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.
The obvious dislike of and disrespect for Christian teaching demonstrated by some here (I did name at least one but redacted the names: no ad hominem; they know who they are) should not be taken as characteristic of genuine Buddhist commentary. I prefer the views of such respected and respectful writers as HHDL, TNH, Roshi Aitken or Masao Abe.
Thank you Simon! The rest of you, please take note. There are gobs of forums where you can discuss the merits of Christianity as related to Christ and Christians. I really don't see how this "discussion" is relevant to Buddhism.
I actually think they blend quite well. I thought there might be certain connection that we are unaware of.
I'm sure that, as the years go by, I shall go on seeing connections. One of the earliest, for me, was when I read Masao Abe on the connections between the Buddhist sunyatta and the Christian kenosis of the self-emptying God. I also love the similarity of choice: Gotama chooses to teach what he has realised and Jesus chooses to incarnate. Both choose to suffer alongside us.
I actually think they blend quite well. I thought there might be certain connection that we are unaware of.
As usual, too many people delight in emphasizing the differences, rather than noting the similarities of principles. They spend their time creating dissension among people...not a very Buddhist thing to do, in my view. They want tolerance from their friends and relatives as they take the different path of Buddhism, but then don't grant that same tolerance in return. Thank you for being one of the people who see the similarities of principles.
Once Returners are not necessarily celibate. Maybe you can go for that instead .
I wouldn't say that non-returners have aversion towards sex. It is just that lust have been uprooted in them. Again , the practice of celibacy and the like are more suitable for monastics than householders. (There are some exceptions , such as Citta and Hatthaka the householders, etc...)
in the scriptures, once returnes is the recommended state for househoulders...
Fed: one explanation I've been given is that back in Mary's day, young women didn't have premarital sex, so saying she was a "maiden" implied virginity. However, the word used in the Russian Orthodox Bible (the Old Church Slavic version), which was written by Greek monks, is the word for "virgin". No one said there's proof; of course there's no proof she was a virgin. All we have to go by is this document, the Bible, in it's earliest versions or translations. I'd be interested to know what word was used to describe her in Hebrew or Aramaic. In the end, we may never know for sure.
Fed: one explanation I've been given is that back in Mary's day, young women didn't have premarital sex, so saying she was a "maiden" implied virginity. However, the word used in the Russian Orthodox Bible (the Old Church Slavic version), which was written by Greek monks, is the word for "virgin". No one said there's proof; of course there's no proof she was a virgin. All we have to go by is this document, the Bible, in it's earliest versions or translations. I'd be interested to know what word was used to describe her in Hebrew or Aramaic. In the end, we may never know for sure.
Miraculous conception and birth narratives are integral to mythic legends about great figured. Are we to start dissing the tales of Gotama's conception and birth, or are we informed enough to understand that these are allegorical parables: stories with lessons for us if we open our minds to them?
The perpetual virginity of the Theotokos has many meanings, not least of these is that Mary, an entirely human person, one of us, is ab ovo innocent - and so are we. It is a challenge to those who appeal to Original Sin by emphasising Underlying Blessing instead.
My interest in the question was more about what the Bible actually says about her. Whether or not that corresponds to reality is a different issue. But I'd heard rumors all my life about the fact that the Greek says only that she was young, so I finally checked it out, and continue gathering informed opinions whenever I get the chance, just to see if those rumors are true.
Yes, we can diss tales of Gotama's conception and birth. Well, maybe not "diss", exactly, but analyze. The first I'd heard of the story that he, too, was the result of a virgin birth was here on this forum, I think. That mythology is absent from a lot of Western books about Buddhism. As one of our former members put it once, many Westerners see the Buddha as "just a guy" who figured some stuff out, as opposed to Jesus, who was divine, or semi-divine. I guess it all depends on who you get your teachings from, or what books you read.
Original Sin is interesting, when viewed from a Buddhist perspective. Buddhism's concept of original sin really sheds light on the Christian idea, so it begins to make more sense. According to TB teachings, babies aren't exactly "born sinners", but as soon as they come into the world, the process of acculturation to the material world begins. Toys are rattled at them, a colorful mobile is hung over the crib, they begin to get distracted from whatever memories they have about the bardo state and their true nature as spiritual beings. Checking this out with Western clergy, they agree that this is what is behind the concept of Original Sin: a disconnect with the knowledge of one's true nature, or one's connection with the Divine. What say you, SimonthePilgrim? : )
Once Returners are not necessarily celibate. Maybe you can go for that instead .
I wouldn't say that non-returners have aversion towards sex. It is just that lust have been uprooted in them. Again , the practice of celibacy and the like are more suitable for monastics than householders. (There are some exceptions , such as Citta and Hatthaka the householders, etc...)
in the scriptures, once returnes is the recommended state for househoulders...
Non-returners are not off - limit to householders. Citta and Hatthaka are lay non-returners. But there are way more lay Stream Enterer (and some Once Returner) mentioned in the sutta than lay non-returners. Generally speaking, many householders would have other priorities such as family and relationship. It is extremely difficult for householders with a relationship to practice celibacy. That is why I believe it is more compatible with people living in a monastic life.
Many Stream-Enterer and Once-returners are lay people with family and children. They engaged in the worldly life just like other people.
The doctrine of Original Sin comes, as you know, from Saint Augustine who was trying to make sense of how it could be that God is presented as a perfect creator but the creation - and humans in particular - appears to be flawed. Because he emerged from a Manichaean origin and only had the Tanakh to go on, he re-interpreted the Gan Eden story to have a wider scope than originally intended.
The question of "why do bad things happen to good people?" or "why do people do evil?" has tormented humanity as long as we have records and all sorts of mythic answers are adduced. It is just not enough for some people to day that this is just the way things are. For some of us, the imperfections around us suggest a movement towards rather than away from perfection.
No, I didn't know that, Simon, thanks. I guess I wasn't talking about the doctrine of Original Sin, but the idea that people come into the world as sinners, which may be mainly a fundamentalist Christian belief, idk. That's interesting about the Manichaean spin St. Augustine put on the Eden story. Raises lots of questions, but I don't want to hijack the thread.
Buddhist theory has it that we all come to birth with a freight of kamma and that this is integral to samsara. I see little difference between this and some sort of pre-conception 'sin'. Neither seems to me to be fully satisfactory as explanations of nature's flaws.
I don't see the issue of people doing evil as a flaw of nature, though I suppose it could be, in some cases. I see much of it as being caused by early environment, meaning poor upbringing or child abuse, and so forth. I see it as more of a "nurture" issue rather than a "nature" issue, but it could be either or both. We're really off-topic now. I may PM you about your St. Augustine comments.
Sutric references Vincenzi? As far as I've understood it, the stage of Anagami is beyond worldly pleasures, and an Anagami does not have sex. That's from all that I've studied and remembered, at least, even if I don't myself know where it's located in the sutras.
I don't see the issue of people doing evil as a flaw of nature, though I suppose it could be, in some cases. I see much of it as being caused by early environment, meaning poor upbringing or child abuse, and so forth. I see it as more of a "nurture" issue rather than a "nature" issue, but it could be either or both. We're really off-topic now. I may PM you about your St. Augustine comments.
I truly believe that only if we are prepared to go "off topic" can we find the interesting byways but I acknowledge that others have different opinions.
I should be glad to correspond about Augustine or anything else, D.
Sutric references Vincenzi? As far as I've understood it, the stage of Anagami is beyond worldly pleasures, and an Anagami does not have sex. That's from all that I've studied and remembered, at least, even if I don't myself know where it's located in the sutras.
it doesn't make sense... and I have seen not a single sutra that equates being free from craving of sensual pleasures with sexual disfunction.
I read Masao Abe on the connections between the Buddhist sunyatta and the Christian kenosis of the self-emptying God. I also love the similarity of choice: Gotama chooses to teach what he has realised and Jesus chooses to incarnate. Both choose to suffer alongside us.
kenosis is not a salient theme of Christianity. the notion is found in one obsure letter in the New Testament in reference to Jesus humbling himself to serve humanity
whereas as sunnata is a practise for Buddhist followers and the inherent nature of all things without exception
the Buddha did not suffer along side with us
the Buddha was free from suffering and exhorted his followers to practise similarly
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing (kenosis) by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross!
As usual, too many people delight in emphasizing the differences, rather than noting the similarities of principles. They spend their time creating dissension among people...not a very Buddhist thing to do, in my view. They want tolerance from their friends and relatives as they take the different path of Buddhism, but then don't grant that same tolerance in return.
For me, the view above is not consistent with Buddhism and, being so, naturally contradicts itself.
Buddhism emphasises the nature of things, which includes the differences between things.
Christians are not interested in 'kenosis'. to assert 'kenosis' & 'sunnata' represent the essence of Christianity will not create friends amongst Christians. It disrespects Christianity
respecting the salient theme of Christianity, which is "God sent his only Son to die for & forgive the sins of the world", is not intolerance
the idiosyncratic intolerance occurs when we attempt to mould Christianity to our Buddhist image of it
Buddhist theory has it that we all come to birth with a freight of kamma and that this is integral to samsara. I see little difference between this and some sort of pre-conception 'sin'. Neither seems to me to be fully satisfactory as explanations of nature's flaws.
Buddhism teaches about nature, about the elements. The Buddha taught the defilements (greed, hatred & delusion) are elements of nature; just like water, oxygen, heat, physical matter, etc, are elements of nature
Nature is not "flawed". Nature is simply the way it is (dhammata; tathata; suchness)
The view of "orignal sin" is a Christian notion but not a Buddhist notion. The Buddha taught the orignal nature is "ignorance". The Buddha said nothing can be found prior to ignorance.
The idea the world was once perfect before sin came into the world via Satan (the snake) is not a Buddhist idea (although there is one dodgy sutta amongst many dodgy suttas in the Digha Nikaya with a creation myth. But the Buddha himself did not speak many of the discourses in the Digha Nikaya)
The real Buddha-Dhamma is quoted below:
And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging. From clinging as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair come into play. This is the origination of the world.
Loka Sutta: The World
A first beginning of ignorance cannot be conceived, (of which it can be said), 'Before that, there was no ignorance and it came to be after that.'
The doctrine of Original Sin comes, as you know, from Saint Augustine who was trying to make sense of how it could be that God is presented as a perfect creator but the creation - and humans in particular - appears to be flawed.
The idea of a perfect creator is alien to Buddhism. To the contrary, Buddhism states all created things are imperfect. Buddhism states only the uncreated is perfect
Saint Augustine seems to have had no idea about reality
The world is full of imperfections & dangers, such as diseases, earthquakes, natural disasters, poisonous animals & snakes, violent mental tendencies, etc
the believe there is a "perfect creator" is a fantasy
such belief is a hindrance to "letting go" and liberation
:wtf:
277. "All conditioned things are impermanent" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.
278. "All conditioned things are unsatisfactory" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.
Maggavagga: The Path
Thus have I heard. At one time the Lord was staying near Savatthi in the Jeta Wood at Anathapindika's monastery. On that occasion the Lord was instructing... the bhikkhus with a Dhamma talk connected with Nibbana and those bhikkhus... were intent on listening to Dhamma.
There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned.
Thanks for the reference, DD, very interesting, but it raises as many questions as it supposedly answers. For one thing, it contradicts what Pilate himself says in the Gospel of Pontius Pilate. He says Jesus asked him to crucify him. Also, it doesn't say what happened later, when Jesus was found in the tomb by his disciples. When John first sees him after the tomb is opened, and is surprised to find him alive, in John's Gospel it says Jesus asks him: "Why do you seek the living among the dead"? (Biblical scholar Elaine Pagels points this out in one of her books.)
But it seems to be the nature of scriptures to contradict themselves. The only way we'll know for sure if he survived and left his homeland is if someone finds his remains somewhere, someday.
Vincenzi, why would a supposed resurrection indicate that Jesus was a Buddha? Do you really believe in the resurrection of Jesus?
Good points here. Also there were numerous religious texts disregarded by early church bishops because they didnt support their views about Jesus or they contradicted the gospels.
Also there were numerous religious texts disregarded by early church bishops because they didnt support their views about Jesus or they contradicted the gospels.
The above epitomises the very idiosyncratic intolerance i mentioned earlier, when we attempt to mould Christianity to our Buddhist image of it
The above can be potentially construed as a "Buddhist crusade" to redefine Christianity
When we focus on imagined "similarities" rather than salient differences, we fall into this trap & danger
worse, our endeavours in this pursuit demonstrates Buddhism does not satisfy us
Sutric references Vincenzi? As far as I've understood it, the stage of Anagami is beyond worldly pleasures, and an Anagami does not have sex. That's from all that I've studied and remembered, at least, even if I don't myself know where it's located in the sutras.
it doesn't make sense... and I have seen not a single sutra that equates being free from craving of sensual pleasures with sexual disfunction.
Hatthigāmaka Ugga ( AN 8.22 ) is an example . Visakha ( Husband of Dhammadina is another example) :
I think there's a terminology issue at work here. No, Jesus was not a Buddha, since, according to the scriptures, Buddhas teach the dharma. That's what they do. Sakyamuni was but one of a group of beings called "Buddha", in this age, and there have been others in other ages.
That doesn't mean that Jesus never achieved realizations, that he never achieved pratyekabuddha status, for example. They don't necessarily teach the dharma. They are not Buddha's, however.
Personally I believe that Jesus achieved the first 5 (at least) of the 6 Perfections of Wisdom, and a high level of compassion, active bodhicitta, to the extent that he understood the concept of enlightenment (that he aspired to achieve the highest possible state for the benefit of humans (there is no evidence that Jesus taught non-harm in relation to non-human sentient beings.
I don't know if he achieved the kind of Wisdom that equates with the 6th Paramita (the Perfection of Wisdom), since that is a wisdom which understands reality as it accords with reality itself; that is, it results in a mind that has turned totally correct with regard to understanding self and phenomena. The gospels of Thomas are an interesting read; they were not uncovered until recently (20th century) and are more colloquial and unfiltered than that traditional ones. Additionally Thomas was a contemporary of Jesus and a friend. Jesus supposedly sent him to India to spread his teachings there. (which is why the Indian Christian community dates from the 1st century CE).
There are some statements that seem to indicate that Jesus' understanding of reality might have been highly developed; however, it's fair to say that he didn't stress this aspect in his teachings. The Gospel of Thomas is more of a gnostic presentation than the other Gospels, however; so the concept of gnosis, of having a mind that is infused with or merged with that of God, and of being able to achieve a deathless state in THIS world rather than through a selection process after death---these are all elements in Thomas' verses; so I have no doubt that Jesus was an extraordinary being, to say the least.
you seem to overlook Jesus entered into Jewish temples, that believed in God, and sought to assert his personal authority over them
you seem to overlook Jesus deliberately provoked the Jewish religious authorities
you seem to overlook Jesus sought to take over the Jewish religion
now ask yourself, would a Buddha do such things?
did the Buddha himself do such things?
did the Buddha himself need to do such things?
did the Buddha seek to approach & confront the Brahmin religious authorities of his day?
or, to the contrary, did the Brahmin priests visit the Buddha?
according to reports, Buddhism was already established (in a small way) in Greece & Egypt. Buddhism, during the time of Christ, would have been the world's largest religion, having spread to China, Tibet, Sri Lanka, SE Asia, Persia, in a small way to Europe & elsewhere
Buddhism spread itself peaceably & harmoniously in the world
"Venerable Sir, at that very first meeting with the Buddha, I took refuge in the Buddha and listened to his discourse. As a result, I became an Anagami and established in the observance of Brahmacariya-pabcama sila. This is the second wonder. Venerable Sir, I had four wives; as soon as I arrived back home on the day I became an Anagami Ariya, I said to them, ‘I have vowed to observe the precept of total abstinence; whichever of you wishes to remain living in this house may do so enjoying my wealth as you like and doing meritorious deeds with it; whoever wants to go back to her parents home is also free to do so; and whoever wants to get married to another man may just tell me to whom I should give you.’ The eldest of my four wives expressed the wish to be given to a certain person whom she named. I sent for the man and holding my eldest wife with my left hand and a jug of water in my right hand, I gave away my wife to the man. In making this gift of my wife to the man, I remained completely unmoved, unaffected. This is the third wonder." ( AN 8.22)
you seem to overlook Jesus entered into Jewish temples, that believed in God, and sought to assert his personal authority over them
you seem to overlook Jesus deliberately provoked the Jewish religious authorities
you seem to overlook Jesus sought to take over the Jewish religion
now ask yourself, would a Buddha do such things?
did the Buddha himself do such things?
did the Buddha himself need to do such things?
did the Buddha seek to approach & confront the Brahmin religious authorities of his day?
or, to the contrary, did the Brahmin priests visit the Buddha?
according to reports, Buddhism was already established (in a small way) in Greece & Egypt. Buddhism, during the time of Christ, would have been the world's largest religion, having spread to China, Tibet, Sri Lanka, SE Asia, Persia, in a small way to Europe & elsewhere
Buddhism spread itself peaceably & harmoniously in the world
:om:
The Buddha certainly made efforts to work with the existing power structure in the various kingdoms in which he taught and led his disciples in practice. And he instructed his students not to rock the boat; not to become enmeshed in politics, not to act in ways which might offend those in power. I see this as skillful political behavior---as a way of providing a save and secure place for his disciples to practice.
Jesus was more of a rabble-rouser. The Tibetan tradition if full of the latter type. In fact the yogi who founded the Vajrayana in Tibet (Padmasambava), was extremely wrathful when it came to dealing with Brahmans, nasty spirits, and the like. Compared to him Jesus was a very laid-back blissed-out kind of dude.
Jesus was dissatisfied with how Judaism was being practiced at the time. If it's true that moneylenders were really setting up shop in the Temple of Jerusalem then I do not find fault with his behavior, in chastising them. If Jewish authorities permitted such behaviors in a house of worship I find no fault with Jesus criticism of them. There is no such assertion made in any of the scriptures (that I know of) that Jesus sought to "take over" the Jewish religion, Please help me out if anyone knows any passages which suggest otherwise.
However, even the Buddha's behavior did not always accord with traditionally accepted behaviors, especially when it came to behaviors of a prince, husband, and disciple. He abandoned his father's kingdom and his own wife. While it was considered acceptable for a king to do this later in life it was certainly a very radical action for a young prince who's father wished for him to remain within the kingdom and to eventually rule it.
So what's worse, abandoning your family and new wife, or objecting to behaviors by your own religious leaders which seem to have been clearly unethical (as Jesus did)?
Additionally...
The Buddha showed disrespect for his own guru by abandoning the austerities he had committed himself to (having come to understand that they didn't work). His "middle way" of taking adequate nourishment as a practice method, was considered so radical by his fellow practitioners that the 4 other principal disciples of his guru all abandoned him. Of course they later became the Buddha's disciples and realized the fruit of his teachings. The Buddha agreed to a contest pitting his miraculous powers against those of religious figures of the day. Of course he was challenged first and accepted the challenge. When asked questions concerning metaphysics by a Brahmin the Buddha refused to speak to him. "He remained silent".
Now I'm not finding the slightest fault with anything the Buddha did. These were all skillful acts. The Buddha's entire life is as perfect a testament to skillful means as it is to the realization of perfect wisdom.
But different circumstances require different means. I leave you with this last story about the bodhisattva that was to become the Buddha.
He was once a monk in a monastery during a severe drought and resultant famine. Having little available food the abbot of the monastery ordered all the monks to go into town and try to steal food if they weren't able to get enough by begging. All of the monks went out that morning and, when they came back, they turned over their "booty" to the abbot. All except one; he told the abbot point blank that stealing was unethical behavior and that he had refused to do it. The abbot said to the other monks. "All of you leave this place at once. He then turned to the monk who had intentionally defied him and said to him "You I will teach!".
I think that, depending on how Jesus is depicted, he could be at least considered a Bodhisattva. I had to have a little laugh to myself about the Jesus as celibate thing because I had been raised my whole life to think otherwise! :O
Jesus was more of a rabble-rouser. The Tibetan tradition if full of the latter type.
Indeed. You seem to be inferring Tibetans are "rabble-rousers" and do not behave or believe as the Buddha did. Personally, I cannot disagree with such an inference. That is why there was the Mahayana schism in Buddhism. Just because the Tibetans call themselves "Buddhist", this does not mean all of their practises are what the Buddha taught & recommended
What is a buddha REALLY? A lot of things described in buddhism will be SO over-rated. Buddhas probably don't exist and never did.
What do exist in life are really nice people, really generous guys and girls who really believe they can change the world and really want to bring peace to the world etc etc...
Jesus would have been exactly like buddha. He died for us. He was probably the most compassionate person to have ever lived.
Now I don't believe in all this God crap and life after death or reancarnation in buddhism. I only believe that there are good people out there. Like jesus,buddha,mother teresa, martin lutha jnr, ghandi (in the end) And so on...
These all would have been enlightened. Can I prove this? NO I can't. But I'm using my common sense and looking at religions without being delusional. Knowing what's important in life and worrying about labelling myself a buddhist or where I'm gonna go after death or hoping I attain enlightenment if I meditate long enough.
Buddha wouldn't have been anything special. Enlightenment won't be anything special.
Being kind IS special. Being compassionate is special. Being understanding is special. Being a friend is special. Just doing your very best in life is special.
So jesus and buddha would have been all these. Plus many more..
So going back to your question: was christ a buddha? Ill let you answer that. No one on here can answer anything which has no prove. We only have our opinions. And the opinions they give you on buddhism will be from others opinions from authors and teachers...
I personally though, believe that buddhism is nothing what it was suppose to be 2500 years!
We see it everyday. When we're in school, college or work. Someone tells someone something and by the end of the day its been changed slightly..its called chinese whispers. So imagin how much has changed in 2500 years. WOW!!
I believe half of buddhas teachings wouldn't have even been taught by the buddha! But again, we're never gonna know! Shame really, coz I think he was just a decent fella trying to come up with a way to end all our suffering and realized a few things and told a few ppl. Then by the time we could start writing things down..(300 years or so AFTER buddhas death - there's no way the teachings written down are his. Just can't see it. (In fact, I bet buddhas teachings isn't even what buddha came. Prince siddhartha is probably getting credit for something he didint even say. So many things would have been added SO much that I bet buddha wouldn't even know what we were talking about if he attended a dharma class. Haha
Howver....does it all matter.
Just practice good. If u are a good person. U are a buddha in my eyes.
Do ur best and smile. Chin up in hard times. Be brave and live ur life. Buddha-bless and god-bless. XxX
i was not aware the Buddha had an guru to which he offered unmoving & unquestioning obedience
No, they addressed each other as friends. The second one offered him the position of the teacher of the group. The first one set him on equal status and suggested that they lead together. Both of which he refused because it is clear to him that what they taught were not what they thought it should be .
the suttas do not mention the Buddha had an "austerities guru"
the Buddha-To-Be had two arupa jhana gurus
after his enlightenment, he decided they would be his first disciples but they died
A closer look at the sutta shows that it is the commentators who made the assumption the Buddha learned these states as an adult from the teachers. The Buddha himself never said that. He only mentioned recalling his childhood experience and developed the rest from there.
The Buddha said Alara and Uddakka " Declared ". The Buddha himself did not say that Alara & Uddakka taught . If the Buddha was taught these two states as they declared then he should have no trouble entering First Jhana. However , the Uppakilesa Sutta shows that this is not the case. The Buddha had to struggle with a whole series of obstacles before he was able to find his way back into the First Jhana that he recalled practicing as a child. Later commentators assumed that the Buddha practiced First Jhana again as an adult under the two teachers based on what the two teachers declared. But additional details given by the Buddha in the Uppakilesa Sutta revealed that this is not the case. The Buddha himself made no mention of doing First Jhana under his teachers, but only stated that he recalled a childhood experience of jhana.
The Upakkilesa Sutta further show how the Buddha struggled with numerous obstacles to penetrating the sign when he tried to find his way back into the first Jhanas experienced during childhood. He then built up the rest of the states from there, which he later considered as “samma samadhi” :
" Before my enlightenment, while I was still only an unenlightened Bodhisatta, I too perceived both light and a vision of forms. Soon afterwards the light and the vision of forms disappeared. I thought: ‘What is the cause and condition why the light and the vision of forms have disappeared?’ Then I considered thus: ‘Doubt arose in me, and because of the doubt my concentration fell away; when my concentration fell away, the light and the vision of forms disappeared. I shall so act that doubt will not arise in me again.’
“As, Anuruddha, I was abiding diligent, ardent, and resolute, I perceived both light and a vision of forms. Soon afterward the light and the vision of forms disappeared. I thought: ‘What is the cause and condition why the light and the vision of forms have disappeared?’ Then I considered thus: ‘Inattention arose in me, and because of inattention my concentration fell away; when my concentration fell away, the light and the vision of forms disappeared. I shall so act that neither doubt nor inattention will arise in me again.’
“As, Anuruddha, I was abiding diligent…Soon afterward the light and the vision of forms disappeared. I thought: ‘What is the cause and condition why the light and the vision of forms have disappeared?’ Then I considered thus: ‘Sloth and torpor arose in me, and because of sloth and torpor my concentration fell away; when my concentration fell away, the light and the vision of forms disappeared. I shall so act that neither doubt nor inattention nor sloth and torpor will arise in me again.’
“As, Anuruddha, I was abiding diligent…Soon afterward the light and the vision of forms disappeared. I thought: ‘What is the cause and condition why the light and the vision of forms have disappeared?’ Then I considered thus: ‘Fear arose in me, and because of fear my concentration fell away; when my concentration fell away, the light and the vision of forms disappeared.’ Suppose a man set out on a journey and murderers leaped out on both sides of him; then fear would arise in him because of that. So too, fear arose in me…the light and the vision of forms disappeared. [I considered thus:] ‘I shall so act that neither doubt nor inattention nor sloth and torpor nor fear will arise in me again.’
“As, Anuruddha, I was abiding diligent…Soon afterward the light and the vision of forms disappeared. I thought: ‘What is the cause and condition why the light and the vision of forms have disappeared?’ Then I considered thus: ‘Elation arose in me, and because of elation my concentration fell away; when my concentration fell away, the light and the vision of forms disappeared.’ Suppose a man seeking one entrance to a hidden treasure came all at once upon five entrances to a hidden treasure; then elation would arise in him because of that. So too, elation arose in me…the light and the vision of forms disappeared. [I considered thus:] ‘I shall so act that neither doubt nor inattention…nor fear nor elation will arise in me again.’
“As, Anuruddha, I was abiding diligent…Soon afterward the light and the vision of forms disappeared. I thought: ‘What is the cause and condition why the light and the vision of forms have disappeared?’ Then I considered thus: ‘Inertia arose in me, and because of inertia my concentration fell away; when my concentration fell away, the light and the vision of forms disappeared. I shall so act that neither doubt nor inattention…nor elation nor inertia will arise in me again.’
“As, Anuruddha, I was abiding diligent…Soon afterward the light and the vision of forms disappeared. I thought: ‘What is the cause and condition why the light and the vision of forms have disappeared?’ Then I considered thus: ‘Excess of energy arose in me, and because of excess of energy my concentration fell away; when my concentration fell away, the light and the vision of forms disappeared.’ Suppose a man were to grip a quail tightly with both hands; it would die then and there. So too, an excess of energy arose in me…the light and the vision of forms disappeared. [I considered thus:] ‘I shall so act that neither doubt nor inattention…nor inertia nor excess of energy will arise in me again.’
“As, Anuruddha, I was abiding diligent…Soon afterward the light and the vision of forms disappeared. I thought: ‘What is the cause and condition why the light and the vision of forms have disappeared?’ Then I considered thus: ‘Deficiency of energy arose in me, and because of deficiency of energy my concentration fell away; when my concentration fell away, the light and the vision of forms disappeared.’ Suppose a man were to grip a quail loosely; it would fly out of his hands. So too, a deficiency of energy arose in me…the light and the vision of forms disappeared. [I considered thus:] ‘I shall so act that neither doubt nor inattention…nor excess of energy nor deficiency of energy will arise in me again.’
“As, Anuruddha, I was abiding diligent…Soon afterward the light and the vision of forms disappeared. I thought: ‘What is the cause and condition why the light and the vision of forms have disappeared?’ Then I considered thus: ‘Longing arose in me, and because of that longing my concentration fell away; when my concentration fell away, the light and the vision of forms disappeared. I shall so act that neither doubt nor inattention…nor deficiency of energy nor longing will arise in me again.’
“As, Anuruddha, I was abiding diligent…Soon afterward the light and the vision of forms disappeared. I thought: ‘What is the cause and condition why the light and the vision of forms have disappeared?’ Then I considered thus: ‘Perception of diversity arose in me, and because of perception of diversity my concentration fell away; when my concentration fell away, the light and the vision of forms disappeared. I shall so act that neither doubt nor inattention…nor longing nor perception of diversity will arise in me again.’
“As, Anuruddha, I was abiding diligent…Soon afterward the light and the vision of forms disappeared. I thought: ‘What is the cause and condition why the light and the vision of forms have disappeared?’ Then I considered thus: ‘Excessive meditation upon forms arose in me, and because of excessive meditation upon forms my concentration fell away; when my concentration fell away, the light and the vision of forms disappeared. I shall so act that neither doubt nor inattention…nor perception of diversity nor excessive meditation upon forms will arise in me again.’
“When, Anuruddha, I understood that doubt is an imperfection of the mind, I abandoned doubt, an imperfection of the mind. When I understood that inattention…sloth and torpor…fear…elation…inertia…excess of energy…deficiency of energy…longing…perception of diversity…excessive meditation upon forms is an imperfection of the mind, I abandoned excessive meditation upon forms, an imperfection of the mind.
“As, Anuruddha, I was abiding diligent, ardent, and resolute, I perceived light but I did not see forms; I saw forms but I did not perceive light, even for a whole night or a whole day or a whole day and night. I thought: ‘What is the cause and condition for this?’ Then I considered thus: ‘On the occasion when I do not attend to the sign of forms but attend to the sign of light, I then perceive light but do not see forms. On the occasion when I do not attend to the sign of light but attend to the sign of forms, I then see forms but do not perceive light, even for a whole night or a whole day or a whole day and night.’
“As, Anuruddha, I was abiding diligent, ardent, and resolute, I perceived limited light and saw limited forms; I perceived immeasurable light and saw immeasurable forms, even for a whole night or a whole day or a whole day and night. I thought: ‘What is the cause and condition for this?’ Then I considered thus: ‘On the occasion when concentration is limited, my vision is limited, and with limited vision I perceive limited light and limited forms. But on the occasion when concentration is immeasurable, my vision is immeasurable, and with immeasurable vision I perceive immeasurable light and see immeasurable forms, even for a whole night or a whole day or a whole day and night.’
“When, Anuruddha, I understood that doubt is an imperfection of the mind and had abandoned doubt, an imperfection of the mind; when I understood that inattention is an imperfection of the mind and had abandoned inattention…abandoned sloth and torpor…abandoned fear…abandoned elation…abandoned inertia…abandoned excess of energy…abandoned deficiency of energy…abandoned longing…abandoned perception of diversity…abandoned excessive meditation upon forms, an imperfection of the mind; then I thought: ‘I have abandoned those imperfections of the mind. Let me now develop concentration in three ways.’
“Thereupon, Anuruddha, I developed concentration with applied thought and sustained thought; I developed concentration without applied thought but with sustained thought only; I developed concentration without applied thought and without sustained thought; I developed concentration with rapture; I developed concentration without rapture; I developed concentration accompanied by enjoyment; I developed concentration accompanied by equanimity. “When, Anuruddha, I had developed concentration with applied thought and sustained thought…when I had developed concentration accompanied by equanimity, the knowledge and vision arose in me: ‘My deliverance is unshakeable; this is my last birth; now there is no renewal of being.’”- MN 128 Upakkilesa Sutta
Note: A person who actually practice the two formless states should have no trouble entering Jhana 1 . However, from his memory he was only aware that he is too physically depleted to slip into that state as he did when he was a child sitting in physical comfort. Other than that, if we look at the Upakkilesa Sutta which provides further details showing how the Buddha tried to get back into the state he experienced during his childhood, it was a struggle, he had to struggle with numerous obstacles. It was not the case that he remembers his childhood Jhana level 1 experience and then immediately know ‘Oh! that is a Level 1 Jhana, I ‘ve been doing that for so many times and even went many stages beyond that. I will simply enter that state now.’ There were much struggles to actually be able to find his way back into Jhana 1 experienced in childhood. We should not assume that the Buddha practice the form jhana as an adult when he himself never said that. He only mentioned Jhana 1 in childhood. The claim that he practice the form jhana as an adult is an assumption.
The idea of a perfect creator is alien to Buddhism. To the contrary, Buddhism states all created things are imperfect. Buddhism states only the uncreated is perfect
So, for example, take "The Buddha's Speech", it's imperfect, because it's created (produced). All sound is produced, and I assume that the Buddha's disciples hear actual sound uttered by the Buddha. I agree with you, actually, if that's your position. I agree that every word the Buddha taught is imperfect, because it results from production. Even if you argue non-production for the Buddha's speech it is certainly not understood the same way by everyone hearing it. If it were you would not have some who rejected the Buddha as a teacher and others who accepted him. SO the understanding which occurred in the minds of those to whom the Buddha spoke was certainly produced and, as such was faulty. So every student of the Buddha
Additionally...
The Buddha showed disrespect for his own guru by abandoning the austerities he had committed himself to...
oh dear :-/
i was not aware the Buddha had an guru to which he offered unmoving & unquestioning obedience
the suttas do not mention the Buddha had an "austerities guru"
the Buddha-To-Be had two arupa jhana gurus
after his enlightenment, he decided they would be his first disciples but they died
Are you saying that the Buddha decided to do austerities because he just felt like it? That he had received no instructions on them? That he just made them up? He was practicing within a Hindu tradition which emphasized austerities. His gurus guided him in these practices. They taught him about the value of these austerities and taught the method for engaging in them. He abandoned his teacher and his teacher's other students abandoned him. He was right to abandon these teachers; their method wasn't one which could lead to liberation.
I'm not sure if you're really making a point here or being pointed for the hell of it.
In my tradition the only reason to debate is to move both self and opponent forward on the spiritual path by reaching consensus about some aspect of the dharma. In your tradition....well...I don't know. Are you speaking about "an austerity guru" to help get me enlightened? And do you really think that you disagree with me 100% about the Buddha's guru or are you just throwing things out there?
Your comments about Tibetan lineages may reflect the views of your teachers. I sure hope not. My "barbaric" Tibetan lineage teacher is quick to point out that a good practitioner in your tradition is far more worthy of veneration than a bad one in mine. He does this to insure that we don't develop the same kind of attitude that some people within both traditions seem to have. That their tradition is superior to the other; that those who practice in their tradition are, therefore, somehow automatically superior to those who practice in the other tradition, etc. We should not look down on those who practice within any Buddhist tradition. We should not look down on anyone. We should see good in all other beings and see those areas within ourselves that need to be improved. But, hey, that's just the point of view of this barbarian.
So, for example, take "The Buddha's Speech", it's imperfect, because it's created (produced).
The Buddha actually used the words Impermanent and Not-self /Non-Self instead.
Are you saying that the Buddha decided to do austerities because he just felt like it? That he had received no instructions on them? That he just made them up? He was practicing within a Hindu tradition which emphasized austerities. His gurus guided him in these practices. They taught him about the value of these austerities and taught the method for engaging in them. He abandoned his teacher and his teacher's other students abandoned him. He was right to abandon these teachers; their method wasn't one which could lead to liberation.
At that time there are two extremes, Indulgence or self-mortification. For the wandering ascetics, they usually practice self mortification. He almost died for nothing when taking up these practices. Therefore he abandoned them.
He said " by such conduct, by such practice, by such performance of austerities, I did not attain any superhuman states, any distinction in knowledge and vision worthy of the noble ones."
When it comes to Jesus and Buddha ignoring the norms during that time, I say there is nothing wrong with it.
Sutric references Vincenzi? As far as I've understood it, the stage of Anagami is beyond worldly pleasures, and an Anagami does not have sex. That's from all that I've studied and remembered, at least, even if I don't myself know where it's located in the sutras.
beyond worldly pleasures?
jhāna is a wordly pleasure; one of the characteristics of anāgamis is that we can dwell in jhāna at will (the other being, having the five fetters broken).
the other important (sutric/dharmic) fact about anāgamis is that they dwell in jhāna in rupa-dhatu (the realm of forms)... with places (and beings) that have names such as "luminous beings".
craving & aversion must be uprooted... however, [anatta]I[/anatta] reserve the right to [anicca]dwell in wordly pleasures[anicca] as long as it does not [dukkha]harm[/dukkha] myself or others
I am sorry that you do not see the same message of loving compassion and the end of 'self' that I find in the Jesus message.
I actually once saw what you have suggested. Please bear in mind I was once a avid follower of Bhikkhu Budddhadasa. But then one day I realised what I saw was just a hallucination my (and Buddhadasa's) imagination. Regards
Comments
The perpetual virginity of the Theotokos has many meanings, not least of these is that Mary, an entirely human person, one of us, is ab ovo innocent - and so are we. It is a challenge to those who appeal to Original Sin by emphasising Underlying Blessing instead.
Yes, we can diss tales of Gotama's conception and birth. Well, maybe not "diss", exactly, but analyze. The first I'd heard of the story that he, too, was the result of a virgin birth was here on this forum, I think. That mythology is absent from a lot of Western books about Buddhism. As one of our former members put it once, many Westerners see the Buddha as "just a guy" who figured some stuff out, as opposed to Jesus, who was divine, or semi-divine. I guess it all depends on who you get your teachings from, or what books you read.
Original Sin is interesting, when viewed from a Buddhist perspective. Buddhism's concept of original sin really sheds light on the Christian idea, so it begins to make more sense. According to TB teachings, babies aren't exactly "born sinners", but as soon as they come into the world, the process of acculturation to the material world begins. Toys are rattled at them, a colorful mobile is hung over the crib, they begin to get distracted from whatever memories they have about the bardo state and their true nature as spiritual beings. Checking this out with Western clergy, they agree that this is what is behind the concept of Original Sin: a disconnect with the knowledge of one's true nature, or one's connection with the Divine. What say you, SimonthePilgrim? : )
Many Stream-Enterer and Once-returners are lay people with family and children. They engaged in the worldly life just like other people.
The doctrine of Original Sin comes, as you know, from Saint Augustine who was trying to make sense of how it could be that God is presented as a perfect creator but the creation - and humans in particular - appears to be flawed. Because he emerged from a Manichaean origin and only had the Tanakh to go on, he re-interpreted the Gan Eden story to have a wider scope than originally intended.
The question of "why do bad things happen to good people?" or "why do people do evil?" has tormented humanity as long as we have records and all sorts of mythic answers are adduced. It is just not enough for some people to day that this is just the way things are. For some of us, the imperfections around us suggest a movement towards rather than away from perfection.
I should be glad to correspond about Augustine or anything else, D.
whereas as sunnata is a practise for Buddhist followers and the inherent nature of all things without exception
the Buddha did not suffer along side with us
the Buddha was free from suffering and exhorted his followers to practise similarly
Buddhism emphasises the nature of things, which includes the differences between things.
Christians are not interested in 'kenosis'. to assert 'kenosis' & 'sunnata' represent the essence of Christianity will not create friends amongst Christians. It disrespects Christianity
respecting the salient theme of Christianity, which is "God sent his only Son to die for & forgive the sins of the world", is not intolerance
the idiosyncratic intolerance occurs when we attempt to mould Christianity to our Buddhist image of it
regards
DD
Nature is not "flawed". Nature is simply the way it is (dhammata; tathata; suchness)
The view of "orignal sin" is a Christian notion but not a Buddhist notion. The Buddha taught the orignal nature is "ignorance". The Buddha said nothing can be found prior to ignorance.
The idea the world was once perfect before sin came into the world via Satan (the snake) is not a Buddhist idea (although there is one dodgy sutta amongst many dodgy suttas in the Digha Nikaya with a creation myth. But the Buddha himself did not speak many of the discourses in the Digha Nikaya)
The real Buddha-Dhamma is quoted below:
Saint Augustine seems to have had no idea about reality
The world is full of imperfections & dangers, such as diseases, earthquakes, natural disasters, poisonous animals & snakes, violent mental tendencies, etc
the believe there is a "perfect creator" is a fantasy
such belief is a hindrance to "letting go" and liberation
:wtf:
The above can be potentially construed as a "Buddhist crusade" to redefine Christianity
When we focus on imagined "similarities" rather than salient differences, we fall into this trap & danger
worse, our endeavours in this pursuit demonstrates Buddhism does not satisfy us
we insult both Buddhism & Christianity
:eek:
you assume much.
This is how discursive "Buddhist" minds heap more & more disrespect onto Christianity
We mistakenly believe our efforts are doing good, "creating mutual understanding between religions", where as the reality appears to be otherwise
next will be saying Jesus practised Tantric sex with Mary Magdellena
:rolleyes:
http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara-Nikaya/Anguttara5/8-atthakanipata/003-gahapativaggo-e.html
Or
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:vrz-yO_ZJNwJ:ftp://ttbc.no-ip.org/%B8g%BD%D7%A4%CE%B5%DB%A7@%2F%B5%DB%A7@%2F%A9%AC%B6%F8%C1I%AEv%C2O%AE%D1%2F%AD%5E%A4%E5%B5%DB%ADz%2FBodhisambhara%2FMay20.doc+eight+marvellous+and+wonderful+qualities+of+a+householder&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgfAQiG5TviD_Iv12r20gw5YvTsTlsudzIV0rV0V6b4CpYuOnY-KMuDO5wyPu803pjZndN3pz0cOcdspUgh7nCi8ws4BMDX769ATRiLEBdyUoXuGkIhseMyzrAlNtg50r0BpSfA&sig=AHIEtbTLIdt2fouf-AnBCOwejnYd35fbuw
That doesn't mean that Jesus never achieved realizations, that he never achieved pratyekabuddha status, for example. They don't necessarily teach the dharma. They are not Buddha's, however.
Personally I believe that Jesus achieved the first 5 (at least) of the 6 Perfections of Wisdom, and a high level of compassion, active bodhicitta, to the extent that he understood the concept of enlightenment (that he aspired to achieve the highest possible state for the benefit of humans (there is no evidence that Jesus taught non-harm in relation to non-human sentient beings.
I don't know if he achieved the kind of Wisdom that equates with the 6th Paramita (the Perfection of Wisdom), since that is a wisdom which understands reality as it accords with reality itself; that is, it results in a mind that has turned totally correct with regard to understanding self and phenomena. The gospels of Thomas are an interesting read; they were not uncovered until recently (20th century) and are more colloquial and unfiltered than that traditional ones. Additionally Thomas was a contemporary of Jesus and a friend. Jesus supposedly sent him to India to spread his teachings there. (which is why the Indian Christian community dates from the 1st century CE).
There are some statements that seem to indicate that Jesus' understanding of reality might have been highly developed; however, it's fair to say that he didn't stress this aspect in his teachings. The Gospel of Thomas is more of a gnostic presentation than the other Gospels, however; so the concept of gnosis, of having a mind that is infused with or merged with that of God, and of being able to achieve a deathless state in THIS world rather than through a selection process after death---these are all elements in Thomas' verses; so I have no doubt that Jesus was an extraordinary being, to say the least.
thanks for your valuable contribution.
// there is no time to reply to just links nor replies that didn't adressed my arguments.
you seem to overlook Jesus entered into Jewish temples, that believed in God, and sought to assert his personal authority over them
you seem to overlook Jesus deliberately provoked the Jewish religious authorities
you seem to overlook Jesus sought to take over the Jewish religion
now ask yourself, would a Buddha do such things?
did the Buddha himself do such things?
did the Buddha himself need to do such things?
did the Buddha seek to approach & confront the Brahmin religious authorities of his day?
or, to the contrary, did the Brahmin priests visit the Buddha?
according to reports, Buddhism was already established (in a small way) in Greece & Egypt. Buddhism, during the time of Christ, would have been the world's largest religion, having spread to China, Tibet, Sri Lanka, SE Asia, Persia, in a small way to Europe & elsewhere
Buddhism spread itself peaceably & harmoniously in the world
:om:
"Venerable Sir, at that very first meeting with the Buddha, I took refuge in the Buddha and listened to his discourse. As a result, I became an Anagami and established in the observance of Brahmacariya-pabcama sila. This is the second wonder.
Venerable Sir, I had four wives; as soon as I arrived back home on the day I became an Anagami Ariya, I said to them, ‘I have vowed to observe the precept of total abstinence; whichever of you wishes to remain living in this house may do so enjoying my wealth as you like and doing meritorious deeds with it; whoever wants to go back to her parents home is also free to do so; and whoever wants to get married to another man may just tell me to whom I should give you.’ The eldest of my four wives expressed the wish to be given to a certain person whom she named. I sent for the man and holding my eldest wife with my left hand and a jug of water in my right hand, I gave away my wife to the man. In making this gift of my wife to the man, I remained completely unmoved, unaffected. This is the third wonder." ( AN 8.22)
Jesus was more of a rabble-rouser. The Tibetan tradition if full of the latter type. In fact the yogi who founded the Vajrayana in Tibet (Padmasambava), was extremely wrathful when it came to dealing with Brahmans, nasty spirits, and the like. Compared to him Jesus was a very laid-back blissed-out kind of dude.
Jesus was dissatisfied with how Judaism was being practiced at the time. If it's true that moneylenders were really setting up shop in the Temple of Jerusalem then I do not find fault with his behavior, in chastising them. If Jewish authorities permitted such behaviors in a house of worship I find no fault with Jesus criticism of them. There is no such assertion made in any of the scriptures (that I know of) that Jesus sought to "take over" the Jewish religion, Please help me out if anyone knows any passages which suggest otherwise.
However, even the Buddha's behavior did not always accord with traditionally accepted behaviors, especially when it came to behaviors of a prince, husband, and disciple. He abandoned his father's kingdom and his own wife. While it was considered acceptable for a king to do this later in life it was certainly a very radical action for a young prince who's father wished for him to remain within the kingdom and to eventually rule it.
So what's worse, abandoning your family and new wife, or objecting to behaviors by your own religious leaders which seem to have been clearly unethical (as Jesus did)?
Additionally...
The Buddha showed disrespect for his own guru by abandoning the austerities he had committed himself to (having come to understand that they didn't work). His "middle way" of taking adequate nourishment as a practice method, was considered so radical by his fellow practitioners that the 4 other principal disciples of his guru all abandoned him. Of course they later became the Buddha's disciples and realized the fruit of his teachings. The Buddha agreed to a contest pitting his miraculous powers against those of religious figures of the day. Of course he was challenged first and accepted the challenge. When asked questions concerning metaphysics by a Brahmin the Buddha refused to speak to him. "He remained silent".
Now I'm not finding the slightest fault with anything the Buddha did. These were all skillful acts. The Buddha's entire life is as perfect a testament to skillful means as it is to the realization of perfect wisdom.
But different circumstances require different means. I leave you with this last story about the bodhisattva that was to become the Buddha.
He was once a monk in a monastery during a severe drought and resultant famine. Having little available food the abbot of the monastery ordered all the monks to go into town and try to steal food if they weren't able to get enough by begging. All of the monks went out that morning and, when they came back, they turned over their "booty" to the abbot. All except one; he told the abbot point blank that stealing was unethical behavior and that he had refused to do it. The abbot said to the other monks. "All of you leave this place at once. He then turned to the monk who had intentionally defied him and said to him "You I will teach!".
I had to have a little laugh to myself about the Jesus as celibate thing because I had been raised my whole life to think otherwise! :O
i was not aware the Buddha had an guru to which he offered unmoving & unquestioning obedience
the suttas do not mention the Buddha had an "austerities guru"
the Buddha-To-Be had two arupa jhana gurus
after his enlightenment, he decided they would be his first disciples but they died
:bowdown:
A lot of things described in buddhism will be SO over-rated.
Buddhas probably don't exist and never did.
What do exist in life are really nice people, really generous guys and girls who really believe they can change the world and really want to bring peace to the world etc etc...
Jesus would have been exactly like buddha.
He died for us. He was probably the most compassionate person to have ever lived.
Now I don't believe in all this God crap and life after death or reancarnation in buddhism.
I only believe that there are good people out there. Like jesus,buddha,mother teresa, martin lutha jnr, ghandi (in the end)
And so on...
These all would have been enlightened.
Can I prove this? NO I can't. But I'm using my common sense and looking at religions without being delusional.
Knowing what's important in life and worrying about labelling myself a buddhist or where I'm gonna go after death or hoping I attain enlightenment if I meditate long enough.
Buddha wouldn't have been anything special.
Enlightenment won't be anything special.
Being kind IS special. Being compassionate is special. Being understanding is special. Being a friend is special.
Just doing your very best in life is special.
So jesus and buddha would have been all these. Plus many more..
So going back to your question: was christ a buddha?
Ill let you answer that. No one on here can answer anything which has no prove. We only have our opinions. And the opinions they give you on buddhism will be from others opinions from authors and teachers...
I personally though, believe that buddhism is nothing what it was suppose to be 2500 years!
We see it everyday. When we're in school, college or work.
Someone tells someone something and by the end of the day its been changed slightly..its called chinese whispers.
So imagin how much has changed in 2500 years. WOW!!
I believe half of buddhas teachings wouldn't have even been taught by the buddha! But again, we're never gonna know! Shame really, coz I think he was just a decent fella trying to come up with a way to end all our suffering and realized a few things and told a few ppl. Then by the time we could start writing things down..(300 years or so AFTER buddhas death - there's no way the teachings written down are his. Just can't see it. (In fact, I bet buddhas teachings isn't even what buddha came. Prince siddhartha is probably getting credit for something he didint even say. So many things would have been added SO much that I bet buddha wouldn't even know what we were talking about if he attended a dharma class. Haha
Howver....does it all matter.
Just practice good. If u are a good person. U are a buddha in my eyes.
Do ur best and smile. Chin up in hard times. Be brave and live ur life. Buddha-bless and god-bless. XxX
You chop texts like an old rabbi.
"Both read the Bible day and night,
But thou read'st black where I read white. "
(Blake)
I am sorry that you do not see the same message of loving compassion and the end of 'self' that I find in the Jesus message.
A closer look at the sutta shows that it is the commentators who made the assumption the Buddha learned these states as an adult from the teachers. The Buddha himself never said that. He only mentioned recalling his childhood experience and developed the rest from there.
The Buddha said Alara and Uddakka " Declared ". The Buddha himself did not say that Alara & Uddakka taught . If the Buddha was taught these two states as they declared then he should have no trouble entering First Jhana. However , the Uppakilesa Sutta shows that this is not the case. The Buddha had to struggle with a whole series of obstacles before he was able to find his way back into the First Jhana that he recalled practicing as a child. Later commentators assumed that the Buddha practiced First Jhana again as an adult under the two teachers based on what the two teachers declared. But additional details given by the Buddha in the Uppakilesa Sutta revealed that this is not the case. The Buddha himself made no mention of doing First Jhana under his teachers, but only stated that he recalled a childhood experience of jhana.
The Upakkilesa Sutta further show how the Buddha struggled with numerous obstacles to penetrating the sign when he tried to find his way back into the first Jhanas experienced during childhood. He then built up the rest of the states from there, which he later considered as “samma samadhi” :
" Before my enlightenment, while I was still only an unenlightened Bodhisatta, I too perceived both light and a vision of forms. Soon afterwards the light and the vision of forms disappeared. I thought: ‘What is the cause and condition why the light and the vision of forms have disappeared?’ Then I considered thus: ‘Doubt arose in me, and because of the doubt my concentration fell away; when my concentration fell away, the light and the vision of forms disappeared. I shall so act that doubt will not arise in me again.’
“As, Anuruddha, I was abiding diligent, ardent, and resolute, I perceived both light and a vision of forms. Soon afterward the light and the vision of forms disappeared. I thought: ‘What is the cause and condition why the light and the vision of forms have disappeared?’ Then I considered thus: ‘Inattention arose in me, and because of inattention my concentration fell away; when my concentration fell away, the light and the vision of forms disappeared. I shall so act that neither doubt nor inattention will arise in me again.’
“As, Anuruddha, I was abiding diligent…Soon afterward the light and the vision of forms disappeared. I thought: ‘What is the cause and condition why the light and the vision of forms have disappeared?’ Then I considered thus: ‘Sloth and torpor arose in me, and because of sloth and torpor my concentration fell away; when my concentration fell away, the light and the vision of forms disappeared. I shall so act that neither doubt nor inattention nor sloth and torpor will arise in me again.’
“As, Anuruddha, I was abiding diligent…Soon afterward the light and the vision of forms disappeared. I thought: ‘What is the cause and condition why the light and the vision of forms have disappeared?’ Then I considered thus: ‘Fear arose in me, and because of fear my concentration fell away; when my concentration fell away, the light and the vision of forms disappeared.’ Suppose a man set out on a journey and murderers leaped out on both sides of him; then fear would arise in him because of that. So too, fear arose in me…the light and the vision of forms disappeared. [I considered thus:] ‘I shall so act that neither doubt nor inattention nor sloth and torpor nor fear will arise in me again.’
“As, Anuruddha, I was abiding diligent…Soon afterward the light and the vision of forms disappeared. I thought: ‘What is the cause and condition why the light and the vision of forms have disappeared?’ Then I considered thus: ‘Elation arose in me, and because of elation my concentration fell away; when my concentration fell away, the light and the vision of forms disappeared.’ Suppose a man seeking one entrance to a hidden treasure came all at once upon five entrances to a hidden treasure; then elation would arise in him because of that. So too, elation arose in me…the light and the vision of forms disappeared. [I considered thus:] ‘I shall so act that neither doubt nor inattention…nor fear nor elation will arise in me again.’
“As, Anuruddha, I was abiding diligent…Soon afterward the light and the vision of forms disappeared. I thought: ‘What is the cause and condition why the light and the vision of forms have disappeared?’ Then I considered thus: ‘Inertia arose in me, and because of inertia my concentration fell away; when my concentration fell away, the light and the vision of forms disappeared. I shall so act that neither doubt nor inattention…nor elation nor inertia will arise in me again.’
“As, Anuruddha, I was abiding diligent…Soon afterward the light and the vision of forms disappeared. I thought: ‘What is the cause and condition why the light and the vision of forms have disappeared?’ Then I considered thus: ‘Excess of energy arose in me, and because of excess of energy my concentration fell away; when my concentration fell away, the light and the vision of forms disappeared.’ Suppose a man were to grip a quail tightly with both hands; it would die then and there. So too, an excess of energy arose in me…the light and the vision of forms disappeared. [I considered thus:] ‘I shall so act that neither doubt nor inattention…nor inertia nor excess of energy will arise in me again.’
“As, Anuruddha, I was abiding diligent…Soon afterward the light and the vision of forms disappeared. I thought: ‘What is the cause and condition why the light and the vision of forms have disappeared?’ Then I considered thus: ‘Deficiency of energy arose in me, and because of deficiency of energy my concentration fell away; when my concentration fell away, the light and the vision of forms disappeared.’ Suppose a man were to grip a quail loosely; it would fly out of his hands. So too, a deficiency of energy arose in me…the light and the vision of forms disappeared. [I considered thus:] ‘I shall so act that neither doubt nor inattention…nor excess of energy nor deficiency of energy will arise in me again.’
“As, Anuruddha, I was abiding diligent…Soon afterward the light and the vision of forms disappeared. I thought: ‘What is the cause and condition why the light and the vision of forms have disappeared?’ Then I considered thus: ‘Longing arose in me, and because of that longing my concentration fell away; when my concentration fell away, the light and the vision of forms disappeared. I shall so act that neither doubt nor inattention…nor deficiency of energy nor longing will arise in me again.’
“As, Anuruddha, I was abiding diligent…Soon afterward the light and the vision of forms disappeared. I thought: ‘What is the cause and condition why the light and the vision of forms have disappeared?’ Then I considered thus: ‘Perception of diversity arose in me, and because of perception of diversity my concentration fell away; when my concentration fell away, the light and the vision of forms disappeared. I shall so act that neither doubt nor inattention…nor longing nor perception of diversity will arise in me again.’
“As, Anuruddha, I was abiding diligent…Soon afterward the light and the vision of forms disappeared. I thought: ‘What is the cause and condition why the light and the vision of forms have disappeared?’ Then I considered thus: ‘Excessive meditation upon forms arose in me, and because of excessive meditation upon forms my concentration fell away; when my concentration fell away, the light and the vision of forms disappeared. I shall so act that neither doubt nor inattention…nor perception of diversity nor excessive meditation upon forms will arise in me again.’
“When, Anuruddha, I understood that doubt is an imperfection of the mind, I abandoned doubt, an imperfection of the mind. When I understood that inattention…sloth and torpor…fear…elation…inertia…excess of energy…deficiency of energy…longing…perception of diversity…excessive meditation upon forms is an imperfection of the mind, I abandoned excessive meditation upon forms, an imperfection of the mind.
“As, Anuruddha, I was abiding diligent, ardent, and resolute, I perceived light but I did not see forms; I saw forms but I did not perceive light, even for a whole night or a whole day or a whole day and night. I thought: ‘What is the cause and condition for this?’ Then I considered thus: ‘On the occasion when I do not attend to the sign of forms but attend to the sign of light, I then perceive light but do not see forms. On the occasion when I do not attend to the sign of light but attend to the sign of forms, I then see forms but do not perceive light, even for a whole night or a whole day or a whole day and night.’
“As, Anuruddha, I was abiding diligent, ardent, and resolute, I perceived limited light and saw limited forms; I perceived immeasurable light and saw immeasurable forms, even for a whole night or a whole day or a whole day and night. I thought: ‘What is the cause and condition for this?’ Then I considered thus: ‘On the occasion when concentration is limited, my vision is limited, and with limited vision I perceive limited light and limited forms. But on the occasion when concentration is immeasurable, my vision is immeasurable, and with immeasurable vision I perceive immeasurable light and see immeasurable forms, even for a whole night or a whole day or a whole day and night.’
“When, Anuruddha, I understood that doubt is an imperfection of the mind and had abandoned doubt, an imperfection of the mind; when I understood that inattention is an imperfection of the mind and had abandoned inattention…abandoned sloth and torpor…abandoned fear…abandoned elation…abandoned inertia…abandoned excess of energy…abandoned deficiency of energy…abandoned longing…abandoned perception of diversity…abandoned excessive meditation upon forms, an imperfection of the mind; then I thought: ‘I have abandoned those imperfections of the mind. Let me now develop concentration in three ways.’
“Thereupon, Anuruddha, I developed concentration with applied thought and sustained thought; I developed concentration without applied thought but with sustained thought only; I developed concentration without applied thought and without sustained thought; I developed concentration with rapture; I developed concentration without rapture; I developed concentration accompanied by enjoyment; I developed concentration accompanied by equanimity. “When, Anuruddha, I had developed concentration with applied thought and sustained thought…when I had developed concentration accompanied by equanimity, the knowledge and vision arose in me: ‘My deliverance is unshakeable; this is my last birth; now there is no renewal of being.’”- MN 128 Upakkilesa Sutta
Note: A person who actually practice the two formless states should have no trouble entering Jhana 1 . However, from his memory he was only aware that he is too physically depleted to slip into that state as he did when he was a child sitting in physical comfort. Other than that, if we look at the Upakkilesa Sutta which provides further details showing how the Buddha tried to get back into the state he experienced during his childhood, it was a struggle, he had to struggle with numerous obstacles. It was not the case that he remembers his childhood Jhana level 1 experience and then immediately know ‘Oh! that is a Level 1 Jhana, I ‘ve been doing that for so many times and even went many stages beyond that. I will simply enter that state now.’ There were much struggles to actually be able to find his way back into Jhana 1 experienced in childhood. We should not assume that the Buddha practice the form jhana as an adult when he himself never said that. He only mentioned Jhana 1 in childhood. The claim that he practice the form jhana as an adult is an assumption.
Are you saying that the Buddha decided to do austerities because he just felt like it? That he had received no instructions on them? That he just made them up? He was practicing within a Hindu tradition which emphasized austerities. His gurus guided him in these practices. They taught him about the value of these austerities and taught the method for engaging in them. He abandoned his teacher and his teacher's other students abandoned him. He was right to abandon these teachers; their method wasn't one which could lead to liberation.
I'm not sure if you're really making a point here or being pointed for the hell of it.
In my tradition the only reason to debate is to move both self and opponent forward on the spiritual path by reaching consensus about some aspect of the dharma. In your tradition....well...I don't know. Are you speaking about "an austerity guru" to help get me enlightened? And do you really think that you disagree with me 100% about the Buddha's guru or are you just throwing things out there?
Your comments about Tibetan lineages may reflect the views of your teachers. I sure hope not. My "barbaric" Tibetan lineage teacher is quick to point out that a good practitioner in your tradition is far more worthy of veneration than a bad one in mine. He does this to insure that we don't develop the same kind of attitude that some people within both traditions seem to have. That their tradition is superior to the other; that those who practice in their tradition are, therefore, somehow automatically superior to those who practice in the other tradition, etc. We should not look down on those who practice within any Buddhist tradition. We should not look down on anyone. We should see good in all other beings and see those areas within ourselves that need to be improved. But, hey, that's just the point of view of this barbarian.
At that time there are two extremes, Indulgence or self-mortification. For the wandering ascetics, they usually practice self mortification. He almost died for nothing when taking up these practices. Therefore he abandoned them.
He said " by such conduct, by such practice, by such performance of austerities, I did not attain any superhuman states, any distinction in knowledge and vision worthy of the noble ones."
When it comes to Jesus and Buddha ignoring the norms during that time, I say there is nothing wrong with it.
jhāna is a wordly pleasure; one of the characteristics of anāgamis is that we can dwell in jhāna at will (the other being, having the five fetters broken).
the other important (sutric/dharmic) fact about anāgamis is that they dwell in jhāna in rupa-dhatu (the realm of forms)... with places (and beings) that have names such as "luminous beings".
craving & aversion must be uprooted... however, [anatta]I[/anatta] reserve the right to [anicca]dwell in wordly pleasures[anicca] as long as it does not [dukkha]harm[/dukkha] myself or others