Something’s suspicious about this. My belief is that it is something written later and intentionally, to mislead Christians into believing Jesus took his words from other religions, yet he himself claimed repeatedly that his words came directly from the Father in heaven.
Did the Buddha even teach anything in regards to salvation? What would salvation even be to a Buddhist? I thought the intention was to become nothing, yet one with everything. That doesn’t sound like salvation of any kind to me personally.
The more commonly used term in Buddhism for salvation is enlightenment. A quick definition look up for salvation on the Googles says Christian salvation means "
saving [of] human beings from sin and its consequences, which include death and separation from God." A quick definition look up for enlightenment in Buddhism is "the action or state of attaining or having attained spiritual knowledge or insight, in particular (in Buddhism) that awareness which
frees a person from the cycle of rebirth." (Emphasis in both is mine.) The cycle of rebirth could be considered a state of suffering, trapped in samsara. I think in this way Christianity and Buddhism are pretty equatable. It is their point to 'save' people and in some way this is common for all religions as their fundamental purpose achieved through varying means. I've thought for a while now that highly realized individuals in Buddhism and Christianity are more similar than they are different.
To expand on the link that John K shared; being born as a human is considered favorable in Buddhism as we're the only kind of beings that can reach enlightenment. The Buddha is quoted in other sutra's mentioning that since it is so advantageous to be a human it's really important that you follow the dharma
now otherwise you might not have this opportunity again in another life. I think that him speaking of practicing with diligence seems in character for him, but saying so with outright fear does not.
I just wanted to elaborate a little bit to hopefully dispel any confusion.
Returning to the topic, I'm of the opinion that what's good for you is simply good for you. If it's achieved through spiritual means or through a therapist is irrelevant as long as the benefit is well, a benefit. I think there is little point making a distinction. There are plenty of spiritual practices that cause harm, just as there are psychotheraputic practices that cause harm. There are spiritual practices that bring benefits, and there are psychotheraputic practices that bring benefit. There's some kind of 'truth' out there and that 'truth' should be used to bring some sense of 'goodness'. Which sphere it falls under in terms of labels doesn't matter, because if it's good it doesn't really have a label. It's just 'good'. I tend to fall under what people would consider spiritual bypassing, but from my perspective it's not really bypassing at all. It's just simply the 'truth' revealing to me what's 'good'. If I'm suffering in some way, there's a good chance I'm just not correctly following or understanding what's 'good' about the 'truth'. To expand, I don't think there's a real separation between the mind, body and spirit; they're all part of one whole.
Rereading that last part I think I come across rambling and arbitrary but I'm having a hard time putting into words exactly what I believe.
