Buddhism and Christianity are two of the three world's greatest and most influential religions. The third is Islam.
That both Christianity and Islam are succesful is 'logical'. Because Mohammedanism is an Muslim version of Romanized Zoroastrian Christianity (sorry), though Islam is in an even much greater ethical crisis than Roman Christianity. The talent 'showing genuine respect' is mainly restricted to Buddhism, although that view of life became in many countries heavily corroded by 'egoism'.

Original Christianity (the lifestyle of Jesus) is more like Parsi belief and Buddhism, and only in tradition Ancient Hebrew (with Hellinistic influences).

Though contrary of usual in general one might compare Hinduism with Protestantism and Buddhism with original Christianity (Zoroastrianism). Hinduism became a religion around the ethics 'Buddhism', loosening the strict common sense Bhuddist restraints on egoism by allowing 'spiritual' abstract 'gods'. Softening being of low caste with colorful rituals around those 'gods'. The Hindu caste system is based on egoism and the abstract concept 'power'.

Roman Christian mind body split thinking results in the fantasy: God is Spirit and God moves bodies/causes things to move in the world.

In England and later US protestantism developed something simular to Hindu castes. With the 4 subcultures:
1) Social Leaders = Professors and Leaders of Religion;
2) Rulers = High Politicians and Army Top';
3) Business = Money or Power owners',
4) Workforce = Employed people'
and restclass Slaves or Unemployed'.
It explains why 'the English' managed to be so succesful in India. The created a top caste 'Englishmen', and further mainly laid power connections between own casts and the Indian ones.

Something to think about:
900-1707 Muslim Conquest of Southern India (Southern India mainly of Islamic religion)
1751-1947 British Conquest (afterwards India for 80% of Hindu Religion
A Muslim clique seperated Pakistan from India with as motivation strengthening Muslim power in the region. But also in Pakistan are strong Zorastian traditions, just like in Northern India.

Hinduism knows many gods while Buddhism contains no structured belief in a god-like entity (especially in human form).

The major example of Hinduism's political/social influence is the caste system (slavery formalized). It has 4 major classes:
1) Brahman (responsible for religious rites and teaching the Veda);
2) Kshatriya (warriors and aristocracy, including people in governing positions);
3) Vaishya (craftsman, traders/merchants);
4) Shudra (peasants or workers);
and a rest class of "paria's" or "untouchables," as people outside these 4 classes.
Just like Protestantism Hinduism is driven by the abstract concept 'Power'.
Buddhism focuses on individual behavior (common sense) AS PART of life (reality), thus seperating ethics from politics.

To keep 'things' easy, in this article I'll consider Hinduism to be in major view on life part of Buddhism, and Protestantism part of Christianity. Because abstract political ambitions like 'power' should be neglected.

Cultures and Respect

In India there are regions were fore ages Buddhists, Christians and Muslims lived together in peace.
That was before tradewars caused by Portugese, Dutch and English fleets. Indeed, Europese Christians helped by gun powder in their mission to conquer the world .

Christianity: absolute logic rationalism on top of absolute set of rules 10 commandments, and doctrine of split mind and body. Christianity became brilliant in technical skills Islam: mix of absolute logic rationalism with relative logic 'common sense' on top of absolute rules. Doctrine: mind and body are one. Islam conservated emotions. Buddhism: relative logic (Dukkha, Samuyada and Nirada) on top of absolute rules Eightfold Path. Doctrine: mind and Body are one. Buddhism seems most flexible system, but outside Thailand until yet failed in getting political power.

In all respect, Christianity became brilliant in skills, but compared to the Buddhist 'Eightfold Path' the Christian 'Ten Commandments' look like rules for travelling behavior. I.e. better not enjoy sex with the partner of your fellow traveller. And always show respect for your travelling guide 'Yahwee'.
Mozes must have been in deep trouble.

Compare this to studying gorillas, building a simulation based only on rational data, and adding Zen for feeling. With only rational figures you get a robot without feelings. Zen adds the real exchange of communication, the feeling that you like each other. Nishida would say: "to know is to love, and to love is to know". His quotes breath the atmosphere of Buddhism, and are slightly more convincing than his rational concepts. But he should be seen as the first sign of an inevitable symbiosis between Western Rationalism and Asian Buddhism. A kind of Buddhist 'Karl Kuhn' or 'Thomas Popper'.
NOT joining Christianity and Buddhism, but the absolutism from rationalism with the relativism in Buddhism. The absolutism in rationalism represented the important technical skill part, the relativism in Buddhism the equally important ethical part. Rationalism is a christian concept, when considering the place of birth.



We could say that Nishida is partly influenced by European culture. He accepted the rational part which at that time only had an 'absolute' character, but for making ethical decisions buried it under loads of Eastern Buddhist thoughts (just look at his picture).
He was rationally shaped by digesting the work of 'famous' German classic thinkers, like the worldwide completely unknown Bolzano, Brentano, and Meinong (all three not without reason without worldwide audience). Also by reading the in European English speaking philosophic circles marginally known Husserl.
Germany produced really great philosophers like Nietzsche and Marcuse, but when reading formal philosophy 'made in Germany' it seems easier to digest complete philosophers and to stay away from their products of mind. Because as if being engineers they generally produce un-understandable texts

Nishida combined the ethical thinking from Buddhism with the amazing engineering qualities of the Germans (and with him all around that time in Germany studying Japanese students).

Japan end 19th century became an (in top) rational island in Buddhist and Muslim Asia.
Japanese university system end 19th century was shaped like German university system. Kyoto Imperial University started in 1897 as the second Imperial University following Tokyo Imperial University which was set up in 1877. Majority of Kyoto professors were graduates from Tokyo Imperial University and had experience of studying several years at German universities.
German universities at that time emphasized investigation (Forschung) or analytic resarch. Abstract investigation until then was alien in Buddhism. So it was unknown at Tokyo University (focusing on learning from experience through history). The training system was reformed at the Law School of Kyoto University, in sharp contrast with the overall training system of Tokyo University. But analytic thinking without ethical limits is disastrous. It introduces concept like 'efficiency, which can result in efficient producing weapons and efficient killing. The same fantasy 'efficiency' made English and American soldiers kill innocent Germans at huge scale, and stimulated the decision of American leaders to drop atom bombs on Japan. In say 2 minutes making as many victims in 1 country as the Nazis in 10 months in say 25 countries. And worse even inherently making many victims every year in that country till at present. A HUGE war crime of Nazi proportion. Historical myths say there was fog above the original goals. Difficult to believe that atom bombs were dropped at random
Buddhist people generally are masters in performing as a group. Together with 'efficiency that is like creating ants in human shape.
Nevertheless early 20th century rational thinking was introduced on a large scale amongst Japanese engineers and political leaders, crucial for the decision process that finally made Japan enter WWII.

So although Nishida is not a young talent blinking on the web in the 21st century, he is in Buddhist philosophy a shining star comparable to Descartes in western science. Respectfully he is called Nishida Sensei (translated Master Nishida). Maybe translations of his books are difficult to digest, but his complementary function between Descartian Rationalism and Buddhist Ethics is of utter importance (DON'T mistake Western Rationalism with Catholic Christianity, because Buddhism is not a religion in traditional sense). Original Christianity though is close to Buddhism in being a philosophy of life. It is still found in Ethiopia (Ethiopian 'Orthodox' Christianity). The flexibility of Buddhist thought allowed Japanese engineers to keep using Buddhism for ethical decisions while at the same time applying advanced rational skills in building record high skyscrapers and supernatural suspension bridges. Because Buddhist cultures are curious and fast learning.

Without reading original books by Nishida, I had to rely on reviews and common sense. Reason is that I can only read from screen, and e-books about Nishida don't yet exist. It helped that I recognized mathematical and philosophical notions, and being Dutch myself learned my share about Dutch history in Asia. This was strengthened by my experiences as early backsack traveller in Asia.
I never believed that the ethically and culturally advanced Japanese described in pre-war Dutch history books could within 10 years change in harakiri loving monsters. But I could imagine that power reasons of political leaders could get on unexpected tracks. And when meeting busloads of Japanese and German tourists in Amsterdam, these totally didn't appear to me like disguised devils on wheels.

Nishida's concept mu (nothingness) creates a historical space, created around the idea 'eternal now'. I GUESS that the notion 'nothingness' refers to the unmeasurable creative moment that individuals in space use to change direction towards the next 'nothingness'. That 'less than a moment' indeed nicely can be characterised as 'nothingness'. As far as rational skill decisions influence this direction, they are made rationally. But for other skills and flexibility in ethical decisions Nishida probably by intuition correctly relies on Zen Buddhism.



I remind that in Mandelbrot pictures you can see in a nice visual way, that progress defined by mu while taking 'rationalism' as usual as 'absolute' can result in endless 'dribbling on the spot' (but 'absolutism' was common in Europe in his time of study. And later the widely respected Karl Popper defended this line of thought, being without criticism followed by the mainstream in Western Rationalism). That's were the relative way of thinking in Buddhism comes to the rescue. It takes care that real progress is continued. Since Wittgenstein though western rationalism too has a relative variant, that got known through Thomas Kuhn.
But when the young student Nishida was studying in Germany Wittgenstein was unknown, Popper was a teenager and Kuhn was not yet born. Taking that into account Nishida can be seen as an early Buddhist symbiosis of the later combination Popper and Kuhn. Only remarkably he lived 25 years earlier than Popper and half a century before the inventor of paradigm shifts.

Translated as An Enquiry into the Good by Masao Abe and Christopher Ives. Newhaven CN: Yale University Press 1990.

We do not intuit the past; to feel something in the past is a feeling in the present.

Reality is a succession of events that flow without stopping (see definition of Reality)

Phenomena of consciousness are the sole reality.

Subject and object do not exist separately, for they are the two relative sides of one reality (The Joker: common sense always 'told' me that everything is relative).

Only one reality exists in the universe.

Seen from the outside, conduct is the movement of the body.

When we compare imagination and the will we discover that the goal of imagination is the imitation of nature and that the goal of the will is movement.

Consciousness is in fact never controlled by other things, for it is always controlling them. . . . Conduct therefore is not generated from without, but from within.

Consciousness is free not because it functions fortuitously beyond the laws of nature, but rather because it follows its own nature. . . . As our knowledge advances, we become freeer people.

The center of the self is not limited to the interior of the individual; the self of a mother is to be found in her child.

'We individuals are entities which have developed as cells of one society. The essence of the nation is the expression of the communal consciousness that constitutes the foundation of our minds.

Morality is not a matter of seeking something apart from the self -- it is simply the discovery of

Religion is not to be sought for the sake of spiritual peace -- such peace is simply a by-product of religion. . . . Religion is a human being's goal, not a means to something else.

As long as we set up a subjective self in opposition to the objective world and try to unify that world by means of it, then no matter how great this self becomes, the unity will remain inescapably relative. An absolute unity is only gained by discarding the subjective unity and merging with an objective unity.

Objective reality does not exist apart from subjective consciousness for it is the culmination of the unification of consciousness.

What we call time, space, and material force are simply concepts established in order to organize these facts and to explain them. What physicists speak of as pure matter divorced from our individual nature is an abstract concept farthest removed from concrete facts.

That which Newton and Kepler observed and took to be the order of natural phenomena is actually the order of our phenomena of consciousness.

Matter is nothing more than the shallowest of abstract concepts, established for the sake of explaining things.

The relation between God and the world is the relation between the unity of consciousness and its content

Because time and space are established by the unity of consciousness, God transcends time and space, is eternal and indestructible, and exists everywhere.

God is none other than the world and the world is none other than God

Heaven and earth are merely one finger, and the myriad things and the self are of one body.

To know is to love and to love is to know

All necessary extra knowledge to write this article I found on the web, by using combinations of search words like: 'nishida kitaro buddhism rationalism deshima dutch v.o.c.'

Say 2500 years ago Gautama Buddha preached 'love' (relative knowledge) in Asia and initiated Buddhism. Later independently Jesus did the same in the area around the Meditarranean Sea. Jesus gave absolute knowledge (the Pharisees) in Palestine a severe blow. Only after his death egoism (that profits most from absolute knowledge) managed to survive both in Palestine and in Europe. Means to produce written documents in those times were mainly owned by tradition loving nobles, and used to kill progress. Christianity (mind not the original views about freedom of Jesus)as branch of Islam became highly succesful in technics. But because it also effectivily managed to smother most new ways of thinking remained practically at a standstill in ethics. The difference between 'mother' Islam and child Christianity is found in the view on mind-body. Mind the Roman Christianity is the mother of Islam variant Mohammadanism. The essential difference between Christianity and Buddhism is that Buddhism denies god-like entities, and certainly jealous gods.


Mohammedanism kept the old belief out of Islam that mind and body are one. There's no reason to presume that Jesus as a Muslim Hebrew thought otherwise. But the Romans preferred the old Greek belief that the unphysical spirit is trapped in a physical body. The apostle Paul was used as an excuse to introduce this 'mistake' in Rome and later in all Europe.

Much later this doctrine was made into the formal logic rationalism by the French priest Rene Descartes. That helped to end the Dark Middle Ages and start a restful period of Industrialism.

This simple split of 2 streams of thinking explains the present troubles between Western Christianity and Mohammadanism (see Conflict Israel-Palestine). It also explains why Buddist ethics has a great attraction for Europeans and Americans. Jesus preached 'love', and inherently like Buddhism relative knowledge. But Christianity developed rationalism, an abstract absolute way of thinking (love lost).

Generalizing one could say that Buddhists are 'The Great Apes' (no offense) and best equipped to give love. (Roman) Christians became the specialized 'Half Apes' ideal to be engineers. Muslims became 'The Confused Apes' (but still perfect warriors) Warning: often is posed that Buddhism just like Hinduism and Roman Christianity believes in a 'spiritual' reality beyond the 'ILLUSIONS of the physical world'. Buddhism is way too common sense to believe in immaterial things like 'spirituality. Yes in Buddhism meditation is seen as mighty tool, but also as quite physical. Training to suppress pain feelings, does not mean training to deny feelings.