Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist Followers of Jesus: How Should We Respond?

Can you have genuine members of the Body of Christ who do not consider themselves “Christian” but do consider themselves Bible-believing followers of Jesus? Is it possible to have people who faithfully study the Bible in order to follow and obey Jesus but who also consider themselves to be Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews…culturally?

In this issue we will hear from a number of people who are following Jesus with biblical faith but who have chosen to remain within the cultural contexts of their birth. When they came to faith in Jesus, they did not leave the cultural heritage of their birth to join a “Christian” cultural community, contrary to what some expect they should do if they are genuinely saved. Instead, they have remained in their contexts to tell their family and friends about the Jesus who loves them, can answer their prayers and can save them from their sins. These people are part of what are called Jesus Movements.

This can all be very confusing and controversial to those who were born into “Christian” cultural contexts and who believe that there is little difference between their cultures and genuine biblical faith in Jesus. For some Christians, accepting Jesus means also accepting the cultural forms that accompanied the presentation of the gospel they received. It is also hard for many of us—expecially those in the West—to fathom how someone can remain a “Muslim” or “Hindu” and still faithfully follow Jesus from a solidly biblical foundation, not to mention growing in his or her relationship with Jesus.

The answer to this apparent contradiction in terms comes down to the distinction between genuine faith and the cultural/religious forms and practices that surround a person because of the family and community into which he was born. It is what is in the heart that counts, not what can be seen on the outside. The cultural/religious behavior on the outside may look alarmingly similar to those who have no faith in Jesus, thereby obscuring the heart transformation that Jesus has accomplished on the inside. The article on Syncretism on page 20 illustrates this point.

Each person who chooses to remain within the culture of his birth must be led by the Holy Spirit as he studies the Scriptures with others into choosing wisely which aspects of his culture contradict biblical teaching and must be left behind and which may be retained or given new biblical meaning. But this is the task that every believer faces each day, including those who come from “Christian” cultures. All of us as Jesus followers are called to discern what must be rejected from our surrounding culture, no matter where we are born. Even within a “Christian” culture, if we are truly faithful to follow Jesus, we will be seen as a peculiar people who will be “encouraged” to fit in with the surrounding culture or face persecution for our obedience to Jesus.

To be sure, these followers of Jesus confront unique challenges that make their lives more difficult. Even though outwardly remaining a Muslim, Hindu, etc., they often face persecution from those both inside and outside their culture who do not understand or accept the choice they have made to follow Jesus from within the culture of their birth.
No Easy Choices

Because of the long history of conflict and animosity between “Christian” communities and other competing cultural/religious communities in various places around the world, there are no easy answers for those who come to faith in Jesus from non-Christian cultural/religious backgrounds. If they leave to join a traditional Christian church, they are seen as traitors to their family, friends and community. At this point, simply following Jesus is not perceived as the problem so much as having joined a foreign, even hostile, community.

Upon joining a “Christian” cultural community, the new convert is often greeted with suspicion. “Is he a spy? Is his new faith genuine? Can we really trust him?” No matter how hard he tries, his behaviors don’t fully match the new culture he has joined, and to many he will never truly “be one of us.” The convert is often not trusted to marry into the families of the church. This is a very serious problem for anyone coming to faith in this way. It can be a very lonely existence for the new convert and a not-so-subtle warning to anyone else who would think of leaving the culture of his birth to follow Jesus
The Good News

While many may be uncomfortable with the idea of Muslim or Hindu followers of Jesus, and while there are legitimate concerns about whether the biblical faith of these people can survive in such hostile cultural contexts, one thing seems clear. We worship a risen Savior who is King of Kings, before whom the religious and cultural barriers of the world present no insurmountable obstacles. His Kingdom continues to break forth in places and in ways that defy our best efforts to control and quantify. (See Rebecca Lewis’ article starting on page 15.) God’s purposes within every tribe and tongue will not be thwarted by these man-made limitations nor by our inability to understand what He is doing. While God’s people have wrestled with the problem of how to bring Muslims, Hindus, etc. to faith in Jesus, God has been at work in unexpected ways to overcome these cultural barriers and introduce people to the Jesus of the Bible. We should all rejoice when the biblical Jesus is exalted and followed by people of any background and culture.

If these people remain faithful to Jesus, the potential for impacting the major blocs of unreached peoples with biblical faith is enormous. The gospel has the potential to move rapidly from person to person within these cultural contexts and to transform them from the inside. Donald McGavran taught about the potential of whole people movements where the gospel travels rapidly along the natural lines of family and community relationships. Over time the study of the Bible in search of the real Jesus could become an accepted practice within these cultures.

In many cases the message of Jesus is not the initial or primary obstacle to people coming to faith, but instead the foreign cultural connections of the messenger and the expectation that a Jesus follower must join a foreign cultural community. These kinds of obstacles can be reduced when the gospel is presented by someone within the culture, thereby making rapid growth possible.
How Should We as Outsiders Respond?

To say the least, the phenomenon of Bible-believing followers of Jesus identifying themselves as Muslims, Hindus, etc. has become a hot topic of discussion in mission circles and beyond. In some cases it has led to persecution of these Jesus followers by those in the Church who believe that this phenomenon is a corruption of the faith. Some have even appealed to governmental power to suppress such expressions of faith. As Rebecca Lewis explains in her article starting on page 21, this has been a common practice over the centuries by those trying to maintain what they feel is the “correct” expression of the faith. Tragically, it has led to the martyrdom of tens of thousands of people who were seeking to follow Jesus. In our day, such practices should not be tolerated by any follower of Jesus.

Whether we think that Jesus Movements are a good or bad thing, I hope that we can all agree that these people have the right to follow Jesus according to their conscience and should be free to do so without harassment by people who claim to know the better way to follow Jesus. It is their choice to make whether they stay within the culture of their birth or not, and we should respect their choice.

Jesus Movements are indigenous movements that need to be left to flourish on their own without the kind of outside influence or control that could rob them of their indigenous character and even endanger lives. The members of these movements need to be the ones in charge of the contacts they have with believers and ministries from other cultures. History has shown that even well-meaning endorsement of Jesus Movements can be dangerous. Mission organizations, no matter how well intentioned, need to allow Jesus Movements to take the lead and not try to claim ownership of or authority over these movements.

As followers of Jesus from different cultural backgrounds, we must be willing to allow God to establish biblical faith in other cultures in ways that looks very different from our own. One day, when we stand before the throne of God and worship Jesus along with people from every other tribe and tongue, I do not think we will worship God out of the uniformity of one “Christian” culture but out of the unique cultural expressions of every people. In this way God will be most glorified.

Funeral Rites of the Hindus and the Buddhists

As morbid as it sounds, but that life ends in death is inevitable; the question is how do we cope with such a loss?

By the way, a few days ago I came across a rather morbid web site called deathclock.com. The screen is done in dark colors and interspersed with silhouette of a church and tombstones. In the center it provides an input box where, if you want, you can type in your birth date and your gender (a bare minimum of information for such a vital calculation). You then click the OK button to see "your personal date of death" ticking away in seconds. The website sells these clocks, but I wonder who would buy them and for what purpose. I liked its logo, however, that says "… friendly reminder that life is slipping away... second by second."

My own experience with the loss of a loved one came when my sister died after a prolonged illness. Although I was 8 years old at the time of her death, I still remember the various events that followed her death. My sister was married, hence Nepali social customs relegated her widower to be responsible for funeral ceremonies.

Nepal (and in general most of the Southeast Asian countries) is a male-dominated society, and this trend reflects in funeral customs as well. For instance, if a husband dies leaving a widow behind, the person leading the funeral charge would be his eldest son. If the eldest son is unavailable for any reason, his next son will take over the duties. If deceased male has no son, the funeral responsibilities goes to his father even though the departed soul may have living daughters.

Funeral rituals in Nepal are steeped in religious tradition, with Hindu priests and Buddhist Lamas providing spiritual guidance to the dead on its ultimate journey to the eternal world. Elaborate rituals are needed to propitiate gods and deities so that the soul may be given unhindered passage to its next destination. Sometimes, especially in Buddhist funeral ceremony, the soul itself needs to be convinced that it no longer belongs to this mortal world, and that it now needs to get prepared to travel to the ethereal world. All these arcane and complex funeral ceremonies are performed with a single aim: to ensure that the departed soul doesn't get stranded in the netherworld for lack of proper guidance on way to heavenly destiny.

Immediately after my sister's death, Lama priests were notified. Soon the priests and their lay helpers began to file into the house bringing with them their ceremonial accoutrements. It was the beginning of a three-day vigil over the dead body in repose. This vigil is very important for the Buddhists who believe that upon death the soul leaves the earthly body immediately but hovers around it for three days and that sometimes within this timeframe the soul may decide to reunite with the body causing an instance of miraculous resurrection. And so, in such an ambiance of bereavement and eternal hope the Lamas and the family began their vigil, somewhat akin to the Christian wake.

For three days the priests chanted religious texts in unison, rang bells and beat drums and blew tuba-like instruments at various interval. They burned many oil lamps and incense in front of the makeshift Buddha image constructed next to the dead body. All family members were required to be present at certain times of the day for prayer services. All friends and neighbors were welcome to burn oil lamps, provide offerings, watch the ceremony, or pray with the Lamas any time.

Emotionally and financially, funeral is quite a taxing time for the family. The Lamas and their entourage must be housed and provided for. All required ceremonial supplies must be purchased, and where needed, leather-less shoes must be purchased for the male members of the family, for they are prohibited from wearing leather shoes for a year. Also all household members are required to refrain from eating salt for the three days. This prohibition comes off at the end of the third day when the Lamas distribute a specially anointed salt to the family. But on the positive side, such a somber ceremony conducted by robed Lamas with the exclusive purpose of conciliating the departed soul of the beloved family member surely acts as a soothing balm.

The Hindus, on the other hand, believe in the hastened departure of soul. They believe that once it sheds the body, the soul prepares to depart immediately on its karmic journey, and as such, it's very important to cremate the body as soon as practicable so as not to provide any allurement for the soul to linger on to this side of the world. Therefore, Hindu customs require the body to be taken to the holy grounds and cremated as soon as all the family members have had a chance to view it.

It could very well be that climate may have played some role in determining the duration of the wake. The Buddhists, inhabiting cooler mountainous regions, could afford longer wake period without the fear of putrefaction, whereas the Hindus, occupying plainer, humid and hot regions, couldn't. This is just a conjecture, though. (Recently, I was talking to a Hindu friend of mine. He told me that now-a-days in most large cities in India a family can rent space in an air-conditioned mortuary should they need to keep the body longer for some faraway family members to arrive.)

Customarily, Buddhists bury their dead, but in Nepal and elsewhere, partly because of lack of burial grounds and partly because of Hindu influence, they cremate their dead and share the same burning ghat with the Hindus. The dictionary defines a burning ghat as "a level space at the head of a ghat for cremation." A ghat is defined as "a broad flight of steps that is situated on a riverbank and that provides access to the water especially for bathing." This is only partially true. A ghat is a riverbank with or without steps, which are man-made.

riverHindu religion imposes certain criteria as to the ideality of death. For instance, death in a hospital or in a house is religiously undesirable. To assure quick salvation of the soul, the Hindus believe that one must seek to breath one's last lying on the bank of a sacred river (Hinduism considers any river a holy river) with a flurry of prayer emanating from his mouth. Growing up in Nepal, I have witnessed instances where a critically sick man, whose imminent death having been predicted by the attending priest, was hurriedly carried away from his home to a local riverbank for a death vigil. The irony was, just as death itself, the priest could only approximate - must less guarantee - the time of death. In some instances I have also witnessed situations where the predicted death didn't occur. Instead, the dying man got well enough to return to his home.

It is the ultimate wish of a Hindu to die and be cremated along a riverbank; the holier the river the better for the departed soul. Many Hindu holy shrines are built along famous riverbanks. Banaras, situated along the holy river Ganges, is the holiest of them all, considered so holy that every Hindu wishes to be anointed by the Ganges river's water at his death's door. Indeed, the desire to die on the bank of the Ganges river is so irrepressible that even today there are pious Hindus in India who make provisions to move to Baneras at an old age for the sole purpose of waiting to die on the bank.

At long last, my sister's three-day vigil ended. A long funeral procession of the chanting Lamas and male family members and friends accompanied my sister's body to the bank of river Baghmati. By prior arrangement, a pyre had already been built. As the Lamas read the last rites, the body was laid on the pyre. Then, as is customary, the first fire was lit by her husband, followed by other male family members, including myself. Soon fire consumed the woods and the cadaver, reducing both elements to a few ounces of ashes. The ashes were entrusted to the slow flowing river Baghmati to be carried away to the holy Ganges. The funeral rites having completed, the entire procession returned to my sister's home where a feast was prepared to say thank you and goodbye to the Lamas and their party as well as to all the family friends.

Once the feast is over and the guests depart one by one or en masse, and only when the core family members find themselves alone for the first time, does the real family mourning begin. It's also the time for the family to discuss the final funeral ceremony that must be held within a year.

The Hindus follow the same regiment in the disposal of the body. As the Brahmins chant funereal hymns, the living male member of the deceased family sets the first fire to the pyre. Unlike the Buddhists, who prefer immediate dispersal of the ashes over the river, the Hindus collect them in an urn for disposal in a special year-end ceremony. After cremation, family members return to their homes to begin an eleven-day mourning period during which the immediate family's diet get severely restricted. For instance, they're prohibited from eating salt, certain vegetables, and meat. They are also required to wear white-colored clothes only, and they must set aside anything made out of leather, such as watch band, belt, shoes, etc.

imageOn the 10th day, the Hindu priests set up an elaborate ceremony where various gods and goddesses are invoked and worshipped in the name of the deceased, a great variety of foods are prepared and offered to the departed soul, and all family members participate in the worship and offering. On the 11th day, the priests perform the right of absolution freeing everyone from all the restrictions; henceforth, family members are free to return to their normal lives.

For the Buddhists, while the Lama priests set the family free of the dietary and sartorial restrictions at the end of the third day, it's time now to plan for the final funeral ceremony as early as can be arranged but certainly within a year. It's up to the family to decide the duration of such a ceremony that could last anywhere from a single day, abbreviated affair to a month long, elaborated one, or somewhere in-between.

In my sister's case, it was decided that the final ceremony would be of a 3-day duration. Once again, Lamas and their helpers were invited and provisions were made. While the family worked hard to accommodate the priestly party, the Lamas chanted passages from the voluminous religious books. Hundreds of oil lamps lighted the Buddha image and sweet fragrance from the burning incense wafted throughout the house. The periodic bell ringing and the rhythmic drum beating coalesced with the low-pitched sound of the tuba-like horn instruments to create an eerie ambiance, at least in the mind of an 8-year old.

The Lamas were chanting instructions to my sister's soul, providing it the proper road map for the eternal journey. The Buddhists believe such instructions are essential for the soul to make a successful journey to its final resting place. Sans such help, the soul will get caught in a limbo, which is a bad omen for the family.

According to Buddhist tradition, the last day of the ceremony is the day when the soul, until now still living in the house, departs on its journey to eternity with the guidance of the Lama priests. Because of its symbolic meaning, this day culminates in the saddest of the mourning days. All members of the family are required to attend this last ceremony.

My sister's final funeral day began with a light task for the Lamas. For the past few days they've been reading the scriptures from early morning to late dawn, but this morning they'd pray in silence and prepare a small paper flag with my sister's name written on it, and at mid-day they'd perform the final rites.

The final ceremony began as the priests placed the paper flag in the center of the 108 unlit oil lamps. Then they began to chant the last scriptural readings for a few hours. At the end of the reading all the family members were invited to light the oil lamps that surrounded the paper flag. Then the head Lama lifted the paper flag. As the ringing bells and beating drums reached a crescendo, he lighted the flag with the flame of the largest of the oil lamps. Family members wept and sobbed. The flag burned into ashes. This was the final goodbye. The soul has departed from this world.

The funeral ceremony, the Buddhists believe, guarantees eternal peace to the departed soul, while the final flag-burning as part of the ceremony, guarantees purification of the house by formally letting go of the spirit both emotionally and spiritually.

The Hindus, on the other hand, wait for a full year to complete their funeral rites. At the one-year anniversary, they offer foods and prayers to the dead through Brahmin priests and arrange for the disposal of the ashes. A single day is all that it takes for the priests to complete the prayer and offering, but the question of what to do with the ashes requires a balance between family wish and financial affordability. Ideally, ashes should be scattered in or around holy rivers and places. The Hindus consider the Himalayas as the holiest of all the places on earth, for it has been the source of the holy Ganges and many other lesser known but no less holy rivers, as well as the abode of many gods and goddesses. The former Indian premier Indira Gandhi's ashes were scattered over the Himalayas. The majority, however, can't afford the expense of such a luxurious sendoff.

Those who can afford, travel to Baneras, or any other holy places in India, and scatter the ashes in the holy rivers. Those who can't afford, dispose of the ashes in a nearby local river.

Hinduism & Buddhism in Nepal

In the earlier article, I mentioned that the Aryans of ancient Nepalworshipped gods of nature. However, during the late Vedic period (between 800 and 600 BC), these gods of nature became less important and there was a shift from the Aryan fire sacrifices to a personal devotion to a particular deity. There was also a gradual shift from the emphasis on ritual alone to a personal relationship between god and the devotee. No longer were the Vedic sacrifices the way to escape *karma; to gain a better next life. People were now encouraged to perform good deeds and the way to salvation was through bhakti (devotion). This was the beginning of the development of Hinduism. In addition, Hindu salvation was accessible to the peasant masses not just the Brahmin elite.

The Hindus began to believe in the concept of a trinity of gods: Brahma as the creator, Vishnu as the Preserver and Shiva as the destroyer. Vishnu and Shiva gained a mass popular following as Vishnu was the divine saviour of mankind and Shiva was Hinduism's reconciliation of extremes; the ascetic yogi and fertility god; the creator of life and the dark destroyer etc.

Buddhism however, developed much later in India, around 563 BC and was founded by a Hindu prince named Gautama Buddha. He left his luxurious life and became a wandering *ascetic, discussing with Brahmans and ascetics. He felt that asceticism was not the path of salvation but instead, saw mediation as the means of salvation. He taught a way of life that was not comprised of self-indulgence and self-mortification. His teachings became known as Buddhism and were well received by the people.

Buddhism helped clean up Hinduism of its rituals and sacrifices, which had become too complex, riddled with rituals and the dominance of the priests. It also helped Nepal establish links with foreign countries; many travelled overseas or came to India due to Buddhism. It helped raise Indian morality and encouraged the spirit of pacifism and also promoted social equality, since people from all social classes were allowed to follow the teachings of Buddha.

Today, Hinduism and Buddhism are still practiced in all parts of the world by many people all over the world. Buddhism, for instance, is the religion of about one eighth of the world's people and can be found in countries like India, China and Singapore. Hinduism, too, is practiced by many people, mainly the Indians who dwell in all corners of the globe. So, why is there a need for a religion? Does having a religion help one gain inner peace and ensure that one would be blessed throughout one's life and even in the next? What are other religions that one knows about? How are they similar or different?

*Karma - (in the Buddhist and Hindu religions) the force produced by a person's actions in one of their lives which influences what happen to them in their future lives

*Ascetic - a person who avoids physical pleasures and live a simple life, often for religious reason

Buddhism vs. Hinduism

Both Buddhism and Hinduism are well known religions. They are two of the most popular polytheistic faiths in the world. Some people believe them to be sects of the same religion, but they are mistaken. Buddhism and Hinduism have some similarities, but many things set them apart from each other as well. They are each their own religion in many aspects.

Buddhism and Hinduism come from the same region, India. Both of them are very focused on nature, the things around them, though they both believe in several hells and heavens, or higher and lower worlds. They both believe in karma which is the affect a person’s actions in this life will change his next life. Another point is that both religions focus on peace, and non violence towards all living things. They are compassionate, which ties into their focus on nature. Buddhism and Hinduism also believe in various spiritual practices such as meditation, concentration, and states of mind. Desire is the largest cause of suffering in both of the faiths. Another likeness is they both believe in reincarnation, and salvation. They believe the good deeds of a person are their work for salvation and their salvation will decide their next life, when they are reincarnated. Also, they both believe that there are many paths to enlightenment, such as overcoming your feelings and controlling over the six senses. Both religions are more philosophical then religious. Buddhists and Hindus both practice many forms of yoga and meditation and other ways to calm ones mind and focus the mind, such as Buddha did. They have many likenesses.

Hinduism and Buddhism are both their own religions and cultures. They are different in many ways that define who they are and what their faith is. Hinduism was not founded by any sort of prophet, whereas Buddhism was founded by Buddha. Hindus believe in the Vedas, but the Buddhists do not believe in the Vedas or any other Hindu holy book. Buddhists do not believe in the existence of souls, or the Christian God. Hindus believe in Atman, who is the individual soul, and Brahman, the creator of all. The people of the Hindu religion believe the Buddha to be a reincarnation of one of their gods of the Hindu Trinity but the Buddhists do not believe in any Hindu god as equivalent better than Buddha. Hindus believe in the four stages of life, but the Buddha do not share that believe. Whereas the Buddhists believe in the concept of Bodhisattvas, or the enlightened existence, but the Hindus do not. Buddhists must believe that the Buddha, Sangha, and Dhamma are the three most important requirements on the eightfold path, or the principal teachings of the Buddha. Hinduism has many different paths of self realization. Both religions believe in karma and reincarnation, but their terms and conditions vary, different in as many ways as they are similar. Buddhists have no priests or rituals like the Hindus do. Also, in the Buddhist religion, any follower than achieve Nirvana, but in the Hindu religion, only the Brahmins, or priests, could achieve moksha, the Hindu equivalent of Nirvana. Another large difference is that Buddhists do not believe in the Caste System, a main factor in Hinduism. This is one of their largest differences. Hinduism does not know their original creator, unlike most other religions; they’ve lost any information about their founder over the many years, whereas the Buddhists know their creator, Buddha. Buddhism is a much younger religion than Hinduism. The two religions are very much different.

Both religions came from the same soil, in what is now known as India. They share a rather odd and uncomfortable relationship, being in the same area and having some strong differences, but strong similarities as well. Many people believe that Buddhism became popular in India because it freed people from the oppression of tradition. Buddha’s teachings gave the Indians hope and aspiration which Hinduism did not offer them at the time. Even people today claim Buddhism was a sect of Hinduism. This belief is not acceptable by the Buddhists who said Buddha was the first to experience Nirvana and shared the experience with others and taught them the eight fold path, showing them a way to experience it was well, firing up the religion and causing its growth and popularity. As in most religious disagreements there were times of executions of Buddhists by Hindu rulers. Although despite their many disagreements and battles, the two religions did indeed influence each other in many ways. After all, the founder of Buddhism, Buddha, was born and raised a Hindu himself. It would be rare for the two religions not to share any likenesses.

Buddhists and Hindus share many similarities. They also have a fair share of differences. There have been times of persecution and execution, and time of peace and understanding between the two cultures. They share a history with each other, which is to be expected since they blossomed from the same region of Asia. The two religions are definitely two separate beliefs.

Buddhism & Hinduism Compared

Ways in which Buddhism differs from Hinduism:

1) No need for priests (brahmins) or rituals.

2) Anyone can enter Nirvana, no matter how lowly, whereas in Hinduism only the brahmins could achieve moksha.

3) In Theravada Buddhism, there are no gods. The Buddha is not a god.

4) Karma is not earned by following the dharma of your caste. Instead you can move toward entry into Nirvana by following the eightfold path.

5) As the "middle way" Buddhism rejects extreme asceticism as well as great wealth. The ideal in Hinduism is extreme asceticism.

Ways in which Buddhism and Hinduism are similar:

1) Both believe in reincarnation.

2) Both believe there are many different paths to enlightenment.

3) Both believe that our suffering is caused by excessive attachment to things and people in the physical world.

4) Both believe in an ultimate spiritual reality beyond the illusions of the physical world.

5) Both practice meditation and other forms of yoga.
6) Both believe that eventually all living spirits will achieve enlightenment and liberation, even if it takes many incarnations.Remember that in Mahayana Buddhism, the original teachings of the Buddha are assimilated to Hindu practices, including prayers, gods (even the Buddha as god in all his many incarnations). Mahayana Buddhism also introduces the idea of (temporary) heavens and hells.

Do Buddhists Believe in God?

why is it... The Buddha never talked about the One God of the desert, the Judeo-Christian God? Does this mean that all Buddhists are atheists and don’t believe in God? Did the Buddha believe in God?

These are some of the questions I would like to try and answer today.

The Buddha was born 500 years before Christ, in what is now Nepal. His dad was a king, his mom was a queen, and his dad wanted him to take over the family business (the kingdom) when he got older.

The kind of world the Buddha was born into was magical. Everything seemed to be alive. The trees, mountains, lakes, and sky were living and breathing with a variety of gods in charge. If you needed rain you asked one god, if you needed it to stop raining you asked another. The priests of India did all the religious work, and got paid for it.

In India at the time of the Buddha you became a priest if you were born into the right family, and not because of the school you went to, or the grades you got.

There were other kinds of religious people as well.

Mendicants were men who left their family, friends, and jobs to find the answers to life. They did not live in homes or apartments, but lived under trees and in caves, and would practice meditation all day long. They wanted to really be uncomfortable, so they could understand what suffering was all about.

Many kinds of meditation were practiced by these mendicants. In Tranquility Meditation for instance, you think about just one thing, like looking at a candle or saying a word over and over. When the mind becomes focused in oneness, you experience a great peacefulness.

Even if the mendicants were sitting in the rain on a cold day, they were still content. They found in their meditation practice the essence of happiness.

Renunciation is when you give up all the things that make your life pleasant. Sometimes the people with money and power in India would buy a lot of stuff to make themselves happy and their lives more comfortable, thinking that happiness and comfort depended on what they owned.

When the mendicants could see their own suffering clearly, after many years of renunciation, they understood that happiness was not dependent on the things they owned, but the kind of life they lived.

Even all the gods in India could not end the suffering of one human being.

At the age of 29, the Buddha stopped praying to the gods to end his suffering and the suffering of others. He left his family and friends, went to the edge of the forest, took off all his clothes and jewelry, covered his naked body with rags of cloth, cut off his hair and started to meditate.

He became a mendicant, and It took him six years of hard work and much suffering, but in the end he was able to stop his suffering forever (Nirvana) and help others stop their suffering as well.

Did the Buddha believe in God, the One God of the desert, the God of the Christians, Jews and Muslims?

Well... No... He didn't... Monotheism (only one God) was a foreign concept to the Buddha, his world was filled with many gods. The creator god Brahma being the most important one.

At the time of the Buddha, the only people practicing the religion of the One God of the desert, were the Jews. Remember, it was still 500 years before Christ came into the world.

The Buddha never left India. The Buddha walked from village to village... In his entire lifetime he never went any further than 200 miles from his birthplace.

The Buddha never met a Jew... And because of this, he never said anything about the One God of the desert.

There is also nothing in the teachings of the Buddha that suggest how to find God or worship the god's of India, although the Buddha himself was a theist (believed in gods), his teachings are non-theistic.

The Buddha was more concerned with the human condition: Birth, Sickness, Old age, and Death. The Buddhist path is about coming to a place of acceptance with these painful aspects of life, and not suffering through them.

Please be clear on this point... The Buddha is not thought of as a god in Buddhism and is not prayed to. He is looked up to and respected as a great teacher, in the same way we respect Abraham Lincoln as a great president.

He was a human being who found his perfection in Nirvana. Because of his Nirvana, the Buddha was perfectly moral, perfectly ethical, and ended his suffering forever.

Does that mean that every Buddhist in the world is an atheist?

No!!! I have met a lot of Buddhists who believe in God. I have met a lot of Buddhists who don’t believe in God... And a lot of Buddhists just don’t know.

All three points of view are OK if you’re Buddhist because suffering is more important than God in Buddhism.

Sometimes a student will ask me how everything in this world got started... "If you don’t have God in Buddhism then who or what caused the universe?"

When the Buddha was asked how the world started, he kept silent. In the religion of Buddhism we don’t have a first cause, instead we have a never ending circle of birth and death. In this world and in all worlds, there are many beginnings and ends. The model of life used in Buddhism has no starting place... It just keeps going and going.

Now having said that... If you’re a Buddhist it’s OK to believe God was the first cause... It really doesn't go against the teachings of the Buddha, his focus was on suffering... It's also OK to believe science has the answer… Like the big bang theory, etc... Some Buddhist’s don’t even care how it all started, and that’s fine too. Knowing how the world started is not going to end your suffering, it’s just going to give you more stuff to think about.

I hope you can see that God is not what Buddhism is about... Suffering is... And if you want to believe in God, as some Buddhists do, I suppose it's OK. But, Buddhist's don't believe God can end suffering. Only the teaching's of the Buddha can help us end suffering through wisdom and the activity of compassion.

In his whole life and in all his teachings the Buddha never said anything about the One God of the desert.
   

    

Basics of Buddhism

Basics of Buddhism

Generally Buddhism does not believe in a personal God or a divine being, it does not have worship, praying to, or praising of a divine being (although some sects do.) It offers no form of redemption, forgiveness, no heavenly hope, or a final judgment to those practicing its system. Buddhism is a moral philosophy, an ethical way to live for the here and now of this world to gain the ultimate state. It has more in common with humanism and atheism than its original religion Hinduism it separated from. But Buddhism is not atheism just because they don’t believe in a personal God. It is more like pantheism, there is a impersonal force the void which is the ultimate.

There are 327 million Buddhists worldwide (313,114,000 in Asia) here in Hawaii the major Japanese, Korean population are Some type of Buddhist. There are numerous offshoots but their are two major branches. For us to understand and use the gospel to penetrate this religion we need to know what they teach about the Buddha and use the stories as possibly bridges to reach them. In my opinion of all religions this is one of the hardest to reach and understand, since Buddhism can be cultural, it is a lifestyle of many generations as well as a spiritual practice.

For centuries, Buddhism has been the dominant religion of the Eastern world and still remains the predominant religion in China, Japan, Korea, as well as southeast Asia. In Japan alone there are approximately 200 sects. This makes it difficult to address this religion as a whole since it can be so diversified.

Buddhism has made a tremendous impact in the United States with a growing Asian population in the U.S, thousands of Americans have been attracted to Buddhism making it their religion. There are now over one thousand Buddhist temples, monasteries, and centers in the United States.

Sangha which means the order or brotherhood (community)  who are monks.  Each member of the Sangha must wear a yellow robe, shave their head and  practice meditation. They are to affirm the three refuges (triple gems):  take refuge in Buddha who became enlightened when he discovered the true reality.  The Dharma which are the laws the adhere to on the path to eliminate their suffering. These consist of the laws of the world and the teachings of Buddha. From a Christian point of view the laws of this world would be subject to the present condition of things which is fallen. And Sangha which is the community as a whole striving for the qualities of the Buddha. There are to adhere to over 225 regulations which forbid them to do many things.

There are many noble and humanitarian teachings found in Buddhism that elicit compassion and understanding for their fellow man. But these cannot be seen as a means to the end itself. The concern many have is that some Christians seem to think there is little difference in Buddhism to Christianity.  There is a harmonizing of its practices incorporating its teachings into the Church. Some even have them speak inside their churches.

Comparing Buddha with Jesus

It is said Siddhartha became the Awakened one, so Jesus became the Anointed one is a common misconception. Christ was the anointed one from eternity while the Siddhartha became the Buddha by searching and self discovery became illuminated. Anointing and enlightenment are two very different concepts.

Buddha came at a time when the people were tired of Hindu sects, castes and teachings. Buddha discovers a new way and he discards some teachings and upholds others. Christ came when the people were oppressed by religious leaders also but they did not know the truth nor were they asking for deliverance spiritually. Jesus only explained what they already had in the Scriptures giving the correct interpretations and fulfilling the prophecies.

Buddha died at the old age of  80 years old by eating rotten food,  his life was lived without exaggerations of either luxury or asceticism. Jesus ate fish, meat and did not have people give up their possessions unless it interfered with their relationship with God. He died at 33 years old, sentenced to death like a criminal, tortured and executed for something he did not do. Not much similarity here.

Claims are there are similarities to relics (statues, icons ) in both Buddhism and Christianity. But this is only found in the Catholic Church side. The Bible specifically addresses this as wrong and calls the usage of these as idolatrous. Throughout the Scripture this is specifically addressed as an affront to God.
Isa. 45:20-22:  "Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, you who have escaped from the nations. They have no knowledge, who carry the wood of their carved image, and pray to a god that cannot save. Tell and bring forth your case; yes, let them take counsel together. Who has declared this from ancient time? Who has told it from that time? Have not I, the LORD? And there is no other God besides Me, a just God and a Savior; there is none besides Me.   "Look to Me, and be saved, all you ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other."

Buddha was passive in his outlook of humanity.  He was engaged in self discovery to change himself. Which can be good if one comes to the conclusion that the answers are not found within us, and looks toward the creator of all mankind.

Christ did not have to search for wisdom since he was the wisdom and power of God before and during his coming to earth. He came from heaven as a servant to mankind. He grew in understanding in his humanity only, but even at an early age he was aware of his purpose and who he actually was.

Buddha needed to make sense of the world and its suffering for himself. He was in turmoil in his soul seeing the condition of life being unfavorable for so many. So he searched for enlightenment to have answers for the dilemma he saw in the world.

Christ exhibited love which is active, it participates in others lives. He did not tolerate falsehood or have the same reaction for one being sad or happy. He taught objective truth, the true reality of life is that it is real and there are consequences here and now as well as afterward.

Thereavada says Buddha did not claim to have a special relationship with God. The fact that Buddha did not consider the existence of God to be important shows that he is not in any way related to biblical prophets or Jesus. Buddha said it doesn’t matter whether you believe in him or not. Buddha claimed to point to the right way to escape suffering and attain enlightenment. Contrary to this, Jesus claimed to be the way. Christianity teaches there was only one incarnation of God and he came to relieve the source of all suffering sin.

Although the Buddha did not deny the existence of gods, he taught that the worship of gods obstructed one's quest for nirvana. To him the gods inhabit the cosmos and are impermanent like all other living beings. There is no God as an eternal deity. Gautama, the founder of Buddhism, did not claim to be divine. He claimed to be the one to point the way to Nirvana. an ultimate state in the afterlife, but it was up to each individual to find his own way there. Each has their own path to walk on to discovery.

Dr. John Noss states, "... there is only the ultimate impersonal unity of being itself, whose peace enfolds the individual self when it ceases to call itself  " I " and dissolves in the featureless purity of Nirvana, as a drop of spray is merged in its mother sea."( Noss, p.183.)

They look to this ultimate elimination of self  as their identity merges into the great unity. But the goal on earth is to eliminate whatever is possible now." Regard the world as void" (Suttanipata, 119).   "So one who is convinced of the emptiness of everything has no likes or dislikes.  For he knows that that which he might like is just empty, and sees it  just empty" (Sik-shasamuccaya, 264).                         

The concept of a personal God does not fit into the Buddhist system of religion. Today there are many sects of Buddhism. Many differ in their concept of the divine and of Buddha. In general, if a Buddhist believes in God he holds to a pantheistic view. Many view God as an impersonal force which is made up of all living things and holds the universe together. This is the same as the Hindu concept of Pantheism that the force is united with all living and non living thing in creation.

The late Dr. Suzuki is considered one of the greatest teachers of Zen Buddhism, said about his concept of God: "If God after making the world puts Himself outside it, He is no longer God. If He separates Himself from the world or wants to separate Himself, He is not God. The world is not the world when it is separated from God. God must be in the world and the world in God." ( D. T. Suzuki, The Field of Zen  p. 16.)

Dr. John Noss explains, "there is no sovereign Person in the heavens holding all together in unity."( Noss,  p. 183.)

Since Buddhism generally does not believe in a personal God or a divine being, it does not have worship, praying, or praising of a divine being. Although these are practiced without any reference to God. It offers no form of redemption, forgiveness, heavenly hope, or final judgment. Buddhism is, more of a moral philosophy, an ethical way of life that can have improvement on ones state.

Professor Kraemer describes the Buddhist system as "a non-theistic ethical discipline, a system of self training, anthropocentric, stressing ethics and mind-culture to the exclusion of theology."( Taylor & Offner, p. 177.)

Christianity teaches                    Buddhism teaches
Heaven is a reality                Nirvana is the ultimate state =  nothingness
personal eternal life     Extinction of the self
Savior is the person of Christ     Savior is ones self and ones works
There is a literal hell of suffering     There is no hell in the biblical sense of permanency
the one God is tri-une   
Father
Son   (Jesus)
and Holy Spirit
    the triple gem 
1)the Buddha = teacher  
2) the dharma = truth      
3) the sangaya = light
God is a personal being     Impersonal force, no God
Moral absolutes     No moral absolutes
World is real for us     World is an illusion
Sin is the problem     ignorance is the problem
Desires needs redirection     Desire needs to be eliminated
 Jesus = God is salvation       Emmanuel = God with us         Christ = the anointed one     Siddhartha means" he who has accomplished his objectives."   Buddha =  the Enlightened One

Buddha did not claim to have a special relationship with God in fact Buddha did not consider the existence of God to be important. Buddha claimed to point to the right way to escape suffering and attain enlightenment. Contrary Jesus claimed to be the way. Christianity teaches there was only one incarnation of God. While anyone can make a belief system, it is another thing to prove it. In this Buddha and those who followed after failed and Jesus succeeded.

Christ is not a spiritual master as they claim Buddha is, Christ is his creator. If one only looks at Jesus as a human being he exemplifies the highest ideal in man, he has all the qualities Buddha taught about and sought after, but Christ is more than just a man he is our and the Buddhists creator.

Most Buddhists believe their are many ways to God. The emphasis is based on the path that we must work on by our own effort. That's not good news. The difference between Buddhism and Christianity is that its been done, while in Buddhism they are still trying to accomplish it. One is by our own efforts the other was obtained by the perfect man.

Christ clearly offers salvation to His followers. Buddhism does not. It is said that Gautama's last words before his death were: "Buddha's do but point the way, work out your salvation with diligence."
Theravada teaches that each man is responsible for their own this is reached by ones self-effort; "Be lamps unto yourselves.  Be a refuge unto yourselves.  Do not turn to any external refuge.... Work out your own salvation with diligence" (Mahaparinibbana-sutta 2.33; 6:10; from the Pali Canon) 

The exclusiveness of Christ's claims through the concept of reconciliation. Restoring a relationship that is broken. Lets say you broke your relationship someone you care about, how many ways are there to restore it, only one. By confessing our fault  and asking forgiveness.

The WAY

It is best to live a moral life. Self discipline has value. Many religions offer this for the seeker. Meditation and prayer are important, compassion, virtue are all common qualities we should develop. It is how we achieve it that needs to be understood.

The goal of each Buddhist is the attainment of the state of nirvana.   This word means to extinguish or to blow out of existence. Like a candle in the wind, just like the song. This is the ultimate state where one enters nirvana with the extinguishing of the ego. Their life merges in the sea like a drop of water. Nirvana is very different from the Christian concept of heaven. Christianity teaches that ones personality continues but is perfected by Gods grace, not by anything we can accomplish. Gautama's original teaching was that nirvana is not union with God or heaven, his system has no place for deity or ones personal self, but rather is a state of being. What exactly this is, Buddha never really articulated. Today it is known as nothingness this is not annihilation but means a release from suffering, desire, and the finite state of self. The Absolute is completely impersonal, and salvation is attained solely by self-effort.

The Buddha taught, "I had no notion of a self, or of a being, or of a soul, or of a person, nor had I any notion or non-notion." (Vairacchedika, 14).

Personal peace will be found when we abide in that which is permanent. As christians we believe to abide in God is the only permanence to be found as he offers eternal life with him in a place as real as earth, heaven.

Reincarnation is offered as the process to give one enough time to develop the qualities and practices to enter nirvana. Buddhists hope to enter into the state of Nirvana, but there is no clear, objective proof or teaching on what occurs beyond the grave. Even Buddha himself was not certain what lay beyond death. He left no absolute teaching on the afterlife only philosophical speculations which can still be debated today.  The body of Buddha lies in a grave in at the bottom of the Himalayan Mountains. The facts of life after death still are an unsolved mystery in Buddhism. Buddhism offers neither assurance of forgiveness or eternal life. In contrast Christ spoke emphatically and absolutely about an afterlife, something every religion had sought to have answers for. It would be best to listen to the one who conquered death and lives eternally than continue to speculate on it. That is what we hope Buddhists will do.