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.
Christianity and how it relates to Buddhism
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
(Maybe when you phone the lama to find out why he had kids, you can also ask him where the teachings on non-duality came from.)
i am simply abiding by my reputation as a fundamentalist Theravada arsehole
i trust we can find essay by Theravadin scholars such as Bhikkhu Bodhi, Thanissaro, etc, on how non-duality is not a teaching in Theravada
as for the lama, he says Mahayana & Vajrayana were efforts to incorporate Hindu notions into Buddhism to expand its popular appeal
the lama does Tara puja, Yellow Jambala puju, etc
he said all of these deities come from Hinduism (which is correct)
Cat goes meow.
Hey, if we're going to go off-topic, let's go out with a bang!
The Taras (green, and white) are deifications of the Tibetan king's Nepalese and Chinese wives.
Some of the deities came from Hinduism. Many of the practices (tantrism) came from Hinduism. Does that mean that Vajrayana is an offshoot of Hinduism? Just wondering.
he tried to control the temples & fought with the priests
where as buddha created his own religion to exist in harmony with others
the buddha was perfect in speech
where as jesus uttered one deluded sentence that has resulted in countless & endless religious wars, namely: "I am the only way"
if Jesus was well intentioned, understanding human nature, he would have never uttered such a dangerous sentence
there are too many differences between Jesus & Buddha to list
:sawed:
This is basically Jesus saying don't react based on your prior conditionings (karma). Break off karma right here and now. Turn the other cheek.
There already was a thread on this topic: parallels in Buddhism and Christianity, recently.
This teaching is just morality. Buddha taught similar things.
This is not the essence of Buddhism. Plus this teaching is irrelevent.
Few of us in our lifetimes will face such situations. But in our lifetimes, we have sufferings & confusions we need to clarify & resolve.
The Buddhist path is so much more than the emotional teachings you are reciting, like some parrot in a cage.
:coffee:
"Monks, even if bandits were to savagely sever you, limb by limb, with a double-handled saw, even then, whoever of you harbors ill will at heart would not be upholding my Teaching. Monks, even in such a situation you should train yourselves thus: 'Neither shall our minds be affected by this, nor for this matter shall we give vent to evil words, but we shall remain full of concern and pity, with a mind of love, and we shall not give in to hatred. On the contrary, we shall live projecting thoughts of universal love to those very persons, making them as well as the whole world the object of our thoughts of universal love — thoughts that have grown great, exalted and measureless. We shall dwell radiating these thoughts which are void of hostility and ill will.' It is in this way, monks, that you should train yourselves.
Like all Indian religions, Jesus borrowed from Buddha but the teachings of Jesus where essentially Brahminism (the Father in Heaven).
Whatever parallels exist in Buddhism and Christianity, THEY ARE NOT THE CORE TEACHINGS OR HEARTWOOD.
The Buddha was very clear about what his core teachings were and they do not exist in the Jesus teachings.
Morality has everything to do with emptiness.
If someone calls you a name. You automatically react and call them a name back.
Stop and think. Should I call them a name? Or shouldn't I? (there always in an option).
Through mindfulness we cultivate this ability to response to situation, rather than reacting.
One can look forever but will never see God.
This is what the Buddha had to say on this matter:
12. EXAMPLES OF FRIVOLOUS SPEECH IN TEACHERS
(first example)
"Venerable Gotama, regarding what is the path and what is not the path, even the various Brahmins will explain things in different ways: the Addhariya-Brahmins, the Tittiriya-Brahmins, the Chandoka-Brahmins, and the Bavharidha-Brahmins explain (each their own way). Yet all of those paths are paths leading out, able to lead those who walk them to union with Brahma. Just as if the many paths near a village or city all meet at that one village, so the various paths of the Brahmins."
Vasettha, among all those Three Vedas Brahmins is there even one Brahmin who has seen Brahma face to face?
"That cannot be found, Venerable Gotama."
Vasettha, if that is so, is there even one teacher of those Three Vedas Brahmins who has seen Brahma face to face?
"That cannot be found, Venerable Gotama."
Vasettha, if that is so, is there even one head teacher of the teachers of those Three Vedas Brahmins who has seen Brahma face to face?
"That cannot be found, Venerable Gotama."
Vasettha, if that is so, is there even one teacher in the last seven generations of those Three Vedas Brahmins who has seen Brahma face to face?
"That cannot be found, Venerable Gotama."
Vasettha, among all of the old rishis -- namely, Rishi Atthaka, Rishi Vamaka, Rishi Vamadeva, Rishi Vessamitta, Rishi Yamataggi, Rishi Angirasa, Rishi Bharadvaja, Rishi Vasettha, Rishi Kassapa, Rishi Bhagu -- those composers of sacred mantras who told them to the Three Vedas Brahmins to repeat, pronounce, chant, and tell again, which continues until this day; is there even one rishi among all those rishis who declares, "I know, I see, where Brahma is, how he exists, and when he appears"?
"That cannot be found, Venerable Gotama."
Vasettha, when there are no Brahmins, teachers of Brahmins, or Rishis who told the mantras to the Brahmins -- not even one -- who ever saw Brahma face to face, then showed the path leading to union with Brahma; how will you regard this? The words of those Three Vedas Brahmins turn out to be unmiraculous, don't they?
"Obviously, Venerable Gotama, when that is the case, the words of those Three Vedas Brahmins naturally turn out unmiraculous."
Correct, Vasettha. That these Brahmins who do not know and do not see Brahma will thus show the path leading to union with Brahma is not at all possible. Vasettha, just as with a line of blind men clinging to each others backs, the man at the front sees nothing, the men in the middle see nothing, and the man at the end sees nothing, so the words of the Three Vedas Brahmins can be compared to a line of blind men. That is, the first group of speakers didn't see Brahma, the next group of speakers didn't see Brahma, and the last group of speakers didn't see Brahma. Thus, their words turn out to be ridiculous, low, vain, and good-for-nothing
you are starting to wriggle
:eek2:
Stop hiding behind all this scripture. Tell me your experience of truth.
but the Buddha never taught about "God" or "non-duality" or the many other things you are attempting to assert
the Buddha taught right speech is praising & blaming at the appropriate time
Jesus was unskilful in his fundamentalism, which is the cause of countless endless human wars
"I am the only Way" - please :screwy:
about speech, the Buddha said:
5. POINTS OF PRAISE & BLAME CONCERNING SAMMAVACA
Potaliya, four kinds of people exist and can be found in the world.
What four kinds? The four kinds are:
Some people blame those who should be blamed, according to the truth, at the proper time, but do not praise those who should be praised, according to the truth, at the proper time.
Some people praise those who should be praised, according to the truth, at the proper time, but do not blame those who should be blamed, according to the truth, at the proper time.
Some people do not blame those who should be blamed, according to the truth, at the proper time, and do not praise those who should be praised, according to the truth, at the proper time.
Some people blame those who should be blamed, according to the truth, at the proper time, and praise those who should be praised, according to the truth, at the proper time.
Potaliya, these four kinds of people exist and can be found in the world. Of these four kinds of people, that kind should be the most fair and right, the most refined, to you?
"Venerable Lord Gotama, of all those four kinds of people, the kind of person who does not blame those who should be blamed, according to the truth, at the proper time, and does not praise those who should be praised, according to the truth, at the proper time; is the kind of person who is the most beautiful and refined to me. What is the reason for this? Because this is fair and right with upekkha (equanimity)."
Potaliya, of all those four kinds of people, whichever kind of person blames those who should be blamed, according to the truth, at the proper time, and praises those who should be praised, according to the truth, at the proper time; this kind of person is the most beautiful and refined of these four kinds of people. What is the reason for this? It is fair and right because such a one knows the right time in those circumstances.
In Buddhism, it is considered a sin to make personal declaration.
Best you learn to be sober when you visit Buddhists rather than being intoxicated on some Jesus Messiah LSD trip
"I am the Way" - oh dear, God please save us
:clap:
You project that onto me.
What is your truth? Tell me. Since you hide behind your scripture I have a feeling that is all you know.
Tell me. Stop running.
You think because YOU experienced something, Jesus experienced the same as you?
You are projecting your own experience onto Jesus & Buddha, believing you are they same as them and they are the same as you
Please
:eek2:
It's just my opinion, which means nothing.
You give it meaning by reject or agreeing. All statements are empty Lol.
What is your truth? Do you have an original voice?
Tell me what you think truth is using your own words.
:mullet:
Time for the beach.
Same words apply for the Buddha. Did the truth that Buddha awoke to exist prior to him or after him? Were there enlightened beings prior to the Buddha.
What is your truth my friend? Please tell me.
Please tell me your truth. I'd love to hear.
All the best.
Be free!
"Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who explains what was not said or spoken by the Tathagata as said or spoken by the Tathagata. And he who explains what was said or spoken by the Tathagata as not said or spoken by the Tathagata. These are two who slander the Tathagata."
“Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who explains a discourse whose meaning needs to be inferred as one whose meaning has already been fully drawn out. And he who explains a discourse whose meaning has already been fully drawn out as one whose meaning needs to be inferred. These are two who slander the Tathagata.”
:wave: