyone can keep a straight face and say that Protestantism is not an off-shoot of the RCC, anymore than they can keep a straight face and say Buddhism is not an outgrowth, offshoot of Sanātana Dharma.