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.
Views on Jesus in Buddhism
NextElement
Explorer
What are your views on Jesus?
Personally, I think his teachings have been wildly changed by people wanting power from them..... And just the fact that he said his teachings in one language (Hebrew), they got translated into Greek, then Latin, then finally into English. Who knows how much was lost in translation from one language to the next! I've heard from Buddhists elsewhere that he might've been englightened, and just trying to make his teachings applicable to the Jews by using God in place of the Dharma that we know. Either way I think he is an interesting figure and would like some feedback in terms of his supposed miracles, crucifixion, etc.
Personally, I think his teachings have been wildly changed by people wanting power from them..... And just the fact that he said his teachings in one language (Hebrew), they got translated into Greek, then Latin, then finally into English. Who knows how much was lost in translation from one language to the next! I've heard from Buddhists elsewhere that he might've been englightened, and just trying to make his teachings applicable to the Jews by using God in place of the Dharma that we know. Either way I think he is an interesting figure and would like some feedback in terms of his supposed miracles, crucifixion, etc.
0
Comments
As for Jesus being a Buddhist monk.. well Buddhism was well established in Asia by then, even being in Alexandria, Egypt, so its not far fetched to believe that Jesus had some contact with Buddhists in one way or another.
My teacher says that it is as if Buddhism and Christianity were railroad tracks each leading in a different direction. So hard to follow both.
But my teacher also said that they are branches on a tree and eventually they meet up again.
Mostly the reason anyone does anything is to feel better ie they want to relieve their suffering. The question is whether what they are doing is helpful or if it is kerosene on the fire or a band-aid.
Shall I go on? There's lots more.
I'm expecting this to be another put down another religion thread.
I hate to disappoint you, but I have talked with more than one Theravada monk who said you can be Christian and Buddhist. Is it a perfect match? Obviously no. No more than Theravada is a perfect match to Zen.
Are the words in the New Testament Jesus' words...after all that translation? No, probably not. No more than the words in Buddhist scriptures are exactly Buddha's words after several hundred years of word of mouth.
Buddhists putting down Christianity is no better than Christians putting down Buddhism.
I'm certainly not one of those outspoken Atheists looking to bash Christianity in any way. I respect Christians for the charity work they do and their strong beliefs.
I have yet to see any actual evidence that he was a Buddhist monk -- which is an ironic thought since so many Buddhists say that Christianity and Buddhism are not compatible -- and that concept of him being a monk is just some Buddhists' attempt to say my religion is better than the other religion...see, even it's most famous proponent was a secret Buddhist.
IMHO
This thread is about views of Jesus in Buddhism.
Let's stick with it.
Both HHDL and NTH wrote books connecting Buddhist teachings with Christ's mission. If they can see a correlation I for one don't feel like arguing...
Spirituality is about going inwards, whatever role model you follow.
Jesus may very well have been a boddhisatva. What befell him is depressingly familiar because spiritually advanced people are typically persecuted for being different.
Why is it that you want to understand what they believe? You aren't likely to come to conclusions or consensus beyond what you already have. The bottom line is, they hold onto their beliefs because they give them comfort. Comfort in dealing with difficult times in life, comfort in dealing with death and the questions of what happens after. The same big questions we all have and accept different answers for. Some people need the answers to be there and it's very scary for them to think there isn't someone more or bigger than them looking out for them. It helps them go through life. For me, the comfort comes in letting go of not having the answers, in having personal responsibility. I don't understand why God gives them comfort, and they don't understand how I can get through life without believing in God. Someone the other day actually told me my way of life seems miserable, believing in nothing. I guess if you don't believe in God that means you believe in nothing, lol. But to them, God really is everything (I don't mean all Christians, but people like the one I just mentioned) and they live entirely for God. So for them venturing into questioning it would pull everything out from under them and that's pretty scary to think about, for them.
surely the teaching of Christ has been changed. But still there are some signs left, that show is the buddhist influence on Jesus. I would dare to say that Jesus was a Buddhist.
The two addional laws: Loving of God and the neighbour. The 40 days training Insight
in the desert and the meeting with the devil.
anando
He said that what we do to the lowest of us we do to him so to treat others as we would treat him or ourselves.
There's a quote from his teachings that says none get to the kingdom of God except through him. When people quote that they usually don't bother including Judas objection and then Jesus saying that anyone that lives the truth will also be graced by his "Father".
When Jesus said "Before Abraham I am", I believe he was speaking from a universal perspective and not as the man called Jesus just as when Buddha said "I am awake", he was no longer speaking as Sidhartha.
@ourself, I think when Jesus said no one comes to God except through him, I believe he meant that know one could truly know God except by what Jesus was teaching, not that he was a savior or the only way. But it's what the Jews of his time would understand, because of the monotheism of Judaism.
I may have that completely off-base and overly simplified, but sometimes simple is best.
I don't like how he supported all of the atrocious, nasty things in the Old Testament.
For example, although I was never force-fed Christian teachings, I would be a fool as an American not to recognize that I live in a Christian culture. To the extent that I might choose to practice Buddhism as an American, ignoring this fact would be foolish. So, in one sense, Christianity is part of my baggage, part of my outlook, part of my being, whatever the hell that is. Like it or lump it -- there it is.
And to the extent that it is part of my being, to that extent exactly, Christianity "fits." I don't need a book or a lecture on ecumenism to convince me: The "fit" already exists. Christianity fits because it fits and it fits because it doesn't fit ... it's just part of the farm I am stuck with -- the farm that really doesn't care much whether things are contradictory or compatible: It's just the actual-factual farm.
There are plenty of things about Christianity I don't happen to care for (convincing others, belief, "God," etc.) but that's just my farm. I am capable of getting my knickers into an ecumenical twist or differentiating to a fare-thee-well, but since it doesn't seem to accomplish much -- since it doesn't seem to guarantee a credible peace -- I pretty much stick with the Zen teacher Rinzai who once observed, "Grasp and use, but never name."
Just my two cents.
John 14 is the chapter and if we take the whole conversation into context we see at paragraph 22 Judas asking about those that have never heard of Jesus... How are they to be saved? Jesus pretty much tells them that if a person lives in accordance to his fathers law, they will be just fine even if they never heard of it.
What he calls "Father", some of us may possibly call the "Tao", "Brahman", "Buddha-nature" or even the "Common sense".
In my view it's fair to say that Jesus was as much Judaic as Buddha was Hindu. (Brahmanist?) I don't think Jesus's teachings were given a fair shake and believe it was a huge mistake tacking his teachings onto the Tanakh and deeming the Tanakh the "Old" Testament.
Living Buddha, Living Christ by Thich Nhat Hanh describing the similarities:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Living-Buddha-Christ-Thich-Nhat/dp/0712672818/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1393542159&sr=1-1&keywords=living+buddha+living+christ
And there is a school of thought that Jesus, during the 'lost years' went to India, learnt some Buddhism and returned to Israel to teach it within the theist frame-work which prevailed there; a kind of 'skillful speach'. It's could explain why the Old Testament 'an eye for an eye' transformed into the New Testament 'love thy enemy' and 'turn the other cheek' etc.
Though admittedly, it's probably only Buddhists who believe this.
Add'l... Krishna also says in the Bhagavad Gita 4.11 "Whosoever worship Me through whatsoever path, I verily accept and bless them in that way. Men everywhere follow My path." Uncanny resemblence.
. . . or mantras of a similar persuasion . . .
Many mainstream Buddhists brought up in a baggage laden culture do not question the holiness of monks, the doctrine of reincarnation or the benefits of praying and making offerings to statues.
It was only after studying the dharma that I could make some kind sense of in particular St Johns Canon/Gospel. I remember a Christian Minister who became a Buddhist to deepen her religion and consequently abandoned her ministry, which can happen the other way too . . . There are some better Christian contemplatives than some wannabe or practicing Sangha . . . [shrug]
I consider myself a Christian but not in anyway that is open or obvious. I also consider myself a non practicing Muslim, a Pagan, a lousy Taoist and so on. These differentiations based on half ignored and barely understood partial digestions, what we call 'religions', do not just separate the wheat from the chaff. They make bread.
The Body of Christ.
Yum.
♪♫•*¨*•.¸¸❤¸¸.•*¨*•♫♪ OM YAB-YUM OM ♪♫•*¨*•.¸¸❤¸¸.•*¨*•♫♪
And wasn't Paul just a bitter old misogynist?
Jefferson had tried to convince a number of Biblical scholars to do the work, but none were willing to tackle it. So, he did it himself.
Jesus was enlightened. Personally, I find nothing in what he has said that I find incompatible with Buddhist thought, though my interpretations are vastly different than a mainstream Christian interpretation...or even a fringe Christian interpretation.
To be 'saved' meant to accept Jesus Christ. But he is the way, the truth, and the light. So to be saved, one must accept the truth or dharma. The Buddha implored us, “Do not worship the finger that points the way.” When seeking to reconcile the two, I find myself doing a lot of this type of thinking.
Too, and I think it is important to remember, at least for me, context. In the United States, where I live, my grandmother – although born here, was not a United States citizen. To be a citizen, one must be human. As a Native American, it was not believed that she qualified. A mere sixty-five years ago, the first child abuse case was successfully prosecuted against a child's parents by proving in court that their daughter was biologically a member of the animal kingdom after which they were sentenced to consecutive six month terms for animal abuse.
Sixty years ago, my wife and I could not be married legally as members of different races. Fifty years ago we had blacks and the civil rights movement. Forty years ago we had women and equal rights. Today it is illegal immigrants and gays. How backwards we, as a society, look from the perspective of a hundred years. Jesus was speaking to folks from two thousand years ago. Just as a successful prosecution of the parents who abused their daughter had to be approached a different way to get the courts to listen, Jesus would have had to teach in a manner that could be understood by the people living in that time.
i think i would be a lot of work to compare both of them. But as i know both sides i
came the conclusion, that in my opinion, Jesus was a buddhist.
What proof do i have? There is written that he spent 40 in the desert and didn´t very
much. So the devil wanted to seduce him, but he sent him away.
Another translator said, that this is not the corect translation of eating less, but in really means he was making Insight. This is buddhist. The four pillars of Insight.
This is only one proof you might say, but there are a lot`s of them. So i give you another one: He met the devil. This is a very normal phenomenon if one is far adavaced
ind meditation practice, everyone will then meet the devil.
anando
Politically, I favor a few things that Republicans favor, but overall I'm a Democrat.
I'm afraid you just want Jesus to be a Buddhist.
Nevertheless, at least in theory, he seems like he was a very wise man who offered greatly radical ideas in his time; which ultimately spread to (and changed much of) the world. For better or worse.
Overall, I dig him.
Well, I suppose it can hardly be claimed that he was a householder or a businessman. He was a sort of Swami, a Teaching Monk. Not baloney this —but real Beef, to use probably not very wholesome Buddhist words.
It's interesting what others have written in posts above about the Jefferson Bible and the Red-Letter editions of the New Testament (and all things on those lines). Actually, though, in the seminaries of the Main-Line churches they teach these very enlightened views and have been doing so in many parts since the mid-nineteenth century. More on this below. The ancient world was a very different place from our own times. "Gospels" were a widespread literary form, though usually orally delivered to enthralled audiences. In these gospels the Hero's deeds and exploits, including his "miracles" or wonders were glorified as well as his and his friends' many fine speeches. These gospel narratives need not have included supernatural elements, though, as it all depended on the person about whom the gospel "spoke." You could count on it that there would be no miracle stories about a currently living man, though, unless he be the Emperor! (And of course, when Constantine legalized Christianity in 313 and the Empire began its downward slide, the Church became the Emperor.)
Briefly, then, the Christian gospels were near the end of a long tradition of gospelling in the ancient world, and were by many events —and even accidents of history— elevated above the few others surviving about other folks. Other religions shared in the breaking of the bread and the drinking of the wine and a lot of other such things that the Christians incorporated also. John's Baptism was new, as was the turning away from the idolizing of the ideals of the golden-bodied immortals to love of neighbor. Well, new in the Hellenic world, but not entirely new among the communities of Jews, to wit the Prophets.
I don't think that a Crucified God was all that unique, though, as often the deities had to die first in order to become who they truly were. But it is surely an appalling thought if you feel that somehow you must wrap your mind around this Crucifixion-Atonement Theology. To me, it's just a myth. And there are elements of Truth in myth! But Geez! To go on and on and on about how much one man or God-Man suffered, when everybody suffers and some so horrendously and for lots more than just a few hours! And especially, if he really were a God-Man, would that not make him even stronger and more able and even transcendent? So where, again, is the beef. I love the living, speaking, loving Jesus and I have a very special place for him in my heart.
Perhaps some people do not realize that If they were to attend a mainline Christian seminary or preparatory college, they'd have to take courses which break the New Testament down critically into functional themes, such as canonical criticism (putting all four canonical gospels together to find correlations, contradictions, &c), form criticism (combining tools of literary and historical analysis), redaction critisism and other disciplines. Where form criticism scrutinizes the stages of development the gospel stories must have undergone before reaching their current literary form, redaction criticism stresses the role (and the motives behind them) that the individual gospels played in shaping what was related and the how and the why.
It is my firm belief that people —and the things they "believe" or say they believe or believe they believe— should be put into neat little boxes only after they die, unless they choose their ashes to be kept tightly packed together in some sort of container. Gee Wiz! Elsewise, see them as bubbles blowing in the wind and catch a glimpse of them as they burst into something really wonderfully lovely right in front of your eyes when you're least expecting THAT!
I don't like the idea of Jesus having spent time with Buddhists or being a Buddhist monk. I think Christianity is a mess right now, (Politicians, Catholic Church pedophile scandals) and they did that on their own - Buddha had nothing to do with it.
I do think Jesus was a good social teacher, but the, uh, "Christian Party" here in the US have done a very horrible job of reading/understanding what Jesus said about the poor, the lame, the rich, the hungry, and "sinners."
I'm not trying to be political, not trying to diss anyone, nor do I think Democrats are perfect; but if you're going to run on the "moral high ground" ticket, you kinda need to be on some moral high ground. Again - Jesus has a fantastic social philosophy, but his followers are a bit, ah, "hazy" on the subject.
I think the general view across Buddhist schools would be that Jesus might have been enlightened, but he did not preach the Dharma. Those two things don't always go together. As for Buddhism and Christianity, I was raised in one version of Christianity and I've seen the best and worst. Since human suffering is universal, then the answers that work offered by different religions must have a common pattern. The "Place your trust in and turn your life over to Jesus" path of salvation echos the "Take refuge in Buddha" message. Christianity has no problem with either the Precepts or 8-fold path, only would say you need to accept Christ on top of it. And so on.
My old teacher used to say, "All paths don't lead to the same mountain. We are, however, all lost in the same wilderness."
I think one thing to remember is that just as with Christians, most Buddhists don't lead an immaculate Buddhist life.
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if most Christians lived a good Buddhist life, they'd be better Christians, and if most Buddhists lived a good Christian life, they'd be better Buddhists.
Let that sink in for awhile (and remember, I'm talking principles, not dogma).
I don't mind people not leading a totally immaculate life; I know how hard that would be. I don't have the bar set that high.
Where my bar is set however, is at the level where "holy people" abuse their authority by molesting children, they get to be put in prison, not moved to another parish, where they're given the opportunity to abuse again.
For one of my college courses, we had to find an article about prejudice and write about how that article fit into our course reading about prejudice. I sifted through many articles about Arizona's recent "religious freedom" law (the one vetoed by Governor Brewer) and came across this little gem: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/27/conservative-pundits-arizona-bill_n_4865482.html
Lets be clear here: Christianity under attack looks very different than being told you can't discriminate against Gay people. There are no Priest holes in this country, Nuns are not fleeing open gunfire in the streets (to be fair though, most liberals don't have guns, so I guess they'd be fleeing organic vegetables being thrown at them) nor are those Catholic Priests, Cardinals, Bishops, etc. being arrested en masse like they should be; there are those who abused, and those who hid the abuses.
I just...sigh* Christian Principles are fine - I just see them rarely put into practice. There seems to be more of an emphasis on faith over principles; as if believing "more" than the next person is the actual measure of a person's "Christian-ness."
Most politically active Christians like to quote from the book of Genesis (take that Evolution!) the book of Leviticus (take that Gays!) and Revelations (take that Non-believers!) what I have not heard from them (and of course, I may have missed it) is a Christian quoting from the GOSPELS - the part where the Savior is featured.
I believe Jesus to be a very good moral teacher, and I usually think of a Christian person as a moral person - until they open their mouth and something horrible comes out.
As for your middle sentence, check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kennedy_(Jesuit)