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.
Buddha & Jesus
federica
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
has anyone ever considered this....,
Buddha was born and existed about 500 years BC. Is there a possibility that they are one and the same....? That is to say, that notwithstanding his passage into parinirvana, Buddha may have decided that this little ol' planet needed him more than ever, so he decided to make a comeback? Well, anything's possible....who's to say? What's more, is it worth the speculation.....? :scratch: :hrm:
Buddha was born and existed about 500 years BC. Is there a possibility that they are one and the same....? That is to say, that notwithstanding his passage into parinirvana, Buddha may have decided that this little ol' planet needed him more than ever, so he decided to make a comeback? Well, anything's possible....who's to say? What's more, is it worth the speculation.....? :scratch: :hrm:
0
Comments
The people who killed Jesus were no different from the people who killed the heretics in the name of Jesus. I don't think he intended the Church to become what it became, nor that he came to found a Church of any kind. Otherwise, I honestly couldn't respect Jesus of Nazareth - and in my eyes, he would be a true demon and hateful blip in the continuum of time.
There's an author named Anthony de Mello who was banned by the Catholic Church as dangerous, saying things that would cause grave harm to the faith. Sounds like the people Jesus dealt with.
I honestly think you would probably find things that Jesus said in the gospels.... but everyone has played the game where you sit around in a circle, one whispers a phrase into the next person's ear, and it gets passed around the room... eventually, it doesn't sound like or mean anything remotely close to the first utterance. Sometimes, I think the exact same thing of Buddhism.
Maitri and karuna,
Manny
This is very far from the old Index Librorum Prohibitorum but is a sign that the old mentality still prevails in Rome. It does, however, stop well short of censure or, as some had wanted, a condemnation for 'heresy'.
De Mello's book Sadhana introduced many Christians to a meditative and cross-cultural approach to prayer.
No archaeological evidence, only legend.
Palzang
Priceless.
Now THERE'S an interesting perspective!!!
Palzang
http://tibettalk.wordpress.com/2007/09/01/the-lost-years-of-jesus-in-tibet/
I just never thought of it like that. Of course it makes perfect sense.
Palzang
Palzang
But pirating is such a bummer.....
Too much of it going on, and the profit goes into the wrong pockets.
Kind of 'false profit'......
I was actually using CD's as an analogy- What I mean is, I'm sure Jesus could have been a wise or enlightened being, I have no trouble believing in such a possibility, however all the benefit got negated when his teachings were diluted, truncated, intermixed with other pagan beliefs, changed due to politics, misinterpreted, lost in translation, had random stuff added, etc - after which I actually consider their existence of quesitonable general benefit.
Seems to me though, that even in the beginning he was offering a sort of simplified version of buddhism, or perhaps part of it. Why follow that when you have the "full version"
Ouch!
The fourth option of course is 'Legend', but then we wouldn't be able to make any determination about him at all. All I'm saying is that IF the gospels are a reliable account of what he said, I don't think I can trust the man. I realise this conclusion may not be diplomatic when talking to Christians, but the thing is, they, themselves, will often bring up C.S. Lewis' challenge. With this kind of Christian, we can't escape it. But I dunno, you tell me, am I wrong?
Peace:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirguna_Brahman
and could thus rightly claim to be one with God.
Just a thought.
Namaste
Palzang
'Of course Jesus was God. So are you'.
Hmm, yes, but he also said: 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father but by me'; 'Those who reject me are cast forth as a withered branch, and burned'; and Luke 19:27: 'Those mine enemies, who would not that I should reign over them, bring them hither and slay them before me' (this one was said in a parable of which the point was that Jesus was the king whose enemies needed slaying). Sayings such as these do not speak to me of some egalitarian 'We are all God' message. Jesus clearly places himself above all others.
And let's not forget Jesus' attack against the temple moneychangers. He did not try to talk to them; he did not even fly into a spur-of-the-moment rage that might be forgiven as a lapse of judgment; what he did was go out and make a scourge, which takes a bit of time and therefore must have been done coolly and deliberately, and then he went back running and screaming into the temple turning over tables and wreaking chaos.
I'm wondering if we want to believe this man was enlightened simply because he is the central figure of a major religion, and for no other reason than that; because ask yourself, if a man said/did the above things today, in the West, would we be saying he was buddha-like in any way- even if he DID say some good stuff about love as well? Remember, almost every insane apocalyptic cult leader preaches love.
Wow I didn't mean to come on here to bash Jesus, but I just can't help the conclusion to which his above words/actions lead me. Given what Jesus said, if I tell my children (future sense) that Jesus was enlightened, what's to stop them from seeing some modern day megalomaniac cult leader as also enlightened? If I say, for example, that the enjoinment to 'hate your family' and abandon it to follow such a leader are the words of an enlightened man, what's to stop my kids from doing just that?
Peace:(
I say that Jesus was an enlightened being, or at the very least a bodhisattva, because I have it on very good authority that he was and because it makes sense. Of course, as Yuriy points out, his original teachings have been badly corrupted and twisted by those who came after, for whatever reasons. But the truth is still to be found there. Just as Lord Buddha, however, he spoke in the lanuage of the time and place in which he lived. The Buddha also said things that wouldn't wash nowadays, at least in the West, such as some of his comments about women and the fact that he didn't wish to even allow women to become ordained (though he did in the end). But he was speaking to an audience that was very different from the one he would have found if he were born, say, in Topeka.
Palzang
But yes, perhaps the very fact that those gnostic texts about Jesus DO represent a 'very different story' should show us that in reality we can't really know one way or the other. All I will say in conclusion is that Jesus as presented in the Bible is not what I'd call enlightened; the gnostic Jesus, as you said, was really a different Jesus entirely, and so is a different debate entirely.
Peace:)
Just rambling...
Thus it was a deeply personal choice to commit myself to what I perceived as the way that Jesus taught - the way of compassion and of metanoia. Going, as I did, to a 'Low' Anglican church in England and a Catholic church (Latin in those days!) in France, I discovered ecumenism and Teilhard.
No one knows with more pain and disappointment the horrors perpetrated in Jesus' name by all the churches and groups since the earliest times better than I. They have taught me a deep distrust of all institutions, political as well as religious. I am, however, reluctant to throw out the true baby with the dirty bath-water. There are many men and women of my acquaintance whom I respect and who are Christians, some of them monastics and priests. We may disagree on many points but are joined in the solidarity of compassion.
When I had the joy to meet HHDL, he gave me a beautiful diptych, showing Jesus and his Mother. Make of that what you will:
Palzang
I quite agree, Palzang-la. As he gave it to me (having sent his secretary off to find it), he said: "Lord Jesus is your door; Lord Buddha is my door." I was struck by the similarity to the text in John where Jesus calls himself a "gate".
It was as if I had received a validation of all I had been doing for so many years and a blessing on my efforts since then.
Palzang
Oh thank you Brigid for that wonderful imagery... It brought a HUGE smile to my face! I can just see you now... !!!
I cannot help but agree with Pally and Simon... the real Jesus was indeed REAL... not the plastic fantastic Jesus we sometimes see today. I am told that when Andrew Lloyd Webber was about to embark on his famous Rock Opera "Jesus Christ: Superstar", he went to a number of noted clergy and asked how he should approach the subject.
I understand the vast majority said in words of similar import, "Take him down out of the stained glass". The Jesus we "know" today is a far different person than the Jesus that lived and taught 2000+ years ago.
Wondered if you had come across this book (excerpt) what do you think of it???
.http://bibleprobe.com/buddhatoldofjesus.htm
please bear with me, follow link after entering bible probe left hand side, Buddha prophesy about Jesus.
First of all I find it highly dubious because there's as strong Hindu/Chritian/chinese twist there. It's a mess....
Secondly, Buddhism does not consider sin to be relevant. There is no concept of 'Sin' in Buddhism....
Thirdly, The point of Buddhism is not to accrue merit, necessarily, but to understand - and end - suffering.
It sounds like a mish-mash of different ideas all tumbled together.
I'm afraid I take it with a pinch of salt. In a bowl of thai noodles.....
Good points raised. I'd have to say I go along with CSLewis's challenge. (btw, don't bother reading most of his books, I found them very dry apart from screwtape letters
Here's my personal journey of faith(in a nutshell);
I became a christian when I was a teenager,studied religious studies in late teens,including Buddhism : )
Liked a lot about buddhism,(cycle of suffering in particular) started doubting that christianity was the only way to God...long story....
15 years or so later was reading the Bible and came across the book of the prophet Isaiah in the old testament, at that moment I was reading about the prophesies of the birth of Jesus....the Bible is full of these prophesies.
This was where I thought do I believe that Jesus is/was the Christ, that is the messiah promised and prophesised??
I decided that yes, I did believe. Despite myself and what it would mean to call myself a christian, I had to decide, and the consequences of that decision.
I know buddha existed.
I know Jesus existed.
I had to decide for myself, who Jesus was. Was he raised from the dead? Was he who he said he was? Or was he deluded?For me, this decision was important.
1. re C. S. Lewis: I'm not sure I agree about his being a 'dry' writer. Have you read A Grief Observed? It kept me sane when my wife Chris died.
2. I am struggling with an imagined dialogue between Peter, Thomas,James and John as they come back from their first two-by-two mission. Not desperately biblical, although based on Ignatian approach, as they each represent one aspect of sharing the mission. It started off with Peter and Thomas because I was reflecting on the notion of shaking the dust off one's shoes - is it to be taken literally or metaphorically? Is it about our shoes or the 'dust' of resentment in our minds?
I had a conversation in Cheltenham a week or two ago with a worker priest and it made me add James to the meeting. Of all the aspects of our discussion that troubled me was the one about 'spirituality'. It's a word that I use and that he told me that he disliked. So what did I make of that? What do I actually mean by it? And is it important?
As I reflected, it struck me that the Jesus message can be seen as internal and external. Thomas Jefferson redacted the Gospels, removing all the 'miraculous' and was left, being a good son of the Radical Enlightenment, with a social message. These days, it seems to me, the churches have lost their primacy in respect of carrying out this part of the message. People understand that a person need not have a religious affiliation to be and act ethically. Indeed, the long history of the churches' failure to bring about social justice and their relationship to oppression have turned many against the whole idea of a religious dimension as being valid, useful or, even, good. The idea that faith is necessary before good works can be deemed 'good' is something which appalls when we see so many, of different faiths and of none, acting for the general good and so many 'faithful' acting selfishly. It is not enough to say, with John XXIII, that we are a "church of sinners".
If, then, the churches are not fulfilling Jesus' instructions to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and house the homeless, what are they for, other than to line their own pockets and make people behave?
In my imagined dialogue, Peter speaks for the preacher, Thomas for the mystic and James for the social activist. John wanders up to join them and listens. Finally, he says that all this is true but, surely, what we want is to show people that they are loved. This starts an argument until Jesus joins them, too, and asks what they are arguing about. They each present their point of view, supporting it with Jesus' own words. Finally, Jesus laughs and says that they are, of course, all right and, at the same time, they are missing the point. The real point is within them: they have to love each other and the whole world, just as he does. From cultivating that love within and between them, they can spread love among others, which will manifest itself according to their particular gifts or bent. By doing that, they will enable others to love themselves and others too. The results will be like a stone dropped in a pond.
Of course, he goes on, the daily problems will remain: the poor will still be with us an d we shall continue to be heart-sore that we are not making all things better, but that is where trust in the Ground of our being comes in. We do what we can and it is a three-fold process. We give what help we can, as James says, and, at the same time, we tell those who ask where our commitment comes from (as Peter wants) whilst, at all times, practising to strengthen our connection with the Ground (as Thomas shows). The result is that we become more effective both outwardly and inwardly - and, importantly, we give example to others.
It is the 'Thomas' part of the action which I describe as 'spirituality': the disciplines of prayer and meditation. These are aspects of the accumulated wisdom of the churches which are outwith the competence of state or local authorities to teach. They enable a peaceful mind and an attitude of benevolent gratitude, which, in turn, empower creative compassionate action. This connects, for me, with the Three Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path
Does that make sense? Or am I completely off-beam. One of my Quaker friends used to say that I hit the nail on the head whilst being off the wall LOL
Sorry I have been unable to access the internet for some time.....that's why I didn't reply.
You made some good points (the "church" often being a "bless me" club worries and irritates me stimulateously....maybe that is the mirror pointing back at me....:)
I enjoy talking to buddhists, as I said I respect you all tremendously. However, when talking about spirituality a vagueness and one size fits all creeps in.....The point I was making in my post was that I felt I had to decide who Jesus was, bad mad or God. yes, Jesus did say love everyone, which is a tall order and a great example, but I think most buddhists think of him as a boddhistsatva (forgive my spelling) and not God incarnate (ie God in human form).;)
Good to hear from you again.
You are quite right that there are a number of areas where Buddhists and Christians may not understand each other - as there are between different Buddhisms and different Christianities. On the subject of Jesus as the Incarnate God, the words may be consecrated by history but I would guess that we are no nearer understanding precisely what is meanty by them than Nestorius or the others when they argued about it all those centuries ago. Nor, I suggest, are too many 'mainstream' theologians prepared to dig into what Paul means when he says that we are "co-heirs" with Christ - if we are somehow 'lacking' in the godhead ourselves.
Lewis's argument that Jesus had to be mad, bad or right is, of course, far too simplistic: human psychology just doesn't work that way. He could, I think one may argue, have been honestly convinced but wrong. What, for example, do you make of a transparently honest a good man like Tenzin Gyatso, the Dalai Lama of Tibet, who is said to be the reincarnation of the thirteen predecessors and earlier lamas as well as the incarnation of Avalokiteshvara? Mad? Bad? Or correct? Or something beyond all three?
For me, Buddhism has given me both a practice which has illuminated the Gospels and a vision of the world which has made sense. I find no particular contradiction, any more than I do in considering that the Bhagavad Gita has informede my understanding of our 'condemnation' to action.
Hi.
I have always found the sense of serenity that exudes from some buddhists (I visited a temple as part of my education) fantastic, for want of a better word. :rockon:Your posts have this quality.
It is interesting that you, and others here, have some knowledge of the bible,and of course the gospels as you say.
I wonder why you would choose to read the bible /gospels if buddhism completes you?
I am curious as to the Bhagavad Gita quote....what is the gist of that?
respectfully as always, bluesky
Whilst your questions deserve a long reply, may I just say this, Bluesky, between getting the Sunday lunch cooked: I started with the Gospels, long before I encountered genuine Buddhist writings. Their language and intent were already part of me.
One of the things that reading some Buddhist writings has illuminated for me is the fundamental message that the Christ left us: that each one of us matters, individually and by name. Of course, this is counter to 'classic' Buddhism but it is also, I submit,. counter to classic Christianity. It is my own take on the message and the centre of how I try to live my life.
I shall try to reply at greater length in due course. On the subject of the Gita, I refer you to the debate between Sri Krishna and Arjuna.
south park did it
Intriguing, however how certain are they that he was indeed talking about jesus? After all, his name was altered slightly numerous times as it became adopted by different languages and alphabets. What was the original name referred to not the "translated" version?
Other than that, "a great man will come and bring changes" can be attributed to a myriad of people, from past present and future.
Also, can anyone attest to the credibility of these writings? They of course sound very shocking, emotional and absolute but whenever some religeon claims to be "the one", be it Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrianism, or miscellaneous, and threatens me "with hell" I see warning signs since even in the best of circumstances only one is correct, and having my choice defined by where and when I was born and the opinion of the surrounding peoples is just ludicrous in my opinion. Lemmings is a similar species.
I don't see you bouncing off any walls, but I do see you hitting the target. You really transported me away with your Peter, Thomas, and James stories: Peter the Feeder-Preacher, Thomas the Mystic and James the pragmatic activist.
I like triads myself. Take the three theological virtues, faith, hope and charity. Traditionally they have been seen as the three corners of an isosceles triangle with Faith and Hope as the basis, holding up the tall vault surmounted by Love. St. Paul said that Love was the greatest (I Cor 13) of these three eternal things. Faith is very important as is Hope, without which we lose all; but Love is the Link with the Divine, the Key to the heavens.
Where do Peter, Thomas and James rank on this "pyramid"?
And where would 1) Dukkha, 2)Craving to escape this Dukkha, and 3) the realization that Dukkha can only be Dukkha if we let it be Dukkha fall in? I don't quite see a Pyramid here. It's really more of a circle or cycle.
Back to the Triangle, or "Pyramid," I believe that Peter would be preaching Faith and Feeding inspiration, that Thomas would be dwelling in and on Hope, and though all three still remain very much on the ground, that James would forever have his gaze set on the heavens --thinking the best about everybody, striving to lift them up, and believing that all things are good and bright and beautiful and worthy to be loved as much as their creator.
I submit that James' emphasis on works was an emphasis on devotion and love for what is real and needs cultivating and nourishment. His was not an obsession on work for work's sake. It was all about self-sacrificing love for love's sake, for being lifted out of oneself to save oneself from oneself.
But enough about Triads for now. Thanks, Kind Pilgrim!
A very interesting one that is as well Simon. Perhaps because I'm never quite sure I've entirely got it, it continues to challenge me.
Namaste
As I read the Gita, Srivijaya, Sri Krishna is telling us that, living as we do in "a field of karma (in the original meaning of 'action')", we can do no other than to act. The idea is taken up by Sartre and the Existentialists, of course: we are 'condemned' to action, we cannot avoid it.
In terms of living the Dharma and the Jesus message, even if we are condemned to act (even if we remain passive), we have freedom to choose and our true humanity resides in the choice that we make.
Does that clarify at all?
My reading of the Gita suggests the wisdom of an interior passivity. Even though we must act, we need not absorb and be imbued with any part of the rage present in the field of battle.
On the one hand we must act and be responsible for our actions, but on the other hand we need not let our inner joy be stolen by circumstances over which we have no control. If our happiness depends on things outside ourselves over which we have so little control, our lives are hopeless. That is what Swami Sarvagatananda always taught.