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.
It doesn't matter whether or not Jesus literally existed 2,000 years ago. Jesus exists today. Your existence is determined by the impact you make on the world. Well, Jesus makes maybe a bigger impact than anybody. Therefore, he lives.
If anything there'd be a very dilute bloodline. Chances are a crapload of people share in it, as the population expansion has been ginormous since way back. It boggles the mind.
That's true. But it's still an interesting question. You'd be surprised (or maybe not) how many people claim bloodline to Genghis Khan. (not that I mean to compare Jesus w/GKhan! :rolleyes: )
It's really not hard to answer, "Is the Jesus as recounted in the NT enlightened?" No, it's not good enough for the man to preach peace and brotherhood. No, it's not good enough for the man to perform miracles. Enlightenment is something specific, and that can be identified.
It's easy to forget that the Buddha wasn't just enlightened, but also taught the path to enlightenment, and that path was laid out in the Noble Truths. Did Jesus teach the problem was human suffering, caused by desire, and that desire could be eliminated through anything approaching the 8-fold path? Anything less being taught is not teaching the Dharma.
No, the NT does not in any way indicate Jesus taught the Dharma. Jesus identified the problem as people misunderstanding their relationship with God. All he did was shift the relationship from King to Subject, to a Father to Son.
In his world, people suffer because that's the will of God. He did mix compassion in his teaching, but the flaw of not starting with the first Noble Truth meant the religion became currupted. Christians decided they knew what God's will was, and that the Church was the body of Christ, and that meant they could kill and persecute non-Christians according to a divine battle between good and evil.
So Jesus wasn't teaching the Dharma. He wasn't enlightened. To this day, the Christian church has no concept of true Metta, or unconditional love, that flowers when the Dharma is practiced.
It's funny this thread was posted today... earlier this morning I was looking up Joseph Smith and Brigham Young's many wives and children. They have many living direct descendants (guess you're bound to have a few when you have 55 wives and 46 children make it to adulthood, in the case of BY). It makes me wonder if they are high level priests in the Mormon church or some extreme fundamentalists or what! I always wonder about weird stuff like that
So you think that an enlightened person only teaches one message? And he doesn't know how to talk to each individual? Because obviously not everyone is willing to accept the "dharma", since not everyone's a buddhist. Not even close, actually. I would think that if a person were truly enlightened, he would tailor the message to the individual, giving them what they needed and could accept at that time.
So you think that an enlightened person only teaches one message? And he doesn't know how to talk to each individual? Because obviously not everyone is willing to accept the "dharma", since not everyone's a buddhist. Not even close, actually. I would think that if a person were truly enlightened, he would tailor the message to the individual, giving them what they needed and could accept at that time.
I would only say that the Jesus that we find in the NT is not enlightened because he in no way taught the path to enlightenment. It's impossible, of course, to know anything for certain about the actual rabbi who lived and taught back then. My own opinion is that the Jews who listened to Jesus were just as capable of understanding the Dharma as the Brahma worshipers who listened to the Buddha. Not everyone who listed to the Buddha dropped what they were doing and followed him, of course. In fact, the rabbis then and now have some of the best minds that have ever struggled with the big spiritual questions. They might have rejected the Dharma, but they would have certainly understood it inside and out.
Genghis Khan isn't nearly as "old" as Jesus Christ. In fact over 1000 years younger. That makes a bit of a difference, at any rate.
What also makes a big difference is that unlike Jesus, the great Khan did tend to spread his seed about Asia rather wontonly.... (Not to take us too off-topic... )
I would only say that the Jesus that we find in the NT is not enlightened because he in no way taught the path to enlightenment.
Indeed we don’t have a clue, but technically Jesus could have been a Pratyekabuddha or a Silent Buddha, am I right? In such case he reached Nirvana without the guidance of a teacher, but was not capable of helping others by explaining how he did it. (The latter making a Samyaksambuddha out of Sakyamuni.)
If Jesus taught people to love then that would naturally take care of the four noble truths. Because to love people you have to help them. People are not dumb. They can see others are suffering.
He might not have gave as many teachings about how to accomplish this. But remember he died like 2 years into his teachings whereas Buddha lived to age 80 and wasn't interfered with by the ruling powers or the Brahmins to as great an extent AFAIK.
Oh, and I don't consider Jesus (if he even existed at all) to have been enlightened.
If I had ever said something like this at tea with my grandmother, I would have been sent to my room until I apologised.
I promise that if I ever have tea with your grandmother, I will never utter such a thing.
So, dearest sister Fede, am I to take that as an apology? If so, you may return to the tea-table. After all, you are the one who suggested that this is the criterion by which you judge if a post is acceptable or not.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I apologise if what I say offended you. I cannot apologise for holding the sentiment. I have recently read a couple of articles in some literature which would suggest that there is a possibility that Jesus Christ - as a single person, responsible for the miracles and the related gospels - did not actually exist, but may indeed be a composite of two or more mystic teachers. They were journals in my local library, and as such, unavailable for citation, linking or quoting. But they made for interesting reading. They were not intending to be blasphemous, they were merely recounting research.
The authors of those journals clearly weren't aware of Eastern literature documenting his ministry in India and Kashmir. They were going on Western sources, I imagine.
Are you happy with the idea that contributors on Christian sites discount the beautiful and skillful teachings of the Tathagata?
If not, why do you find it appropriate or "Right Speech" to discount the teachings of Jesus?
At best it is bad manners.
Simon, I'm not discounting the teachings of Jesus in my postings, but I understand why people can be touchy. What I said is that Christ did not teach the same thing as the Buddha and was not "enlightened" in the way we Buddhists define it, in my opinion. This is something Christians would certainly agree with, as a matter of fact. The Jesus of the NT was not enlightened, he was the divine son of God, perfect and sinless, according to the writers of the NT and the Christians. Enlightenment is something for normal people.
I see no problem with right speech when, on a Buddhist board, we give an honest appraisal of why we are Buddhists instead of Christians. This is far different from popping onto a Christian board and doing the same.
The Noble Eightfold Path of Christ: Jesus Teaches the Dharma of Buddhism
That is a title of a book that is out. Perhaps if anyone reads it they would come to the conclusion that Jesus taught the Dharma or perhaps not. I have yet to read it, but it is in the mail.
I apologise if what I say offended you. I cannot apologise for holding the sentiment. I have recently read a couple of articles in some literature which would suggest that there is a possibility that Jesus Christ - as a single person, responsible for the miracles and the related gospels - did not actually exist, but may indeed be a composite of two or more mystic teachers.
They were journals in my local library, and as such, unavailable for citation, linking or quoting. But they made for interesting reading. They were not intending to be blasphemous, they were merely recounting research.
I wish I had my hand on those books. the book The Original Jesus--the Buddha sources of Christianity almost implies the same thing.
I have read a lot on Jesus going to Kashmir, just as I have read of his trip to India, but the Buddhist masters say that Jesus never came to the monastery in Hemas as claimed by Notovich. There are so many stories out there that it is impossible to know what to believe, but they make interesting reading.
And now we have two Pauls? As if one was not enough. They call his form of Christianity, Paulism.
So you think that an enlightened person only teaches one message? And he doesn't know how to talk to each individual? Because obviously not everyone is willing to accept the "dharma", since not everyone's a buddhist. Not even close, actually. I would think that if a person were truly enlightened, he would tailor the message to the individual, giving them what they needed and could accept at that time.
I agree. When Buddha was in India it was easy to not teach about God, one way or another. Why? The Hindus had various teachings. Some believed in a personal God, some were advaitists, non personal. But Hindus are open to all teachings. Where Jesus was teaching all believed in God. What would have happened if he tried to say that he wasn't going to comment on whether there was a God or not? He may not have made it to the cross.
thats what i mean, you cant deny something you dont know anything about. he certainly denied the hindu gods, perhaps if he had met jews he would have denied their god too, we just dont know, can only conjecture.
MellowViper, brilliant point! Seriously, that really hit me. Jesus was very openly accepting of the sinners, most clearly demonstrated in the story of the adulterer. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." It is only the judgemental religious people he criticized. Well guess what? Many of jesus' followers are the new judgemental religious people! They're the new pharisees! Hahaha. When you put it like that, it's all so clear.
maybe that's because christianism is a roman invention... gnostic christianism is closer to what jesus taught, and more useful... imo.
I've never heard my teacher talk about the 10 fetters. Bodhicitta a part of the bodhisattva path is defined as cultivating the wish to become enlightened for all beings. Did the mahayanists you talked to follow a lineage or internet buddhists?
There can be many misconceptions. I know a lady who teaches a college level comparative religions course. She talked briefly to me about buddhism. When I said I was a mahayanist she said oh "big truck little truck thats how I always call it". So depending on where you hear things you get a different idea. The possibility also exists for differences WITHIN the mahayana tradition.
In fact the fetters is a different presentation of buddhism. I am not well understood enough to go outside my tradition and understand what the mahayana makes of fetters. It is probably a different method.
The heart sutra states that there is no attainment and no barrier to attainment. Since this is true the bodhissatva abides in perfect eqanimity. (something like that)
(...)
I think the fetters are mentioned in the sutras... at the very least, I've read "stream entry" and "anagami" in the sutras.
what I don't agree is in Arahant (silent Buddha) as ultimate goal... but the fetters (are they exclusive to Theravada?) are part of the Dharma.
I've seen comments here to the effect that he didn't deny the existence of a deity, he said it's unfathomable, and a waste of time to try to fathom.
not really. "pondering about the creation of the world is unproductive in the path towards the freedom of suffering"... there are brahmas and devas in the dharma, but aren't that relevant.
although living as a deva is an interesting experience, it doesn't guarantee becoming free from suffering.
So you think that an enlightened person only teaches one message? And he doesn't know how to talk to each individual? Because obviously not everyone is willing to accept the "dharma", since not everyone's a buddhist. Not even close, actually. I would think that if a person were truly enlightened, he would tailor the message to the individual, giving them what they needed and could accept at that time.
a samyak buddha is someone who is free from suffering, and teaches a path that leads others to a life free of suffering.
jesus was neither, specifically he wasn't free of the fetter of conceit.
thats what i mean, you cant deny something you dont know anything about. he certainly denied the hindu gods, perhaps if he had met jews he would have denied their god too, we just dont know, can only conjecture.
there are brahmas in buddhism. any "creator" god falls under the spot for maha-brahma (a deluded samaric being), in buddhism.
Everything is the world is God's creation and therefore it is God himself. God never would curse on beings, needless to mention, on non living thing known as fig tree.
Yes that's a Christian way of viewing it, of sorts. The Buddha denied the existence of a "creator" god; he didn't deny that there were beings on a higher spiritual plane that thought of themselves as gods, called devas, that had extremely long life and did not suffer other than from the delusion that they were immortal. The universe however, is uncreated, beginning-less, timeless, without first cause. At least that's the Buddha's teaching.
MellowViper, brilliant point! Seriously, that really hit me. Jesus was very openly accepting of the sinners, most clearly demonstrated in the story of the adulterer. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." It is only the judgemental religious people he criticized. Well guess what? Many of jesus' followers are the new judgemental religious people! They're the new pharisees! Hahaha. When you put it like that, it's all so clear.
Itsvery ironic. I think jesus was an enlightened man and probably a lot of his teachings were mystic in nature but later misinterpreted and over-simplified. I think a lot of his teachings had to do with resisting inner daemons to better yourself as a person and getting out of old habits.
Everything is the world is God's creation and therefore it is God himself. God never would curse on beings, needless to mention, on non living thing known as fig tree.
Comments
You'd be surprised (or maybe not) how many people claim bloodline to Genghis Khan.
(not that I mean to compare Jesus w/GKhan! :rolleyes: )
It's easy to forget that the Buddha wasn't just enlightened, but also taught the path to enlightenment, and that path was laid out in the Noble Truths. Did Jesus teach the problem was human suffering, caused by desire, and that desire could be eliminated through anything approaching the 8-fold path? Anything less being taught is not teaching the Dharma.
No, the NT does not in any way indicate Jesus taught the Dharma. Jesus identified the problem as people misunderstanding their relationship with God. All he did was shift the relationship from King to Subject, to a Father to Son.
In his world, people suffer because that's the will of God. He did mix compassion in his teaching, but the flaw of not starting with the first Noble Truth meant the religion became currupted. Christians decided they knew what God's will was, and that the Church was the body of Christ, and that meant they could kill and persecute non-Christians according to a divine battle between good and evil.
So Jesus wasn't teaching the Dharma. He wasn't enlightened. To this day, the Christian church has no concept of true Metta, or unconditional love, that flowers when the Dharma is practiced.
But that's just a grumpy old Buddhist talking.
In such case he reached Nirvana without the guidance of a teacher, but was not capable of helping others by explaining how he did it. (The latter making a Samyaksambuddha out of Sakyamuni.)
He might not have gave as many teachings about how to accomplish this. But remember he died like 2 years into his teachings whereas Buddha lived to age 80 and wasn't interfered with by the ruling powers or the Brahmins to as great an extent AFAIK.
If not, why do you find it appropriate or "Right Speech" to discount the teachings of Jesus?
At best it is bad manners.
They were journals in my local library, and as such, unavailable for citation, linking or quoting. But they made for interesting reading. They were not intending to be blasphemous, they were merely recounting research.
Indeed, I agree that there may have been more than one Teacher, just as there are two or more Isaiahs and at least two Pauls.
I see no problem with right speech when, on a Buddhist board, we give an honest appraisal of why we are Buddhists instead of Christians. This is far different from popping onto a Christian board and doing the same.
That is a title of a book that is out. Perhaps if anyone reads it they would come to the conclusion that Jesus taught the Dharma or perhaps not. I have yet to read it, but it is in the mail. I wish I had my hand on those books. the book The Original Jesus--the Buddha sources of Christianity almost implies the same thing.
I have read a lot on Jesus going to Kashmir, just as I have read of his trip to India, but the Buddhist masters say that Jesus never came to the monastery in Hemas as claimed by Notovich. There are so many stories out there that it is impossible to know what to believe, but they make interesting reading.
And now we have two Pauls? As if one was not enough. They call his form of Christianity, Paulism.
I agree. When Buddha was in India it was easy to not teach about God, one way or another. Why? The Hindus had various teachings. Some believed in a personal God, some were advaitists, non personal. But Hindus are open to all teachings. Where Jesus was teaching all believed in God. What would have happened if he tried to say that he wasn't going to comment on whether there was a God or not? He may not have made it to the cross.
what I don't agree is in Arahant (silent Buddha) as ultimate goal... but the fetters (are they exclusive to Theravada?) are part of the Dharma.
not really. "pondering about the creation of the world is unproductive in the path towards the freedom of suffering"... there are brahmas and devas in the dharma, but aren't that relevant.
although living as a deva is an interesting experience, it doesn't guarantee becoming free from suffering.
jesus was neither, specifically he wasn't free of the fetter of conceit.