Jesus a buddhist? Hindu?
mockeymind
Veteran
I watched a documentary about the Dalai Lama and it shows that how a sage or a holy man's birth can be known through signs from heaven, astrology perhaps? As Tibetan look for the next spiritual leader, they will travel to verify or see where the next leader will be. It is like the three kings in the Bible- some people believed that these are from the east. And the missing years of Jesus (at the age of 12 to 30) believed that he was taken away to learn the practice. If this is accurate, is it fair to say that christianity was somehow came from the practice of buddhism? I noticed some resemblance of the Buddha and Jesus teachings, thay are entirely inconsistent or nowhere to be found in Jewish tradition. Christ reappeared only at the age of 30 starting his ministry.
There is also a BBC documentary about Jesus didn't die on the cross, Some people believe that some of his lost years in the bible are in connection with his training in India, learning from the masters and yogis that time. So if he is a yogi - he will not be easily lose his breath on the cross since most bhakti-yogis know how to breath (even with little oxygen) If all are correct then he didn't die on the cross and there is no resurrection. I also noticed that after he was taken down from the cross, a man brought some herbs for him, one of these herbs is aloe. It is not used to embalm but to cure or recover.
Lastly, the documentary says that after he survived crucifixion, he went back to East, where he continue or started a new ministry. Died at an old age.
I would like to apologize to people (specially christians) that may be offended by this posting. I came from a religion where we are not allowed to raised such inquiry on core teachings. As a new buddhist I'm so glad that I can investigate, validate, question or even refuse any teaching if doubt arises as the buddha taught.
Comments
No, how do we learn if we don't ask questions, discuss, exchange viewpoints, etc?
About the Dalai Lama. You do realize that Tibetan Buddhism is unique in many ways? It's highly esoteric and mystical and retains beliefs that are foreign to other schools of Buddhism. Primary is their whole reincarnated Tulku tradition.
As for the rest, we're in the realm of the vast human imagination, aren't we? I see similarities between the teachings of many founders because suffering is universal, the experience of being human in an uncaring universe is universal, and so the questions each religion tries to answer are the same. The difference is as important as the similarity, though, isn't it?
There are some interesting videos on youtube and netflix (if you can use that) about the search for tulkus. It's kind of a strange thing. I'm a Tibetan practitioner (but not Tibetan by ethicity!) and I'm not really sure what I think of it all. i just watched a documentary yesterday called Yangsi, which is about the young man who is supposedly the reincarnation of Diglo Khyentse Rinpoche, whose teachings are a major part of my lineage. There is another called Mistaken Child that is about a young monks search for the reincarnation of his master based on clues the master gave before he passed. Such bizarre rituals. There is actually a little boy in the state I live in (Minnesota) who has been named a tulku. he is around 8 years old and is preparing to go to monastery in India (or Nepal? Can't remember) when he is 10 years old. He has met the HHDL who cut his hair for him and declared him a tulku. I find it fascinating to consider, but I don't put a lot of weight on those types of things in my practice.
I find similar things like you mentioned about Jesus and Christianity interesting as well, particularly the lost books of the bible. It's interesting to consider, though we'll never know. My dad always asks us if we could go back in time to get an answer to something, where would we go? And those missing years of Jesus' life are one of the things I have mentioned. I find Jesus fascinating. Christianity not as much. As Gandhi said "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are nothing like your Christ."
There are also dozens of conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination. They're very interesting. I have questions myself about a few points.
This whole debate about Jesus is akin to a conspiracy theory, and most often strings together little mysteries for the purpose of selling an author's books or video.
Bottom line, and I go right back to another thread this morning -- "Does this ceremony magically make you a Christian?", where the conclusion seems to be that you are what you say you are. Did Jesus ever say he was Hindu? Did Jesus ever say he was Buddhist? No. He referred only to a lineage of religion that established today's Christianity.
Frankly, this line of thought is nothing more than a Buddhist wanting to make a renown world figure in his image. Or a Hindu wanting to make a renown world figure in his image. Or -- as in the other thread -- a relative wanting to make you Christian because you say grace or attend or participate in a Christian ceremony.
Well, guess what, I don't what Buddha was doing on February 11 of his 32nd year. Or March 14 of his 45th year. Or any other particular day of his life. Gee, he must have been out in the woods praying to God on those days! Therefore, Buddha was a closeted Christian. Guess I'll write a book.
Seriously, stop and think about all the stories of Buddha in Buddhist scriptures. Do those stories account for all his 29,200 days? No, not even a sliver. So let's remake Buddha into another religion since we don't know what he did on the vast majority of his 29,200 days.
And oddly enough, other times when this topic has been tackled in various places, some of the same people who postulate that Jesus was a Buddhist, in other threads will slam people who -- like me -- straddle the two religions, saying that the two are incompatible.
The stories about Jesus are legendary, very similar to Mithras who was another competing God. Some people suggest Jesus may have been an Essene ascetic for a while.
I feel it is nice to have a god with relatives. So for example the sister of Mary would be the aunty of God/Christ. It is also good to have a god with teeth and as far as we know Jesus had teeth and probably took them to heaven during his ascension.
As for the influence of early dharma on the wood working apprentice. Dunno.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_influences_on_Christianity
@Cinorjer - I agree you you completely on this.
"No, how do we learn if we don't ask questions, discuss, exchange viewpoints, etc?"
However, in the past specially when christianity was introduced in my country it isn't by choice of the people. It was part of inquisition to take control and hold grip of the society -its nasty. Some of my great elders in the past didn't even know why they are doing such ceremony and its origin. The bible was only accessible to the few people that time. It was only after the birth of the protestant that they let the entire society read it.
Control, manipulation, power are the main reason of inquisition - not for enlightenment.
If one ask sound question during those times, they will be excommunicated or worst killed. That is how powerful the roman catholic were. That is why there is so much controversies in my old christian tradition- corruption on the highest level, priest sexual abuses, coverups just to name a few.
Buddhism for me is such a liberation. its more of a free thinking and best of all - it works.
@lobster - Thanks for the link. I'll look into it.
OP, I've researched to death the Jesus-in-the-East story. I'd love to believe it's true, but it turns out that the original report that kicked off that theory was faked. A travelling Russian scholar (Nicholas Notovich) said he found a Tibetan manuscript in Ladakhi monastery that said Jesus lived and taught in the area, and travelled around India. However, later, a British guy spoke with the monastery's lama about it, and the lama was shocked and angered that the Russian guy was making false claims and even publishing them in the West. There's a copy of the Brit guy's translation of the lama's disclaimer floating around the internet somewhere.
Then in the 1920's/30's, the Nicholas Roerich family (more Russians) visited the same monastery. Their son was a Harvard educated Orientalist, and could read Tibetan. They sent press releases to US newspapers saying the "Notovich" manuscript was real, and even published a partial translation. But they later retracted their statement, and said there was no such text.
The Jesus' Lost Years In The East story makes a nice story, but that's all it is; a story.
"Jesus may have been an Essene ascetic"? Isn't it a known fact he was? Isn't he sometimes referred to in some churches as "the Essene"? That would explain some of his "lost" years; he could have been meditating in caves among other Essenes.
^^^ He is also referred to as the shepard, fisherman and rabbi. Where was he when his step dad wanted help with building a table? As the oldest sibling I believe he set a poor example for the family business. It is ironic that his gruesome death involved Roman 'public terror furniture'.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brothers_of_Jesus
Which Jesus? The Gospels can't even agree on who this man is, what he did in his life, and what happened at the end and what it all means. Not that it makes much difference. The church pretty much ignores his life and teachings. For most Christians, their religion starts with his crucifixion. I grew up in the religion and it's always fascinated me.
I guess that it doesn't matter as long that I can connect. Whether Jesus is a buddhist, hindu, Islam or a pure Jew- what matters is if his teaching can change a person for the better. Same thing with the Buddha, maybe I cannot know exactly how accurate or fairy tales the stories. What is important is it tackles the fundamental truth about suffering/unsatisfactoriness . A good starting point since every being all shared the same truth.
When I started to meditate on these things - I cease to struggle with it and learned how to accept the nature things. It is easier now for me to navigate through life, good and bad times.
There ARE some archaeological finds that confirm Jesus was indeed an Essene as were Mary and Joseph. Many of these have been discussed on documentaries I've seen on the History Channel that have been produced by the BBC.
But I guess in the end, it's the teachings that matter most. Just like it's the practise, not the size of the crucifix around their neck, that matters most about being a Christian.
Buddhist, Christian, Essene aren't 'real' designations of persons, they are more like PLACES people can be, like how a strong ideology seems to shape reality.
If you try hard to figure a person out by a thing like 'we they really an Essene or a . . . ?" you won't find out who the person was. Even being a Buddhist is, for me, the wrong idea. I think we feel a hole in our 'identity' and must fill it with 'being a Buddhist' or 'I'm a Catholic!' or whatever. That NEED to call yourself or someone else something is just ego trying to classify and organize people so the ego feels more with it and in control. The ego is the silliest excuse for a 'self' there ever was
and SO limited, so small minded. At least mine is.
I don't think it is wrong to identify yourself as a Buddhist. You choose how to identify yourself after all.
It's true, but how do we get through the world without assigning labels? I certainly don't advertise that I'm a Buddhist, but if someone happens to ask, should I just stare at them? Should I say "I can't answer that because I don't assign labels to myself" even though just assigning the pronoun "I" is a use of a label in a way? I can refuse to label myself as a mother, but I've born children from my uterus and they follow me around like ducklings, so, whether I use the label or not, it's there, lol. When we talk about labels, why does it often seem to be the religious/belief label that is the one we talk about leaving behind? What about all our other labels? I think what we are after is to find out what is there under all the labels, under the hats we wear every day. But I'm not always sure that journey, and the answers we arrive at, are really to share with the rest of the world, at least while the journey is still in process. Obviously who we are as a result comes through, but is the world really ready for people who have no labels at all? How do you fill out a job application without answering all the label questions, and so on?
Name: N/A
DOB: Eternity
Address: The Universe
Education: Life
Honestly, I would probably hire someone like that, LOL. But most people won't. Labels are required, even as we might feel them personally start to fall away. Sometimes I get mad about it even. My mom will say things like "You are a mother first and always." and I want to say "who are you to tell me who I am!" lol I don't but the thought arises often.
His teachings were quite far removed from Judaism and talked of a forgiving God.
I don't even think Jesus believed in Abrahams God. I think he used the idea in the same way that Buddha used Brahma to illustrate a point in a way tailored to his students. I think he woke up to his true nature and asked us to follow in his footsteps.
Interesting post! Sometimes you have to start from where people are to build on a new direction, rather than just trying to scrap everything from the past.
Just want to point out that the Buddha emphasized his teachings were not central to him as a person or figurehead, whereas this was not the case with Jesus, who proclaimed himself as the means to salvation. So of the two resulting religions, Buddhism arose without a "cult of personality" around the originator, with few details of his human life documented, on purpose. The opposite is true of Christianity - most of the disciples (or their followers) wrote about the details of Jesus' life, which became gospel. Therefore it is a bit more of a mystery that a section of Jesus' life is "missing" if you want to describe it thus.
It is not wrong Jeffrey, but it is commonly excluded by Buddhists (especially those with faith/devotional inclinations) from being examined for potentially being just another attachment.
I don't agree with this at all. In the Old World, Buddha's life -- beginning with his conception through the dream of a white elephant -- through his horse magically flying into the air -- is featured in art work in hundreds of Buddhist temples throughout parts of Southeast Asia. The very fact that every Buddhist temple I have ever been in -- and that is literally hundreds -- has multiple Buddha statues, not to mention paintings of Buddha and mosaics of Buddha -- very much points to a personality cult, albeit a healthy one (IMHO). There are dozens of Buddha poses, all of which have some special meaning. There are historical periods in Thailand, for example, that emphasize standing Buddhas, walking Buddhas, reclining Buddhas, floating Buddhas (presumably after death), etc. In fact, there is far less statuary in a typical Catholic Church than there is in a typical Thai Buddhist temple.
But, what you pointed out in your post had nothing to do with my post.
I don't agree @how. In my sangha we take refuge in the dharma to the exclusion of other views and religions. We identify as Buddhists. The whole teaching of my Lama is to open to the blessing of the lineage which goes back to Buddha.
@jeffrey
As I said (those with faith/ devotional leanings) are unlikely to consider the possibility of the danger of spiritual attachments developing. That is one of the most pervasive dangers of that particular path.
Those on the other side (the meditative side) are just as likely to be unable to accept that they can not really just do this by themselves which is the most pervasive danger of that path.
Of course, while most practitioners claim both practices, one or other always seems to be their dominant trait.
@how I don't think aligning with a lineage is an attachment. I think it's just a mistaken view hesitating not to label oneself whereas identifying as a Buddhist clarifies what mandala you are engaged in. You align with the awareness mandala and let go of the ego mandala. So identifying is just being clear in your head rather than 'attachment'. Otherwise you can say you are attached to meditation or whatever your practice is. Ends up reductio ad absurdum. You are free to disagree and you are free not to want to identify yourself.
If you aren't attached, why shouldn't your mind be open to any religion?
No I think you just make decisions all the time. You can be whatever religion you want or all at once. That doesn't mean you are 'attached'. If you go and say that making choices is attachment then I think you are rigidly attached to the idea of avoiding attachment! It's the rigid thinking that is the attachment. Identifying as a Buddhist can empower your greater connection to the teachings and practice.
More on your question I think you have to make choices. I wanted to be an engineer but I choose chemist instead. I had to choose. I am open to being an engineer but my training is in chemistry and now that is in the past. So I have been studying Buddhism for 17 years. Is my mind open to Christianity? I would say yes. But I have more connection to Buddhism. In part that connection was formed by identifying as a Buddhist and sharing with the sangha.
I find it interesting because my teacher includes non-Buddhists in his retreats and teachings. Even inour Ngondro retreat, he gave instructions for those who are not Buddhist so they didn't have to worry about the chanting and other stuff that didn't apply to them if they were not, or did not seek to be, Buddhist. So,while those of us who have taken refuge vows have made the decision to be Buddhist, my teacher doesn't focus solely on us. He is focused on helping everyone who happens to be in front of him regardless of whether they are Buddhist or not.
I don't think it's 'wrong' either, but how I use the label can get problematic, and I'm thinking this is a human problem rather than unique. Sometimes, a label is exactly what we need. Other times, the label over simplifies, is distracting, and so on. The label itself -- Buddhist -- is fine, it's what I end up making out of the label.
I get it.
I am not fit to call myself a Buddhist, someone on the oath to awakening . . . m m m . . . that should have read 'path' not oath but it is a good option . . .
I am just a sleepy z z zist
hopefully I can work up to Dharma Zest, then a Stream Entrant and eventually Buddyist to Buddhists and the Wakists . . .
I haz plan!
I don't think you are actually
That's ok. You don't know me so what you think about me is irrelevant.
Can you give me an example of where I have been closed off to a belief system that actually makes sense?
How to contradict yourself in two short sentences....
To me it's not so much your personal attitude that is of question, as it is that to each group of people who has a belief system (whatever it is), their belief system makes perfect sense.
I know people who think the Buddhist system is preposterous. Why? Because it's not their belief system.
So, saying one can only believe in a belief system that makes sense is to dismiss almost every belief system except their own -- a reason for most of the division in the world.
Of course, I'm along the lines of an agnostic omnitheist and don't even have faith in my own beliefs as they are so subject to change.
More than one belief system can make sense even if one makes a little more sense.
I realise "sense" may be subjective but logical inference is either logical or it isn't.
This is because of this... With no suspension of disbelief or leap of faith.
That is what I mean by making sense.
"makes sense" is rather subjective though. What "makes sense" to you is based on your own investigations, learnings, causes, conditions, etc. Just because something doesn't make sense to you doesn't make it's existence invalid. In the end it doesn't matter whether it makes sense to you. It does matter whether you practice right speech and everything else with regards even to things that don't make sense to you.
I edited my post as you were posting. Does mine make any more sense now?
I wouldn't say any belief is invalid just because it doesn't make sense. All I said was I'm only open to it if it does.
I don't think it's wrong speech to speak out against irresponsible belief systems by questioning their logic.
Even if they turn out to be true.
^^^ right speech is not based on truth?
Indeed but don't tell anyone . . . that might be unskilfull . . .
Strange world we live in . . .
Not everything can be reduced to logic though. What was logical sense 500 years ago has changed drastically today. There are things most people believe in (to a degree anyhow) that don't have logical proof, at least not yet (or maybe not ever). Even though we might see steps in the right direction, do we have 100% logical proof ourselves that following the eightfold path will lead us out of suffering and out of the realm of human birth? Nope. But it's what a lot of Buddhists believe, logic or not.
The 8 fold path is logical however and I do have enough proof for me to see how it can at least reduce suffering. The 4 Noble Truths is a logical teaching and is just as logical now as it ever was.
I don't much care about escaping rebirth but there is a certain logic to the concept.
But is it truly logical or are we just extending our trust and belief in it to our logic? Christians find their belief in God and going to heaven after death to fit their logic as well. Our logic doesn't fit their beliefs, and vice versa. But both sides believe logic is on their side, as well as enough proof of their own to make it work.
one thing is for sure, Jesus wasn't a Christian since Christianity wasn't invented till way later by Rome. Jesus was a practicing Jew and so were the early apostles. By the way, his Jewish name is Yeshua and that's what we should call him.
Ah . . . understand what you are saying now . . .
Sometimes it is. Sometimes not.
Truth or skilful speech MAY be appropriate to the degree of a person or groups opening. In an ideal world, situation and skill level it is true on all levels.
Spoken 'truth' however is often a lie, incomplete, partial, context sensitive etc and that is no lie . . . It is why the wise rarely speak about Truth [lobster fails the wisdom test yet again]
I'm thinking logic is logic. There is no "your logic" and "my logic", there are logical arguments and equations and there are illogical arguments and equations.
The Four Noble Truths are set up as a logical position. It may not have meant to be so but it is.
By its own admission, the God from the Bible is not logical. It is driven by emotion.
@octinomos;
If Jesus or Yeshua was a practicing Jew, why is his message so different than Jewish doctrine?
@lobster;
I don't know if you got my gist or not... Even if what some Christians believe is true and we have to take Jesus as our savior or be destroyed in the apocalypse... That Jesus takes the responsibility of our sins because we are unable... It is still not wrong speech to speak out against that kind of doctrine.
That's probably asking too much; in which case we should refer to every name, title, and location in their original tongue, to follow that logic.... It's natural to anglicise certain names and terms, it just makes it more comprehensible to us.....
So in other words, what you're saying is:
Only the logic used by Buddhists is correct.
Only the logic used by Americans is correct.
Only the logic used by men is correct.
And you have never disagreed with anyone on any topic based on logic.
Need I go on?
Perhaps. Perhaps not.
It is not our remit to right every doctrine, spread every zen insight, scratch every Samsarians impulse. We have dharma fundamentalists for that if we are Middle Way hardcore fanatics . . .
@ourself -- his message wasn't different. It's just the modern interpretation that differs.
....Pass the popcorn....
Logic is just a manner of reasoning. And everyone who has beliefs can us logic to reason in their favor. For every Christian who believes literally Jesus washes away their sins, there is another Christian who views it more symbolically (just like our back-and-forth about whether realms really exists, and whether they are real places or in our minds). Not all of them believe Jesus literally washes away their sin, but some do. So when you are correcting the illogical reasoning of their beliefs, do you quiz them on exactly what their beliefs are, or do you assume what their beliefs are based on their label of Christian? Also, in what situations do you think that you should correct that type of "illogical" thinking?
This pretty much sums up where I'm coming from. If you believe that statement you made, you wouldn't waste energy attacking theism, this thread shows it shrugs