In Wisdom and in Passion
Comparing and Contrasting Buddha and Christ

from the Introduction

In this work I wish to both compare and contrast two great religious figures, those after whom religions were founded. It is not my belief that such was the intention of either, yet so radical was each within their own religious tradition that their followers soon developed new faiths which became named after them. Both clearly have had a profound effect on the world.

From each we can learn much, with their different approaches representing the creative tension of opposites. I believe that in both their oppositions and commonalities, there is much needed wisdom to be mined for a modern age.

At this point some self-disclosure is in order. I come to the task as a Christian, indeed a minister, now retired, within the Uniting Church in Australia, though there are many Christians for whom my views would be viewed as unorthodox, indeed even anathema.

Having so declared, I have sought to give even-handed treatment to the comparison of the figures before me. I cannot, of course, speak as a Buddhist, so I am unable to know that faith in the deep internal or existential manner that an adherent of any religion knows their faith. On the other hand, I am aware of how a confessional believer can so easily misunderstand their own faith, given both their acculturation within their tradition and their self-interest in preserving or perpetrating it. This can often result in a blinkered approach, which may limit the ability to see the radical insights one’s own faith founder is presenting, never mind appreciate the insights of another. For me, this danger of course arises from a commitment to Christian faith. I would hazard a guess that like dangers lurk for those committed to Buddhism.

Further to this preface, I must say that I have no intention to cause offence to those of the “other” faith. If there be mistakes of understanding or interpretation concerning Buddhism, these I regret, and I would ask for response given that this may be but one statement in a needed ongoing dialogue. As for my understanding of Christianity, though it differs from many others, I am more than prepared to stand my ground.

Before we begin our task we need recognize we can only deal with the accounts of Buddha and Christ as they come to us, framed through the eyes of their followers’ faith. We can never get at the actual historical reality of either. We have, however, virtually no other writings contemporary with either figure and so are greatly reliant on seeing them through these lenses.

Scholars attempt to see back to the actual figures, behind the faith commitment, by trying to get rid of the lens, but this is no easy task and is always filled with conjecture. Whenever we try to do such, we are faced with two essential questions: Is such insight possible, and when we seek such insight, how influenced are we by our own commitments and biases in our search and what we find? We can conclude, despite the best scholarly efforts, that we can never get at the actual historical reality of either. We do not have histories but rather faith accounts of each figure.

A faith lens is evident even in the honorific titles they acquire—Buddha and Christ—these faith titles, given by their followers, intensely colouring the accounts they give to us.

Buddha means “enlightened being,” clearly a title of belief, while Christ is the Greek form of the Hebrew Messiah, best understood as “the anointed one, come to bring God’s reign,’ being likewise a title of faith.

To speak of the supposed actual historical figures, we ought use their names, Siddhattha Gotama (I have chosen to use the earlier form of name in the Pali rather than the Sanskrit form when speaking of the actual life of the one to become Buddha), and Jesus, the one to become Christ.

When I use their original given names I am doing so when speaking of both Gotama and Jesus in their “historical” manifestations, though in reality, as said, they always come to us through accounts colored by their author’s faith. In the supposed “historical” narratives given of each, they are both already understood to be far more than mere historical actors, the “history” given being profoundly colored by faith,

The earliest account we have of Jesus’ life is contained in the Gospel of Mark, written some forty years after his life. Given that in Paul’s letters, composed just twenty-five years after Jesus’ life, we already have a Christ of faith as distinct from the Jesus of history, in whom Paul seems to have little interest save his death and resurrection; clearly Mark’s composition is not an attempt at historical biography as we know it, but rather a hagiography intended to bring the reader to faith. The impossibility of accessing the historical life of Gotama, as distinct from the Buddha of faith, is even more difficult, as the earliest Buddhist texts come from much later, at least three hundred to four hundred years after his life.

Before these earliest accounts there were oral traditions, but for obvious reasons these are not before us, and any statements as to what these were is speculation, even if it be scholarly speculation.

Of both figures I have taken the practice of referring to them by their given names when speaking of each before that event understood to be central to their lives, enlightenment for the one who would come to be known as Buddha and death and resurrection for he who would become recognised as Christ. This presents some difficulties, for the event which leads to Gotama being understood as Buddha occurs at a point in his life prior to most of it, before he commences his mission. For Jesus, however, that understood by his followers as causing him to be identified as Christ comes at the very end of his life, or more accurately after it, in his resurrection, that clearly being after his teaching. Gotama teaches as Buddha, his elevation already having been achieved, while Jesus teaches as Jesus, elevation to being Christ coming later. This is in no way to suggest that Jesus’ teachings are in any manner to be seen to be inferior to those of Buddha. It is merely an indication of when each transformative experience, in the eyes of their followers, took place.

Most of the information, as distinct from analysis, I will give concerning these figures and the faiths which spring from them will be around Buddha and Buddhism. The reason for this is because I assume most readers will be more familiar with the Jesus story and the development of Christianity, though as said, this familiarity creates its own problems. In the West we are so acculturated in the Christian story that we are often unable to see it for what it really is. We have been taught to understand it, even subconsciously in a certain manner, and so taught, can easily miss both its actuality and profundity, often through domesticating it.

Last, as with my use of the earlier name for the one to become Buddha—Gotama, rather than Gautama—I will generally use the earlier Pali word in speaking of aspects of Buddhism, except when specifically referring to Mahayana.

With this in mind we commence our journey.

Get this book

About the Author
John Queripel, a Uniting Church in Australia minister, has worked in a range of contexts. He has always had a concern for speaking and living faith in authentic dialogue with scholarship and the modern context. He has authored Bonhoeffer: Prophet and Martyr, On the Third Day: Re-looking at the Resurrection, and Christmas: Myth, Magic and Legend. He chaired the NSW Uniting Church Relationships with Other Faiths Committee, and the NSW Council for Christians and Jews.