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.
Was Jesus An Enlightened Buddha? Was he Buddhist?
JaySon
Florida Veteran
You have to wonder. . .
"You reap what you sow."
That's karma.
"Love your enemy."
That's universal compassion.
"Judge not and you will not be judged."
"Forgive and you will be forgiven."
That's karma again.
"Love your neighbor as yourself."
That's universal compassion again.
Now, I'm no saying Jesus went to the east and learned Buddhism. But I believe he was either a bodhisattva or a fully awakened Buddha all on his own accord.
3
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
There is a common thread on all paths once you cut through all the man made BS that's been heaped onto them over the years. I don't see why Jesus couldn't have been a Bodhisattva. No one path owns exclusive rights to truth IMO
_ /\ _
I don't know if he would label himself as one but he teached and lived like one. The precepts are kind of like the 10 commandments, except we have 5 instead of 10 but they also teach compassion, love, kindness, forgiveness etc.
My partner is not a buddhist but I joke with him that he is one by accident because he is the most thoughful and kind person I have ever met in my life and very spiritual....but he is Catholic.
...but he is Catholic.
Don't hold that against him
My last thought on the subject...
In order to have such universal compassion Jesus must have realized emptiness/interbeing.
He taught, "Love others as I have loved you."
He also taught generosity and to turn the other cheek.
It is the same Truth explained in different ways so more people have the opportunity to find that Truth. The story of Jesus in the garden when he knew he would be betrayed by Judas reminded me a lot of Buddha's struggle with Mara. They both had to overcome struggles and temptations. If Jesus knew what was coming down the pipe, it'd hard to imagine he wouldn't struggle to find a way to leave but he must have known that that "storyline" was necessary.
When you really look into what Biblical scholars say about sin, for example, you find that it's not really the same way we usually hear about it. It is like when someone who doesn't understand Buddhism gets a somewhat incorrect understanding of what "Right" means in the N8FP. Right just means skillful wisdom. It doesn't mean "correct" as in there is only one way to do it. Just as sin doesn't really mean some awful thing we have done, or even what we are. But more so that we miss the mark sometimes and it's a reminder how to get on track. Really, it seems to me they are the same coin, just Christianity (likely because of the nature of humans in charge at the time was based so much in fear) focused on the part you do "wrong" versus how you can do it "right".
I think he was at least getting onto something. Who knows how his teachings would have evolved if he wasn't executed.
After I'd received teachings relating to what we might call "the Buddhist approach to 'sin' ", I ran this by a friend who's an officiant (like a priest's assistant) in the Orthodox Church. And he said that's exactly right; a "sin" is just an error in judgment, like in Buddhism, when your materialism leads you astray to steal, or covet someone else's stuff, or whatever. It only means you forgot your true nature and got tangled up in some aspect of materialism, leading to misconduct.
The word "sin" in the Abrahamic traditions acquired a lot of baggage over time. Maybe we don't see it that way in Buddhism, because we're Westerners: outsiders looking in...? Possibly in those Asian cultures, it has some baggage. Still, I found Buddhism studies quite helpful in shedding light on the original concept behind the term. It's certainly more helpful to our practice to see it clearly, with unbiased eyes, IMO.
Conversely, this idea that babies are born sinners, which always seemed irrational and quite over-the-top, also exists in Buddhism, though expressed with different words. They say that newborns begin acculturating to the material world almost immediately. They begin absorbing the worldview of illusions from the moment a caregiver starts shaking toys in front of them, or hanging a mobile from the ceiling above the crib. Stated in that way, it provides food for thought.
Spot on. From a Jewish POV, we don't even refer to it as sin these days. In fact, I can't remember ever hearing or reading the word sin. As a child, I was raised Catholic - my father's faith - and I remember the nuns going on and on about sin, moreso than the priests or anyone else.
In Judaism, the emphasis is put on teshuvah - repentance. Which is something I think is pretty neat. For my own experience, I have found marked similarities between Judaism and Buddhism.
_ /\ _
Another interesting thing about sins...
At the beginning of a Lamrim meditation session you confess your wrongdoings to enlightened beings and vow to never commit them again. It is a way to purify Karma and perfect virtue. You ask for blessings to purify negative Karma and help in perfecting virtue.
Sins, in this case negative Karma, are forgiven/purified.
Thus have I heard...To sin is to miss the mark...nothing more ...nothing less ....
...A wandering mind will often miss the mark ...
The gnostics believed he did continue teaching and that's whats written in the Pistis Sophia.
Jesus has the divine attributes of Krishna, Buddha, Zeus-Jupiter, Apollo. All of them were born of a virgin. The Christic principle is always born from the Virgin Mother of the world.
What I find interesting is our psychology as we walk the path and how the three traitors interact within ourselves, for example: Judas (desire), Pilate (intellect), and Caiaphas (will) who crucify Jesus; Jubela, Jubelo, and Jubelum who murder Hiram Abiff ; Seth, in the form of the serpent Apophis and its two monstrous helpers Sebau and Nak murders Osiris; the three furies who attack Orestes; the three daughters of Mara who attack Buddha and who are conquered through right Thinking (Intellectual Center), right Feeling (Emotional Center), and right Action (Motor-Instinctual-Sexual Center).
So the only one who got a come-back, was the Buddha. Neat fella!
No doubt Jesus was a being who was able to see the truth in all of existence. I don't feel I need to define him in terms of Buddha or Buddhism. His teachings stand by themself.
No, I don't think that he was a buddha. I can't understand how a guy who taught fear was a buddha.
I didn't know what the Pistis Sophia was, so I looked it up.
It's a Gnostic text. I've read about the Gnostic Gospels, but I haven't heard of the Pistis Sophia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistis_Sophia
If you actually believe he taught fear, you know very little of his personal teachings.
He seems a bit too violent to be a Buddha... the whole bit around "if thy eye offends thee, pluck it out" suggests that while he was almost there, he was still misunderstanding some things.
He didn't teach fear nor was he violent. Like all paths, teachings need to be studied to be understood.
"Don't be afraid of those who want to kill your body; they can not touch your soul.Fear only God, who can destroy both your soul and body in hell." - Jesus
My sort of guy!
OK Jesus you can come on one of my picnics in hell ... In fact you can use your wood working skills to make a picnic table to put our body and soul on for demon offerings ... Bring your dad.
(here to help)
... meanwhile ...
... was Christ a Christian? Buddha a Buddhist? Mohammad a terrorist (destroying the perfectly good gods in the kaaba) - not sure what is in there now? Moses a forger (see missing 10 Commandments)? etc ...
Fun questions and good fun for hamsters going around in circles ...
Time for a reality check?
Are you Jesus, Buddha, Tara?
Do you experience Dukkha? Who ya gonna call? Clue - not Ghostbusters ...
[ yep ... on my way to naughty corner
]
Jesus woke up, saw he was God, treated the lowest(as per societal standing) as if they were himself, forgave and asked us to follow in his foot steps.
In my view he would be a bodhissatva or one in training.
I don't know if he was taught by Buddhists or not during his life but it does seem to me like he believed in a very different kind of God than what is in the "holy" books. I don't think he believed as Christianity portrays and I don't think he believed Jewish doctrine so I don't think I would bother labeling the guy.
He definitely railed against Jewish law and society. This was a major reason he was executed.
The Tibetans teach fear of a lower rebirth (in a burning or frigid hell, as a hungry ghost, or as an unintelligent animal). It's a major part of the Lamrim practice.
My take is that Jesus spoke metaphorically to get through to everyone around him. He took what they knew and used it as a bridge to his teachings.
That's how it seems to me too. There's a very popular and often cherry-picked verse from Jesus about "Nobody gets to the Father except through me". A lot of times the next few verses get left out as he basically says that to go through him means to be a decent person whether you heard of him or not.
Also, in that instance, I feel like he was saying that they must rely on him as you would any spiritual teacher. Everyone else in that day was all "an eye for an eye" and "let's stone everyone who doesn't believe".
Then Jesus is like... "Turn the other cheek and let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
That's Buddhist compassion.
One of the big problems with any religion is our tendency to take everything literally that we want to disagree with. Understanding the Bible and the teachings of Jesus isn't meant to be completely literal. There is always context to consider, including the culture of the times of the people who wrote everything down. Buddhism is no different. Neither is any other belief system. There are things Buddha supposedly said that have lead to women being taught (and still believing) that they cannot attain enlightment unless they are lucky enough to be reborn as a man. Some spend their lives praying for just that. When you read the sutras, you'll find that most sources have eliminated them because most scholars believe that they were added later and were not, in fact Buddha's actual words. Things like Anguttara Nikaya 4.80. But if you look it up on Access to Insight, you'll find it skips from 4.79 to 4.85. Leaving out the questionable verses.
“Venerable sir, what is the reason that women neither come to the limelight, nor doing an industry see its benefits?”
“Ananda, women are hateful, jealous, miserly and lack wisdom, as a result they neither come to the limelight, nor do an industry and see its benefits.”
Obviously, Buddha as a woman hater. See how that works? Someone disliking Buddhism can easily pick those things out to use in their argument. Just like you can find things that the Bible says or the Quran etc etc.
The Tibetans didn't tell people to fear a certain person, or else they would go to hell. They taught people to fear doing wrong actions that would allow them to slip into hell. Jesus taught that you could go to hell just by not accepting him as your Lord and Savior. The Buddha would have never taught that you go to hell just because you refuse to worship him. Jesus was also violent.
For example...
I could defend Jesus all day, but I don't like where this is going, so I shall step aside.
Blessings to all.
Don't know much about the Tibetans but I was taught that both Jesus and/or God were very kind and compassionate so I am not sure where all this Jesus was violent and fear of hell came from (maybe the old testament). I remember growing up and being told that they will love me no matter what as long as I ask for forgiveness if I have done something wrong.....and I don't believe in Jesus or God the way religious people do. I believe that Jesus was a like Buddha who walked around helping people.....no miracles!
Shakyamuni allowed woman to become nuns and carry out monastic practice after establishing eight rules which they should follow. This was an astonishing development in world religious history. Also, in the Lotus Sutra, Shakyamuni demonstrates that Buddhahood is within reach even for women.
@Omar067 my point is, if you look at any religion far enough, you will find such statements that contradict each other. Jesus/Christianity is no different. Jesus' overwhelming message is one of love, compassion and forgiveness. The messages of fear came from the men who controlled the world at that point and sought to control the people.
I actually liked the story of Jesus turning over the money changers tables in the portico. Where he is then supposed to have said "This is my fathers house and you have turned it into a den of thieves" Idealistic but impractical. The journey to Golgatha is a great drama. Which comes to a heart wrenching end. As a child movies like The Robe and King of Kings would reduce me to tears.
Very interesting thread guys. Great comments. I liked what Grackle says about the money lenders.
If I was as kind as Jesus I would go into my local Buddhist monastery and kick them off their cushions, with wrathful yells of, 'off your asses bodhisattvas, world needs saving ...'
My apologies to @Omar067 who I may have confused with my fantastical speech. Jesus is one of ours. Yes his dad was strict and he upset the Roman Pagans, Jewish Clerics and maybe a few others but His Heart was in the right place ...
@grackle
Agreed, This is a form of commercializing the gifts of the heavens.
The revolution he showed outwardly happens within us all when we decide to walk firmly upon the Path.
Did he really say that?
I think the text you mentioned--the Pistis Sophia, and the set of books it references: the Books of Jeu--show that the idea church leaders came up with about Jesus dying from his ordeal on the cross, and later ascending to heaven--the very foundation of modern Christianity--is a crock. In reading these texts, one can see why the early church fathers had to suppress the Gnostic texts, eliminating any source that spoke of Jesus' teaching career after recovering from the crucifixion.
With that in mind, I can only look at some of the statements--or interpretations?--from the New Testament with tremendous scepticism. Did he really view himself as Divine, or semi-Divine, or did he view himself as a prophet and/or teacher and healer? (It wasn't unusual in those days for there to be wandering healers purveying a spiritual message.) Scholars are still debating the meaning of some of the key passages relating to those questions, still debating what "Son of Man" means, and other phrases and statements.
I don't think we can know for sure what he really said in some instances, and what he meant by terms and concepts that are heavily contextual to the times in which he lived.
No, you misunderstand the instruction. It's metaphorical. Rather like someone saying 'Fuck me!' They don't actually want you to do it.... Do they?
If you take out the left eye, won't the right eye still keep seeing?
He also subsequentlysuggests cutting off the left hand. Big issue in those days, as the left hand was reserved for impure actions, such as cleaning the behind after defecating. The right hand was sacred, and used for 'pure' things, like eating, and greeting. Hence Jesus sitting at the Right hand of the Father. It was all to indicate that the eye/hand wasn't the problem. The problem lay in the heart's and mind's intentions.
OK sure, if you say so. Now what?
Was the young Jewish guy enlightened (in the young Hindu guy's sense) ? ...Not sure...But according to gossip opsss gospels (which more often than not can lead to Chinese whispers, when being written down), he was meant to have been wise beyond his years...
However it would seem that his wisdom has only rubbed off on a few of his so-called "Christ-Like" followers, who have looked within for experiential understanding...In other words they didn't take the gospels as gospels, (just believed what was said) they looked within and saw for themselves, so to speak...
So there is perhaps a brighter side to his teachings....
Really, people discussing the Doctrine of Jesus without having ever studied the NT in depth, and jumping to wild conclusions, is just as bad as other people from other Faiths, criticising Buddhism for being depressing, and thinking the Buddha was Fat.
if you want to discuss Christ's teachings, study them first and learn how to interpret them correctly, before assuming the right to critique them.
The above statements indicate that people have not done so.
~Fin~
Nailed it (pun not intended). The problem occurs in any faith when parables are taken literally
I've got to giggle here @federica because you have hit the nail on the head. When you study buddhist texts, and really understand them - everything is buddha! Probably when you are a true christian and have studied the christian texts, it is the same thing, only expressed differently.
As I have understood christianity, Jesus said pretty much the same things if you read them in a metaphysical sense.
The fact is both teachers are long gone, and we have had to rely on their teachings being passed on by people who were grasping onto religious teachings for their own reasons, and passed on their own misinterpretations to less than committed followers looking for 'salvation' or 'liberation' or '********ion" (Insert a word that gets you out of this mess for ********)
Here is a phrase I love that reflects the simple wisdom in our lives:
'All beginnings lead to the same end, and that end is the necessary reflection that gives our lives meaning and teaches us to love one and another'
wipes Coke off the monitor Nice one crusty
Jokes aside, I have to agree with @federica on this. There are some very knowledgable people on here who know the Suttas and other Buddhist writings inside out. To fairly critique Christianity, we would need to have dedicated the same amount of attention.
_ /\ _
You do know the difference between a literal truth and poetic exaggeration, don't you?
Love this.
Of course, but you have to see these things in context. The bible, as you are usually encouraged to read it, is supposed to contain a great deal of real truth and minuscule amounts of poetic exaggeration.
Further in many cases I'd say poetic exaggeration becomes unhelpful obfuscation or even lies. It should be discouraged because it is rarely helpful
I think the idea that the Bible should or does contain a great deal of truth (particularly literal truth) is just another reminder it was written by men who sought control. We know better today and can much better discern what is valuable. Even the most devout (non-fundamentalist/extremist) Christians discard portions of it.