Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
So, for example, take "The Buddha's Speech", it's imperfect, because it's created (produced).
naturally, i cannot agree. the buddha's speech comes from a perfect mind
In my tradition the only reason to debate is to move both self and opponent forward on the spiritual path by reaching consensus about some aspect of the dharma.
Sounds fine...i am trying to move you to the dharma, which does not adhere to blind obedience to gurus about matters of an unverifiable nature
I am sorry that you do not see the same message of loving compassion and the end of 'self' that I find in the Jesus message.
I actually once saw what you have suggested. Please bear in mind I was once a avid follower of Bhikkhu Budddhadasa. But then one day I realised what I saw was just a hallucination my (and Buddhadasa's) imagination. Regards
You are truly blessed to have found your own, truly satisfying hallucination. Allow us ours.
naturally, i cannot agree. the buddha's speech comes from a perfect mind
...
i am trying to move you to the dharma, which does not adhere to blind obedience to gurus about matters of an unverifiable nature
An interesting post.
First you speak of Buddha's speech coming from a man with a perfect mind. You say this about a man who lived 2,500 years ago whom you never met, with whom you never had a conversation, based only on words that he might have said (since none of his preachings were written down until many, many years after his passing).
Then you say that no one should "not adhere to blind obedience to gurus about matters of an unverifiable nature."
thanks....interesting sutta, which i have read before
but does not MN 26 explicitly state the Buddha-To-Be entered into those arupa jhanas
The Buddha to be didn't say that he entered the formless states, he just asked them what state are they teaching, then they declared Nothingness & NPNNP. Whatever state they claimed to have taught he reached that. And he went back to them and asked is this what you are teaching. They said yes, that is it. He said " that teaching" ( whatever it is that they taught) he didn't say arupa states.
Also at first he thought that Rama realized it through Abhinna (direct knowledge), but after ( toward the bottom of the paragraph) he said that this dhamma does not lead to abhinna.
"What if I were to endeavor to realize for myself THE DHAMMA THAT RAMA DECLARED HE ENTERED & dwelled in, having realized it for himself through ABHINNA ( DIRECT KNOWLEDGE).' So it was not long before I quickly entered & dwelled in THAT DHAMMA, having realized it for myself through direct knowledge. I went to Uddaka and said, 'Friend Uddaka, is this the extent to which Rama entered & dwelled in this Dhamma, having realized it for himself through direct knowledge?'
"....But the thought occurred to me, 'This teaching leads NOT to disenchantment ( nibbida), to dispassion ( viraga) , to cessation ( nirodha) , to stilling ( upasamaya: calmness, appeasement) , TO DIRECT KNOWLEDGE ( ABHINNAYA ) , to Awakening ( sambodhaya) , nor to Nibbana ( nibbana) ..."
The ones taught by the teachers are clearly described as " leads NOT to disenchantment ( nibbida), to dispassion ( viraga) , to cessation ( nirodha) , to stilling ( upasamaya: calmness, appeasement) , TO DIRECT KNOWLEDGE ( ABHINNAYA ) , to Awakening ( sambodhaya) , nor to Nibbana ( nibbana) ..." in MN 26
When it comes to the actual jhana states that the Buddha taught, he clearly said that they conduce absolutely to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation ( nirodha), to stilling ( upasamaya) , to direct knowledge ( abhinnaya), to Awakening ( sambodhaya), to Nibbana" in the Pasadika Sutta DN 29. So obviously the states he referred to in MN 26 are not the same as the ones he refered to in DN 29 ( the states that he taught after enlightenment).
Our records of Jesus' life, the bible, are known to have been changed from their original. IMO, this would mean that we don't have any credible information to make claims about what Jesus's intentions were or that what was ascribed to him was truly his. I have read one scholar that suggested that Jesus was a Jewish man who wanted to change the current situation of the Jews under Romans rule. As a result of his actions, he was executed for crimes against the Romans.
Could he have been a divine person? Perhaps. Were his ideas socially advanced? Maybe. IMO, it is more likely he was a political activist that had some great ideas about how to make the world better.
Buddha is not a god and jesus is a self proclaimed god. I do not know as much as many of you do about Buddhism. But, from what dhamma was read, little compares to jesus if at all. Jesus would more compare to Brammha. Buddha broke the fetters. Jesus was attached to them, if he existed at all.
Buddha is not a god and jesus is a self proclaimed god. I do not know as much as many of you do about Buddhism. But, from what dhamma was read, little compares to jesus if at all. Jesus would more compare to Brammha. Buddha broke the fetters. Jesus was attached to them, if he existed at all.
Namaste
May I correct a couple of things?
First of all, Jesus is not "a self proclaimed god". That is what caused so much trouble in the early days. Jesus called himself Son of Man, a title from Daniel and which, to any Jew, certainly does not imply divinity. It is later theologians, following Paul, who declare that Jesus is both human and divine.
I can't quite see how Jesus was attached to fetters. For me, his message is one of liberation. Perhaps you can provide a quotation we could discuss.
As for the question of Jesus' existence, there is at least as much historical, epigraphical and archaeological evidence for him as for Gotama, the Shakyamuni Buddha. It is unprofitable to get into that sort of debate.
My concern is not about being the right one. I care little about this subject in all honesty, but, as a gist some things will be mentioned.
Christ was christened to be and claimed to be the "I am." "I am the way the truth and the light. No man shall come onto the father, but by me." Self I identity view as leading the people of Israel into the faith of being the messiah.
Uncertainty: "my god! Why hath thou forsaken me?"
Ill will: "Do not think that I have come to bring peace, but a sword. To turn son against father and daughter against mother...." So on and so forth.
Christ was accused of being a blasphemer and a charlatan. Of which is was. He and the jews are the adversary against the each other; he by breaking the laws of the Talmud; they by their cruelty towards him and his lot. They had retribution for that sort of thing, then. It does not make what they did right. It just supports my point that, "Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man."
You should look the "I am" up in Hebrew. It'll bring more understanding as to why the Jews saw him as they did, worthy of crucifixion. What the Christ did was very much against their laws. Though it doesn't make them right in what they did, a law is a law and he broke the commandment, "thou shalt have no other gods before me." Christ was a self proclaimed messiah, the Jews saw that as blasphemy.
No Buddha would be so foolish as to display the acts of a charlatan, nor place the being as an adversary to a religious law.
You are, of course, entitled to your view and to your interpretation of the Gospels. You may want, however, to notice that there are some (I suggest 'many') of us who find messages of liberation, compassion and justice within them. I have, many times, suggested an alternative understanding of the statement in John about being the way, similar to Yishai's comment.
When we hold violence and hate in our hearts we shall find it in others. Hold benevolence and gratitude; they will bring you peace of mind.
Oh my, I've just been entertained by finally reading all the posts in one sitting, and I want to thank all of you for an enjoyable time. Of course, the question has no answer as asked, but it's fun to debate. Especially for those of us who came from Christian homes and rejected whatever brand of Christianity we were taught in favor of Buddhism. The answer for those of us with that experience is, this is an obvious answer. If Jesus was a Buddha, I would have stayed a Christian. So no, they're obviously different. Details available upon asking.
So, compare and contrast?
When you examine the message both taught as passed down through the sacred literature, there are similarities. Human beings are the same everywhere, suffering is the same everywhere, the desire to know how to deal with the world is the same, so of course some of the answers the savior figures come up with will point to the same solutions. Compassion. Transformation. I think it can safely be said that whatever the gurus taught, the churches that lay claim to their heritage, Christian and Buddhism, now preach two entirely separate things, though.
And when it comes to Christ and Buddha, they are identical in that both are savior figures. While the mortal men can still be found in the writings, there's not much left after centuries of focus on the miracle of transformation that a savior demonstrates. I have a poster in front of me on the wall with the life of Buddha in pictures. It shows his mother reclining on her couch and looking not at all surprised as a sacred white elephant looks through the window at her, grinning. It's the divine birth element of the savior. Did either happen? Irrelevent. It echos the belief that such special people must have special beginnings.
So, was Jesus a Buddha? Was he enlightenend? He said some enlightened things, according to the Testaments. But Christ is a title, a role on the cosmic divine stage that has an exact meaning. Christians have the right to insist on that definiton, the same as Buddhists have the right to insist on their own definition of a Buddha. A Christ is a Messiah, born perfect and without sin. His destiny was to suffer and die as a final, cosmic sacrifice to God, to provide a way for God to forgive us for our sins by embracing Christ's sacrificial offering as our personal offering to God. According to this, Jesus the teacher only served to fulfil the prophesies so we'd know he was the real thing. He taught a good message that we might say is enlightened even, but unlike the Buddha, the teaching wasn't the point. Jesus did not teach how to be another Jesus, like Buddha taught us to be another Buddha. What counts with Christ is the crucifixion and rising.
Perhaps that is something of a "hot wire" to withdraw inward and witness within parts of your being, @vinlyn.
My facts are about Christ and this stands here now. There are facts about Buddha, but, this is a Buddhist forum. It is as visiting their house. My actions will not be to offend them and make every subject about my creed, which is not Buddhist. If my words are posted here it will be posted with respect to Buddhism because my thirst is to learn more about the sangha. There simply isn't enough knowledge about the dhamma, on this side, so, while reading it and practicing it, my inquiry is turned towards those on this forum. This is their house.
Where as, there is too much seen about Christianity, Islam, and Israel. There is too much dogmatic violence. I will not enter their forums to neither banter with them nor proselytize. Their belief is their own. So, I respect them too.
However, if approached by their self identity views, then facts will be spoken. The facts usually do not favor them. Their belief in a god of such an nature does it to it's self. If one insists to remain ignorant to the facts, that does not concern me.
You are, of course, entitled to your view and to your interpretation of the Gospels. You may want, however, to notice that there are some (I suggest 'many') of us who find messages of liberation, compassion and justice within them. I have, many times, suggested an alternative understanding of the statement in John about being the way, similar to Yishai's comment.
When we hold violence and hate in our hearts we shall find it in others. Hold benevolence and gratitude; they will bring you peace of mind.
There are messages of liberation in everything. So what? People who are attached to dogma will cling to any thing or entity to dictate their lives. True liberation does not suffer such things.
Deny the passions in the core and you will be consumed by it. Understanding and compassion is in the heart. When one brings awareness to these, passion becomes the seed of compassion. Christ never taught this, because this is by experience, not his dogma.
My actions will never be cruel to another. There is no jealous god here compelling me to go forth and join a crusade.
It seems,@simonthepilgrim, now that the facts are intentionally being ignored because there are those who insist on blind faith in Christ as Buddha, it is time to pick minds and play "poor me" games; all the while, witnessing the endless intimidation that comes from the three mainstream monotheisms. This only benefits more delusion.
For the sake of peace on the forum, I will no longer respond to your postings. My last word is that there are other things which make a cruel man, as well.
It is more appropriate to ask followers of Christ as Buddhism is on emptiness the emptiness, with the truth that everyone is having a buddha nature, and is Buddha. The loving compassion never cease is not this basis - "the same message of loving compassion and the end of 'self' that I find in the Jesus message." as claimed. It is very likely in the understanding of heaven as end of self in Christianity tenet by all Christ' followers.
At one point I became a very "eccentric" Christian: denied Original Sin, denied Pauline theology, denied trinitarianism, considered annihilationism, and then I realized that I was no longer a Christian, haha. Anyway, the point is moot. There is no right an wrong here, just different interpretations on the same reality.
"No man shall come to the father..." I always thought that quote to be more about "I am the way" as in... Follow my example, not think highly of me.
Does anyone actually read what the "Prince of Peace" has said, @Yishai?
Mark 14:61-62
Again the high priest asked him, 'Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?' "I am,' said Jesus. 'And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
Matthew 10:35-36 "For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."
Luke 12:51-53 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
Luke 19:27 “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”
These were Christ's own words. The Christ spoke blasphemy. That's what he was crucified by the Jews for. Christ was not a Buddha.
Comments
Regards
but does not MN 26 explicitly state the Buddha-To-Be entered into those arupa jhanas
First you speak of Buddha's speech coming from a man with a perfect mind. You say this about a man who lived 2,500 years ago whom you never met, with whom you never had a conversation, based only on words that he might have said (since none of his preachings were written down until many, many years after his passing).
Then you say that no one should "not adhere to blind obedience to gurus about matters of an unverifiable nature."
Hmmmmm.
The Buddha to be didn't say that he entered the formless states, he just asked them what state are they teaching, then they declared Nothingness & NPNNP. Whatever state they claimed to have taught he reached that. And he went back to them and asked is this what you are teaching. They said yes, that is it. He said " that teaching" ( whatever it is that they taught) he didn't say arupa states.
Also at first he thought that Rama realized it through Abhinna (direct knowledge), but after ( toward the bottom of the paragraph) he said that this dhamma does not lead to abhinna.
When it comes to the actual jhana states that the Buddha taught, he clearly said that they conduce absolutely to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation ( nirodha), to stilling ( upasamaya) , to direct knowledge ( abhinnaya), to Awakening ( sambodhaya), to Nibbana" in the Pasadika Sutta DN 29. So obviously the states he referred to in MN 26 are not the same as the ones he refered to in DN 29 ( the states that he taught after enlightenment).
Could he have been a divine person? Perhaps. Were his ideas socially advanced? Maybe. IMO, it is more likely he was a political activist that had some great ideas about how to make the world better.
Buddha is not a god and jesus is a self proclaimed god. I do not know as much as many of you do about Buddhism. But, from what dhamma was read, little compares to jesus if at all. Jesus would more compare to Brammha. Buddha broke the fetters. Jesus was attached to them, if he existed at all.
Namaste
First of all, Jesus is not "a self proclaimed god". That is what caused so much trouble in the early days. Jesus called himself Son of Man, a title from Daniel and which, to any Jew, certainly does not imply divinity. It is later theologians, following Paul, who declare that Jesus is both human and divine.
I can't quite see how Jesus was attached to fetters. For me, his message is one of liberation. Perhaps you can provide a quotation we could discuss.
As for the question of Jesus' existence, there is at least as much historical, epigraphical and archaeological evidence for him as for Gotama, the Shakyamuni Buddha. It is unprofitable to get into that sort of debate.
Christ was christened to be and claimed to be the "I am." "I am the way the truth and the light. No man shall come onto the father, but by me." Self I identity view as leading the people of Israel into the faith of being the messiah.
Uncertainty: "my god! Why hath thou forsaken me?"
Ill will: "Do not think that I have come to bring peace, but a sword. To turn son against father and daughter against mother...." So on and so forth.
Christ was accused of being a blasphemer and a charlatan. Of which is was. He and the jews are the adversary against the each other; he by breaking the laws of the Talmud; they by their cruelty towards him and his lot. They had retribution for that sort of thing, then. It does not make what they did right. It just supports my point that, "Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man."
No Buddha would be so foolish as to display the acts of a charlatan, nor place the being as an adversary to a religious law.
"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." That is all there is to say about it.
You are, of course, entitled to your view and to your interpretation of the Gospels. You may want, however, to notice that there are some (I suggest 'many') of us who find messages of liberation, compassion and justice within them. I have, many times, suggested an alternative understanding of the statement in John about being the way, similar to Yishai's comment.
When we hold violence and hate in our hearts we shall find it in others. Hold benevolence and gratitude; they will bring you peace of mind.
So, compare and contrast?
When you examine the message both taught as passed down through the sacred literature, there are similarities. Human beings are the same everywhere, suffering is the same everywhere, the desire to know how to deal with the world is the same, so of course some of the answers the savior figures come up with will point to the same solutions. Compassion. Transformation. I think it can safely be said that whatever the gurus taught, the churches that lay claim to their heritage, Christian and Buddhism, now preach two entirely separate things, though.
And when it comes to Christ and Buddha, they are identical in that both are savior figures. While the mortal men can still be found in the writings, there's not much left after centuries of focus on the miracle of transformation that a savior demonstrates. I have a poster in front of me on the wall with the life of Buddha in pictures. It shows his mother reclining on her couch and looking not at all surprised as a sacred white elephant looks through the window at her, grinning. It's the divine birth element of the savior. Did either happen? Irrelevent. It echos the belief that such special people must have special beginnings.
So, was Jesus a Buddha? Was he enlightenend? He said some enlightened things, according to the Testaments. But Christ is a title, a role on the cosmic divine stage that has an exact meaning. Christians have the right to insist on that definiton, the same as Buddhists have the right to insist on their own definition of a Buddha. A Christ is a Messiah, born perfect and without sin. His destiny was to suffer and die as a final, cosmic sacrifice to God, to provide a way for God to forgive us for our sins by embracing Christ's sacrificial offering as our personal offering to God. According to this, Jesus the teacher only served to fulfil the prophesies so we'd know he was the real thing. He taught a good message that we might say is enlightened even, but unlike the Buddha, the teaching wasn't the point. Jesus did not teach how to be another Jesus, like Buddha taught us to be another Buddha. What counts with Christ is the crucifixion and rising.
My facts are about Christ and this stands here now. There are facts about Buddha, but, this is a Buddhist forum. It is as visiting their house. My actions will not be to offend them and make every subject about my creed, which is not Buddhist. If my words are posted here it will be posted with respect to Buddhism because my thirst is to learn more about the sangha. There simply isn't enough knowledge about the dhamma, on this side, so, while reading it and practicing it, my inquiry is turned towards those on this forum. This is their house.
Where as, there is too much seen about Christianity, Islam, and Israel. There is too much dogmatic violence. I will not enter their forums to neither banter with them nor proselytize. Their belief is their own. So, I respect them too.
However, if approached by their self identity views, then facts will be spoken. The facts usually do not favor them. Their belief in a god of such an nature does it to it's self. If one insists to remain ignorant to the facts, that does not concern me.
"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man."
Deny the passions in the core and you will be consumed by it. Understanding and compassion is in the heart. When one brings awareness to these, passion becomes the seed of compassion. Christ never taught this, because this is by experience, not his dogma.
My actions will never be cruel to another. There is no jealous god here compelling me to go forth and join a crusade.
It seems,@simonthepilgrim, now that the facts are intentionally being ignored because there are those who insist on blind faith in Christ as Buddha, it is time to pick minds and play "poor me" games; all the while, witnessing the endless intimidation that comes from the three mainstream monotheisms.
This only benefits more delusion.
"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man."
Namaste
Does anyone actually read what the "Prince of Peace" has said, @Yishai?
Mark 14:61-62
Again the high priest asked him, 'Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?'
"I am,' said Jesus. 'And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the
Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
Matthew 10:35-36
"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother,
and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."
Luke 12:51-53
Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two,
and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father;
the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother;
the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Luke 14:26
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,
and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
Luke 19:27
“But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign
over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”
These were Christ's own words. The Christ spoke blasphemy. That's what he was crucified by the Jews for. Christ was not a Buddha.