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.
Given that I (as in ME, personally), have been exposed, primarily, and without depth of years of study, to the 4NB and 8FP; and that I have incorporated those ideals into my personal belief system in a comparatively very short time - I see no reason to discount the idea that Jesus COULD have, at least, been exposed to that core concept of Dharma.
Given that I (as in ME, personally), have been exposed, primarily, and without depth of years of study, to the 4NB and 8FP; and that I have incorporated those ideals into my personal belief system in a comparatively very short time - I see no reason to discount the idea that Jesus COULD have, at least, been exposed to that core concept of Dharma.
There are endless things about Buddha that we could speculate about. But if we're going to go that route, then we also can't continue to claim that Buddhism is the most scientific religion.
Could Jesus have been exposed to the core teachings of Buddhism? I can buy that it's a possibility, particularly because of ancient trade routes. But where is the evidence? Personally, I would rather think that great minds come up with similar principles and beliefs without any real connection. But that's not scientific, either.
@imagination- why is it that people treat you as if you are a negative thing? is seems that scholars have deemed you unworthy of participating in a debate about history and science. its disheartening, mr. imagination, because you once meant SO much to science, what with all that day-dreming that Isaac Newton, Ben Franklin, and Albert Einstein did with you. in fact, i think one could say that you, mr. imagination, are really responsible for the prevailing wisdom that rules the roost, even today. but there is an attack on you! its being waged by people with DATA!!!! beware, mr. imagination, for you are not safe. if these compilers of data have it their way, you'll never be allowed inside of a discussion, debate, or classroom. you will banished to the recesses of our minds to live forever with your lonely friend, common sense.
i lament your death, mr. imagination, even now while you are still fighting the good fight in the face of a foe that will surely crush you. your shortcomings will always be your total willingness to change. that, and you are too closely alligned with the nature of women. the age of reason is here. say goodbye, but do it creatively. its your last chance.
It is interesting to me that Nathaniel was recognised by Jesus Christ as a man 'with no deceit in him' before he even met him (as he approached).
In response to this Nathaniel asked Jesus "how do you know me?" and Jesus says "I saw you under the fig tree before Philip (his friend) called you".
In response to having said this Nathaniel says "Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, the King of Israel" (a pretty quick conversion huh?)
Jesus then confirms "Because I said I saw you under the fig tree, you believe me..."
This phrase 'a man with no deceit in him" is used only twice in the New testament to describe an individual.
Once, by Peter to describe Jesus Christ himself and once by Jesus to describe Nathaniel.
Satan (Mara), by contrast is described by Jesus as: "He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies."
So for Jesus to say of a man 'he has no deceit in him" is to describe the antithesis of evil and ignorance.
Nathaniel then goes on to be present at many of the major events in the life of Jesus Christ but he is hardly mentioned. He doesn't deny Jesus as Peter did, doesn't doubt him as Thomas did, doesn't betray him as Judas did - he just gets on with being a good disciple.
The only other thing we know about Nathaniel is that, after the death of Jesus Christ he goes to spread the good news in India.
In response to the idea put earlier, I do not want to believe that Jesus was a Buddhist monk. I'm quite sure he was not. I'm suggesting that he would have known about Buddhism. It would have been remarkable if he didn't. If that is, he ever existed. I'm not entirely convinced. Judea was not such a backwater that a major religion well known across the middle east would be unknown there.
I've always had an intuitive sense that Jesus was a boddhisattva. His ministry was at odds with Jewish teaching, which is why the pharisees took exception to it. Very interesting programme and food for thought.
I fail to understand why anyone in the world would take this seriously. Jesus was a great, compassionate person who taught his people how to love. Saying he was buddhist is like saying he would not have accomplished all he did without getting 'help' from an outside source. That's insulting to Christians, is it not?
Second, India was not known to the world until a few centuries back, and in fact many explorers and missionaries had to go there and open her up to the world - since it has always been a dark, unknown continent. How is it logical or possible that an unknown religion from an unknown country influenced the ME, which has always been the center of all action? OTOH, Israel has always been well known all over the world - a light unto nations - so it is possible that knowledge traveled from there to the rest of the world, including Greece.
In response to the idea put earlier, I do not want to believe that Jesus was a Buddhist monk. I'm quite sure he was not. I'm suggesting that he would have known about Buddhism. It would have been remarkable if he didn't. If that is, he ever existed. I'm not entirely convinced. Judea was not such a backwater that a major religion well known across the middle east would be unknown there.
I agree with you that Jesus was not a Buddhist monk.
In terms of whether or not he would have known about Buddhism, I guess that depends on what you mean about knowing about it. As a school administrator/teacher, I associated with reasonably well-educated colleagues, and in our D.C. metro area, much of our clientele was also well-educated. So most had "heard about" Buddhism and couldn't tell you a single significant fact about Buddha or Buddhism. In fact, virtually everything they "knew" about Buddhism was just plain wrong. The exceptions, of course, were my friends and colleagues who were Asian and had been born and raised here. There is no significant knowledge about Buddha or Buddhism on the part of the vast majority of Americas, despite plenty of Barnes and Noble bookstores and the internet...and this is the 21st century. Might Jesus and most people in his part of the world known of a religion called Buddhism...maybe, maybe ever probably. Did they really know anything about it? I doubt it very much.
... Second, India was not known to the world until a few centuries back, and in fact many explorers and missionaries had to go there and open her up to the world - since it has always been a dark, unknown continent. How is it logical or possible that an unknown religion from an unknown country influenced the ME, which has always been the center of all action? OTOH, Israel has always been well known all over the world - a light unto nations - so it is possible that knowledge traveled from there to the rest of the world, including Greece.
Actually, Indian Emperor Asohka, around about 300 years before Christ, is the leader who sent Buddhist "missionaries" to Southeast Asia. The Thais, for example, fully credit him with bringing Buddhism to Thailand, usually citing the location of Nakhon Pathom as the first site where Thais accepted Buddhism. Today, Thailand's largest chedi is located there, and it is (as I recall) the third major chedi there to mark the event.
I don't find it hard to believe that if Buddhism was present in Jesus' area that he would have sought to have known what it was about. Most people don't know about Buddhism because they don't seek it out. It's quite possible that someone like Jesus would have sought out many avenues of information. But I do think @music makes a point about why do we assume Jesus would have had to have learned the same basic foundational principles that Buddhism is based on, from someone else? Clearly if Buddha could do it and was simply a person, then Jesus could have done it, too (and most likely did) as can anyone else. Just because Jesus and Buddha had very similar foundations for love and compassion for all people, doesn't mean one had to learn it from the other.
Yes, I strongly agree. Prophets and sages are lamps unto themselves. It annoys me when scholars see a similarity between traditions and assume that this means cross-fertilisation. All it may mean is that there is a natural convergence on truth.
Still, I cannot believe that Jesus did not know Buddhism. It was all over the place by the time he was born, and it would have been very odd if this excluded Judea. Some consider Essenism to be inspired by Buddhism, and some consider that Jesus was an Essene. It is interesting also that The Gospel of Thomas was hidden from the purge of texts by Iraneus etc and preserved for centuries in a Buddhist monastry.
But we'll never know for sure, and I'm, not sure it matters to anything. The interesting thing is simply the similarity of the message.
Still, I cannot believe that Jesus did not know Buddhism. It was all over the place by the time he was born, and it would have been very odd if this excluded Judea. Some consider Essenism to be inspired by Buddhism, and some consider that Jesus was an Essene. It is interesting also that The Gospel of Thomas was hidden from the purge of texts by Iraneus etc and preserved for centuries in a Buddhist monastry.
Drat. I knew someone would ask for a reference. I've seen this said a few times but now I can't find a reference on my bookshelf. I can't remember where the story appears. It may be apocryphal, but it should turn up somewhere in a search for the G of T. I'll do a bit more looking.
It's not that odd, Thomas being such an important player in South India, and given the nature of the gospel. Some even consider it to be the 'Q' gospel.
I'll get back to you if I crack it. The story as I heard it goes that it was kept secure for 600 years, so that at least roughly places its discovery.
That's interesting, @Florian, that some think it might be the "Q" gospel. I'll look into that through a friend who's studied that kind of stuff. There's also Acts of Thomas, another apocryphal gospel relating to Thomas. Let me know if you come up w/anything.
Sorry @Dakini - It seems that what I said about a copy of this gospel being found in a Buddhist monastery was a false memory. I hate getting it wrong, dammit, but here I may have elided two different stories to create a load of nonsense. At any rate, I can't find a reference. Thanks for calling me out and putting me right.
It makes a lot of sense to me that Thomas is 'Q', but I'm no Bible scholar. It's the best book that didn't make the cut imho, with the Gospel of Mary a close second.
Thank Heaven for discovery of the Nag Hammadi library.
Comments
Could Jesus have been exposed to the core teachings of Buddhism? I can buy that it's a possibility, particularly because of ancient trade routes. But where is the evidence? Personally, I would rather think that great minds come up with similar principles and beliefs without any real connection. But that's not scientific, either.
I was standing under a maple tree today.
i lament your death, mr. imagination, even now while you are still fighting the good fight in the face of a foe that will surely crush you. your shortcomings will always be your total willingness to change. that, and you are too closely alligned with the nature of women. the age of reason is here. say goodbye, but do it creatively. its your last chance.
sincerely,
The Winning Argument
In response to this Nathaniel asked Jesus "how do you know me?" and Jesus says "I saw you under the fig tree before Philip (his friend) called you".
In response to having said this Nathaniel says "Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, the King of Israel" (a pretty quick conversion huh?)
Jesus then confirms "Because I said I saw you under the fig tree, you believe me..."
This phrase 'a man with no deceit in him" is used only twice in the New testament to describe an individual.
Once, by Peter to describe Jesus Christ himself and once by Jesus to describe Nathaniel.
Satan (Mara), by contrast is described by Jesus as: "He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies."
So for Jesus to say of a man 'he has no deceit in him" is to describe the antithesis of evil and ignorance.
Nathaniel then goes on to be present at many of the major events in the life of Jesus Christ but he is hardly mentioned. He doesn't deny Jesus as Peter did, doesn't doubt him as Thomas did, doesn't betray him as Judas did - he just gets on with being a good disciple.
The only other thing we know about Nathaniel is that, after the death of Jesus Christ he goes to spread the good news in India.
Just speculating...
Very interesting programme and food for thought.
Second, India was not known to the world until a few centuries back, and in fact many explorers and missionaries had to go there and open her up to the world - since it has always been a dark, unknown continent. How is it logical or possible that an unknown religion from an unknown country influenced the ME, which has always been the center of all action? OTOH, Israel has always been well known all over the world - a light unto nations - so it is possible that knowledge traveled from there to the rest of the world, including Greece.
In terms of whether or not he would have known about Buddhism, I guess that depends on what you mean about knowing about it. As a school administrator/teacher, I associated with reasonably well-educated colleagues, and in our D.C. metro area, much of our clientele was also well-educated. So most had "heard about" Buddhism and couldn't tell you a single significant fact about Buddha or Buddhism. In fact, virtually everything they "knew" about Buddhism was just plain wrong. The exceptions, of course, were my friends and colleagues who were Asian and had been born and raised here. There is no significant knowledge about Buddha or Buddhism on the part of the vast majority of Americas, despite plenty of Barnes and Noble bookstores and the internet...and this is the 21st century. Might Jesus and most people in his part of the world known of a religion called Buddhism...maybe, maybe ever probably. Did they really know anything about it? I doubt it very much.
Still, I cannot believe that Jesus did not know Buddhism. It was all over the place by the time he was born, and it would have been very odd if this excluded Judea. Some consider Essenism to be inspired by Buddhism, and some consider that Jesus was an Essene. It is interesting also that The Gospel of Thomas was hidden from the purge of texts by Iraneus etc and preserved for centuries in a Buddhist monastry.
But we'll never know for sure, and I'm, not sure it matters to anything. The interesting thing is simply the similarity of the message.
It's not that odd, Thomas being such an important player in South India, and given the nature of the gospel. Some even consider it to be the 'Q' gospel.
I'll get back to you if I crack it. The story as I heard it goes that it was kept secure for 600 years, so that at least roughly places its discovery.
It makes a lot of sense to me that Thomas is 'Q', but I'm no Bible scholar. It's the best book that didn't make the cut imho, with the Gospel of Mary a close second.
Thank Heaven for discovery of the Nag Hammadi library.