A-lian, Thanks for the insight. The fact that there are highly superficial similarities is beyond dispute. But if you become more specific, the similarities begin to vanish unless one simply writes off the specific elements as unimportant. I guess that just goes to show what I always say: Any two things are similar as long as you ignore the differences. I'm afraid that it appears to me that comparing the miracles of Jesus (e.g. healings) with the "skillful means" of the Buddha (uttering falsehoods in order to entice people to the truth) is about as long a stretch as I can conceive of. You can say that they were acts of compassion, but that's retreating into the realm of generality where, ultimately, you can make any two things sound similar. There are lots of people who have exhibited compassion in their own way, and that fact makes neither them nor their teachings impressively similar, let alone identical, except on a rather superficial level.
I really like the story in the Lotus Sutra. In this version, which I think is the original because it is so much more reasonable, the son had to learn responsibility, while I think in the Bible, the father just welcomed him home--like a rich spoiled kid. I think I would be mad too if my father did this to an irresponsible younger brother!
Erawan, I'm glad you recognize that there are differences. I'm not surprised that you prefer the Buddhist version as it appeals to a common human instinct. We tend to think that we are responsible to make ourselves acceptable to God or whatever divinity we recognize. The Christian comes to this issue with the realization that God is so holy that he can never tolerate sin in his presence, and that our sinfulness is so ingrained in our fallen nature that we cannot, out of our own capacity, eliminate it and, thus, make ourselves acceptable to God. (One needs to keep in mind here that Buddhism and Christianity have different starting points and different goals.) For me and other Christians, the parable of the prodigal son is a demonstration of God's unconditional love. He took the initiative to do what we ourselves could not through Christ's atoning death. No, I don't deserve it; no human being does. We read in the book of Romans 5:8: "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." I can focus on God and living in his Spirit, and I no longer need to fear for my destiny.
By the way, I didn't mention this in my earlier post because I needed to double-check the facts. From what I saw, the earliest physical exemplars we have of any version of the Lotus Sutra stem from the 3rd century AD, and there really is no way of telling when it was first written, or even in what language. This nebulous assessment contrasts with the gospels that were clearly written in the first century AD, and for which we have the first manuscripts no later than the beginning of the second century. So, the textual evidence does not support your personal preference that the Lotus Sutra version was the "original" one, if there even was a single original story with that motif.
Thanks for the good interaction.
Win
I think the oral tradition of Asia is such a great and honorable thing--truth being told in stories from generation to generation. I honostly trust this more than the written texts that are more cold and distant. I would much rather hear or this from my grandfather than read it in a text from some scholar. This is why I think that gthe Lotus Sutra must be the original--that is comes down from an oral tradition that is much more human centered and compassionate. It doesn't bother me that it might change a little as long as the essence remains. I guess it comes down to me trusting the story more than the text.
