Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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.

Views on Jesus in Buddhism

What are your views on Jesus?

Personally, I think his teachings have been wildly changed by people wanting power from them..... And just the fact that he said his teachings in one language (Hebrew), they got translated into Greek, then Latin, then finally into English. Who knows how much was lost in translation from one language to the next! I've heard from Buddhists elsewhere that he might've been englightened, and just trying to make his teachings applicable to the Jews by using God in place of the Dharma that we know. Either way I think he is an interesting figure and would like some feedback in terms of his supposed miracles, crucifixion, etc.
«1

Comments

  • My view on Jesus is not worth 5 cents. He was a guy who gave teachings as recognized in the gospels. I don't understand why he didn't back off and not get killed. Is there really a saviour from sin? What is sin?
  • Exactly. I've heard of people (specifically on Catholic Answers Forums) saying that Buddhism and Christianity are compatible, but I don't just see it if you follow the mainstream version of each. Buddha taught that the only reason people even worshipped Gods or Saviors is because they were suffering, right?
    Shak
  • BhikkhuJayasaraBhikkhuJayasara Bhikkhu Veteran

    Personally, I think his teachings have been wildly changed by people wanting power from them..... And just the fact that he said his teachings in one language (Hebrew), they got translated into Greek, then Latin, then finally into English. Who knows how much was lost in translation from one language to the next!

    pretty much described Buddhism(and most religions) right there.

    As for Jesus being a Buddhist monk.. well Buddhism was well established in Asia by then, even being in Alexandria, Egypt, so its not far fetched to believe that Jesus had some contact with Buddhists in one way or another.
    NeleInvincible_summer
  • Yes and that is actually similar to Buddhism. There needn't be a dharma unless we and others are suffering.

    My teacher says that it is as if Buddhism and Christianity were railroad tracks each leading in a different direction. So hard to follow both.

    But my teacher also said that they are branches on a tree and eventually they meet up again.

    Mostly the reason anyone does anything is to feel better ie they want to relieve their suffering. The question is whether what they are doing is helpful or if it is kerosene on the fire or a band-aid.
  • NextElementNextElement Explorer
    edited February 2014
    I'm not trying to put down Christians in any way, just trying to understand why they believe what they do. I myself was "Catholic" (although it never really gave me what I desired) until I found Buddhism. But now the prospect of one life on Earth deciding our eternal fate seems misguided to me....

    I'm certainly not one of those outspoken Atheists looking to bash Christianity in any way. I respect Christians for the charity work they do and their strong beliefs.
  • BunksBunks Australia Veteran
    Are there any formal views on Jesus in Buddhism? I haven't come across any mention of him except on this forum.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Jayantha said:

    Personally, I think his teachings have been wildly changed by people wanting power from them..... And just the fact that he said his teachings in one language (Hebrew), they got translated into Greek, then Latin, then finally into English. Who knows how much was lost in translation from one language to the next!

    pretty much described Buddhism(and most religions) right there.

    As for Jesus being a Buddhist monk.. well Buddhism was well established in Asia by then, even being in Alexandria, Egypt, so its not far fetched to believe that Jesus had some contact with Buddhists in one way or another.
    It is reasonable to believe that Jesus was aware of Buddhism.

    I have yet to see any actual evidence that he was a Buddhist monk -- which is an ironic thought since so many Buddhists say that Christianity and Buddhism are not compatible -- and that concept of him being a monk is just some Buddhists' attempt to say my religion is better than the other religion...see, even it's most famous proponent was a secret Buddhist.

    IMHO

    JeffreykarastiInvincible_summer
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited February 2014
    Some off-topic inflammatory comments deleted.

    This thread is about views of Jesus in Buddhism.
    Let's stick with it.


    Both HHDL and NTH wrote books connecting Buddhist teachings with Christ's mission. If they can see a correlation I for one don't feel like arguing...
  • People get too hung up on -isms.
    Spirituality is about going inwards, whatever role model you follow.
    Jesus may very well have been a boddhisatva. What befell him is depressingly familiar because spiritually advanced people are typically persecuted for being different.
    personKundoNirvana
  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Moderator
    edited February 2014
    You aren't going to find a lot of answers from many Christians about why they believe what they do. Many (where I live, most) are Christian because that is what they have been taught to be by parents, and before that, grandparents,and before that, great grandparents. It is what they do not necessarily by choice. However, there are also Christians who live strictly by what Jesus taught as far as how to live your life, with little emphasis on the moral stories in the Bible, and that isn't all that far off from how Buddha says to live, but really for different reasons. Buddha, it seems, explored the fear, he wasn't afraid of it, he wanted to know what it was and why we were afraid. Jesus, it seems, more so didn't look for answers for the fear but took it in another direction. More so, you don't have to be afraid because someone who knows your heart is always looking out for you. I wish we knew more about him in detail, it would have been an interesting time to live, in his time and place. If he truly believed he was the son of God and was saving the entirety of humanity from their sins, that seems a bit delusional to me, but perhaps he had his reasons. I can't imagine that because I don't believe in God.

    Why is it that you want to understand what they believe? You aren't likely to come to conclusions or consensus beyond what you already have. The bottom line is, they hold onto their beliefs because they give them comfort. Comfort in dealing with difficult times in life, comfort in dealing with death and the questions of what happens after. The same big questions we all have and accept different answers for. Some people need the answers to be there and it's very scary for them to think there isn't someone more or bigger than them looking out for them. It helps them go through life. For me, the comfort comes in letting go of not having the answers, in having personal responsibility. I don't understand why God gives them comfort, and they don't understand how I can get through life without believing in God. Someone the other day actually told me my way of life seems miserable, believing in nothing. I guess if you don't believe in God that means you believe in nothing, lol. But to them, God really is everything (I don't mean all Christians, but people like the one I just mentioned) and they live entirely for God. So for them venturing into questioning it would pull everything out from under them and that's pretty scary to think about, for them.
    NextElementsndymorntherightpath
  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Moderator
    Also, it was mentioned already but TNH's Living Buddha, Living Christ is excellent.
    vinlynInvincible_summerKundo
  • Since I've been studying Buddhism, I find I'm a lot more open-minded about Jesus' teachings and Christianity in general. That's undoubtedly because most of the Buddhist writers I'm getting familiar with mention Jesus with reverence: TNH, Fischer, Sekida.
    vinlynsndymornlobster
  • Hello,
    surely the teaching of Christ has been changed. But still there are some signs left, that show is the buddhist influence on Jesus. I would dare to say that Jesus was a Buddhist.
    The two addional laws: Loving of God and the neighbour. The 40 days training Insight
    in the desert and the meeting with the devil.

    anando
  • DavidDavid A human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First Nations Veteran
    Jesus woke up to his true nature and asked us to follow his example.

    He said that what we do to the lowest of us we do to him so to treat others as we would treat him or ourselves.

    There's a quote from his teachings that says none get to the kingdom of God except through him. When people quote that they usually don't bother including Judas objection and then Jesus saying that anyone that lives the truth will also be graced by his "Father".

    When Jesus said "Before Abraham I am", I believe he was speaking from a universal perspective and not as the man called Jesus just as when Buddha said "I am awake", he was no longer speaking as Sidhartha.

    lobsterInvincible_summerzenffKundo
  • I think Jesus became enlightened, or at the very least was extremely perceptive, and tried to reform the pharasaical Judaism of his time and place, much as the Buddha tried to reform the brahminical Hinduism of his time. Different times, different places, same basic message except one taught seeing God in oneself, the other taught seeing Buddha-nature.

    @ourself, I think when Jesus said no one comes to God except through him, I believe he meant that know one could truly know God except by what Jesus was teaching, not that he was a savior or the only way. But it's what the Jews of his time would understand, because of the monotheism of Judaism.

    I may have that completely off-base and overly simplified, but sometimes simple is best.
    NextElementvinlynlobsterInvincible_summer
  • TheEccentricTheEccentric Hampshire, UK Veteran
    I just think he was an ordinary carpenter from ancient Israel and Religious teacher, no one special. I believe people just made up and exaggerated a lot of stuff about him.

    I don't like how he supported all of the atrocious, nasty things in the Old Testament.
  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Moderator
    @TheEccentric Remember all those things were common place in most cultures at that time. You have to look at things from the point of view of that cultural and that time period of humanity.
    Jainarayan
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator

    ....
    I don't like how he supported all of the atrocious, nasty things in the Old Testament.

    He didn't altogether do that at all....

    sndymornInvincible_summerKundo
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    federica said:

    ....
    I don't like how he supported all of the atrocious, nasty things in the Old Testament.

    He didn't altogether do that at all....

    Correct! And in fact, the New Testament is about as stark a break from old traditions as one will find in any religion. A few times each year I go to a Methodist Church near me. In the last 4 years probably been to 20 or so of their services. I noticed they never read from the Old Testament. So I asked a weekly attendee about it and she agreed that she could not remember a time they read from the Old Testament.

  • DavidDavid A human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First Nations Veteran
    edited February 2014

    I think Jesus became enlightened, or at the very least was extremely perceptive, and tried to reform the pharasaical Judaism of his time and place, much as the Buddha tried to reform the brahminical Hinduism of his time. Different times, different places, same basic message except one taught seeing God in oneself, the other taught seeing Buddha-nature.

    @ourself, I think when Jesus said no one comes to God except through him, I believe he meant that know one could truly know God except by what Jesus was teaching, not that he was a savior or the only way. But it's what the Jews of his time would understand, because of the monotheism of Judaism.

    I may have that completely off-base and overly simplified, but sometimes simple is best.

    That's what I said, or so I thought.

    John 14 is the chapter and if we take the whole conversation into context we see at paragraph 22 Judas asking about those that have never heard of Jesus... How are they to be saved? Jesus pretty much tells them that if a person lives in accordance to his fathers law, they will be just fine even if they never heard of it.

    What he calls "Father", some of us may possibly call the "Tao", "Brahman", "Buddha-nature" or even the "Common sense".
    John 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

    2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

    3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

    4 And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.

    5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?

    6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

    7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

    8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

    9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?

    10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

    11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

    12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

    13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

    14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

    15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

    16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

    17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

    18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

    19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

    20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

    21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

    22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

    23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

    24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

    25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.

    26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

    27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

    28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

    29 And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe.

    30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.

    31 But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence.









  • DavidDavid A human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First Nations Veteran
    edited February 2014
    vinlyn said:

    federica said:

    ....
    I don't like how he supported all of the atrocious, nasty things in the Old Testament.

    He didn't altogether do that at all....

    Correct! And in fact, the New Testament is about as stark a break from old traditions as one will find in any religion. A few times each year I go to a Methodist Church near me. In the last 4 years probably been to 20 or so of their services. I noticed they never read from the Old Testament. So I asked a weekly attendee about it and she agreed that she could not remember a time they read from the Old Testament.

    Just as Buddha never read from the Upanishads but used it's essence to relate to his brethren.

    In my view it's fair to say that Jesus was as much Judaic as Buddha was Hindu. (Brahmanist?) I don't think Jesus's teachings were given a fair shake and believe it was a huge mistake tacking his teachings onto the Tanakh and deeming the Tanakh the "Old" Testament.



    sndymorn
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    ourself said:


    In my view it's fair to say that Jesus was as much Judaic as Buddha was Hindu. (Brahmanist?) I don't think Jesus's teachings were given a fair shake and believe it was a huge mistake tacking his teachings onto the Tanakh and deeming the Tanakh the "Old" Testament.



    I never thought of putting it that way, but you are right (IMHO).

  • ToshTosh Veteran
    edited February 2014

    Exactly. I've heard of people (specifically on Catholic Answers Forums) saying that Buddhism and Christianity are compatible, but I don't just see it if you follow the mainstream version of each. Buddha taught that the only reason people even worshipped Gods or Saviors is because they were suffering, right?

    BBC Documentary; Jesus was a Buddhist monk:



    Living Buddha, Living Christ by Thich Nhat Hanh describing the similarities:

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Living-Buddha-Christ-Thich-Nhat/dp/0712672818/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1393542159&sr=1-1&keywords=living+buddha+living+christ

    And there is a school of thought that Jesus, during the 'lost years' went to India, learnt some Buddhism and returned to Israel to teach it within the theist frame-work which prevailed there; a kind of 'skillful speach'. It's could explain why the Old Testament 'an eye for an eye' transformed into the New Testament 'love thy enemy' and 'turn the other cheek' etc.

    Though admittedly, it's probably only Buddhists who believe this.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Tosh said:

    ...

    Though admittedly, it's probably only Buddhists who believe this.

    And not a very high percentage of "us".

    ToshInvincible_summerNirvana
  • JainarayanJainarayan Veteran
    edited February 2014
    ourself said:



    That's what I said, or so I thought.

    Yeah, I was agreeing. :)

    Add'l... Krishna also says in the Bhagavad Gita 4.11 "Whosoever worship Me through whatsoever path, I verily accept and bless them in that way. Men everywhere follow My path." Uncanny resemblence.
    David
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    baloney
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    I tend to view Jesus as a revolutionary spiritual teacher, and I think some of the things he's reported as saying in the New Testament are pretty cool. I especially like, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone" (John 8:7), the Sermon on the Mount and his many teachings on forgiveness.
    vinlynlobster
  • So, in one sense, Christianity is part of my baggage
    God have Mercy. Christ have Mercy (as we Buddhists say)
    . . . or mantras of a similar persuasion . . .

    Many mainstream Buddhists brought up in a baggage laden culture do not question the holiness of monks, the doctrine of reincarnation or the benefits of praying and making offerings to statues.

    It was only after studying the dharma that I could make some kind sense of in particular St Johns Canon/Gospel. I remember a Christian Minister who became a Buddhist to deepen her religion and consequently abandoned her ministry, which can happen the other way too . . . There are some better Christian contemplatives than some wannabe or practicing Sangha . . . [shrug]

    I consider myself a Christian but not in anyway that is open or obvious. I also consider myself a non practicing Muslim, a Pagan, a lousy Taoist and so on. These differentiations based on half ignored and barely understood partial digestions, what we call 'religions', do not just separate the wheat from the chaff. They make bread.

    The Body of Christ.
    Yum.

    ♪♫•*¨*•.¸¸❤¸¸.•*¨*•♫♪ OM YAB-YUM OM ♪♫•*¨*•.¸¸❤¸¸.•*¨*•♫♪
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran

    What are your views on Jesus?

    I think he was a great teacher, and the world would be a much better place if people really put his ideas into practice. But somewhere along the line the Christian church seems to have gone astray and completely lost the plot.
    vinlynkarasti
  • JainarayanJainarayan Veteran
    edited February 2014
    I lay the blame for what "Christianity" is squarely on the doorstep of Paul of Tarsus. I cannot, for the life of me and to save my soul (if I had one :p ) bring myself to call him Saint Paul. He said some very nice things about love, loving kindness and compassion, but he really dropped the ball in Corinthians I & II, and Romans, and that unfortunately is what Christianity has become. It is Paulism. I prefer what is known as Jesuism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuism the Jefferson Bible http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_bible and what are known as "red letter" editions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_letter_edition That's one of the reasons I am so defensive of Jesus. No, it's prety much the only reason I am defensive of Jesus. His words have been twisted, misinterpreted, taken out of context and bastardized and prostituted. A good book is The Sermon on the Mount According to Vedanta by Swami Prabhavananda. It has insights I haven't seen by Christian writers... it's a sad state of Christian affairs that it takes a Hindu swami to write a sensitive and in-depth analysis of what Jesus really meant.
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited February 2014
    I agree, @Jainarayan. I'm also of the opinion that Christianity would be much better off just sticking with the Jefferson Bible — a collection of extracts from the New Testament — and getting rid of all that Old Testament, grumpy God business, not to mention most of the writings of Paul. (Thomas Jefferson went so far as to deem him "the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.")
  • I don't think the New Testament has anything to do with the Old Testament. Jesus didn't have a good word to say for the scribes and pharisees of his time and his message of forgiveness is diametrically opposed to the eye for an eye retribution of the Old Testament.

    And wasn't Paul just a bitter old misogynist?
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Just to clarify slightly, Jefferson included only text he felt was definitely attributable to Jesus. It isn't just extracts. As Jefferson wrote (the italics are mine): "We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphibologisms into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill..."
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    Jason said:

    Jefferson Bible

    I heard he did a really good cut-and-paste job!
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    vinlyn said:

    Just to clarify slightly, Jefferson included only text he felt was definitely attributable to Jesus.

    I get that, but I think it's a tricky thing to judge - it depends a lot on what assumptions one begins with.
    Kundo
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran

    vinlyn said:

    Just to clarify slightly, Jefferson included only text he felt was definitely attributable to Jesus.

    I get that, but I think it's a tricky thing to judge - it depends a lot on what assumptions one begins with.
    Of course.

    Jefferson had tried to convince a number of Biblical scholars to do the work, but none were willing to tackle it. So, he did it himself.

  • yagryagr Veteran
    Unfortunately, I cannot speak for Buddhism, as much as that may appeal to my ego. Here is my current belief which will no doubt change and therefore should be taken for what it is: an impermanent view from someone trapped in ego.

    Jesus was enlightened. Personally, I find nothing in what he has said that I find incompatible with Buddhist thought, though my interpretations are vastly different than a mainstream Christian interpretation...or even a fringe Christian interpretation.

    To be 'saved' meant to accept Jesus Christ. But he is the way, the truth, and the light. So to be saved, one must accept the truth or dharma. The Buddha implored us, “Do not worship the finger that points the way.” When seeking to reconcile the two, I find myself doing a lot of this type of thinking.

    Too, and I think it is important to remember, at least for me, context. In the United States, where I live, my grandmother – although born here, was not a United States citizen. To be a citizen, one must be human. As a Native American, it was not believed that she qualified. A mere sixty-five years ago, the first child abuse case was successfully prosecuted against a child's parents by proving in court that their daughter was biologically a member of the animal kingdom after which they were sentenced to consecutive six month terms for animal abuse.

    Sixty years ago, my wife and I could not be married legally as members of different races. Fifty years ago we had blacks and the civil rights movement. Forty years ago we had women and equal rights. Today it is illegal immigrants and gays. How backwards we, as a society, look from the perspective of a hundred years. Jesus was speaking to folks from two thousand years ago. Just as a successful prosecution of the parents who abused their daughter had to be approached a different way to get the courts to listen, Jesus would have had to teach in a manner that could be understood by the people living in that time.
    Kundo
  • What are your views on Jesus?

    Personally, I think his teachings have been wildly changed by people wanting power from them..... And just the fact that he said his teachings in one language (Hebrew), they got translated into Greek, then Latin, then finally into English. Who knows how much was lost in translation from one language to the next! I've heard from Buddhists elsewhere that he might've been englightened, and just trying to make his teachings applicable to the Jews by using God in place of the Dharma that we know. Either way I think he is an interesting figure and would like some feedback in terms of his supposed miracles, crucifixion, etc.

    Buddha lived to ripe old age and travelled a long distance to preach as compared to Jesus whose life was cut short when he was crucified. In his life, Jesus did not travel far. Buddha also live a long, long time ago, long before Jesus and Christianity. I would think what were said about him by Buddhists were opinions of Buddhists alone. Buddha was never a Buddhist. He was the founder of Buddhism and I am sure he doesn't know Jesus and never commented on him.
  • anandoanando Explorer
    Hi,
    i think i would be a lot of work to compare both of them. But as i know both sides i
    came the conclusion, that in my opinion, Jesus was a buddhist.
    What proof do i have? There is written that he spent 40 in the desert and didn´t very
    much. So the devil wanted to seduce him, but he sent him away.
    Another translator said, that this is not the corect translation of eating less, but in really means he was making Insight. This is buddhist. The four pillars of Insight.
    This is only one proof you might say, but there are a lot`s of them. So i give you another one: He met the devil. This is a very normal phenomenon if one is far adavaced
    ind meditation practice, everyone will then meet the devil.

    anando
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    It's not "proof" at all. Having some things in common with a particular viewpoint, does not mean one is part of that general viewpoint.

    Politically, I favor a few things that Republicans favor, but overall I'm a Democrat.

    I'm afraid you just want Jesus to be a Buddhist.
    Invincible_summer
  • DaftChrisDaftChris Spiritually conflicted. Not of this world. Veteran
    edited March 2014
    I don't believe Jesus was God, nor do I believe he was a Buddhist monk.

    Nevertheless, at least in theory, he seems like he was a very wise man who offered greatly radical ideas in his time; which ultimately spread to (and changed much of) the world. For better or worse.

    Overall, I dig him. :)
    vinlynInvincible_summer
  • NirvanaNirvana aka BUBBA   `     `   South Carolina, USA Veteran
    edited March 2014
    seeker242 said:

    All of the below could easily describe Jesus. Most definitely a very wise man. :)

    Dhammapada XIX
    Dhammatthavagga: The Just

    256. Not by passing arbitrary judgments does a man become just; a wise man is he who investigates both right and wrong.

    257. He who does not judge others arbitrarily, but passes judgment impartially according to the truth, that sagacious man is a guardian of law and is called just.

    258. One is not wise because one speaks much. He who is peaceable, friendly and fearless is called wise.

    259. A man is not versed in Dhamma because he speaks much. He who, after hearing a little Dhamma, realizes its truth directly and is not heedless of it, is truly versed in the Dhamma.

    260. A monk is not an elder because his head is gray. He is but ripe in age, and he is called one grown old in vain.

    261. One in whom there is truthfulness, virtue, inoffensiveness, restraint and self-mastery, who is free from defilements and is wise — he is truly called an Elder.

    262. Not by mere eloquence nor by beauty of form does a man become accomplished, if he is jealous, selfish and deceitful.

    263. But he in whom these are wholly destroyed, uprooted and extinct, and who has cast out hatred — that wise man is truly accomplished.

    264. Not by shaven head does a man who is indisciplined and untruthful become a monk. How can he who is full of desire and greed be a monk?

    265. He who wholly subdues evil both small and great is called a monk, because he has overcome all evil.

    266. He is not a monk just because he lives on others' alms. Not by adopting outward form does one become a true monk.

    267. Whoever here (in the Dispensation) lives a holy life, transcending both merit and demerit, and walks with understanding in this world — he is truly called a monk.

    268. Not by observing silence does one become a sage, if he be foolish and ignorant. But that man is wise who, as if holding a balance-scale accepts only the good.

    269. The sage (thus) rejecting the evil, is truly a sage. Since he comprehends both (present and future) worlds, he is called a sage.

    270. He is not noble who injures living beings. He is called noble because he is harmless towards all living beings.
    Reading 266-267, one can easily say Jesus was a monk. :)



    Well, I suppose it can hardly be claimed that he was a householder or a businessman. He was a sort of Swami, a Teaching Monk. Not baloney this —but real Beef, to use probably not very wholesome Buddhist words.

    It's interesting what others have written in posts above about the Jefferson Bible and the Red-Letter editions of the New Testament (and all things on those lines). Actually, though, in the seminaries of the Main-Line churches they teach these very enlightened views and have been doing so in many parts since the mid-nineteenth century. More on this below.

    What are your views on Jesus?..

    I think he is an interesting figure and would like some feedback in terms of his supposed miracles, crucifixion, etc.

    The ancient world was a very different place from our own times. "Gospels" were a widespread literary form, though usually orally delivered to enthralled audiences. In these gospels the Hero's deeds and exploits, including his "miracles" or wonders were glorified as well as his and his friends' many fine speeches. These gospel narratives need not have included supernatural elements, though, as it all depended on the person about whom the gospel "spoke." You could count on it that there would be no miracle stories about a currently living man, though, unless he be the Emperor! (And of course, when Constantine legalized Christianity in 313 and the Empire began its downward slide, the Church became the Emperor.)

    Briefly, then, the Christian gospels were near the end of a long tradition of gospelling in the ancient world, and were by many events —and even accidents of history— elevated above the few others surviving about other folks. Other religions shared in the breaking of the bread and the drinking of the wine and a lot of other such things that the Christians incorporated also. John's Baptism was new, as was the turning away from the idolizing of the ideals of the golden-bodied immortals to love of neighbor. Well, new in the Hellenic world, but not entirely new among the communities of Jews, to wit the Prophets.

    I don't think that a Crucified God was all that unique, though, as often the deities had to die first in order to become who they truly were. But it is surely an appalling thought if you feel that somehow you must wrap your mind around this Crucifixion-Atonement Theology. To me, it's just a myth. And there are elements of Truth in myth! But Geez! To go on and on and on about how much one man or God-Man suffered, when everybody suffers and some so horrendously and for lots more than just a few hours! And especially, if he really were a God-Man, would that not make him even stronger and more able and even transcendent? So where, again, is the beef. I love the living, speaking, loving Jesus and I have a very special place for him in my heart.

    Perhaps some people do not realize that If they were to attend a mainline Christian seminary or preparatory college, they'd have to take courses which break the New Testament down critically into functional themes, such as canonical criticism (putting all four canonical gospels together to find correlations, contradictions, &c), form criticism (combining tools of literary and historical analysis), redaction critisism and other disciplines. Where form criticism scrutinizes the stages of development the gospel stories must have undergone before reaching their current literary form, redaction criticism stresses the role (and the motives behind them) that the individual gospels played in shaping what was related and the how and the why.

    It is my firm belief that people —and the things they "believe" or say they believe or believe they believe— should be put into neat little boxes only after they die, unless they choose their ashes to be kept tightly packed together in some sort of container. Gee Wiz! Elsewise, see them as bubbles blowing in the wind and catch a glimpse of them as they burst into something really wonderfully lovely right in front of your eyes when you're least expecting THAT!
    Invincible_summer
  • Just an observation that Buddhists, from this sampling on this forum anyway, are waaaay more accepting of Jesus in any capacity than the Hindus I've encountered on-line. It seems that Buddhists are more aware of what Jesus really taught and who he may have been v. a Hindu mantra (pardon the pun) "Jesus is irrelevant" I've seen time and again. He may be irrelevant, but there seems to be an overcompensation on their part in discrediting him.
    DaftChris
  • Aspiring_BuddhistAspiring_Buddhist Seeker of the Buddha Within WA Veteran

    I don't like the idea of Jesus having spent time with Buddhists or being a Buddhist monk. I think Christianity is a mess right now, (Politicians, Catholic Church pedophile scandals) and they did that on their own - Buddha had nothing to do with it.

    I do think Jesus was a good social teacher, but the, uh, "Christian Party" here in the US have done a very horrible job of reading/understanding what Jesus said about the poor, the lame, the rich, the hungry, and "sinners."

    I'm not trying to be political, not trying to diss anyone, nor do I think Democrats are perfect; but if you're going to run on the "moral high ground" ticket, you kinda need to be on some moral high ground. Again - Jesus has a fantastic social philosophy, but his followers are a bit, ah, "hazy" on the subject.

  • I think the general view across Buddhist schools would be that Jesus might have been enlightened, but he did not preach the Dharma. Those two things don't always go together. As for Buddhism and Christianity, I was raised in one version of Christianity and I've seen the best and worst. Since human suffering is universal, then the answers that work offered by different religions must have a common pattern. The "Place your trust in and turn your life over to Jesus" path of salvation echos the "Take refuge in Buddha" message. Christianity has no problem with either the Precepts or 8-fold path, only would say you need to accept Christ on top of it. And so on.

    My old teacher used to say, "All paths don't lead to the same mountain. We are, however, all lost in the same wilderness."

    lobsteryagr
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran

    I think one thing to remember is that just as with Christians, most Buddhists don't lead an immaculate Buddhist life.

    In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if most Christians lived a good Buddhist life, they'd be better Christians, and if most Buddhists lived a good Christian life, they'd be better Buddhists.

    Let that sink in for awhile (and remember, I'm talking principles, not dogma).

    ChazanatamanlobsterKundo
  • Aspiring_BuddhistAspiring_Buddhist Seeker of the Buddha Within WA Veteran
    edited March 2014

    @vinlyn said:
    I think one thing to remember is that just as with Christians, most Buddhists don't lead an immaculate Buddhist life.

    In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if most Christians lived a good Buddhist life, they'd be better Christians, and if most Buddhists lived a good Christian life, they'd be better Buddhists.

    Let that sink in for awhile (and remember, I'm talking principles, not dogma).

    I don't mind people not leading a totally immaculate life; I know how hard that would be. I don't have the bar set that high.

    Where my bar is set however, is at the level where "holy people" abuse their authority by molesting children, they get to be put in prison, not moved to another parish, where they're given the opportunity to abuse again.

    For one of my college courses, we had to find an article about prejudice and write about how that article fit into our course reading about prejudice. I sifted through many articles about Arizona's recent "religious freedom" law (the one vetoed by Governor Brewer) and came across this little gem: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/27/conservative-pundits-arizona-bill_n_4865482.html

    Lets be clear here: Christianity under attack looks very different than being told you can't discriminate against Gay people. There are no Priest holes in this country, Nuns are not fleeing open gunfire in the streets (to be fair though, most liberals don't have guns, so I guess they'd be fleeing organic vegetables being thrown at them) nor are those Catholic Priests, Cardinals, Bishops, etc. being arrested en masse like they should be; there are those who abused, and those who hid the abuses.

    I just...sigh* Christian Principles are fine - I just see them rarely put into practice. There seems to be more of an emphasis on faith over principles; as if believing "more" than the next person is the actual measure of a person's "Christian-ness."

    Most politically active Christians like to quote from the book of Genesis (take that Evolution!) the book of Leviticus (take that Gays!) and Revelations (take that Non-believers!) what I have not heard from them (and of course, I may have missed it) is a Christian quoting from the GOSPELS - the part where the Savior is featured.

    I believe Jesus to be a very good moral teacher, and I usually think of a Christian person as a moral person - until they open their mouth and something horrible comes out.

    As for your middle sentence, check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kennedy_(Jesuit)

Sign In or Register to comment.