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.
Buddha and the Bible
Must read site!:D
http://threeroyalwarriors.tripod.com/jesusthewordofbuddha/
Buddha and the Bible -- How Buddhism is the New Covenant!
http://threeroyalwarriors.tripod.com/jesusthewordofbuddha/id5.html
http://threeroyalwarriors.tripod.com/jesusthewordofbuddha/
Buddha and the Bible -- How Buddhism is the New Covenant!
http://threeroyalwarriors.tripod.com/jesusthewordofbuddha/id5.html
0
Comments
This is ludicrous.
Not it's quite serious and quite well quoted from both texts. You seem to like being in denial.
Whilst similarities in doctrines exist, there is no proof or evidence whatsoever that Jesus knew about Buddha. there is equally no evidence he didn't.
But it's all speculation and manipulation of texts.
We can pretty much read anything we want to, in anything we read.
All this romanticised overlap of texts, teachings and lessons is pretty much old hat.
people have been doing it for ages.
The simple fact of the matter is that Buddhism does not ascribe to a God, a Deity, and omnipotent all-powerful being or creator of the Universe.
I'm not "in Denial" about anything.
For my own personal part, I haven't been a Buddhist all my life, I was a Roman catholic for 40 years, and took quite some time to make the transition from Catholicism to Buddhism.
Thomas Merton did much to unify Catholicism with Buddhism, and I admire his stance, educated opinion, and magnanimous generosity. He, I have a great deal of time for. His unification of the two religions is sensible and mature. As is that of the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hahn.
This just smacks of mickey-mouse excitement.
It is therefore unsurprising that we should find similarities. In addition, both traditions use 'prophecy' and 'signs' to 'prove' they are the single, 'best' choice. The language used will also be similar, particularly as both traditions started as oral recitations.
Connection between East and West were, of course, regular and constant, although we barbarian Europeans were outside the loop. Contact was through the Persian Empire and, subsequently, through Byzantium.
Of course, when we consider Buddhist/Christian dialogue, Merton must be among the first Christian authors to read. Indeed, I would say that to read him from "Elected Silence" to his Asian journals, to follow him along a journey that he shares so generously is humbling and illuminating.
We all know that one of his last trips was to Dharamsala where he met the Dalai Lama on a few occasions. There was a fascinating article in Tricycle, Summer 1992, an interview with Harold Talbott, about that visit in 1968. A few quotations take us into places which may seem strange to some Catholics and even stranger to those who see the Church as simplistic and normative:
When Talbott told Merton that he had arranged an audience with HHDL, Merton said that he was not going: "I've seen enough pontiff," he said. Talbott comments
Merton met a number of lamas apart from HHDL
The whole interview is well worth reading, if you can find it.
I would add, as a postscript, that one of my own anam caras, a Catholic priest who studied with Dom Bede Griffiths, has a Hindu nun as his spiritual director. The Catholic Church is far broader than the ghetto-minded Vaticanolaters would have us believe.
Therefore, even though there are certain similarities between the two, it is quite obvious to me that each treats salvation differently, so much so that they are ultimately irreconcilable, e.g., while Buddhism and Christianity both teach about love and compassion, the former does so in a nontheistic context that stresses their version of salvation, spiritual awakening and the cessation of rebirth, is achieved through self-effort while the latter does so in a monotheistic context that stresses their version of salvation, eternal life in heaven, is achieved by the grace of God via Christ.
Let us not argue about similarities and differences, Jason. I think that you make a valid point about defending a pov: isn't that precisely the crux of the Theravada/Mahayana debates?
The nub is really whether we want dialogue and friendship or whether we prefer confrontation and controversy. In the latter case, we learn nothing and retire into religious ghettoes; in the former, there is still a chance to learn new things.
As I have often said, I keep, on my desk, the diptych which HHDL gave me, portraying the Christ as "Pankrator" and his mother as "Hodigtria" (showing the Way).
I agree, Simon and Fede, Thomas Merton was great. He was one of my earliest influences, not just for Buddhism but for understanding spirituality in general. I've always found it ironic that he died (from electrocution by an electric fan in his bath in Bangkok) the same day that I entered the Air Force (Dec. 10, 1968). In other words, not a good day for either of us! What that means actually I have no idea...
Palzang
We can certainly have interfaith dialogues and friendships, but I do not think that those have to come at the expense of the facts. Buddhism and Christianity do not have the same overall message and approach to salvation, even though there are certain similarities between the two, and this has nothing to do with confrontation and controversy—it is a statement of fact.
Jason
For many of us, I believe, the descriptions of 'salvation' and 'enlightenment' are, themselves, only "fingers pointing at the moon" rather than truly descriptive accounts. They appear to indicate an ideal state of being which can be achieved by human beings as a result of certain procedures and processes. The fact that there is so much disagreement between the proponents of the various systems suggests to me that they all contain elements of the truth. They are like the varied witness statements to an accident.
Once again, I would stress that I would never suggest that Buddhism and Christianity are - or ever have been - identical. I do, however, believe that they each contain truths - as do the other spiritual disciplines. They are all searches for that elusive ox. In the end, there is no ox, no rider, no whip.
Those who don't see the historical relations are in self denial and the proof will be in the experience.
You don't have to believe me, I've found out for myself.
Some people are never satisfied!
When this proves it:
Oh ye of little faith.
btw. Don't forget the UFOs they both flew around in while we're at it. :rolleyes:
Did Jesus come to Britain? Loads of books, scholarly and sensational, have examined the story and dubbed it 'myth'. The best you get is 'legend'.
But who cares? I only care if it is used to separate us. But if it teaches us that this land on which we live is sacred, it is a message worthy of a big myth.
In the same way, noticing the similarities between Gotama and Jesus, between the Dharma and the Christ message, is worthy of a big myth - and India has it: Jesus went there and died in Kashmir. And why not Jesus the tulku?
The world is full of myth. Even what we consider 'true', 'factual' history is presented to us and lived out by us in mythic terms.
Federica who can't even find where the MN Sela Sutta says Buddha is "Raja abhi Raja" or King of Kings and denies Buddha is called "Bhagwan" (GOD) throughout the Pali Tipitika?...hmm, why am I not surprised?
Federica -- you are the owner of your actions, heir to your actions, whatever you will do or say, that will be your inheritance...good luck, you will need it!
There is no doubt that, for many 'ordinary' Buddhists in countries like Thailand, the destinction is pretty blurred but is still far from monotheist.
As an aside, it would seem that, in terms of the millennia of human history, monotheism (like democracy) is pretty recent and local. Suggests to me that it is not a normal human response to the mystery of the universe.
Whilst I think it somewhat discourteous to discuss moderators' warnings in public, I cannot believe that Fede warned you about the content of your posts, Shambala. She has put up with me for years, despite my occasional dip into deist/theist waters. Perhaps what concerned here - as it does me - is the confrontational tone that you choose to adopt.
You will not find a more thoughtful or fairer moderator then Fede on the internet, nor will you find a more inclusive and accepting forum than NewBuddhist.
I don't like your tone. I don't like the belligerence you use in your attempts to argue a ridiculous point like the Buddha being God. Your holier-than-thou attitude and proselytizing are irritating at best. I could go on.
I would have overlooked all these things until you decided to disparage Fede. You don't have the reason or the right. If you wish to engage in personal attacks and ego fighting I suggest you try BuddhaChat. Maybe there you will find your 'real' Buddhists.
I don't know why you are here but I do know it has very little to do with Buddhism or the fair discussion thereof. Perhaps you are looking for converts to your church. If so, you came to the wrong place.
I do not take these decisions lightly, but moderator decisions are not up for public discussion.
This is a Private message I also received from him:
This kind of attitude and arrogance has no place on this forum.
Brian was underdstandably concerned that the forum does not seem to be attracting new members, but I would comment that "with friends like these, who needs enemies?"
To all intents and purposes, Shambala took his own leave. The decision to depart seems to have come from him.
I just pushed the bolt across.
Thanks all.
And on......
I would venture to suggest the benefit was one-sided. And poor at that.
Palzang
Good riddance from me too.
The other day at the temple someone was eating some peanuts from a bag labeled "Nuts Online". I said, "There sure are!" What is it about the internet that draws the worst sorts of nut cases out of their shells (excuse the pun)? No doubt it's anonymity, but these are also real people who might live next door (or downstairs). Scary...
Palzang
Whilst I agree that it is scary, upsetting, unsettling and regularly disturbing (if we let it), this may be the cost of fredom of speech.
While speech is being limited, whether by family, community or stae, by prejudice or by law, it is (relatively) easy to protest against the limits. Of course, it can entail imprisonment and even death to demand freedom. But, once that freedom is won, there are serious problems for its supporters. If we believe that we must impose new limits, it will only be a matter of a short time before they are challenged too. And where shall we set those limits?
No. I don't think it is the fault of the Internet. The Net simply enables the exercise of free speech, with all its paranoia, obscenity and general nastiness alongside all its benefits.
I've always thought that Schopenhauer's analysis was useful but that his judgments about "pessimism=good" and "optimism=bad" were way off the mark. I think that he is confusing categories.
Palzang
Ah, my friend, this is the moan of old men (like us) for centuries. Seneca was saying the same thing 2000 years ago.
Personal attacks are always a give-away. Well done.
We do, indeed, have skillful moderators.