We all know Xtianity is a syncretic religion created out of strains of
Hebrew and other middle-Eastern pagan cults, Greek religious concepts,
the Roman Mithraic cult (from Zoroastrianism) and the Roman Isis cult
(from Egyptian religion), and the syncretism continues in every place
in the world where Xtianity has been exported.
The Gospels are full of these 'sayings of Jesus', some of which have a
rather suspiciously Buddhist flavor. Now, we know Buddhism predates
Xtianity by quite a bit and Buddhist cultic practice (such as it
is--at least to the point of erecting giant stone Buddhas) was making
its way West when Xtianity arose, so ... in all fairness ... can we
not point to a Buddhist influence as well? There's actually an entire
book devoted to this premise called "Jesus in India" which I've never
read. (I mean, come on, when am I going to spare time from the
internet for a book?)
There was a great program about Celtic mummies in Western China
several months ago and they had these wall-paintings showing that the
Celts, who had been practicing human sacrifice (as evinced by some of
the mummies), converted to Buddhism around 1000-1200 CE. (They
eventually intermarried into the local population.) I thought it was
interesting that on the other side of the world, the bloodthirsty
Celts were busy being converted to Xtianity, which has all these
Buddhist ideas in it. The Buddhism of the West, if you will. Catholic
priesthood might draw from Roman and Egyptian ideas of priesthood, but
that monastic business seems very Buddhist indeed. Heck, according the
Catholic Encyclopedia, the Buddha was canonized as a saint during the
middle ages. (St. Josaphat, supposedly from a corruption of the word
boddhisattva.)
Is it fair to call Xtianity a really corrupt form of Buddhism? (Hey,
there are plenty of pretty corrupt forms of Buddhism which call
themselves that out there, like "pure land" and certain doofy American
versions of it--not that all American Buddhists are fruitcakes, of
course.)
Any opinions?
.
|
