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.
I'm so confused about the Bodhisattva Vow and I don't know why I can't get it through my thick skull. Maybe I should start a thread about it. For instance, wouldn't karma dictate where a Bodhisattva is reborn? Or are Bodhisattvas fully enlightened beings that have no more karma? And if they have no more karma, how can they be reborn? You see what I mean? I just don't understand the whole thing. I don't know what's wrong with me.
I am no expert on the Bodhisattva path, but I do have a general understanding. Hopefull I can clarify a few things.
First off, I would like to point out that the Mahayana teachings do have some conflict with the Theravada teachings in their categorizations of beings below full Buddhahood. Now, my understanding is that in Mahayana Buddhism, a practitioner may reach the Arahant stage, which is an initial stage of Awakening/Enlightenment, but not be a Buddha. This is because arahant may or may not be able to teach & has not developed the 6 Perfections fully. So, what makes one a Buddha is the full development of the 6 perfections (paramitas). Bodhisattva, in its most basic sense, means one who aspires towards Buddhahood. Also, the Bodhisattva Path is broken down into 'Bhumis' (there are 10 of them), which are basically the stages of development of the 6 Perfections.
I regard to the question on karma, I would say that a Bodhisattva definitely has karma. Karma is what causes the whole process of becoming & future rebirth. Now, what karma does a Bodhisattva have? Well, that karma is the Bodhisattva Vow. It is the last thing to be relinquished before Buddhahood. And this is why there is such incredibly heavy emphasis on the development of Bodhicitta in Mahayana Buddhism. This is the Ultimate form of Compassion (Mahakaruna). We can see that the Buddha himself had this Karma ripen, even after his awakening, in the form of Brahma requesting he stay to teach. The story goes that in a former lifetime, many kalpas prior, he encountered a previous Buddha & was so impressed he took up the aspiration for full Buddhahood. For this reason, he could not enter his Parinibbana until he was confident that his teachings were fully disseminated in this world-age. I would also like to point out there is both 'Nibbana with Remainder' and 'Nirvana without Remainder.' Nirvana with remainder means that one realizes the cessation of the effluents (asavas), but whose karma does not entirely cease. I think this is what is considered an Arahant in the Mahayana tradition. From there, the karma of Bodhicitta keeps ripening in the form of the 6 perfections until the individual reaches fully perfected Buddhahood (samma sambuddhasa) and they have 'turned the wheel of Dharma' for that particular world-age. Only at this point, may one who has truly taken the Bodhisattva Vow enter into Nirvana without Remainder.
Hope this makes things a little more clear. Sorry, but I don't have the time to find links for all of the specific terminology, but I imagine web-searches should find most of them.
take care & be well
_/\_
metta
P.S.- As a side note & to reverse any possible state of clarity that my post may have brought about, I would like to mention that it is said that upon the Perfection of Wisdom (PrajnaParamita) it is seen that there are no 'beings' to liberate.
So if one takes the vow to keep returning in order to lead all beings to enlightenment, one never actually reaches that goal, do they?
has been a very fruitful one in Japanese Buddhism.
My knowledge is very limited, but from what I gather, Japanese Pure Land schools are based on the idea that in the Pure Land Sutras, Amidha Buddha is said to have vowed to forego full enlightenment until such time as all sentient beings would likewise reach full enlightenment and that in view of the fact that Amidha Buddha is already exactly that-- fully enlightened--all sentient beings are in fact Buddhas, or at the very least assuredly destined to become such.
Wow! Thank you both! You've cleared up so much of my confusion. And your P.S., Not1, didn't confuse me at all. Quite the contrary. Somehow it got through. It made sense. I felt a little "click" in my brain as some more pieces were put into place. Now I'm REALLY motivated to get down to some studying. Thank you both so much.
Right, Iawa, you don't have to look very far to find the hell realms (or any of the realms).
It can be confusing if you think too much about it, Brigid. That's why the Buddha prescribed practice rather than thinking! Thinking is necessary, but it can only take us so far. We have to really experience the truth of the Buddha's teachings to really "get" it.
Yes, the bodhisattva does progress through the 10 bhumis, but it's really not all that cut-and-dried. You don't get a certificate after you "graduate" to the next bhumi or something. It's more a description of the natural evolution you progress through as you progress along the path. And you go back and forth. In the early stages, it's sort of like clothes in a dryer - first up, then down, then up, then down, then up... As for "attaining nirvana", once you understand that nirvana and samsara are the same thing, it's not such a big deal, I'd say. The bodhisattva may not be enlightened, but he/she has confidence in the path and the committment to follow it.
Taking the bodhisattva vow is a big step, yes, but all you need is the courage to take it. You don't have to have any qualifications or credentials. You simply have to have the motivation to be of service to others, to dedicate your life to their benefit rather than your own. Of course, as beginners we won't be able to keep the vow purely. One great teacher, I think maybe it was Patrul Rinpoche, said that while he was able to keep his Vinaya vows (the vows of ordination) very purely, he was never even for a day able to keep his bodhisattva vow purely. That's how difficult it is. But you do your best. Like I said, it's a gradual thing. However, that said, when you take the bodhisattva vow for the first time your entire karma changes. It is the one vow that you take that extends beyond just this one little life (the vinaya vows, for example, are only for this lifetime). It is a vow that will hook you back onto the path for lifetime after lifetime. So it is a very happy day when someone takes the bodhisattva vow for the first time. You could call it "the first day of the rest of your lives!"
Yes, the bodhisattva does progress through the 10 bhumis, but it's really not all that cut-and-dried. You don't get a certificate after you "graduate" to the next bhumi or something. It's more a description of the natural evolution you progress through as you progress along the path. And you go back and forth. In the early stages, it's sort of like clothes in a dryer - first up, then down, then up, then down, then up... As for "attaining nirvana", once you understand that nirvana and samsara are the same thing, it's not such a big deal, I'd say. The bodhisattva may not be enlightened, but he/she has confidence in the path and the committment to follow it.
Is the back trouble you have mentioned before not been a hell to endure?
In Gassho
How compassionate of you, Iawa! How lovely!
Yes, that's true. It has at times. The panic attacks are far worse, though. Those are true, deep, deep suffering. 11 on a scale of 1 to 10. I have definitely thought of them as my own little hell realm. But I'm no Bodhisattva. lol!
Everyone's posts have cleared a lot of this confusion up for me and I thank you all very much. I started doing some research on The Vow and got pretty confused almost right away. I think I'll leave it for now with the understanding you all have given me and take it back up a little further on.
Palzang,
An especially big thank you to you. You have a way of explaining things so clearly. An amazing talent. I didn't know, for instance, that the Bodhisattva Vow was the only one to reach past this life into the next ones. That has me really interested. lol! I'm always tormenting myself with fears of being reborn and not finding the buddhadharma again. *shiver* This is great food for thought, especially as I'm in the midst of uncertainty about which tradition to follow. I like these discussions. They really clarify things for me.
If we free us a second from labels, such as jesus was a jew, a rabbi, a heretic or the buddha was an indian guru, not a buddhist, an alien from outerspace, we can try to look what they transmitted, and if there are similarities outside of the historical and cultural issues, namely if timeless and universal teachings can be detected.
For me, I discovered the following similarites of both jesus and buddha as i interpret their teachings. Among them are:
- Freedom from resentment
- Tranquility in the face of adversitiy
- Diagnosis of mankind being in an unhealthy state.
- Abstaining from lying, openly talk to people without holding anything back, wether it sounds sweet (in a sense that it is what they want to hear) or not.
- Forgiveness
Compassion results from the points I mentioned imo. A Theravadin might answer you that the main teaching of the Buddha was self control and self liberation.The stark emphazis on compassion is imo more mahayanin. As said, it is my personal interpretation, and when you see through the state of people, are free from resentment and remain tranquil even when worst things happen, i believe you can truly have compassion for others, rather than merely pity.
You also omit the understanding that mind precedes all action and the precept not to kill.
I don`t think I omitted anything. My elaboration was by no means exhaustive, as I said "among them" are. But thanks or mentioning, maybe others also have detected similarities and share.
But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, 'Raqa,' will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, 'You fool,' will be liable to fiery Gehenna.
-Matthew 5, 22
thanks for pointing me to that
When reading the preceding verse, It cleary point to the idea that not only evil deeds are bad, but also thoughts (states) and words. So indeed, it can be interpretated the way you suggest, I consider this a very deep reading.
I like fofoo`s suggestion about dropping labels. I don`t even know if I can rightfully be called a Buddhist, so why am I getting caught up in labeling Jesus or the Buddha?
Our domestic conditioning is based on seperating the self from it's environment. Then we are trained to classify, label, and judge the differences betwwen those things that are not like us, and those that are.
Critical thinking into madness, is part of it IMO.
this is one reason im wary of ppl who believe in social groups... and i have little inention of going to a buddhist temple, or retreat.
To face everything in ordinary life, just as myself.. without the need of others showing me wisdom in a perfect enviroment, (which will not work outside this enviro).... without ppl who thnk this is a social group.. it becomes division in any shape or form to be a buddhist. It simply is another form of suffering to belong to a label.
To live, is to simply be.. and to put urself in a group is like living a lie.. it is to limit things. Someone who knows one art alone knows practically nothing.
Quite as much, if not more, than for the existence of Gotama Siddhartha
to go further, how much evidence is there that the miracles ascribed to the man happened? I say this because I've read that the more miraculous stories seemed to appear in later texts.
to go further, how much evidence is there that the miracles ascribed to the man happened? I say this because I've read that the more miraculous stories seemed to appear in later texts.
_/\_
I am not sure which of the two men you mean but it is certainly the generally accepted view is that 'sayings' (logia) gospels were written down first and we are also told that, after the Buddha's death, the Sangha met to decide on and recite his actual words.
Until quite recently (and, I would suggest, still today) stories of signs and wonders get added to the account in order to adduce evidence of power and, thus, add evidence of worth.
I'm a newbie and this is the first time I've posted although I have enjoyed reading the posts very much...I wondered if anyone has a source of where the Buddha said not to believe anything just because he said it but to look and see for oneself?
I'm involved in a discussion with a rather dogmatic Christian on another forum and I'd like to include a reference if possible.
Thanks in advance and I'm glad to be part of this forum! :smilec:
I'm a newbie and this is the first time I've posted although I have enjoyed reading the posts very much...I wondered if anyone has a source of where the Buddha said not to believe anything just because he said it but to look and see for oneself?
I'm involved in a discussion with a rather dogmatic Christian on another forum and I'd like to include a reference if possible.
Thanks in advance and I'm glad to be part of this forum! :smilec:
Welcome to the forum. In regard to your question, perhaps you are referring to the Kalama Sutta (AN 3.65). Just be aware, however, that this discourse says something much more rigorous than that. As Thanissaro Bhikkhu points out, the Kalama Sutta not only suggests that any view or belief should be tested by the results it yields when put into practice; but — to guard against the possibility of any bias or limitations in one's understanding of those results — they must further be checked against the experience of people who are wise.
I'm a newbie and this is the first time I've posted although I have enjoyed reading the posts very much...I wondered if anyone has a source of where the Buddha said not to believe anything just because he said it but to look and see for oneself?
I'm involved in a discussion with a rather dogmatic Christian on another forum and I'd like to include a reference if possible.
Thanks in advance and I'm glad to be part of this forum! :smilec:
Hello Suezy, it is good to meet you.
The story that you are looking for is that of the Buddha's discourse to the Kalamas. This link will take you to a translation of it: Kalama Sutta
As one who engages in Buddhist/Christian dialogue, may I warn you that it is far from easy. There is often a lack of respect and, even, hostility in the exchanges. We have some great examples of fruitful dialogue in the work of Buddhists like Robert Aitken Roshi, His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh in conversation with Brother David, Thomas Merton and Daniel Berrigan respectively. The important point to remember is that all parties to the debate wanted to find agreement. We will find what we seek and if we seek confrointation and controversy, that is precisely what will be waiting for us.
It's good to meet you and I appreciate the link and thoughts. Thank you!
As one who engages in Buddhist/Christian dialogue, may I warn you that it is far from easy. There is often a lack of respect and, even, hostility in the exchanges.
Too true! I looked forward to an exchange of ideas but I was quoted chapter and verse from Biblical references and later writings on how wrong I am and how I am going to go to hell because of my alignment with Buddhism. I was just not going to respond to his comments. I don't want to create any bad feelings in this forum but if I leave the thread as is, I fear people will not get a 'fair' sense of what Buddhism is and is not. (I live in a mainly Christian community with little access to other religions unless one searches outside to explore).
We will find what we seek and if we seek confrointation and controversy, that is precisely what will be waiting for us.
You're comments reminded me of how mindful I need to be not to get 'hooked' and start 'reacting' instead of 'acting'. Thank you.
The following is a small part of our exchange in this other forum:
(Me):
"I should have said "permanent" instead of "real"...there is nothing one can point to and say "This is permanent--it exists independent of anything else and does not change." The buddhists I've been around BTW have never mentioned anything close to 'blind faith', either. In fact, just the opposite!"
(Him):
"Then ask them what is their evidence for enlightenment leading to the end of contingent being. Also ask them, who has ceased to exist as a contingent being and testified to it. Think. If you no longer exist as a contingent being you CAN'T testify, because you no longer exist. Hence no testimony is possible. Blind faith.
[/quote]Buddhists actually, in common with Christianity, do believe in an eternal soul...they just believe in reincarnation. The point of understanding how it all works (or 'enlightenment') is to free oneself of the wheel of samsara or suffering.[/quote]
No. Buddha taught that there is no Atman, no soul. The goal is to cease to exist as a contingent being. Extinction. They compare it to a candle flame being extinguished. If you know Buddhists who talk about an eternal soul they are contradicting Buddha.
[/quote]You are talking apples and oranges when you pose the question of why the body doesn't immediately cease to exist upon 'enlightenment'. Why would it? Think about when you awaken from a dream...what happened to your dream 'body'? You could say it never really existed...or you could say it spontaneously disappeared upon awakening! Just something to think about...[/quote]
If enlightenment leads to liberation from contingent being, why doesn't it happen immediately? Obviously enlightenment does nothing. It is a fantasy, perhaps nothing more than a hallucination or a natural state of heightened consciousness.
After you die you will stand before Christ. You won't be reincarnated or cease to exist as a contingent being. Just something to think about before you die.
Hebrews 9
27...it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.
Buddha was wrong. Jesus said so."
_______________________________________
I asked for the quote about Jesus saying that Buddha was wrong but he hasn't responded to that yet! (I know it doesn't exist, btw!) I guess, I'm just trying to figure out how to best respond w/o attacking. You are quite right about it not being easy...perhaps I should just let it be!?!
"Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing,
nor upon tradition, nor upon rumor, nor upon scripture, nor upon surmise,
nor upon axiom, nor upon specious reasoning, nor upon bias towards a notion pondered over,
nor upon another's seeming ability, nor upon the consideration
'The monk is our teacher.' When you yourselves know: '
These things are bad, blamable, censured by the wise; undertaken and observed,
these things lead to harm and ill,' abandon them... When you yourselves know:
'These things are good, blameless, praised by the wise; undertaken and observed,
these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them."
Kalamas Sutra
I believe this may be the sutra you are thinking of..one of my favorites it happens to be!
The very first thing to bear in mind is that you are unlikely to 'win' in a text-proofing contest. And, even if you did, what would it profit you? Are you trying to change this person's beliefs? To what? Are you sure that you have enough knowledge, wisdom and compassion to teach them?
I bear in mind another passage from the letter to the Romans: "Far from passing judgment on each other, therefore, you should make up your mind never to be the cause of another's tripping or falling." (Rom. 14:13) The whole passage is worth reading and reflecting on when we engage with people of different beliefs.
Your interlocutor will not find any passages that refer directly to the Buddha, any more than you will find suttas which refer to Yhwh. Any such search is doomed and unprofitable.
The Jesus of the Gospels, for me, is the one who says "Come to me all you who are heavy laden" rather than the one who says "Depart from me". You need to decide if you have a deep enough understanding of the Christ and his message as well as of the Buddha and his. Only then are you able to decide if you are the person to help another see a different way.
May you have happiness and all the sources of happiness.
As I am currently struggling to write a paper supporting a talk I am to give on Buddhist/Christian interface for Spiritual Directors, may I quote a short passage, particularly for the quotation within it from The Good Heart:
Geshe Thupten Jinpa is the Dalai Lama’s principal translator on philosophy, religion and science. From 1996 to 1999, he was a research fellow at Girton College, Cambridge. ("He is president of the Institute of Tibetan Classics in Montréal, Canada, and the editor-in-chief of the translation project The Library of Tibetan Classics, being developed by the Institute. He is on the advisory board of various educational and cultural organizations such as the Mind and Life Institute (USA), The Orient Foundation (UK & India), The Meridien Trust (UK), Global Ethics and Religion (USA), and Manjushri Buddhist Online Community. He lives in Montréal with his wife and two young daughters." source: Snow Lion Publications)
In The Good Heart, he writes
a few words on the general attitudes in Buddhism toward other religions…. Like any other major religion, Buddhism perceives its path to be universal in that it addresses the fundamental problems of human existence. In this sense, it does not see its message and normative doctrines as being limited to any specific historical or cultural context. Yet, right from an early stage of the evolution of the Mahayana (see Glossary) Buddhism has accepted the existence of other paths that may be better suited to the spiritual temperament of individuals. There is an acknowledgment of diversity at the most fundamental level of spiritual orientation. As one of the Mahayana classics puts it, "There exist diverse inclinations, diverse interests, and diverse spiritual paths." This, I think, is the basis for the Dalai Lama’s often stated "supermarket of religions." According to Buddhism, all these spiritual paths are valid in themselves for they answer the fundamental yearning of millions of individuals. The validity of a spiritual teaching should not be judged on the basis of its claim to metaphysical truth. Rather the criterion must relate to its efficacy in providing spiritual salvation, or freedom. The long history of both Buddhism and Christianity testifies to this efficacy. Given this, a genuine conversation between these two profound religious traditions can lead not only to the enrichment of each other’s teachings, but can also deepen the world’s appreciation of the spiritual dimension of human life. The famous religious historian Paul Tillich# said that from the meeting of Christianity and Buddhism would come a spiritual revolution. Perhaps he was right." [TENZIN GYATSO, 14th Dalai Lama, The Good Heart (Rider. 1996.ISBN 0 7126 7275 3)]
Dialogue between Christians and Buddhists can help us to address some of the most fundamental aspects of each tradition and, in this light, I recommend Masao Abe's article on Kenotic God and Dynamic Sunyata in COBB, John B., Jr and IVES, Christopher, Eds The Emptying God - A Buddhist-Jewish-Christian Conversation (o.o.p. in Europe) (Sri Satguru Publications. 1996. ISBN 81 7030 490 3)
Both philosophy/religions are subtle and complex. Both deserve our highest respect even when we encounter adherents who have as much in-depth knowledge as a butterfly!
"...fundamentalists..... believe in the absolute inerrancy of the Bible and the divine right of preachers to tell you what it means. They also believe in the separation of church and state only if they cannot control both. The only way to cooperate with fundamentalists, it has been said, is to obey them."
I intentionally did not respond to the poster on my local forum yesterday just to put some space between us so that I could reflect on what I wished to accomplish and whether it was 'necessary' and if I was capable...I learn more about myself every day!
I realized a lot of my motivation was ego (some well motivated to explain what I knew about Buddhism but a lot just my knee jerk reaction to 'prove a point'). I also realized there is a great deal about Buddhism that I don't know. Ultimately, I realized that getting involved in a 'debate' with this dogmatist is just not something I need to do.
But it did get me on to this site to look for information on the quote and I feel quite fortunate to have found this forum because of it!
Thanks to all again for the reference to the Kalama Sutta and, also, for the thoughtful comments and references to reading material...I will check them out!
I have to run now to finish 'chores' and get ready for work but I'll try to check back later...thank you all again!!!
I realized a lot of my motivation was ego (some well motivated to explain what I knew about Buddhism but a lot just my knee jerk reaction to 'prove a point'). I also realized there is a great deal about Buddhism that I don't know. Ultimately, I realized that getting involved in a 'debate' with this dogmatist is just not something I need to do.
Hi, Suezy.
You may not know a lot about Buddhism but this statement tells me you're definitely on the right track.
Welcome to the board and I hope you find it as useful as I have. It's great to meet you.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I became acquainted with Buddhism in the early 80's through my brother who was very connected with Karma Triyana Dharmachakra. I have had difficulty connecting with 'live' teachings as they tend to be too far away and my 'timing' (as my brother would say) is really off (as far as having time off work or away from other family responsibilities when they are happening)!
Nevertheless, I know I have been very fortunate to receive the teachings that I have---
I've pretty much just tried to read and listen on CD's everything I found available through Snow Lion Publications or a book club I belong to. My husband and I just recently got decent internet speed. We had never had any sort of internet speed before that actually allowed us to explore much! Now, I feel like I finally found a sangha! Plus, I now have access to teachings online that were unavailable to me before...I feel more than fortunate!!!
Your posts made me stop and think about what I was trying to accomplish and why...it made me take a step back and look deeper. Thank you! I hope the paper you are preparing goes well and I wish you every happiness in return!!!
You really 'hit it on the head', BTW:
"...fundamentalists..... believe in the absolute inerrancy of the Bible and the divine right of preachers to tell you what it means. They also believe in the separation of church and state only if they cannot control both. The only way to cooperate with fundamentalists, it has been said, is to obey them." Bill Moyers
A great deal of the posts that are on this local 'Religion' forum involve politics that this poster maintains are NOT separable (from church and state).
When I reread some of them, I had an "aha!" moment!
I'm a newbie and this is the first time I've posted although I have enjoyed reading the posts very much...I wondered if anyone has a source of where the Buddha said not to believe anything just because he said it but to look and see for oneself?
I'm involved in a discussion with a rather dogmatic Christian on another forum and I'd like to include a reference if possible.
Thanks in advance and I'm glad to be part of this forum! :smilec:
The Buddha stated in many instances that wants he us to all know for ourselves in order to be liberated, and not simply take things on blind faith. The Kalama Sutta is probably the best Sutta though, in this regard (for the discussion you are having): http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html
.........................
Simon,
I was speaking of Jesus, not Buddha, but I'm not arguing with you either.
_/\_
metta
Thank you, N1N2. My comment was not intended to suggest we disagreed. On the contrary, I think that both the Jesus and the Gotama legends followed the same path of accretion of miracle stories. The real teachers live in their words but, as Eliot pointed out, "mankind cannot bear too much reality" and so they invent signs and wonders. Jesus appears to have been aware of and wary about this tendency, warning against it: made no difference tho' - quelle surprise!
I am posting this question in a spirit of play, because I don't think there are any current scholars of religion who would take this question seriously. And yet...there are indeed some interesting parallels in their teachings. Marcus Borg, a progressive Christian writer and panentheist, has collected a number of sayings of Jesus and Buddha which reveal a remarkable parallelism. More than just similar principles ... very similar teachings, examples, parables, etc.
There are many parallels, but that is only because the Bible was written about 1000 years after Buddhism started.
Christianity is basically the mixing of deity attributes from all the world religions and creating one super-God. Almost every single attribute that "Jesus" has is simply taken from another pre-Christian deity.
Jesus Christ is not the first man-god to be born in a manger, die for mankind's safety, and rise from the dead three days later. It is a scenario that has been played out in religions long before Christianity.
Many of Jesus Christ's "truths" were taken straight from the mouths of the Buddha, Osiris, Krishna, etc.
Christianity was born in one of the largest trade areas of the time. So, there were people from all religions coming through and sharing the stories of their Gods and Messiahs. One would only have to write down the best attributes of each God and throw them together to create "Jesus Christ, The Son of God".
There are many parallels, but that is only because the Bible was written about 1000 years after Buddhism started.
Christianity is basically the mixing of deity attributes from all the world religions and creating one super-God. Almost every single attribute that "Jesus" has is simply taken from another pre-Christian deity.
Jesus Christ is not the first man-god to be born in a manger, die for mankind's safety, and rise from the dead three days later. It is a scenario that has been played out in religions long before Christianity.
Many of Jesus Christ's "truths" were taken straight from the mouths of the Buddha, Osiris, Krishna, etc.
Christianity was born in one of the largest trade areas of the time. So, there were people from all religions coming through and sharing the stories of their Gods and Messiahs. One would only have to write down the best attributes of each God and throw them together to create "Jesus Christ, The Son of God".
Whilst I am comfortable accepting your analysis, RPA, as far as it goes, I would also submit that it does not go far enough. Certain other aspects have to be factored in to the story of the rise and development of Christianity in the early centuries:
* The Judaean Revolt and the catastrophe of Titus
The destruction of the second Temple and devastation of Jerusalem, together with the final horror of Masada had a traumatic effect on Second Temple Judaism. From a territory-based religion, it was forced to become a portable, family-based faith. In those early decades after 70 C.E., there must have been many attempts to make sense of what had happened, particularly by reference to the 'prophetic' texts. These had begun to be energetically studied for some time already and Judaism had generated mystical, semi-monastic sects such as that at Qmran. The enormity of what had happened created the perfect context for mythogenesis as a mechanism for healing the national trauma. At a smaller level, we have lived with this creation of myuthic, archetypal 'role models' immediately after 9/11. That they have not had the same shelf-life as the Gospel stories may be because it did not entail the wholesale forced migration of the population and life returned to near-normal within months. The strength and enduring quality of Jewish 'Zionism' is testimony to the depth of the trauma of the Jewish Revolt.
* "What Did the Romans Ever Do For Us?"
How can one do better than refer to chapters 15 and 16 of Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire? The Roman branch of Jesus-centred mystery cult having aquired enough Greek and Egyptian aspects was a perfect vehicle for the much-needed replacement of the outdated Imperial Cult as a unifying and government-controlled national religion. A local variant of a Jewish sub-religion gained dominance, with structure, a sacred language and the protection of the legions: perfect.
* Why break the habits of a millennium?
Much the same process as you describe characterises the rise of 'Mosaic' Judaism, adopting Sumerian practices and beliefs. They even managed to make a typical pun in the Hebrew of the "I AM WHO I AM" of Exodus 3:14. The Hebrew (Western Semitic) transliterates as Eyah asher Eyah, which can be translated as "My Name is Eyah". As David Rohl puts it:
The Sumerians had known him as Enki, the Babylonians as Eya, the people of the desert called him Ya, but the Midianites worshipped him by his full name - Yahweh.
Rohl, David The Lost Testament (Century 2002)
By a clever sleight of hand, consisting of making the actual name so holy it was never spoken and, thus, forgotten, the fact that the unique god of the Israelites was actually only one of the Babylonian pantheon was concealed. In the same way as the episode of Moses at the burning bush is taken as a talisman of the truth of the message - but the actual Name is now unknown and unknowable - so the Christian talisman is the Risen Christ who, having ascended into heaven, is not around to give empirical evidence. The process is much the same and embedded into post-Exilic religion-making.
* It's not unusual
I would suggest that you can apply a similar pattern of development to all religious, cultural, economic and political paradigms that endure. Buddhism could be seen as having also passed through stages of assimilation of earlier myths to give continuity to its message. The Vedantic deities appear in the Buddha stories from India, Chinese legendary figures such as Kwan Yin are quickly integrated into the story. Tibetan Bon shamanism lends its imagery and other-worldly forces. Empires attempt to use Buddhism as a state instrument but omit the vital element of a sacerdotal priesthood. Without that structure to ensure obedience and orthodoxy, sects and divisions are bound to arise. If the religion and the state are close allies or even two heads of the same body, such divisions can disrupt the civil power as they did in our own Wars of Religion. On reflection, it would seem to me that Tibet offered the best example of a state which had established a broadly normative religion with a monastic structure which covered and administered the country.
Although all this may have a grounding in the real process of growth, development and survival of religions and political systems, I think we need to be careful that simply understanding the process does not invalidate it. The truth of the Dharma does not depend on these externals nor on the historical development of the Buddhisms. Perhaps because no single empire managed to hijack one local brand of Buddhism in the way that Rome captured Roman Christianity, it appears to me easier to discern the central message of the Four Noble Truths, including the Noble Eightfold Path. All else unfolds from there. I find it much harder to discern the heart of the Jesus message, the aspect common to all the Christianities and with the stamp of authenticity - harder but not impossible.
Comments
First off, I would like to point out that the Mahayana teachings do have some conflict with the Theravada teachings in their categorizations of beings below full Buddhahood. Now, my understanding is that in Mahayana Buddhism, a practitioner may reach the Arahant stage, which is an initial stage of Awakening/Enlightenment, but not be a Buddha. This is because arahant may or may not be able to teach & has not developed the 6 Perfections fully. So, what makes one a Buddha is the full development of the 6 perfections (paramitas). Bodhisattva, in its most basic sense, means one who aspires towards Buddhahood. Also, the Bodhisattva Path is broken down into 'Bhumis' (there are 10 of them), which are basically the stages of development of the 6 Perfections.
I regard to the question on karma, I would say that a Bodhisattva definitely has karma. Karma is what causes the whole process of becoming & future rebirth. Now, what karma does a Bodhisattva have? Well, that karma is the Bodhisattva Vow. It is the last thing to be relinquished before Buddhahood. And this is why there is such incredibly heavy emphasis on the development of Bodhicitta in Mahayana Buddhism. This is the Ultimate form of Compassion (Mahakaruna). We can see that the Buddha himself had this Karma ripen, even after his awakening, in the form of Brahma requesting he stay to teach. The story goes that in a former lifetime, many kalpas prior, he encountered a previous Buddha & was so impressed he took up the aspiration for full Buddhahood. For this reason, he could not enter his Parinibbana until he was confident that his teachings were fully disseminated in this world-age. I would also like to point out there is both 'Nibbana with Remainder' and 'Nirvana without Remainder.' Nirvana with remainder means that one realizes the cessation of the effluents (asavas), but whose karma does not entirely cease. I think this is what is considered an Arahant in the Mahayana tradition. From there, the karma of Bodhicitta keeps ripening in the form of the 6 perfections until the individual reaches fully perfected Buddhahood (samma sambuddhasa) and they have 'turned the wheel of Dharma' for that particular world-age. Only at this point, may one who has truly taken the Bodhisattva Vow enter into Nirvana without Remainder.
Hope this makes things a little more clear. Sorry, but I don't have the time to find links for all of the specific terminology, but I imagine web-searches should find most of them.
take care & be well
_/\_
metta
P.S.- As a side note & to reverse any possible state of clarity that my post may have brought about, I would like to mention that it is said that upon the Perfection of Wisdom (PrajnaParamita) it is seen that there are no 'beings' to liberate.
My knowledge is very limited, but from what I gather, Japanese Pure Land schools are based on the idea that in the Pure Land Sutras, Amidha Buddha is said to have vowed to forego full enlightenment until such time as all sentient beings would likewise reach full enlightenment and that in view of the fact that Amidha Buddha is already exactly that-- fully enlightened--all sentient beings are in fact Buddhas, or at the very least assuredly destined to become such.
Is the back trouble you have mentioned before not been a hell to endure?
In Gassho
It can be confusing if you think too much about it, Brigid. That's why the Buddha prescribed practice rather than thinking! Thinking is necessary, but it can only take us so far. We have to really experience the truth of the Buddha's teachings to really "get" it.
Yes, the bodhisattva does progress through the 10 bhumis, but it's really not all that cut-and-dried. You don't get a certificate after you "graduate" to the next bhumi or something. It's more a description of the natural evolution you progress through as you progress along the path. And you go back and forth. In the early stages, it's sort of like clothes in a dryer - first up, then down, then up, then down, then up... As for "attaining nirvana", once you understand that nirvana and samsara are the same thing, it's not such a big deal, I'd say. The bodhisattva may not be enlightened, but he/she has confidence in the path and the committment to follow it.
Taking the bodhisattva vow is a big step, yes, but all you need is the courage to take it. You don't have to have any qualifications or credentials. You simply have to have the motivation to be of service to others, to dedicate your life to their benefit rather than your own. Of course, as beginners we won't be able to keep the vow purely. One great teacher, I think maybe it was Patrul Rinpoche, said that while he was able to keep his Vinaya vows (the vows of ordination) very purely, he was never even for a day able to keep his bodhisattva vow purely. That's how difficult it is. But you do your best. Like I said, it's a gradual thing. However, that said, when you take the bodhisattva vow for the first time your entire karma changes. It is the one vow that you take that extends beyond just this one little life (the vinaya vows, for example, are only for this lifetime). It is a vow that will hook you back onto the path for lifetime after lifetime. So it is a very happy day when someone takes the bodhisattva vow for the first time. You could call it "the first day of the rest of your lives!"
Palzang
Thanks for the clarification!
_/\_
metta
Palzang
Yes, that's true. It has at times. The panic attacks are far worse, though. Those are true, deep, deep suffering. 11 on a scale of 1 to 10. I have definitely thought of them as my own little hell realm. But I'm no Bodhisattva. lol!
Everyone's posts have cleared a lot of this confusion up for me and I thank you all very much. I started doing some research on The Vow and got pretty confused almost right away. I think I'll leave it for now with the understanding you all have given me and take it back up a little further on.
Palzang,
An especially big thank you to you. You have a way of explaining things so clearly. An amazing talent. I didn't know, for instance, that the Bodhisattva Vow was the only one to reach past this life into the next ones. That has me really interested. lol! I'm always tormenting myself with fears of being reborn and not finding the buddhadharma again. *shiver* This is great food for thought, especially as I'm in the midst of uncertainty about which tradition to follow. I like these discussions. They really clarify things for me.
I sure do love it here.
For me, I discovered the following similarites of both jesus and buddha as i interpret their teachings. Among them are:
- Freedom from resentment
- Tranquility in the face of adversitiy
- Diagnosis of mankind being in an unhealthy state.
- Abstaining from lying, openly talk to people without holding anything back, wether it sounds sweet (in a sense that it is what they want to hear) or not.
- Forgiveness
Palzang
I don`t think I omitted anything. My elaboration was by no means exhaustive, as I said "among them" are. But thanks or mentioning, maybe others also have detected similarities and share.
Simon, from which part of the New Testament do you expound that mind precedes all action?
LOL Just kidding
The Sermon on the Mount: Matthew 5:21ff.
But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, 'Raqa,' will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, 'You fool,' will be liable to fiery Gehenna.
-Matthew 5, 22
thanks for pointing me to that
When reading the preceding verse, It cleary point to the idea that not only evil deeds are bad, but also thoughts (states) and words. So indeed, it can be interpretated the way you suggest, I consider this a very deep reading.
Thank you, fofoo.
Critical thinking into madness, is part of it IMO.
I be me not a landlubber
To face everything in ordinary life, just as myself.. without the need of others showing me wisdom in a perfect enviroment, (which will not work outside this enviro).... without ppl who thnk this is a social group.. it becomes division in any shape or form to be a buddhist. It simply is another form of suffering to belong to a label.
To live, is to simply be.. and to put urself in a group is like living a lie.. it is to limit things. Someone who knows one art alone knows practically nothing.
Have you hugged a Buddha Lately?
Quite as much, if not more, than for the existence of Gotama Siddhartha
to go further, how much evidence is there that the miracles ascribed to the man happened? I say this because I've read that the more miraculous stories seemed to appear in later texts.
_/\_
I am not sure which of the two men you mean but it is certainly the generally accepted view is that 'sayings' (logia) gospels were written down first and we are also told that, after the Buddha's death, the Sangha met to decide on and recite his actual words.
Until quite recently (and, I would suggest, still today) stories of signs and wonders get added to the account in order to adduce evidence of power and, thus, add evidence of worth.
I'm a newbie and this is the first time I've posted although I have enjoyed reading the posts very much...I wondered if anyone has a source of where the Buddha said not to believe anything just because he said it but to look and see for oneself?
I'm involved in a discussion with a rather dogmatic Christian on another forum and I'd like to include a reference if possible.
Thanks in advance and I'm glad to be part of this forum! :smilec:
Welcome to the forum. In regard to your question, perhaps you are referring to the Kalama Sutta (AN 3.65). Just be aware, however, that this discourse says something much more rigorous than that. As Thanissaro Bhikkhu points out, the Kalama Sutta not only suggests that any view or belief should be tested by the results it yields when put into practice; but — to guard against the possibility of any bias or limitations in one's understanding of those results — they must further be checked against the experience of people who are wise.
Jason
Hello Suezy, it is good to meet you.
The story that you are looking for is that of the Buddha's discourse to the Kalamas. This link will take you to a translation of it:
Kalama Sutta
As one who engages in Buddhist/Christian dialogue, may I warn you that it is far from easy. There is often a lack of respect and, even, hostility in the exchanges. We have some great examples of fruitful dialogue in the work of Buddhists like Robert Aitken Roshi, His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh in conversation with Brother David, Thomas Merton and Daniel Berrigan respectively. The important point to remember is that all parties to the debate wanted to find agreement. We will find what we seek and if we seek confrointation and controversy, that is precisely what will be waiting for us.
It's good to meet you and I appreciate the link and thoughts. Thank you!
Too true! I looked forward to an exchange of ideas but I was quoted chapter and verse from Biblical references and later writings on how wrong I am and how I am going to go to hell because of my alignment with Buddhism. I was just not going to respond to his comments. I don't want to create any bad feelings in this forum but if I leave the thread as is, I fear people will not get a 'fair' sense of what Buddhism is and is not. (I live in a mainly Christian community with little access to other religions unless one searches outside to explore).
You're comments reminded me of how mindful I need to be not to get 'hooked' and start 'reacting' instead of 'acting'. Thank you.
The following is a small part of our exchange in this other forum:
(Me):
"I should have said "permanent" instead of "real"...there is nothing one can point to and say "This is permanent--it exists independent of anything else and does not change." The buddhists I've been around BTW have never mentioned anything close to 'blind faith', either. In fact, just the opposite!"
(Him):
"Then ask them what is their evidence for enlightenment leading to the end of contingent being. Also ask them, who has ceased to exist as a contingent being and testified to it. Think. If you no longer exist as a contingent being you CAN'T testify, because you no longer exist. Hence no testimony is possible. Blind faith.
[/quote]Buddhists actually, in common with Christianity, do believe in an eternal soul...they just believe in reincarnation. The point of understanding how it all works (or 'enlightenment') is to free oneself of the wheel of samsara or suffering.[/quote]
No. Buddha taught that there is no Atman, no soul. The goal is to cease to exist as a contingent being. Extinction. They compare it to a candle flame being extinguished. If you know Buddhists who talk about an eternal soul they are contradicting Buddha.
[/quote]You are talking apples and oranges when you pose the question of why the body doesn't immediately cease to exist upon 'enlightenment'. Why would it? Think about when you awaken from a dream...what happened to your dream 'body'? You could say it never really existed...or you could say it spontaneously disappeared upon awakening! Just something to think about...[/quote]
If enlightenment leads to liberation from contingent being, why doesn't it happen immediately? Obviously enlightenment does nothing. It is a fantasy, perhaps nothing more than a hallucination or a natural state of heightened consciousness.
After you die you will stand before Christ. You won't be reincarnated or cease to exist as a contingent being. Just something to think about before you die.
Hebrews 9
27...it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.
Buddha was wrong. Jesus said so."
_______________________________________
I asked for the quote about Jesus saying that Buddha was wrong but he hasn't responded to that yet! (I know it doesn't exist, btw!) I guess, I'm just trying to figure out how to best respond w/o attacking. You are quite right about it not being easy...perhaps I should just let it be!?!
nor upon tradition, nor upon rumor, nor upon scripture, nor upon surmise,
nor upon axiom, nor upon specious reasoning, nor upon bias towards a notion pondered over,
nor upon another's seeming ability, nor upon the consideration
'The monk is our teacher.' When you yourselves know: '
These things are bad, blamable, censured by the wise; undertaken and observed,
these things lead to harm and ill,' abandon them... When you yourselves know:
'These things are good, blameless, praised by the wise; undertaken and observed,
these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them."
Kalamas Sutra
I believe this may be the sutra you are thinking of..one of my favorites it happens to be!
I bear in mind another passage from the letter to the Romans: "Far from passing judgment on each other, therefore, you should make up your mind never to be the cause of another's tripping or falling." (Rom. 14:13) The whole passage is worth reading and reflecting on when we engage with people of different beliefs.
Your interlocutor will not find any passages that refer directly to the Buddha, any more than you will find suttas which refer to Yhwh. Any such search is doomed and unprofitable.
The Jesus of the Gospels, for me, is the one who says "Come to me all you who are heavy laden" rather than the one who says "Depart from me". You need to decide if you have a deep enough understanding of the Christ and his message as well as of the Buddha and his. Only then are you able to decide if you are the person to help another see a different way.
May you have happiness and all the sources of happiness.
Dialogue between Christians and Buddhists can help us to address some of the most fundamental aspects of each tradition and, in this light, I recommend Masao Abe's article on Kenotic God and Dynamic Sunyata in COBB, John B., Jr and IVES, Christopher, Eds The Emptying God - A Buddhist-Jewish-Christian Conversation (o.o.p. in Europe) (Sri Satguru Publications. 1996. ISBN 81 7030 490 3)
Both philosophy/religions are subtle and complex. Both deserve our highest respect even when we encounter adherents who have as much in-depth knowledge as a butterfly!
"...fundamentalists..... believe in the absolute inerrancy of the Bible and the divine right of preachers to tell you what it means. They also believe in the separation of church and state only if they cannot control both. The only way to cooperate with fundamentalists, it has been said, is to obey them."
Bill Moyers
I intentionally did not respond to the poster on my local forum yesterday just to put some space between us so that I could reflect on what I wished to accomplish and whether it was 'necessary' and if I was capable...I learn more about myself every day!
I realized a lot of my motivation was ego (some well motivated to explain what I knew about Buddhism but a lot just my knee jerk reaction to 'prove a point'). I also realized there is a great deal about Buddhism that I don't know. Ultimately, I realized that getting involved in a 'debate' with this dogmatist is just not something I need to do.
But it did get me on to this site to look for information on the quote and I feel quite fortunate to have found this forum because of it!
Thanks to all again for the reference to the Kalama Sutta and, also, for the thoughtful comments and references to reading material...I will check them out!
I have to run now to finish 'chores' and get ready for work but I'll try to check back later...thank you all again!!!
You may not know a lot about Buddhism but this statement tells me you're definitely on the right track.
Welcome to the board and I hope you find it as useful as I have. It's great to meet you.
I became acquainted with Buddhism in the early 80's through my brother who was very connected with Karma Triyana Dharmachakra. I have had difficulty connecting with 'live' teachings as they tend to be too far away and my 'timing' (as my brother would say) is really off (as far as having time off work or away from other family responsibilities when they are happening)!
Nevertheless, I know I have been very fortunate to receive the teachings that I have---
I've pretty much just tried to read and listen on CD's everything I found available through Snow Lion Publications or a book club I belong to. My husband and I just recently got decent internet speed. We had never had any sort of internet speed before that actually allowed us to explore much! Now, I feel like I finally found a sangha! Plus, I now have access to teachings online that were unavailable to me before...I feel more than fortunate!!!
Thank you all!
Your posts made me stop and think about what I was trying to accomplish and why...it made me take a step back and look deeper. Thank you! I hope the paper you are preparing goes well and I wish you every happiness in return!!!
You really 'hit it on the head', BTW:
A great deal of the posts that are on this local 'Religion' forum involve politics that this poster maintains are NOT separable (from church and state).
When I reread some of them, I had an "aha!" moment!
The Buddha stated in many instances that wants he us to all know for ourselves in order to be liberated, and not simply take things on blind faith. The Kalama Sutta is probably the best Sutta though, in this regard (for the discussion you are having):
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html
As a bit of a qualification though, you may want to read this commentary by Bhikkhu Bodhi on this Sutta:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_09.html
Simon,
I was speaking of Jesus, not Buddha, but I'm not arguing with you either.
_/\_
metta
Thank you, N1N2. My comment was not intended to suggest we disagreed. On the contrary, I think that both the Jesus and the Gotama legends followed the same path of accretion of miracle stories. The real teachers live in their words but, as Eliot pointed out, "mankind cannot bear too much reality" and so they invent signs and wonders. Jesus appears to have been aware of and wary about this tendency, warning against it: made no difference tho' - quelle surprise!
There are many parallels, but that is only because the Bible was written about 1000 years after Buddhism started.
Christianity is basically the mixing of deity attributes from all the world religions and creating one super-God. Almost every single attribute that "Jesus" has is simply taken from another pre-Christian deity.
Jesus Christ is not the first man-god to be born in a manger, die for mankind's safety, and rise from the dead three days later. It is a scenario that has been played out in religions long before Christianity.
Many of Jesus Christ's "truths" were taken straight from the mouths of the Buddha, Osiris, Krishna, etc.
Christianity was born in one of the largest trade areas of the time. So, there were people from all religions coming through and sharing the stories of their Gods and Messiahs. One would only have to write down the best attributes of each God and throw them together to create "Jesus Christ, The Son of God".
Whilst I am comfortable accepting your analysis, RPA, as far as it goes, I would also submit that it does not go far enough. Certain other aspects have to be factored in to the story of the rise and development of Christianity in the early centuries:
* The Judaean Revolt and the catastrophe of Titus
The destruction of the second Temple and devastation of Jerusalem, together with the final horror of Masada had a traumatic effect on Second Temple Judaism. From a territory-based religion, it was forced to become a portable, family-based faith. In those early decades after 70 C.E., there must have been many attempts to make sense of what had happened, particularly by reference to the 'prophetic' texts. These had begun to be energetically studied for some time already and Judaism had generated mystical, semi-monastic sects such as that at Qmran. The enormity of what had happened created the perfect context for mythogenesis as a mechanism for healing the national trauma. At a smaller level, we have lived with this creation of myuthic, archetypal 'role models' immediately after 9/11. That they have not had the same shelf-life as the Gospel stories may be because it did not entail the wholesale forced migration of the population and life returned to near-normal within months. The strength and enduring quality of Jewish 'Zionism' is testimony to the depth of the trauma of the Jewish Revolt.
* "What Did the Romans Ever Do For Us?"
How can one do better than refer to chapters 15 and 16 of Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire? The Roman branch of Jesus-centred mystery cult having aquired enough Greek and Egyptian aspects was a perfect vehicle for the much-needed replacement of the outdated Imperial Cult as a unifying and government-controlled national religion. A local variant of a Jewish sub-religion gained dominance, with structure, a sacred language and the protection of the legions: perfect.
* Why break the habits of a millennium?
Much the same process as you describe characterises the rise of 'Mosaic' Judaism, adopting Sumerian practices and beliefs. They even managed to make a typical pun in the Hebrew of the "I AM WHO I AM" of Exodus 3:14. The Hebrew (Western Semitic) transliterates as Eyah asher Eyah, which can be translated as "My Name is Eyah". As David Rohl puts it: By a clever sleight of hand, consisting of making the actual name so holy it was never spoken and, thus, forgotten, the fact that the unique god of the Israelites was actually only one of the Babylonian pantheon was concealed. In the same way as the episode of Moses at the burning bush is taken as a talisman of the truth of the message - but the actual Name is now unknown and unknowable - so the Christian talisman is the Risen Christ who, having ascended into heaven, is not around to give empirical evidence. The process is much the same and embedded into post-Exilic religion-making.
* It's not unusual
I would suggest that you can apply a similar pattern of development to all religious, cultural, economic and political paradigms that endure. Buddhism could be seen as having also passed through stages of assimilation of earlier myths to give continuity to its message. The Vedantic deities appear in the Buddha stories from India, Chinese legendary figures such as Kwan Yin are quickly integrated into the story. Tibetan Bon shamanism lends its imagery and other-worldly forces. Empires attempt to use Buddhism as a state instrument but omit the vital element of a sacerdotal priesthood. Without that structure to ensure obedience and orthodoxy, sects and divisions are bound to arise. If the religion and the state are close allies or even two heads of the same body, such divisions can disrupt the civil power as they did in our own Wars of Religion. On reflection, it would seem to me that Tibet offered the best example of a state which had established a broadly normative religion with a monastic structure which covered and administered the country.
Although all this may have a grounding in the real process of growth, development and survival of religions and political systems, I think we need to be careful that simply understanding the process does not invalidate it. The truth of the Dharma does not depend on these externals nor on the historical development of the Buddhisms. Perhaps because no single empire managed to hijack one local brand of Buddhism in the way that Rome captured Roman Christianity, it appears to me easier to discern the central message of the Four Noble Truths, including the Noble Eightfold Path. All else unfolds from there. I find it much harder to discern the heart of the Jesus message, the aspect common to all the Christianities and with the stamp of authenticity - harder but not impossible.