Talk:Buddhism and Christianity/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Buddhism and Christianity. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Phantom tags

Hi, how do you clean up phantom tags?--Shravak 20:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Size of the quote table

Would it be okay if the table used normal sized font? It's a tad hard to read as it is and increasing the font size doesn't make the page too much longer. Koweja 18:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms Section

To me this article comes across as biased towards making out Christianity borrowed most of its ideas from Budhism, should there be a section summing up the arguments against this and pointing out the differences between the two religions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.247.29 (talk • contribs)

It is considered preferable to make each section of an article NPOV rather than adding a Criticism section to a POV article. So everywhere the article says Christianity borrowed from Buddhism, it is appropriate to demand reliable and verifiable sources, even if they are scholarly books buried in theological libraries rather than pop religion sites. This groung has been trod by scholars for many generations. Thre is no excuse for making any historical claim without providing scholarly references which cite archeological finds and ancient writings. Edison 15:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the more recent version is far more biased in that it glosses over (and often completely ignores) the parallels of Buddhism and Christianity, not to mention Buddhisms influence over Christianity.

True, the original version did seem to have a slight biased tone, but that does not undermine the actual facts presented, which were (as far as I could tell) fairly accurate.

In the criticism section there is a statement: "They ignore, for instance, the utter lack of atheist themes in Jesus' teachings. Were he truly schooled by Buddhists, there would likely be at least some indication of an awareness of atheism of the Buddhist type in Jesus' sayings. Furthermore, atheism and the associated Buddhist sensibilities would no doubt have been found by Jesus to be both incomprehensible and repellent." I think it would be wise for this section to differentiate between quotes from critical sources and NPoV statements of Wikipedia within the section as this strikes me as a strongly biased position; it not being the place of Wikipedia to comment on what Jesus, should he have existed, would or would not have thought on a subject. Furthermore I'd question the validity of the argument since the "athiest" teachings of buddhism vary heavily from location to location as Buddhism is particulary open to Syncretism as it spreads. For examples of syncretism within Buddhist practice one can look at the effect of Taoism on the development of Ch'an buddhism, the adoption of the goddess of mercy, Guanyin, as a boddhisatva (which certainly runs contrary to "athiestic" ideals of original buddhist doctrine), and the adoption and adaptation of Japanese shamanic (proto-shinto) rituals by early Buddhist missionaries in Japan. Simonm223 (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

This article should have been deleted!

Previously, two identical articles to this were created under an almost identical names, then got put up for deletion and eventually deleted (Click Here) Probably the same person has created this article under a subtly different name (by adding an underscore in the title) in order to follow their agenda of trying to create an article promoting their theory that Christianity was copied from Buddhism. In doing this they are not only abusing Wikipedia's good reputation by using it to look like a credible source not only supports their view but presents it as undisputable fact (so they can go posting on forums etc, ‘look, even Wikipedia, famous for its neutrality, supports everything I say…’) as well as completely disregarding Wikipedia's deletion policy by recreating the article after it repeatedly gets deleted. Can this article, on the bases of previous deletion votes get deleted? Moreover whomever keeps creating these articles on the parallels of Buddha and Jesus not just recreate it under an almost identical name after it is deleted and respect Wikpedia’s deletion policy!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.247.29 (talk • contribs)

Those with knowledge of and interest in the subject should give it their editorial attention. Similarities of Christianity and eastern religions was suitable subject matter in Christian protestant theological seminaries for the past many decades, so the subject is notable.This is a part of Comparative Religion, which is in the curriculum of many leading universities. The only question is the quality of the references provided and the need to keep the article NPOV, which is properly addressed by the editing process. In other words, there is nothing forbidden about the article topic, which is notable and found in paper encyclopedias and in the world of religious scholarship. Such scholarship is an alternative to the viewpoint that one's religion was revealed miraculously by God in its final form. Edison 15:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You linked to Wikiquote, which is not the same thing as Wikipedia. They have their own rules for what topics are not appropriate so just because something is deleted from wikiquote it doesn't mean it should be deleted from here.Koweja 18:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry-I didn't realise wikiquote had different rules, I now know for future reference

Original work?

References for most of the work has been added and there is very little if any "original work"...Most of the work, the central core of this article, has been supported by previous scholars and religous figures and their works are mentioned in citations.--216.254.121.169 16:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I see absolutely no citations for describing the "parallel sayings" as parallel sayings. That whole section seems to be completely original research in its layout and in what it suggests. The fact that the quotes are real quotes has no bearing on the question of whether that's original research. Xtifr _tälk 00:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

the sources are listed on the bottom of the page. There are many books with their own parallel sayings findings and this is an anthology and breaking down of the Buddha and Jesus myths, the easiest way to present these similarities is in a table format as there are so many parallels,Kersten alone claims to have found more than one hundred passages in the New Testament that can be aligned with Buddhist scriptures--216.254.121.169 00:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are the sources of many of the parallel sayings and lives which I have listed at the bottom of the table: sources:

Elmar R. Gruber & Holger Kersten. The Original Jesus: The Buddhist Sources of Christianity

Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled, Acharya S.

Jesus and Buddha: The Parallel Sayings (Seastone Series)(Paperback)

by Marcus J. Borg (Editor), Ray Riegert (Editor), Jack Kornfield (Introduction)<

Blavatsky Collected Writings Volume 14 introduction by Boris DeZirkoff Excerpt- http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/bcw/vol14/mystery-about-buddha.htm

Holger Kersten, Jesus Lived in India. His Unknown Life Before and After the Crucifixion, Element, Reprint 1999</ref>

Holger Kersten, 'Buddhist Thought in the Teachings of Jesus'

Ok, thanks, that works for me, but you need to make it a lot more clear. This section was probably the most commonly cited feature mentioned as a reason for deletion in the deletion discussion. I voted to keep, but this section still made me very uncomfortable, the way it's presented. The table format may be easy, but there really needs to be more evidence that it's not OR. At the very least, I strongly suggest that you break it down into sub-tables by source, for easier referencing and citing. And make it a lot more clear, in general, who is making the claims of parallelism, so the reader can judge for themselves. Frankly, some of these don't seem very parallel to me, no matter who claims they are. Even if it's not OR, it seems a bit POV, and, in general, it's best to present such things as an expert's opinion, rather than baldly stating them as fact. Comparitive Religion is a topic fraught with points of view, even (or especially) among the experts, so it's best to as much room for multiple POVs to be shown in an article like this. Cheers. Xtifr _tälk 01:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Acharya S? Have you ever read WP:RS? She has to publish with a publisher that focuses on UFOs. That should tell you something. A.J.A. 17:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hitting the reset button

I grow weary of the table. Tables are ugly. It still lacks decent sources. Nobody bothered to remove the quotes which aren't even similar yet are listed as parallels.

The title of this article is POV. A.J.A. 17:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I found the table to have some very insight comparisons. It could be better cited and some comparison could be removed, but overall it had some great points. Subjective ugliness is certainly not a reason to delete information. Juan Ponderas

Insightful comparisons are WP:OR. A.J.A. 07:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Insightful comparisons improve the encyclopedia. Wikipedia: Ignore all rules -Juan Ponderas

Insights have to be noted in verifiable and reliable sources. If an editor has the insight, it is original research. Find reliable scholarly sources to quote. Edison 14:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

RfC

I will shortly be making an RfC.

Although I explained my removals in the edit summaries, let me take the opportunity here to explain at more length, or rather to indicate where I'd like the article to go and how I expect my actions will help it get there. As I said in the AfD discussion, a high-quality article on the general topic would be encyclopedic and interesting, and have virtually nothing in common with the version then under discussion. Unfortunately, there is enough deceptive similarity to discourage movement in the right direction. That version is long, it has pictures, it has (as has been pointed out by the person/people I'm in conflict with) references. But it's a polemic in favor of a minority viewpoint, namely that Christianity is copied from Buddhism. I realize that "Christianity is copied from previous religion Y" is a popular argument with certain skeptics (who are over-represented on the internet); it is nevertheless not taken seriously in accademia, and even if it were could only be described neutrally, not advocated. In this case, the primary contributor (an anon who may or may not be the same person as User:Dembot) is not a typical skeptic but rather apparently a Buddhist who has been editing to promote the view that other religions in general copied from Buddhism (see Talk:Buddhism and Hinduism).

I concluded that the article needed a total re-write. I considered the content for some time and could find very little that could be salvaged, so I turned it into a stub. Although I'm probably not going to be able to produce the article that should be there, clearing the ground is necessary so there's room for it and so potential contributors will see the lack of good content right away. Of course, others may be able to salvage bits of the old version I couldn't, which I would welcome.

I also moved the article to its current title, which is both more neutral and broader in scope than the previous title, "Buddhist-Christian parallels".

The anon/User:Saavak123/Dembot has reacted by accusing me of vandalism (both in edit summaries on this page and on WP:AN/I, where it was ignored), being uncivil in various other ways [4], edit warring, and pasting his version onto all the redirect pages [5] [6] [7].

His version is [8], and mine is [9]. A.J.A. 18:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Definitely needs an overhaul -- or deletion. Seems a random collection of ill-substantiated facts, not an article. Goldfritha 02:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This is basically a non-article right now-- it's more an idea for a good title for an article. I'd say if anyone wants to take a stab at writing a good article with this title, they should feel free to. --Alecmconroy 13:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Although there is some quite interesting material here in the long form of the article, a lot of it is poorly sourced and tendentious. In most of the parallel sayings, for example, the parallelism is pretty weak. Suggest retrieving about 1/3rd of the original article - the material that is best sourced - and place it in more rounded context. Also should mention the views of scholars who suggest that similarities are due to idepenendent convergence rather than influence. NBeale 07:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Repeated vandalisms

It seems the "edits" being performed remove everything that certain Christian groups find offensive. What is left is left makes it seem that Christianity influenced Buddhism or say nothing at all. All of the removed information has adequate reserarch and bibliography.

Additionally there is a link for a book from a Christian author whose subject has nothing to do at all with this topic. Nothing more than an attempt to use a "scholarly" approach to silence a subject that some view with disdain.

There seem to be a variety of policies of which you are unaware. Most obviously, WP:CIVIL. You shouldn't be accusing me of vandalism when what is going on is an ordinary content dispute.

The most important policy is WP:NPOV. NPOV stands for "neutral point of view", and the policy means Wikipedia articles should not be advocacy pieces for a controversial theory. A.J.A. 16:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I feel that the best way to rewrite this article would be to post the original, albeit potentially NPOV, text so that it can be worked with. The connections between Christainity and Buddhism are definitely in need of considerstion, and this article needs some seed to work off of before the article can be appropriately reconsidered. I would simply add a stipulation that the re-inserted text would be used as a resource, and not simply copied in verbatim.

Talk:Christianity and Buddhism/Old version

Here is the "original" version (as in the last non-almost-blanked version before the page was locked). Maybe we can work on this as the annon suggested above. Maybe we can stop with the name calling and simply deleting things because we don't like the format and would rather complain about what other people aren't doing than to actually do it ourselves. Then maybe, we can have an article that is more than a stub with two template stuck on. Koweja 02:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Buddhism and Christianity page templates

How come the Buddhism is one is pushed down below the Christianity one? They should be side-by-side for political correctness. Some one please fix this -Thegreyanomaly 00:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

People should work on this

This has a lot of historical stuff FROM GOOD SOURCES that should not be deleted.

If Christians like to put some more info that supports their own theory , than fine -- but don't delete the work of others.--Great111 17:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Artical restructure + related comments.

A lot of this article is phrased on the basis of a very biased link at the bottom which should be removed. A website called Christ Never Existed does not seem to be an unbiased site.

The parallelisms of Christianity are not denied by either religion and both religions acknowledge the other for doing a lot of good in the world.

Additionally, notes on the recent push to have Jesus be noted as a Buddha should be added, as well as notes about a large number of articles paralleling him, as well as several Christian Saints to Buddha.

The Christian saint I have most commonly seen called Enlightened is St. Francis of Assisi. Having had friends of the family at a Franciscan monastery during my childhood, I observed the tranquility and enlightenment of the people there first hand. For more information on St Francis of Assisi see pertaining Wikipedia Page(s).

As an additional note relevant to recurring events on this and other articles: A pending change page may be useful to reduce vandalism. Users who have gained enough trust should be allowed to commit changes made to the pending change page, and maintainers should be given the duty of doing so when not done by others. I personally think it above any true follower of Christ or Buddha to do such things, but imitators outnumber the real thing at least 10 to 1 in both cases. 71.55.58.112 10:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Robert William Francis Ruedisueli ruediix@gmail.com

Peer review

OK, I was asked to comment on this because I closed the last AfD. Of course neither of the two versions are satisfactory at all. Christianity and Buddhism is a major topic and we should be able to tell more than the stub we have now. If that's all we can say then we better not bother. Regarding the old version, I didn't read through it but it is evident that it is riddled with original research by synthesis. The following two quotes are verified claims:

"Consider others as yourself." (Dhammapada 10:1)
"Do to others as you would have them do to you." (Gospel of Luke 6:31)

But to claim that they are "parallel" is an interpretation, and we leave interpretation to authorative sources. So "In his essay, Christianity, Buddhism and Altruism Prof. Beetlbrow compares ...." is a synthesis made by an authority. So the first tak here should be to identify the most authorative sources. This is comparative religious studies, so there should be reams and reams of academic sources, and should always refer to themost authorative ones. So check Google Books or do a library search, if you find a book that seems relevant follow up on the author and the publisher, see if they are of high academic caliber, and let yourself guide by what they have to say about the topic. So task 1: Create a compilation of the best sources on the topic. Good luck. ~ trialsanderrors 00:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I semi-protected the page. This is not an endorsement of either of the two versions per my above comments, but a call to all editors to use the talk page to discuss content disputes. ~ trialsanderrors 04:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm the creator of the stub version. I agree that it's not very satisfactory, and I'd welcome more provided it's not original research and not an advocacy piece for what is, essentially, a fringe view. In other words, as long as it's not the old version. I won't revert it just yet so you and others can comment, but I won't rule out reverting tomorrow. A.J.A. 22:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I am currently going through 2 books on Buddhist ethics and they mention Christianity at parts. The authors do not have Wikipedia articles so I guess they are not as authoritative as desired. Through skimming, here are some points made in The Nature of Buddhist Ethics by Damien Keown:

compare Christian love with karuna, whether each is an end, as in utilitarianism
righteous anger tolerable by Christianity, not Buddhism

An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics by Peter Harvey:

Christian value of an individual vs. the lack of permanence of the self eliminating bad thoughts towards others
lay-monastic relationship unlike that of Christian 'monks'
"Protestant Buddhism", "Engaged Buddhism" as responses to Western values
Max Weber said that Calvinist Protestant Christianity led to capitalism, while Buddhism could not
like Puritans, ordinary work can be done in a spiritual mindset
ill-will against someone vs. within oneself

The books focus on Buddhism, so the analyses aren't too elaborate, but if someone familiar with the needs of this article (I cannot go through all of this right now) thinks they should be included, then I will read more and cite them. Pomte 00:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the authors don't need articles to be authoritative, and that's exactly the kind of content that should be added. A.J.A. 20:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Great, I should be able to add them in a coherent NPOV manner into the appropriate sections within a few weeks. Pomte 21:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

is there a consensus for this

this version to this version. not knowing if there is, it looks like vandalism to me. i reverted it once and looking at the history so have others. El hombre de haha 15:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Look up the definition of vandalism. A.J.A. 16:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Definitely no consensus. For what it's worth, I find the information deleted to be quite... informative and of a topic worthy of inclusion. Juan Ponderas

I find both versions to be somewhat distasteful. There is some useful information in the long version, but it also contains lots of unverifiable original research. I find the edit war stretched out over a period of months to be distasteful as well. I believe I was the one who got the article semiprotected, but that hasn't helped the situation. Please refer to trialsanderrors's post above in "Peer review" to see what needs to be done here. Dekimasu よ! 01:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Massive deletions seem to have been going on here. I reinstated a lot of the deleted material, and did some clean-up. Deletions seem largely unjustified as there are actually many references throughout. Let's improve this article rather than transform it into a meaningless stub. PHG 10:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Having ref tags is not the same as being encyclopedic. If you're sincere about improving the article, why don't you salvage anything that isn't purely polemic? A.J.A. 15:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Just destroying the article and the work of others is not a solution. Let's work together to try to improve on the current content. Regards. PHG 17:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, the "current version" is so bad that improvement means totally replacing it; but that's "destroying... the work of others"; it appears you are against any real improvement. A.J.A. 17:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with A.J.A. that there are significant problems with this article. The main problem is that it reads like an essay rather than an encyclopedic entry and thus is in need of significant rewriting. However, I object to A.J.A.'s stubifying of the article. That seems inappropriate and I agree that it borders on vandalism when done without consensus. Let's stop arguing about the stubification (don't do it anymore) and start working on improving the article. --Richard 20:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged it as an essay, but the basic problem is that the article exists for polemical reasons. Until that gets tackled, working on improving the article is going to make trivial differences. Goldfritha 00:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

People keep using the word "polemical". What is the polemic here? That Buddha and Christ are essentially the same person? That Christianity is basically a Western version of Buddhism? If that is the thesis of this article, then the critical point is for the article to stop asserting things as fact and put the words into the mouths and pens of reliable sources. Instead of simply saying "X", the article should say "According to source A, X is true" or "According to theory B proposed by sourc C, Y is true". --Richard 00:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone accusing me of vandalism or demanding I "improve" rather than delete done one damn thing to remove the bias? No? Then STFU. A.J.A. 04:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

One editor made an edit with the summary, "Cleaning up intro to make the thesis of the article more explicit".

This article is not going to be neutral until it does not have a thesis, which is very unsuitable for an encyclopedia article. Goldfritha 00:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

So.... that editor would be me. And, yes, I understand what you are saying and I agree in principle. However, if I had had more space, I would have added that I intended on changing the underlying thesis of the article. The thesis of the article which led A.J.A. to want to stubify it was that Buddhism DID influence Christianity. My intro suggests a different thesis.

Re-read the new intro

Given the remarkable amount of parallelism between core principles of the two religions, many have been moved to ask whether the parallels are simply coincidence or whether there was a direct or indirect influence of Buddhism on early Christianity. One area of study has been the possibility of interactions between Buddhism and pre-Christian religious belief and philosophical thought such as the Greeks and Jews. In addition, there has been speculation regarding interactions between Buddhism and early Christianity.

The new thesis is that many (perhaps I should have changed it to say "some") have been moved to ask "whether the parallels are simply coincidence or whether there was etc etc....". This is neutral. Ain't saying there was an influence; ain't saying there wasn't. Just saying some people think there was. That's NPOV.

Now I admit that I haven't had time to go through each section of the article and shift the tone to this "agnostic" viewpoint. But I did try to do that with a few sections. Maybe you can help.

--Richard 03:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Re-read it yourself. The entire lede. And then instead of going on, re-work it, because that opening is not "agnostic." It entirely supports the side that there is influence.

The statement "Given the remarkable amount of parallelism. . ." has got to go, because in fact the parallelism is hotly disputed, let alone its "remarkable" extent.

I'm certainly not going to help on an article whose deletion I have voted for when my opinion of it hasn't changed.. Goldfritha 03:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I did re-read it and you're right the intro still seemed biased towards the conclusion that there was influence. I have weakened that bias in the intro.

I looked at the two AFD debates on this article and didn't see your vote. I certainly didn't see any extended explanation from you as to why this article should be deleted. Thus, it's not clear to me what your objections are.

Let's be collegial about this. Please explain your objections here and let's see if they can be addressed or if you are simply deadset against the existence of this article.

One pro-deletion editor said "Comparison is inherently OR". I disagree. There is a field called "Comparative religions" and comparison is not OR if there are reliable sources who did the comparison.

I am not advancing the thesis that there definitely was an influence of Buddhism on Christianity. I readily accept that this is a theory advanced by those on the fringe rather than those in the mainstream. Nonetheless, I think the topic is encyclopedic even if the treatment given it by the current revision of this article is not.

Where do you stand?

--Richard 04:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"parallels between the two religions have been noted across the ages by scholars." -- this does not appear to be supported by the article itself, which is drawing parallels without providing any instance of scholars "across the ages" who noted them. Furthermore, it does not note that other scholars have rejected those parallels when drawn. And "In addition, there has been speculation regarding interactions between Buddhism and early Christianity" -- who speculated? When? Where? And why is it noteworthy? Goldfritha 04:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ugh... do you have any answers to these questions or are you just pointing out the flaws? I can only do so much. This is not an area that I know a lot about. I'm just trying to clean the article up in response to A.J.A.'s attempt to stubify it.

I'm still trying to understand... are you criticizing the article because you think the treatment of the topic is biased or because you think the topic is unencyclopedic? --Richard 05:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article can only be cleaned up by someone who knows or finds out the answers to those questions, because it won't be clean without them. Goldfritha 01:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

So. After a month of "cleaning up", we're still recomending Blavatsky as an authority? SHAME. A.J.A. 04:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The article remains worthless garbage. A.J.A. 04:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wonderfully Great Article

Every religion has its fundamentalists. This article is a great piece of truth. Unfortunately this is getting deleted. It was deleted from Answers.com. But it reappeared on wikipedia. BIG THANKS.

I have more material if wikipedia ppl like to add:

Alexander Founded city Alexandria on Egyptian shore.

Alexander invaded India(327BC) but he was impressed with Buddhists teachings.

After alexander the greek kindom was divided in 4 parts Bactria, Antioch, macedonia(Greece) and Alexandria(egypt) under Ptolemy. In Bactria(Afghanistan) Greek king Menander became a Buddhist & so all his generations for a long time until muslims invaded.

Alexandria became a great center of learning under Ptolemy kings starting from 300 BC to 500 years probably in the same lines as that of Taxila or Nalanda.

Seleucus Nicator (358-281 BC) the greek successor to Alexander ruled a vast empire from Afghanistan to Syria.

King Chandragupta Maurya(322BC) defeated Seleucus Nicator & married his daughter after a treaty. Seleucus Nicator sent greek ambassador Megasthanese to Indian mauryan capital Patliputra. Megasthanese wrote 'Indika' a book about Indian kingdoms.

King Ashoka 273-232BC (grandson of King Chandragupta)of India utilized good relations with Greek empire and sent buddhist missionaries to Antioch(syria), Greece(macedonia) , ALEXANDRIA(under ptolemy) and magga(iraq) in around 240 BC. Written records for this are available on stone pillars of King Ashoka (edict 13 ).

see : wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Maurya

Bilingual Ashoka Rock Eddict in Greek and Aramaic from Kandahar(Afghanistan) shows influence of Buddhism on Greeks and Jews (probably in Alexandria )

Aramaic is the Language Jesus & his Disciples Spoke

In Alexandria(Egypt) there were jew monks called THERAPUTAE .

The word Theraputae & Therapy come from a popular buddhist word THER ; Ther means an elder monk in buddhism who has completed 15 years of monkhood. Those who went to meet Theraputae were blessed & cured of their diseases hence the word Therapy. The Buddhism in Srilanka, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia & Laos is called Therawada Buddhism.

Father & mother of Jesus fled to Egypt in order to escape from persecution of king Herod of Israel. Jesus probably learnt Buddhist principles from Egyptian Buddhist ascetics (Theraputae) & stayed there until he was older & king herod was dead.

Clement of Alexandria (200 AD) has mentioned about Buddha & Buddhist Monks specifically which is the proof of existence of buddhism in Alexandria.

SIMILARITIES BETWEEN CHRISTIANITY AND BUDDHISM

Buddhist & christian beliefs & practices are same practically based on compassion, nonviolence & love.

The practice of having confession box in every church comes from Buddhism only. Buddha had several rules for monks for confession for various misdeeds which are properly mentioned in VINAYA section of Buddhist philosophy.

Jesus opposed rituals similar to Buddha. Jesus said - Sabbath is made for man . Man is not made for sabbath.

Probably Jesus was killed because he wanted to incorporate love & compassion from Buddhism to Judaism which was resisted by Jewish people then who believed eye for an eye and tooth for tooth as mentioned in Torah.

The Buddhists first started building their temples (called stupas) with very high pinnacles , it appears that early Christians copied from Buddhist for building high rise churches with pointed tops called steeple.

The only difference between both is, belief in God, but in Buddhism , Buddha is called God.

Buddha declared that he does not see any being higher than him not even angels ,arcangels,gods & godesses. Rather he declared that even angels and arcangels are in the grip of devil (mara) because they also have a finite lifespan after which they have to take rebirth as any creature as per stored desires of deeds(karma). But He (Buddha and his equals ) is free of karma & will never be born in any plane of existence(world) due to their passage to nirvanic state of eternal super conscious (called nitya) hence he is in the state of LORD/God. Not only him but many have crossed the boundary of deathless awareness of all seeing and omnipotent.

Jesus did not pray to GOD(in general) . Rather he always prayed to heavenly father . That , is probably to Buddha.

Jesus went to wilderness for divine contemplation & the devil tempted him with riches of the world which Jesus rejected hence leading to his ascension. This is similar to Buddha going to jungle for divine contemplation & he was also tempted by devil(mara) with riches of the world including beautiful girls, having rejected all that , the divine eye of Buddha opened , with which he was able to see the truth. The truth about his countless rebirths as motion pictures and also the ability to see the truth of other creatures past, present & future.

Once Jesus cleaned feet of his disciples & taught them to serve one another. Similarly , once Buddha cleaned a sick disciple with hot water who became very weak due to diarrhea and later taught his disciples to serve each other just like he did.

When Jesus said “Kingdom of heaven is within you” it was a Buddhist principle to search the truth within.

When Jesus said “you have to become like a child only then you can enter the kingdom of heaven” , it is similar to what Buddha said “you must unlearn (old teachings) before you can know the truth”.

The concept of devil & demon possession is similar to Mara (god of sex,violence,disease & death) which was a new concept given by Buddha. Prior to this Indians believed that disease & death were also acts of God.

Jesus said “if someone slaps you on one cheek,Show your other cheek” , it is a Buddhist principle of tolerance which says that even if some people cut you to pieces using a saw , don’t curse them rather bless them.

The “Eternal Life” & “Salvation” promised by Jesus is same as “Nirvana” of Buddhists in concept which means a blissful state of continuum without rebirth & death.

Jesus said – “do not believe on astrology”. Buddha also said – “do not believe on astrology it is meaningless”. Jesusisabuddha 10:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What can I say? The name Jesusisabuddha itself suggests a bias. Your praise only makes me question the article even more... 151.201.9.156 00:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, i agree, but i have to say, the first few points about alexander has it's worth. everything else is disputed, that's why this discussion is here.

Improvements

None have been made. The (astonishingly few) changes were either cosmetic or made the article worse. If you intend to make the "long" version into a genuinely encyclopedic article, you can work on it on a sandbox page. The current article remains shameful on a site which presents itself as an encyclopedia. A.J.A. 19:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree. This article lists a fair quantity of information which is fairly referenced. The way is to improve it, not to delete it outright. PHG 19:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Name some. A.J.A. 20:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

For example, all the historical part (most of the article) is fairly accurate and highly referenced. PHG 20:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time ATM, but this is absurd, and I intend to explain why later. A.J.A. 20:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't going to revert User:A.J.A. but since User:PHG did, I urge A.J.A. not to do it again. The fact that you think you're right doesn't give you the right to do this. Please form a consensus for such actions first. While "voting is evil", it might be useful to do a straw poll to determine where consensus lies. So I'll start one. Please express your opinion below.

Option 1

Leave the article the way it is and improve it incrementally to address various issues raised by A.J.A. and others.

Support PHG 19:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
SupportGiovanni33 19:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Option 2

Start with A.J.A.'s "neutral stub" and improve it from there

Discussion

Deleting referenced material is just not the way to edit on Wikipedia. Deleting an article compiled by other in order to start from scratch is quite unheard of, and as far as I know goes against the rules of this encyclopedia. PHG 20:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Nah... you overstate the case. It's not unheard of to stub-ify an article because it is deemed hopelessly bad. Sometimes, it's easier to start from a blank page than to fix a very bad article. Me personally, I think we should work with the current article because there is a lot of information in it. Moreover, there are processes for building a consensus for a stubification such as A.J.A. wishes to execute. A consensus on this Talk Page or an AFD discussion would be legitimate grounds for doing it. This article is pretty bad. The question is whether it is better to fix it from its current state or from a "neutral stub" such as the one A.J.A. replaced it with. --Richard 20:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

First, there is essentially no legitimate information in the article. Second, I have left it alone for a long time and esstentially nothing was done to fix it. A.J.A. 20:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Besides some stylistic issues, this article is actually highly referenced and uses a lot of historical background. The reason given for deletion, that it contains "essentially no legitimate information", does not seem accurate. PHG 20:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Highly referenced? I especially like footnote 15: "^ Blavatsky Collected Writings Volume 14 introduction by Boris DeZirkoff Excerpt- http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/bcw/vol14/mystery-about-buddha.htm".

This, after almost two months for carrying out all the impovement you called for. In fact, you demanded that I stop so that you could work on improving the article. And now, after almost two month's time to work on it, we get... references to Helena Blavatsky and other such sources. Do you realize that this is currently being presented to the world in all seriousness as part of an encyclopedia?

Rather than the arrogance you're displaying, you should both exhibit some, well, shame is the only emotion that comes to mind. A.J.A. 20:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If you have an issue with a specific reference, indeed let's challenge it and discuss it (I personnaly do not know about this Helena Blavatsky), but this is certainly no ground to delete the whole article. And please A.J.A., respect Wikipedia:Civility rules. PHG 21:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

A.J.A., I am actually quite embarassed by this article because, in many places, it presents X, Y and Z as fact when it should be making statements like "According to Blavatsky, X is true" and "According to Elizabeth Clare Prophet, Y is true". It is reasonable for Wikipedia to present the wacky and fringe theories of crackpots. What is not reasonable is to present them as incontrovertibly true. We should not give undue weight to fringe theories. However, it is not our job to determine what "THE TRUTH" is. It is our job to present all notable viewpoints on what "THE TRUTH" is and let the reader decide for himself/herself what he/she wishes to believe.

You should remember that the idea that God exists, that Jesus is his son and that Jesus was resurrected from the dead are as questionable beliefs to some people as the ideas expressed in this article. Nonetheless, Christianity deserves to be described here in great detail because of its importance in the history of world affairs. "Christianity and Buddhism" also deserves to be described although with far less coverage than Christianity.

You can help shift this article towards a more NPOV stance but only if you help rewrite the text. You won't get there by throwing out all the information that is being presented.

--Richard 21:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move

This is not an article about mutual influences of Christianity and Buddhism on each other. It is an article about hypothesized influences of Buddhism on Christianity. Therefore, I propose that we move it to Buddhist influences on early Christianity. That, IMO, is a more accurate title. --Richard 22:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that would be a more precise, and accurate title.Giovanni33 18:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

But still a comprehensively inaccurate article. A.J.A. 22:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you be specific? I'm not sure what you mean by inaccurate. I hope you don't mean "truth" (according to you) since WP is about verification not truth. These theories, as reported on here, are well sourced. Disagreeing with them as inaccurate would not be a good argument to not report on them. Instead the remedy is to find a reliable source that disputes this as inaccurate, and include that POV, as well, per NPOV--as well as fix pov language that may exist in the present version of this article.Giovanni33 18:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

We could try to balance the current article with elements on the influence of Christianity on Buddhism (the visit of Saint Thomas to India in the 1st century and early Christian thought are sometimes said to have influenced the development of Mahayana). I think an article under the title "Christianity and Buddhism" is a necessity anyway, just as we have Chrisianity and Juddaism, Christianity and Islam etc... PHG 21:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we could do that and I'm not opposed. It would balance this article in line with its current title, if we don't change it to the above proposal. Given that you have pointed out we have other articles along these lines, this seems like a good idea to keep with that established norm.Giovanni33 21:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with keeping an article at this title provided that it has more balance between "Buddhist influences on Christianity" and "Christian influences on Buddhism". However, the current text is entirely about "Buddhist influences on Christianity" and has so much content that I doubt that there can ever be a bi-directional balance. That is the rationale behind my proposal to move this detailed treatment to a separate article. A summary can be provided under the current title. --Richard 05:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey Richard, why move this article to Buddhist influences on Christianity without even the start of a consensus on the question?? This is not proper Wikipedia procedure. As far as I'm concerned, this should be reverted. PHG 05:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is proper Wikipedia procedure. I proposed the move. Although there was some flak about the quality of the article, no one objected to the move per se so I was bold and did the move. I'd be OK to move it back except there is an AFD in process. Let's talk about the title after we see whether or not the article survives the AFD.

--Richard 05:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is exactly the discussion we had up there, nobody agreed to your move, and I actualy said that we needed a "Christianity and Buddhist" article anyway, as for other religions. Please correct this, if you can't, ask an Administrator to do it for you. This is independent from AFDs. PHG 05:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Stubbed version:

The stubbed version of this article needs SERIOUS revision. First, it contains NO premise about the natuure of the article. Second, It alludes to texts not explained anywhere. The line about rosaries is thoroughly out of context and doesn't explain what 'versions' of what were islamic? The Francis Xavier materail, and the positioning of hands, also lack a fundamental premise. The entire article, as stubbed, is a shoddy work, and if A.J.A. continues to insist that the version AJA reverts to is 'better', then said editor should SERIOUSLY clean up the page. IF you're going to edit war, at least have a version to revert to which makes sense. I'm not jumping int othe 'which version is "Right"' fight, but I will say that the stubbed versions is internally so bad that the other version, with greater sourcing and a better attempt at a Lead Paragraph, should be up until the stub is refined to make some sense. ThuranX 06:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ths stubbed version is incoherent. But, I see no valid basis to remove the sourced content of this article back to the stub, anyway.Giovanni33 19:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

MAJOR POV - Slash and burn? AFD?

I just do not like the premise of the article. I have a feeling that it should be AFDed. If not, why not start over with a stub, ban anons from editing, and make an NPOV article? WhisperToMe 23:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, have you read WP:IDONTLIKEIT? I think a better rationale is needed here. Also, have you looked at the top of this talk page? This article has been AFD'ed twice in the last year and survived both times. However, if you really think it should be AFD'ed again, you are welcome to do so. Just provide a better rationale than "I just do not like the premise of the article." What, in your opinion, is the premise of the article and what don't you like about it? --Richard 04:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Richard, what this article needs is various points of view about Christianity and Buddhism (as in a comparison) from various scholars and notable people - If this cannot be found, this article should be trashed. WhisperToMe 17:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Then please add other views about this question. There is notable scholarhip on this subject presented in this article, so it does not need to be "trashed."Giovanni33 01:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

A possible major problem

The current major problem of this article might be its structure and that too many topics/questions got mixed up.
The article could be split into the following sections/articles:

Comparison of the contemporary doctrines and world views of Christianity and Buddhism - similarities and differences.
Possible historical influences of Buddhism on european philosophy and/or Christianity.
Possible historical influences of greek/roman philosophy and/or Christianity on Buddhism.
A Buddhist view on Jesus: Was Jesus a bodhisattva? With which requirements did he comply?

--Liebeskind 19:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

AFD discussion

For those interested, the AFD discussion is here. PHG 05:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Similarities between Buddhist monasticism and Jewish asceticism

I've removed this unsourced speculation from the main article. —Viriditas | Talk 10:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There are strong similarities between Buddhist monastic teachings and Jewish ascetic sects, such as the Therapeutae and the Essenes.

Philo Judaeus, a 1st century AD contemporary of Josephus, described the Therapeutae in his tract 'De Vita Contemplativa'. It appears they were a religious brotherhood without precedent in the Jewish world. Reclusive ascetics, devoted to poverty, celibacy, good deeds and compassion, they were just like Buddhist monks in fact.

From the Therapeutae it is possible that Buddhist influence spread to both the Essenes and to the Gnostics – adepts of philosophical speculations.

The Essenes were a monastic order that did not marry. They lived in the desert and were very simple in their life styles. They did not believe in animal sacrifice and were vegetarians. They believed in the pre-existence of the soul and in angels as divine intermediaries or messengers from God. They were famous for their powers of endurance, simple piety and brotherly love. They were interested in magical arts and the occult sciences.

John the Baptist was an Essene. His time of preparation was spent in the wilderness near the Dead Sea. Jesus was greatly influenced by his stay with John the Baptist. Many of the basic tenets found in the teachings of Jesus can be traced back to the ideas flourishing among groups such as the Essenes.

Article name

I've moved this article back to Christianity and Buddhism from the previous move (Buddhist influences on Christianity). Comparative religion articles on Wikipedia use the "X and Y" format. This title also has the added benefit of neutrality, and accurately describes the subtopics within the article; many of the so-called "influences" exist only in the headings, which is somewhat misleading. —Viriditas | Talk 10:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Mauryan proselytizing

I'm removing some of this as OR synthesis. —Viriditas | Talk 11:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Kersten contrasts the "bloodthirsty and vengeful deity" of the Old Testament's Semitic tribes with the "totally different God" who has illuminated "the philosophy behind Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, as relayed by Matthew's Gospel":

"Where did Jesus learn the precepts he proclaimed in the Sermon on the Mount?" ... "No other religion of the eastern Mediterranean area lays claim to the magnanimously loving Grace preached by Jesus".(Holger Kersten, Jesus Lived in India. His Unknown Life Before and After the Crucifixion, Element, Reprint 1999.)

Ashoka's pillars give us some of the earliest Buddhist ideas written in stone:

"Dhamma is good, but what constitutes Dhamma? (It includes) little evil, much good, kindness, generosity, truthfulness and purity." Pilar Edict Nb2 (S. Dhammika)

"And noble deeds of Dhamma and the practice of Dhamma consist of having kindness, generosity, truthfulness, purity, gentleness and goodness increase among the people." Rock Pilar Nb7 (S. Dhammika)

I moved the above reference to brakets so as not to interfere with the reflist furter down. Cheers PHG (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The topic of the article

Richard's most recent edit [10] treats the topic as if it were Buddhist influences on Christianity. This is contrary to his stated intent to wait until the AfD discussion is closed to settle the issue. He has yet to demonstrate that an encyclopedic article could possibly be written on his proposed topic.

Finally, it appears to be OR. Who classified them into five mechanisms? A.J.A. 20:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It is OR in the sense that I don't have a citation that lists these precisely these five mechanisms. If you would prefer, I can change the text to read "Proposed mechanisms... include:" The point here is that the lead is a summary of the article and the five mechanisms listed form the organizational scheme that I have deduced from the article. If you have a different organizational scheme to suggest, we can discuss the merits of yours versus mine.

My "stated intent" was to wait until the AFD discussion was over to settle the issue of the title. The scope of this article has been the same for many months, probably since its creation. My edit did not change the scope of the article, I was just summarizing the content of the article in the lead. The "lead jockeys" keep trying to change the lead in the hopes that it will somehow change the scope of the article. If you want to change the scope of the article, you have to add content that fits your envisioned scope.

Is it my fault that the entire content of the article is about "Buddhist influences on Christianity"? Have I deleted any content in this article to push it towards this scope? In fact, has anybody? Has there ever been content outside of this scope in this article?

My preference is to have the title match the content of the article. At the moment, this article is entirely about "Buddhist influences on Christianity" because, AFAICT, that is all anybody has ever written about here regardless of what the title was. If you wish to push the article towards a balanced discussion of "Christianity and Buddhism", why don't you add some material about "Christian influences on Buddhism"? Or "Buddhist persecution of Christians"?

My personal perspective based on Googling is that there is some material to be written about "Christian influences on Buddhism" but less than "(purported) Buddhist influences on Christianity" and the material is of a markedly different nature. That is, most of the discussion of "Christian influences on Buddhism" is more grounded in fact whereas the "(purported) Buddhist influences on Christianity" is more grounded on conjecture and marginal, fringe theories. I would prefer to have an article titled Christianity and Buddhism which mentions "(purported) Buddhist influences on Christianity" and then links to Buddhist influences on Christianity where the topic is disussed in greater detail. That would leave Christianity and Buddhism to talk about those other topics that I mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

--Richard 21:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you're not even creating a synthesis of published sources. You're using the article itself as a source for the claim. Intros are supposed to summarize the article, but every factual claim in the lead should be backed up by citations in the article. Instead, your interpretation of the article's history is the only evidence you've cited.

The same high standards I've come to expect. A.J.A. 21:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a personal attack that I don't deserve.

The sections in the article are the claims (some of them poorly sourced, I admit). The lead is just summarizing the claims in the article. If a section is deleted, the corresponding entry in the list should be deleted as well. If a section stands, then the entry in the list should also stand.

As your repeated stubbification in the past shows, you have a problem with the existence of this article. If you and others cannot form a consensus to delete it, then help fix it or leave it alone.

If you have a problem with a specific section, then please list the problems with that section and let us discuss and fix those problems. I've already deleted two sections today which, once I actually got around to reading and thinking about them, seemed to be of little relevance.

--Richard 21:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As documented above, User:A.J.A. and I have a difference of opinion regarding text that I wrote for the lead. Since I try to hold myself to one revert, I am not going to revert his second deletion of the text. Instead, I will provide it here and ask for the opinion of other editors.

The text in question is as follows:

Proposed mechanisms by which Buddhism may have influenced the development of Christianity include:

Pre-Christian interactions between Buddhism and Greece
Suggestions that Jesus may have studied under the Therapeutae in Alexandria
Suggestions that Jesus may have traveled to India and Tibet during the "Silent Years"
Influences of Buddhism on Gnosticism and Manichaeism

--Richard 21:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If I was opposed to the existence of the article I would have made it a redirect. I don't oppose its existing, I oppose its being crap. Which appears the most common sentiment on the AfD discussion.

In fairness, the second version, which you quoted here, is less obviously OR than the first one. Your description of its function makes perfect sense... except for the fact that we already have that. It's called the table of contents, and it automatically expands and contracts in the manner you advocate. Unless there's a serious case that this article needs a redundant manual outline, the only possible reason for your list is to ennumerate the "proposed mechanisms", which gets us back to OR. A.J.A. 04:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not neutral to name the article Buddhist influences on Christianity, because at this point, the influences are hypothetical, and barely putative. Let's stick with Christianity and Buddhism (or Buddhism and Christianity) for now, because that is neutral, and does not take sides. The same holds true for the section headings, which are attempting to sway the reader. For the second time, I'm going to neutralize those headings. Let the material speak for itself. We have Edward Conze, a scholar of Buddhism who claims that it is possible for the Buddhists to have influenced the Gnostics, but the evidence is far from conclusive and we must be very careful not to let editorial bias intrude. —Viriditas | Talk 02:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Scholarship and Objectivity

Please delete this foolish article and be done with the repetitious old game played by the opponents of orthodox Christianity. These pages echo, often word by word, inumerable books and articles filled with claims connected with Christianity. How many religions wish to have credit for the teachings of Jesus? Are they all true? Obviously not. How many times will the shallow scholarship that so often raises the spectre of some "lost christianity" or "left out gospel," have to again be shown to be unsupported by even weak academic research. Yes, of course there are parallels between all of the major religions on some points while they differe dramatically on the essential ones. The words of Christ are perfectly joined continuations of the words of Yaweh beginning in the book of Genesis. Buddhism, like Hinduism before it, branched off of the laws of the creator given before either of them existed. Clement and the other Christian "Church Fathers" knew about and would have referenced other religions but no respectable scholar would claim that the "orthodox" (those who followed the actual teachings of Christ and the apostles) church believed anything except what was handed down from Jesus and his disciples. Articles such as the one we are discussing gain all fo their power by one thing, the suggestion of doubts about Christian doctrine and its true origins....please delete this article if you wish to enhance the integrity of Wikipedia.

68.84.79.101 01:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)George

Thank you for your comment. The best place to express this opinion is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhist influences on Christianity. --Richard 05:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"Criticism" section

Please review the "Criticism" section which I copied almost verbatim from the Catholic Encyclopedia. My question is whether this section should be kept intact in its current form or split up and spread out to be integrated with the sections that describe the theories that it criticizes.

--Richard 06:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I edited quite a bit, especially due to the POV tone (more like a pamphlet than an encyclopedic entry). Best regards. PHG 06:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw those edits and was happy that you edited out the more extreme sections. However, this doesn't address my question of whether the section should remain intact or get spread out among the topics that it addresses.

--Richard 06:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This section still reads like a catholic encyclopaedia with obvious bias. It states that Jesus would be appalled at the atheism in Buddhism. 203.143.238.107 06:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe it's because Jesus WOULD be appalled at the atheism in Buddhism, and he would have been equally appalled at the polytheism in those sects of Buddhism where Buddha became revered as a deity. And Buddha would also be appalled by Jesus's apparent devotion for a certain Deva called YHWH (I doubt he would have any understanding of Elohim). I mean, hell, philosophically maybe there are some parallel and influences, but theologically the faith of the Jews was in no way compatible with the Dharmic religion. 151.201.9.156 00:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Why would you suggest that Buddhism would accept syncretistic influences from animistic and shamanistic religions but not from monotheistic / pantheistic ones? What makes Buddhism less compatable with early historic Hebrew faith than with Proto-Shinto shamanism? Simonm223 (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Gnosticism, Manichaeism and Buddhism

OK, now that the AFD on this article has closed, I think it's time for us to discuss the possible linkages between Gnosticism, Manichaeism and Buddhism.

During the AFD, I got the insight that much of the original article text was basically making the argument that Buddhism influenced Gnosticism and/or Manichaeism and therefore Buddhism influenced Christianity. These arguments do not suggest influences on Jesus (via Therapeutae or trips to India/Tibet) but suggest influences on non-mainstream Christianity.

There is scholarly support from Conze and Pagels for a minority theory that Buddhism influenced Gnosticism and/or Manichaeism. The problem was that there is this missing link. Even if we assume that Buddhism did influence Gnosticism, what evidence is there that those Buddhist influences traveled from Gnosticism into mainstream Christianity? Darn little as far as I can tell.

As for Buddhist influences on Manichaeism, did Manichaeism influence Christianity or was it the other way around? Manichaeism is often described as a syncretism of Christianity, Buddhism and Zoroastrianism. The only evidence that we have that Manichaeism might have influenced Christianity is via Augustine or Priscillian. Augustine saw fit to criticize Manichaeism in his writings but were there any Christians who were following Manichaean beliefs?

Here's what the article on Manichaeism says

The extent of influence that the Manichaeans actually had on Christianity is still being debated. It has been suggested that the Bogomils, Paulicians, and the Cathars were deeply influenced by Manichaeism. However, the Bogomils and Cathars, in particular, left few records of their rituals or doctrines, and the link between them and Manichaeans is tenuous. Regardless of its historical accuracy the charge of Manichaeism was levelled at them by contemporary orthodox opponents, who often tried to fit contemporary heresies with those combatted by the church fathers. The Paulicians, Bogomils, and Cathars were certainly dualists and felt that the world was the work of a demiurge of Satanic origin (Cross), but whether this was due to influence from Manichaeism or another strand of Gnosticism is impossible to determine. Only a minority of Cathars held that the evil god (or principle) was as powerful as the good god (also called a principle) as Mani did, a belief also known as absolute dualism. In the case of the Cathars, it seems they adopted the Manichaean principles of church organization, but none of its religious cosmology. Priscillian and his followers apparently tried to absorb what they thought was the valuable part of Manichaeaism into Christianity.

Is there a connection between the dualism of the Paulicians, Bogomils, and Cathars and anything in mainstream Christianity? If there is one, it is through Priscillian but Priscillian was executed as a heretic so where's the link from Manichaeism to mainstream Christianity?

It was the difficulty of establishing this linkage that caused me to remove the discussion of Manichaeism from this article. I also considered removing the Gnosticism section as well but it seems more reasonable to consider Gnosticism a defunct offshoot of Christianity whereas Manichaeism is not. (Maybe that's an arbitrary distinction but that's the one I'm using right now.)

All of the above could be used to argue for articles on Gnosticism and Buddhism and Manichaeism and Buddhism. I think this approach would resolve some of the heartburn that people get around Christianity and Buddhism. It would allow us to document theories about Buddhist influences on Gnosticism and Manichaeism without implying that Buddhism thereby indirctly influenced mainstream Christianity.

The claims about the Therapeutae and the travels of Jesus to India/Tibet do make the claim of a direct influence. In those cases, we have to present the evidence along with any rebuttals and let the reader decide for himself/herself.

--Richard 23:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Much of the Buddhism and Gnosticism section quotes from a work referred to as 'the 2007 book' Killing The Father and Son To Realize East is West by Daniel Hopkins. An Amazon search reveals no trace of any such book. A Google search yields three results: one mention on a Richard Dawkins discussion board (now a dead link) and one mention on Craigslist (also now dead). The third - the sole live reference to any such work - is to this WP article itself. I am therefore treating this material as tantamount to unreferenced original research and, accordingly, have removed it. Wingspeed (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk: Wingspeed is deleted work by Daniel Hopkins because his book is not found at Amazon. That half witted schmuck should go to FatherAndSonEastIsWest.com to view the book he could not find before deleating work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.89.159 (talk) 11:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, even a Google search by title gives only one result, this article itself. The anonymous objector has the advantage of me: the name of the author's website. Going to www.fatherandsoneastiswest.com reveals the work in question to be self-published & printed on demand. The same obstacle therefore still applies: it ranks very much as original research for WP purposes. I would also draw the attention of 76.117.89.159 to Wikipedia:NPA. Wingspeed (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Please forgive me Wingspeed if I am not familiar with yours/wiki's definition of research, but everything you deleted had citations embeded. For instance when he writes of the bowl and the people "chewing, without chewing" in the Infancy gospel of James, he then cites the Buddhist texts where this can be found. etc.. You need to explain yourself better before you delete. So how do you write this off as "original research" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.89.159 (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You indicate you are not familiar with "wiki's definition of research." In which case, please see WP: SOURCES. More specifically, "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" WP:REDFLAG. And, particularly relevant in this instance: WP: SPS, regarding self-published sources. Further: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material": WP: BURDEN. The content you have re-inserted fails to meet the necessary criteria on each of these grounds. Wingspeed (talk) 02:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey- Wingspeed you delete my _hit one more time, I am going to let you know who the f I am. It was posted under theory you half-wit and under your definition of research Thomas Paine would not be able to publish his Age of Reason, now this is the last time, you delete my _hit and I am going to make it my ambition to pay people to cause havoc through violent edits like your own, so go ahead, delete my post again, I'll even pay bumbs to start editing, and don't blame me, your reckless redactions will have caused it. I ran into a schmuck like you when I was editing the page on ridderless-horse, they claimed that the American funeral prosessions riddrless-horse was trace to Ghangis Khan, he got it from the Gandhara Buddhists who depicted the Buddha as a ridderless-horse. Now tommorow I will epitimize Hopkins work more, and if you delete it I gonna spend alot of money to make those homoginized editers of wiki earn their keep. O' and check out my contribution to the wiki page on free speech, I will sumerize it for you, 'fuck you asshole'- in jest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.89.159 (talk) 03:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Mr. IP, you seem to be new to Wikipedia, so let me say that your edits appear to be in violation of several policies. Most importantly, your last edit is in violation of WP:NPA, and more importantly, contravenes the principle of acting like a rational adult. So please, stop with the insults, please read WP:OR, particularly the section WP:OR#SYNTH, and explain to us (without the insulting language) why this material belongs in the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

To Akhilleus, we are all human, so I had to let my frustration out. There is no way that all of Wingspeeds criteria is met by all of wikipedias pages. Anyway why do you call it original research when I restate his parallels and give the Buddhist and Christian text. Furthermore, why does wingspan lump my whole post under "exceptional claim". Claiming that the gospels are allegorical is far from exceptional, and then showing a possible (Theories(post is under)allegorical connection to Buddhism is only exceptional because it is outside the mainstreem thoughline. You may be right some of his claims might need to be explained better, but the post is only meant to summerize, such as when he claims the etymons in the title Christ are from Sanskrit, in his book, he explores the account of Prometheous bound and the use of the word Christon and I believe he believes it stems from the Sanskrit KrisTihan. It would be one thing if he deleted specific lines(and then explained why, but he labled the whole thing under "original research". Now I demand more then his wiki policy quotes. The post is under THEORIES not "Theories from renowned scholars"- The oppisite of courage is not fear, rather conformity-(?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.89.159 (talk) 11:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Future incidents of letting your frustration out may lead to your IP address being blocked from editing. Please stop hurling insults around, and instead discuss the situation calmly. --Akhilleus (talk) 12:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Akhilleus-- you are correct I am embarrased for my tone, but I did address the situation calmly in my first response to Wingspeed, yet he ignored it and gave the same stock reason. I thought that Wiki was a chance for everyone to introduce beliefs as long as they were relevent to the topic, otherwise we should change the name of the article to Ancient Buddhism and Ancient Christianity. But as this topic is important to the current east/west dialogue I suggest that, as Wingspeed claims, wiki wave the rule to allow only "accepted" authors contribute as this is Aristocratic especially involving taboo topics. But I would like to say to Wingspeed that I could, an intend on, cleaning up my review, and cite not only the relevent text, but an "accepted" translation etc..., if I have offended Wingspeed, I would like him to know that I felt terrible and that I only wanted him to address my comment about originally citing sources in my post.