I read an article that critiqued Peter Kreeft’s comparison of Jesus and Buddha
One paragraph states this.
Kreef begins with the all-too-common trope that the Buddha claimed to be a man, while Jesus ‘clearly’ claimed to be both ‘Son of Man’ and ‘Son of God.’ In fact, the Buddha denied both being a man and a god (and other things), telling his interlocutor to know him simply as awakened – buddhoti, (Doṇa Sutta AN.4.36). My understanding of this is that the Buddha was challenging Dona’s (and our) categorical preconceptions of the world: in our experience there are such-and-such types of being that we could encounter and the Buddha was urging us to see that what he -and his teaching- represented was something beyond our current typologies and limited experience.
Another paragraph states:
*Kreef continues: “Buddha said, “Look not to me, look to my dharma (doctrine)”; Christ said, “Come unto me.” Buddha said, “Be ye lamps unto yourselves”; Christ said, “I am the light of the world.”
In fact the Buddha said “He who sees me, sees the Dharma, he who sees the Dharma, sees me” (SN 22.87). His life and teachings form a mirror image of one another. And one should not get too hung up on him as a particular being, as he is simply one of many who have understood the true nature of things and overcome suffering.*
And then a poster makes a statement in regards to Kreeft’s claim that Buddhism teaches a nothingness doctrine:
Nothingness is the wrong interpretation of Emptiness. Emptiness is simply the lack of inherent existence, or basically all existence is conventional and interdependently arising. Nothingness does not follow from this at all, its an absurd conclusion. I don’t understand how a philosophy professor could misinterpret this so badly when Garfield, another philosopher, has made this so clear in The Fundamental Wisdom Of The Middle Way commentary. SMH
My question is, is Peter Kreeft wrong about Buddhism along with most other Catholic apologists?
Here is the original piece by Kreeft, btw.