The Passion of the Buddha
Jesus suffered for you, we are told. Jesus died on the cross, wailing "Father, why have you forsaken me?". But we are also told he is a supernatural creature, immortal and unstoppable, who did not really die at all. So, what are we to make of his suffering? If Jesus was what he said he was, the suffering and death was faked, a massive guilt trip but nothing more.
Buddha also suffered before he became "the Buddha". He abandoned a comfortable life to live in our world of suffering, and tried extreme self-denial since it had been advocated as a path to understanding. The Buddha found the middle way, the doctrine of non-attachment as the true way to come to grips with the imperfect world we temporarily inhabit. After becoming Awake, the Buddha did not suffer, and was no longer bound to the physical body he was born in.
Suppose that Jesus was the spiritual equal of the Buddha. (Despite their propaganda slogans that he was a man, Christians often complain at any comparison between spiritual figures that even suggests lowering their god to the level of a human, but let's consider it). If Jesus was an enlightened man, he would know what the Buddha knew: that the physical form we inhabit is temporary and the world is in constant flux. Continuous change from moment to moment means that you are not the same as you were when a child, and will not be the same as an elderly person. Attachment to the body is pointless and leads to suffering and fear. If Jesus was Awake, even if only human, he would have known that he did not have to fear death, or fear the destruction of his body, or regret the damage inflicted on it, or worry about his self-image and reputation if he broke under the torment. Jesus could not "suffer" because suffering requires an attachment to the world.
Now suppose that Christ was a supernatural creature, as his followers say. He would not even have to be "Awake" or similar to the Buddha in a spiritual sense. Even an ordinary, "throw-lightning-bolts-at-uppity-mortals" kind of God would know he had nothing to fear from taking human form. Pain? Just a signal from the neurons that the body was being damaged. Bloody, gory injury? Just molecules being moved around, disrupting their temporary organization into tissues and organs. Death? The loss of the ability of that body to function--but a God could always create a new one. A supernatural creature such as Christ would not fear, would not regret, would not worry, since even without the wisdom of the Buddha, how dumb would he have to be to feel attachment to a body?
Christians say Jesus was a man and a god, but that is nothing more than a slogan that sounds profound if not questioned. But could Christ have suffered? Unless he was a very stupid god who didn't know what he was, no. The Christian religion is founded on the idea that Christ sacrificed for all of humanity--but what did he sacrifice? He did not suffer, he did not give up anything, he did not have to fear or regret anything. In what sense is the fake death of an immortal being meaningful? In what sense should we be impressed that an unstoppable supernatural creature could pretend to suffer pain when temporarily in human form?
The Buddha gave up his comfortable childhood life, risked alienating his family, endured physical pain and poverty, and witnessed the suffering in the world we live in. But his message is not 'pessimistic' as other religions like to claim; he is not pounding guilt into your head over the hard path he took to enlightenment. Instead his message is loving and hopeful: You too can become Awake, learning how to handle the imperfection of life and break free of the cycle of death and rebirth and heavenly worlds and hell-worlds, and someone has already found the answer and desired to teach it.
Teaching Alternatives to Evolution: Comparing Buddhist 'Infinite Causes' to Christian 'Intelligent Design'