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.
Who was Abraham? Who is the greater Bodhisatva?
DhammaDhatu
Veteran
Dear Forum
I recall many years ago reading a book called: "Jesus Lived in India".
In this book, if my memory serves me correct, the writer postulated Abraham's former name Abram, as reported in the Bible, meant: "Not Brahmin", how Abram was a prophet who rejected the Brahmin religion.
The religion established by Abram gives some substance to this theory, given historically, the Jewish religion was something both novel and advanced. Here, we had a religion that taught there is one God, that all beings are created equal by that God, that there is no caste or rebirth or some life after death to fear.
The Jewish religion & society was very different from the societies of its time, such as the Greek based in slaves & masters, the Egyptian & Babylonians based in God-king & servants or the Indian, a hierachical religion based in the caste system & rebirth doctrine.
So when God instructed Abram to go west, he disallowed him to honor a son born of a slave woman because Abram's god instructed him: "My people will be free people, born of a free woman".
This salient theme of freedom & slavery is throughout the Bible.
When Jesus came, just like Abraham, he came to provide freedom to the people. Jesus taught and demonstrated through one act of forgiveness and miraculous power that to merely believe in him, a person will never die but have Eternal Life.
Jesus spoke the words: "Follow my yoke, for my burden is easy & my way is light".
Thus my question is: "Who is the greater Bodhisatva?"
Is it Jesus, who provided an easy path for the liberation of beings?
Or is it the Brahmins & Buddhists who oppress beings with fears & worries about countless rebirths?
Or is it the Buddha, who taught 'not-self' and 'emptiness'?
I recall many years ago reading a book called: "Jesus Lived in India".
In this book, if my memory serves me correct, the writer postulated Abraham's former name Abram, as reported in the Bible, meant: "Not Brahmin", how Abram was a prophet who rejected the Brahmin religion.
The religion established by Abram gives some substance to this theory, given historically, the Jewish religion was something both novel and advanced. Here, we had a religion that taught there is one God, that all beings are created equal by that God, that there is no caste or rebirth or some life after death to fear.
The Jewish religion & society was very different from the societies of its time, such as the Greek based in slaves & masters, the Egyptian & Babylonians based in God-king & servants or the Indian, a hierachical religion based in the caste system & rebirth doctrine.
So when God instructed Abram to go west, he disallowed him to honor a son born of a slave woman because Abram's god instructed him: "My people will be free people, born of a free woman".
This salient theme of freedom & slavery is throughout the Bible.
When Jesus came, just like Abraham, he came to provide freedom to the people. Jesus taught and demonstrated through one act of forgiveness and miraculous power that to merely believe in him, a person will never die but have Eternal Life.
Jesus spoke the words: "Follow my yoke, for my burden is easy & my way is light".
Thus my question is: "Who is the greater Bodhisatva?"
Is it Jesus, who provided an easy path for the liberation of beings?
Or is it the Brahmins & Buddhists who oppress beings with fears & worries about countless rebirths?
Or is it the Buddha, who taught 'not-self' and 'emptiness'?
0
Comments
I think the best thing would be to concentrate on the Present and not nit-pick about the past with frankly aimless debates and 'my dad is better than your dad' arguments.
"The great way is easy for those who have no preferences or prejudices, but make the slightest distinction, and heaven and earth are instantly rent asunder."
Sengstau, 3rd Zen patriarch.
Is it like football?
Is there an elimination play-off?
Extra time?
penalties?
I think we should know....
hello fivebells! Nice to see you!!
Who has the biggest superman complex?
Buddha is not a Bodhisattva silly tee hee hee
Since Jesus was on another page (he was not seeking enlightenment and thus is not a Bodhisattva) you are stuck with uuuuusssss :buck:
For its time, I regard the Jewish religion as very advanced. Now most cultures had their gods and social hierachies (caste, slaves, masters, etc,) and the Jewish god was largely a non-personified naturalistic god that regarded all human beings as equal on a social basis.
This was more advanced than the religions of the age and a characteristic of the later Buddha's Sangha. In the Similie of the Ocean (AN 8.19) the Buddha said:
If a religion comes close to Theravada Buddhism it would be Judaism. Apart from its punishment of sin and its (etheral) notion of 'God', Judaism was a serious attempt to establish a moral just society and develop a body of practical spiritual wisdom.
Unlike Christianity, its god was not strongly personified and it did not offer an afterlife. It was essentially pragmatic & temporal (which is probably why American Buddhism is dominated by Jews who found Buddhism attractive).
Generally, most Mahayana adherents say they practise to save all sentient beings but ultimately all they can offer sentients beings is the Hinayana Path.
Jesus was the embodiment of the Bodhisattva principle. He sought to save people who could not save themselves.
He offered his love and complete forgiveness and a promise of the deathless via faith & friendship. Just like in the Metta Sutta, the teaching of Jesus is "may all beings be at ease".
Thus of course Jesus did not offer enlightenment just like any Bodhisatva should not offer enlightenment.
A Bodhisatva may possibly be able to transmit (brainwash) some kind of temporary enlightenment but wherever an individual must essentially do the work themselves, that is not Bodhisatva action.
But most Mahayana Buddhists just don't get it. Generally, their teachings are more serious and the least unliberating.
Step on an ant and it is more eons in samsara.
That his teachings were radically different to the prevailing Jewish teachings makes it obvious he had contact with Buddhism and/or the Buddhist influences on theistic Hinduism.
Whilst many of his teachings touched on certain aspirations (rather than embodiments) of the later Old Testament, the reports of Jesus indicate he was an advanced yogi, with supernormal attainments (siddhis).
This yogic practise is not something Jewish but Indian. Judaism was primarly a social religion.
He could read the thoughts of others, predict the future, heal others physically, had the spiritual power to stage the ressurection and came to Saul on the road to Damascus in a feat of psychic power, just like the Buddha came to Angulimala.
That Dhammika states Saul (Paul) never met Jesus is contrary to the report in the Bible.
Our obstacle to understanding Jesus is we are stuck on notions of enlightenment and Buddha-Nature.
However, the Buddha himself never taught all beings were capable of enlightenment. For those incapable of enlightenment, there are teachers such as Jesus.
They do not teach impermanence & emptiness, just like many Buddhist schools do not teach impermanence & emptiness to those unable to penetrate those truths.
One of the Downfalls of a Bodhisatva is to teach emptiness to those who cannot understand it.
Even though we do not follow it, try to see how the Christian teachings are primarly focused on relieving the dukkha associated with birth, aging, illness, death & all round defilement.
To those struggling with mental defilement & worries about bad karma, Jesus simply said: "Your sins are forgiven, believe in my love & friendship". Much nicer and kinder than saying: "Eons in samsara for you".
First of all what many people dont understand or realise is that unlike Buddhist or Hindu or christian teachings - the jewish teachings and stories were never meant to be for all mankind.
Judaism has always been and remains so an essentially internal, tribal faith.. the storey of abraham was written down and put into the torah - not for the whole world - but for the benefit and continuance of the jewish people...
and while judaism is tolerant of all other faiths- believing that all faiths lead to god- but its message was and remains aimed at the jewish people and the jewish people ( and anyone else that seeks to join them ) alone...
when god spoke to abraham and isaac and jacob and moses and eliyah and all the others - he wasnt speaking a message for the world- he was speaking with the JEWISH people...
and when later jesus spoke his message - he was first and foremost a jew - speaking to other jews - with the intention for his message to be heard by jews - in the age old fashion and form of god and our / their faith...
it was only his followers who took this message and put onto it a then pagan idea that somehow the faith needed to be spread - who saw safety in numbers.. who misunderstood jesus teachings and words - and who subsequently embraced many thousands of years of bloodshed wrongly imposing them on others...
jesus taught his message in a time of great oppresion - to a people who by then were not new to oppresion and who were tired of it... he saught change- but a change of circumstances for the jewish people - and ending to the injustice that he saw all around at the time.
if you put jesus teachings into the context of a people who were still tribal - in the context of thier history, how they saw god , how they saw their world and how they saw the reason for thier existance... you can see that what jesus was teaching - was not a buddha like peace for all mankind - but an end to the tyranny of roman rule and the oppresion of the jewish people and the corruption of the rabbis of the time .
From my jewish point of view - Abraham was a follower - he did what he was told by god -and although he is important - he was not a teacher - and certainly not a boddhistatva...
jesus - again - in my opinion - was a bit of a rebel - a well meaning hippy who tried to change things... he had some good ideas - and its true that a lot of what he taught is relevant today - but he taught nothing that was not already in jewish or pagan scriptures - and left much unclear .
compared to Buddha - neither of those two figures even comes close to being a boddhistatva in any way ...
I'll preface this by stating I agree with most of your post. However the idea of proselytising being a Pagan idea in the past or present is incorrect.
If that was not your point and I have been totally off the mark in interpreting that, I apologise.
- Raven
And did you get these out of the Torah or the Christian Old Testament? Cause there's a difference.
- Raven
As a Jew myself (albeit not an overly religious one), I have to disagree with your conclusion that Yahweh "ordered/told" the Jews to kill people who were "children of sinful fathers" and those of other religions. And killing those who worked on the Sabbath was not necessarily always punishable by death. However, homosexuality WAS a sin punishable by death.
Not once when I was growing up did I hear about Yahweh ordering the death of "pagans" or innocent children. I will consult my own copy of the Tanakh to double check but I've never heard a Rabbi endorsing that.
And yes, I did think you were fanning the flames, but sadly that tends to happen here from time to time.
EDIT - The only time I can remember "pagans" being ordered to be killed was when they first showed aggression or made war on the Israelites.
Respectfully,
Raven
There is still no clear definition here - the Tanakh (as well as the Christian Bible) is not always a LITERAL interpretation. This is one thing you need to remember. This is why such an emphasis is placed on Torah studies for Jews.
Yes maybe you should have been clearer. To help you understand as well, you need to understand the relationship of the Israelites to Yahweh. The Israelites made a covenent with Yahweh, who was/is originally a war god. He himself admitted He was/is "a jealous G-d" Abraham made a promise on behalf of his (future) people that they would never deviate. And some of them did (the Golden Calf is a prime example). For ever action there is a re-action (or consequence). They were warned *shrugs* Same can be said for other monotheistic religions - Christianity and Islam.
How convenient.
When does religion/G-d EVER base itself around "equality on a social basis"?? Religions are usually based on RULES of some sort - even Paganism has it's own rules (IE Universal Laws). No offence, but that's a stupid argument. That's why if you don't like a religion you can leave.
No Jew I know would kill someone for not believing in their form of G-d. No Christian I know would condone it either. You are conveniently forgetting that the Tanakh was written thousands of years ago for a tribal people who's way of life is no longer in existence. So I find that statement utterly ridiculous and irrelevant.
*sighs* AGAIN, if you've done ANY research, you would know that a huge part of religion was tied into tribal life. Whenever people were conquered, their gods were made into "devils" or obliterated from tribal records and lifestyle. So, if I may be so bold and be politically incorrect - yes it was a divine fight which people took up on behalf of their gods. So in their eyes, it WAS ethical to kill them and to be honest, I have no problem with this. It was how they lived and I have no right to judge them as I don't live like that and have no clue. And neither do any of us here - including you.
My 0.02,
Raven
Didn't he only post in the first place to point out that all people aren't seen equally in Judaism, as was claimed earlier in this Thread?
What I don't get is why it matters to those who DON'T believe in any sky god why others do believe?
it tells you to prepare to slaughter children for the iniquities of their fathers, so they wont rise up and fill the earth. and again I say WHO ARE THESE CHILDREN???? It doesn't say anymore than that. It could have been anyone, it could have been no one. It could have been a metaphor to describe idolators. The whole point is that a lot of religious writings in the monotheistic "Big Three" are not literal. I'm saying that Isaiah 14:21 is not literal. You claim it is. I think you're wrong. You don't. And so it will go on and on.
Bottom line is we will continue to disagree. So I withdraw. Have a nice life.
- Raven
Are you a Jew?, if not, you do not have to follow the Tanakh, therefore, it shouldn't matter to you. Also, do you really believe that other people in the ancient world were different back then?, or even certain tribal groups today?, war was (and is) horrible. I've never heard the Jews, or any Rabbi, call for the death of Pagans, those of other religions, LGBT people or anyone.
You may also want to know that in Judaism, it's said the Tanakh must be reinterpreted by each generation, and that what held true for one generation does not, necessarily, hold true for another.
Not true, alas, David, as those of us who oppose Israel's words and actions know only too well, although we are labeled antisemitic, self-hating Jews!
A lesson that most Christian groups failed to learn and persist in ignoring.
True, I don't like when some people accuse others of anti-Semitism for criticizing the Israeli government (for myself, Israeli society seems very cool, like they're incredibly accepting of LGBT people, and Israel is apparantly one of the safest places to visit, it's the actions of the government I don't like (kind of like the actions of the U.S. government), and I say that as someone from a Jewish heritage).
Very true, unfortunately.
Hi DD, I have to disagree with you,
Your statement above is due to that you do not adopt the notion of successful rebirths in the practice.
Like many Buddhists who took the notion of successful rebirths of practices ( as many in Mahayana and Nikayan, and Buddha in his scriptures talks about his past existence ) , then it is perfectly OK one to enter the Dharma gates to some provisional teachings , be it a non-Buddhist teachings which has influenced by the Buddha Dharma in the early stage, then proceed into more fundamental provisonal Buddhist teaching, and then progressively advance in more sophosticated Dharma gates - the teachings and practices are simplely too vast that one required to comsume and polished in many suceessful lifetimes
Dawkins may know a lot about evolution but he really should read more if he thinks that Yhwh is "the most unpleasant character in all fiction". Not even close. Not even the most unpleasant deity. Second rate, really - and a chooser of losers in the the story.
As a Jew I find that hilarious
As a Jew, so do I.
just kiddin
...or Moby Dick lol.
Knowing the existence of rebirth and/or heaven, would bring the world together for a common destiny of love and harmony, and smoothen the path of liberation towards ones Pure land
With respect. People still try to dispute the fact that the world is round!
Even if rebirth was proved without doubt 100% false, there would still be people believing in it and fighting their case causing dukkha for themselves and others. Even if rebirth was proved without doubt 100% true, there would still be people disbelieving in it and fighting their case causing dukkha for themselves and others.
Palzang
I hope you don't mind me asking, and sorry if it sounds dumb, but, what do you mean by YHWH is a jealous god, not a god?, in Buddhist terms, wouldn't he be a god who's jealous (a bit like the Hawaiian Volcano Goddess Pele)?.
Palzang
" The Buddhist asuras are broadly derived, in general character, from the wicked asuras of Hinduism, but have acquired some very distinctive myths which are only found in Buddhist texts.
In its Buddhist context, the word is sometimes translated " Titan" (suggesting the wars of the Greek gods and Titans), "demigod", or "antigod", none of which is entirely satisfactory. The closest analogy in European traditions may be the Norse jotnar, who range from the semi-divine to the monstrous, are sometimes at war with the gods and sometimes married to them. But the usual translation, "giants", is small improvement on "Titans". "
The term Asura is linguistically related to the Ahuras of Zoroastrianism, but has in that religion a different meaning. The negative character of the Asura in Hinduism seems to have evolved over time. The Bhagavad Gita (16.4) says that the Asuric qualities are pride, arrogance, conceit, anger, harshness, and ignorance.