A while ago I posted a refutation of the claimed parallels between Jesus and Buddha. Since then I was given a comment that there were other parallels between the two other than the ones which were given by Acharya S. Acharya S is usually pretty easy to refute because of the lunacy of her claims. But I have come across another parallel that seems to have some real relevance and I would like to thank DougRogers for confirming it’s existence. Even though I posted a refutation of so-called parallels between Jesus and Buddha, I do not pretend to be an expert in Buddhism, so I greatly appreciate it.
The parallel is the story of Simon Peter walking on water to be with Jesus which is told in Matthew 14:22-33. — Likewise, there is a story about a disciple of the Buddha named Sàriputta who was said to have walked on water. The Buddhist texts say,
SOUTH of Savatthi is a great river, on the banks of which lay a hamlet of five hundred houses. Thinking of the salvation of the people, the World-honored One resolved to go to the village and preach the doctrine. Having come to the riverside he sat down beneath a tree, and the villagers seeing the glory of his appearance approached him with reverence; but when he began to preach, they believed him not.
When the world-honored Buddha had left Savatthi Sariputta felt a desire to see the Lord and to hear him preach. Coming to the river where the water was deep and the current strong, he said to himself: “This stream shall not prevent me. I shall go and see the Blessed One, and he stepped upon the water which was as firm under his feet as a slab of granite. When he arrived at a place in the middle of the stream where the waves were high, Sariputta’sheart gave way, and he began to sink. But rousing his faith and renewing his mental effort, he proceeded as before and reached the other bank.
The people of the village were astonished to see Sariputta, and they asked how he could cross the stream where there was neither a bridge nor a ferry. Sariputta replied: “I lived in ignorance until I heard the voice of the Buddha. As I was anxious to hear the doctrine of salvation, I crossed the river and I walked over its troubled waters because I had faith. Faith. nothing else, enabled me to do so, and now I am here in the bliss of the Master’s presence.”
The World-honored One added: “Sariputta, thou hast spoken well. Faith like thine alone can save the world from the yawning gulf of migration and enable men to walk dryshodto the other shore.” And the Blessed One urged to the villagers the necessity of ever advancing in the conquest of sorrow and of casting off all shackles so as to cross the river of worldliness and attain deliverance from death. Hearing the words of the Tathagata, the villagers were filled with joy and believing in the doctrines of the Blessed One embraced the five rules and took refuge in his name.
Anyone who reads the account in Matthew and the Buddhist texts will realize the one similarity between the two here, though there are some notable differences. The most basic difference is that Jesus had to personally save Peter from sinking while Sàriputta’s own faith saved him– Reading between the lines, it appears the Buddha wasn’t even present at the time. Peter would have been proud to be this man who had much more faith, was much more patient and humble than he was. (Source)
The basic question is: With the undeniable parallel in the story, is it a given that Matthew necessarily copied the Buddhist texts? — With what I have learned about “similarities” or similar stories, my answer is “no.” It should really come of no surprise that occasionally we have two different religions with a couple of similar details. That is bound to happen.
An example of this would be the one and only similarity between the Akkadian king Sargon of Akkad and the prophet Moses. — The similarity is that they were both placed in baskets and on rivers. Now, despite the fact that the first evidence we have of Sargon’s “Moses-like” story comes from the 7th century BC (during the reign of Sargon II, 8 centuries after Moses) skeptics have accused Moses of copying Sargon.
– Do I think that the story of Sargon was copied by Moses? Obviously not. Do I think that the Assyrians copied the story of Moses? No, absolutely not! I have no reason to suspect such a thing.
My basic point is: It is very possible for two different and two separated geographic cultures to obtain similar stories without one plagiarizing the other. — It often astounds me why so many people always feel the need to assume that if there are similarities then therefore someone had to have copied. Such logic is a “cause-effect” logical fallacy (i.e., an over-simplification).
Apparently they never take into account that separate peoples have been known to think on the same grounds independently of eachother. For example, Alexander Bell and Elisha Grey both invented the telephone independently of eachother. Also, Charles Darwin and Alfred RusellWallace both independently came to the idea of the evolution of species. These examples prove similar ideas do not indicate plagiarism or imitation.
One thing that should be mentioned is that stories about miracles are only to be expected in the sacred texts of different religions. If two different religions, for example, both have a story about a man who heals the sick supernaturally is that an indication that one copied the other? No, because such things are not surprising. The same cannot be ruled out with this one similar story between Buddhism and Christianity. — Besides, the similarities are only a minimum and also the purposes and points of the stories are so majorly different that it can be legitimetly argued that the “water walking” is at most a coincidence.
Also, when I was introduced to the idea that Simon Peter was an imitation of Sariputta, the person spelled his name as “Sari-Putra” which makes the two names seem all the more similar. — This leads me to question: Can Sariputta be divided into a first name and a surname (or a name followed by a title which is what “Peter” is)? Also, does Peter’s name and Sariputta’s have the same meaning? — Peter means “rock.” — If the answers to these questions is no, then the commentator that intrduced me to this claim in the first place in only playing worthless word games.
Besides, “Peter” is from the Greek “petros.” — Jesus, who likely spoke Aramaic, would have used the term from his own language: “Quepha.” — Considering this fact, it appears that the skeptics bringing up the apparent similar pronunciations from the Greek tranliteration of Peter’s name and the name of the Buddha’s disciple are only resorting word games after all.
The same person who brought up this topic aso claimed that the cross appeared in Buddhism. — If anyone can give a credible reference for this claim like DougRogers did for the “walking on water” story, I would be greatfull. — Again, I would like to thank DougRogers for pointing out that this one story does exist in Buddhism and is not just another bogus link that many skeptics of Christianity almost always resort to.
15 Comments
The story of the two guys cast into the furnace has a Buddhist precedent also. ( I can’t get past remembering it as Caddyshack and Abendigo)
“Jehosophat” is a linguistic derivative of” Bhodisatva”.
Don’t forget that Buddhism reached as far west as Persia… present day Iraq (?).
Tim Ward, in his second book, “The Great Dragon’s Fleas” talks about an obscure cult in India which – well, I’d rather not raise the idea – cares for Jesus tomb. And there are references and images of a bearded, non-asian person with stigmata in some obscure thangkas, revered as an Arahat.
One thing you can’t be too bound by is the idea that the stories had to have been written to have been passed along, copied, or borrowed. It was an Oral/Aural culture. Stories and ideas spread by being told.
Seven years is a long time to wander around aimlessly in a desert….. all by yourself?
dougrogers says:
“The story of the two guys cast into the furnace has a Buddhist precedent also. ( I can’t get past remembering it as Caddyshack and Abendigo)”
Actually it is three men that got thrown in: Shadrack, Mesheck, and Abendigo. — That story dates to the early 6th century BC
“Don’t forget that Buddhism reached as far west as Persia… present day Iraq (?).”
I thought it only went as far as Afghanastan. But I could be wrong.
Also you say:
““Jehosophat” is a linguistic derivative of” Bhodisatva”.
Well, even if they have a linguistic relationship, the name “Jehoshaphat” is most certainly not a Judeo-Christian imitation of Buddhism BECAUSE Jehoshaphat IS PRE-BUDDHA. He lived in the 9th century BC from 873 to 849 BC, while Buddhism started in the 6th (or even the 5th) century BC.
Link: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Jehoshaphat
Well, a bit more. It is a bit amusing that you would choose two examples of independent scientific invention – similar conclusions made from similar evidence by different individuals. Really, the evidence -and the technology- was common, though certainly not commmon-place. Certain individuals were primed, so to speak, to see it.
All these stories – about Akkadian kings, for example- were common cultural currency, traded along with silks and potatoes amongst the culturally literate.
So to argue that they were independent inventions ignores the -perhaps elite- cultural commons they shared.
The concepts labelled “plaigarism” and “imitation” are anachronisms, ideas applied from our contemporary time to a time and culture that didn’t really “own” ideas except perhaps mercantile ownership of counting, and the priesthood’s ownership of writing.
Of course, owning these ideas was a certain path to authourity and wealth.
As to Sariputta, Shariputta, Shariputra… sheesh. You want to have it both ways. So, yes, there is a cultural precedent to the Simon-Peter story, but at the same time you want to discount it by saying there is no one-to-one correspondence in the names.
The Greeks didn’t invent language.
dougrogers says:
“Well, a bit more. It is a bit amusing that you would choose two examples of independent scientific invention – similar conclusions made from similar evidence by different individuals. Really, the evidence -and the technology- was common, though certainly not commmon-place. Certain individuals were primed, so to speak, to see it.”
I only mention this to make the point that the same idea does not indicate that one was copied. That’s all.
“As to Sariputta, Shariputta, Shariputra… sheesh. You want to have it both ways. So, yes, there is a cultural precedent to the Simon-Peter story, but at the same time you want to discount it by saying there is no one-to-one correspondence in the names.”
Maybe I should have been more blunt.
Is there a parallel meaning to the two names? — I mean, do they have the same meaning? The name “Peter” means “Rock.” So what does “Sariputta” mean. Does it mean “rock” to? If the two names have the same meaning, despite different languages, then one could affectively argue that one name was the root of the other. If not, however, then it’s just a word game.
“The Greeks didn’t invent language.”
I don’t recall ever claiming this. But the Greek language and those of India are Indo-European languages, so one shouldn’t be surprised with somewhat similar pronunciation.
Also, my mention of the Greek transliteration of Peter’s name was only to point out that it isn’t how Jesus would have pronounced Peter’s name. A more accurate transliteration is “Shimyon Quepha.” — The argument of pronunciation ONLY appears to work with the Greek transliteration, AND NOT WITH THE MORE ACCURATE ONE.
Why do the names have to have the same meaning? As an example, much of Chinese is written with the same characters as Japanese and say, Korean or Vietnamese. The pronunciation may or may not be similar. The meaning may or may not be close. And sometimes in order to maintain meaning, the characters may have to change, then the sound will change. Language is like that, as words move from dialect to dialect, culture to culture.
My name in Kanji *sounds* like my name, but the meaning just isn’t the same.
I never said that you said “The Greeks didn’t invent language.”. I said that. and it means that words and concepts and sounds are borrowed.
dugrogers says:
“Why do the names have to have the same meaning?”
Think about it this way. There are some who say that Jesus’ title “Christ” is copied from the Hindu god “Krishna” because of the similarity in the pronunciation, minus the “shna” in Krishna.
It’s not relevant because “Christ” means “Annointed” and “Krishna” means “Black.”
Also, some try to use the Egyptian word “KRST” which is on Egyptian coffins as a link to “Christ.” The problem is “KRST” is the Egyptian word for “burial” and isn’t even a title nor has the same meaning.
So, next to word meaning, similar pronunciation means nothing.
“As an example, much of Chinese is written with the same characters as Japanese and say, Korean or Vietnamese. The pronunciation may or may not be similar. The meaning may or may not be close. And sometimes in order to maintain meaning, the characters may have to change, then the sound will change. Language is like that, as words move from dialect to dialect, culture to culture.”
I know how languages are. I’ve studied foreighn languages. But this does not change my point.
“My name in Kanji *sounds* like my name, but the meaning just isn’t the same.”
Okay, got that. But all I know that MY name is the same in any language. Spanish: Cristobal. — Italian: Cristoforo — Japanese: Curisu.
But using pronunciation alone for this fails completely because of the fact that the true pronunciation of Peter’s name is NOT Peter, but “Quepha,” which actually has the exact same meaning in Greek when translated as “petros.”
Such simlarity in names from the Greek trasliteration and the Indian languages IS ONLY TO BE EXPECTED. That’s Indo-European languages for you. There are MANY words in Indo-European languages that SOUND similar and YET HAVE DIFFERENT MEANING, and that easily explains the similar pronunciation.
The meaning of the sounds of the name, and their lack of correspondence doesn’t disqualify the content of the story.
dougrogers says:
“The meaning of the sounds of the name, and their lack of correspondence doesn’t disqualify the content of the story.”
Oh, I agree strongly.
… and to be more precise, neither does it disqualify the correspondence of the story.
dougogers says:
”
… and to be more precise, neither does it disqualify the correspondence of the story.”
And I don’t disgree with this either. My argument is just this: “One need not necessarily copy another to have the same idea.”
Different peoples have been know to have similar (or identical) ideas independently of eachother. For example, the Egyptians, the Maya and many others all independently built pyramids without one influencing the other. This is just one cultural example.
… and I don’t believe that escape is powerful enough in this instance. I understand that it is important to Christian polemics that the story of Christ be unique. I suggest this is bias in the approach to the discussion.
dougrogers says:
“… and I don’t believe that escape is powerful enough in this instance. I understand that it is important to Christian polemics that the story of Christ be unique. I suggest this is bias in the approach to the discussion.”
Of course I’m biased. I never claimed I wasn’t. But the approach is perfectly legit.
Besides, I never claimed that Christianity didn’t have similarities to other religions. I freely admit that it does.
But then the question then becomes: “Did Christianity therefore copy from the others?” — My answer is “Not necessarily.” I say this because most of the similarities are stuff that are only to be expected.
Sariputta is no his real name. His real name is Upatissa. His father name Sari. His name mean the son of Sari. Sariputta is one of the chief disciple of Buddha. Among Buddha disciple he is one of the most remarkable individual, in time of Buddha living Buddha gave title of Dhammasenapati to Sariputta. Buddha compare Sariputta to the son of Universal Monarch who every right to take the thron when the right time come.
Thank you. This comment is helpfull.
There are many Buddhists stories that parrallel to the Bible. But that is not the point. One thing I have to say is that no one can possess the knowledge that Jesus has without meditation. When the mind leap out of the defilement one can see the coin both sides in three demension. The pure mind or the enlightend mind in itself is Dharma or the Western call God. Dharm exist in two states that is condition and unconditioned. When Buddha or Jesus Christ alive they can go in and out of these two states at ease. But when they passed away they only exist in uncoditioned state and we are the searcher of this unconditioned is in the condtion. That why what Buddha say is the core of the truth when he said “all codition thing is decay” and eventually lead to suffering and soulessness.