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.
It is not the messenger, but the message that is important.
This is all I can offer to the discussion.
Then why does the messenger need to keep coming back to repeat the same message over and over? But I see where you are coming from. People in general tend to debate pedantics of what, where, who. Agreed. Although on the subject of reincarnation this thread does hold interest and substance.
Jesus, Buddha. Same.
The soul remembers nothing. But the spirit always knows. The soul of jesus comes like a thief, and picks the locks of the spirit, and then picks the locks of your soul, to open the door to the spirit.
When goodness grows weak, when evil increases, I make myself a body. In every age I come back to deliver the holy, to destroy the sin of the sinner; to establish righteousness.
“What will the characteristics of the Holy One belike?” The Buddha answered him, “The Holy One who will keep the world in the future will be like this: in the palm of his hands and in the flat of his feet will be the design of a disk, in his side will be a stab wound; and his forehead will have many marks like scars. This Holy One will be the golden boat who will carry you over the cycle of rebirths all the way to the highest heaven. Do not look for salvation in the old way; there is no salvation in it for sure. Quit the old way. And there will be a new spirit like the light of a lightening bug which will come down from the sky above to live in all of your hearts and you will be victorious over all your enemies. Nobody will be able to destroy you. If you die, you will not come back to be born in this world again. You will go to the highest heaven."
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 cant be bothered...you can ban me if you want...i dont really care...you annoy me enough to outweigh any small pleasures I get on this forum...Im sure there is another one without a tugboat tugging at everyone left right and centre
It is hard to determine what is authentic and what is not. I just thought it was interesting to the thread. I simply found the quote in another forum, and cannot prove its authenticity right now and to find the source would have been to put in effort, and it that respect, I guess I am lazy. But the interesting irony to your comment, is that Federica suggested this very connection, so now you suggest she is negating typical statements that, if the Buddha had foresight, could have possibly said. Perhaps it is more out of interest in the text and her (the cat's mother) original interest in the connection of Buddha and Jesus, that wishes for the source. Maybe, it is you who think "Buddha sure as heck didn't say that". But do not think I take any offense to your comment, for I believe you are making just a lighthearted poke, and perhaps you may even be right.
The first quote was one of Krishna. The Buddha quote is from some scriptures from a buddhist temple in thailand, and if you know how to use google, it will tell you the same. Indeed it could be deemed very fishy. And indeed nearly any word spoken out of any mouth in all the history of time could be deemed very fishy. This of course does not make the quote uninteresting. And truly this quote does speak to my heart, in ways I could not explain, in ways I could never explain my own personal connection to God, that which is very obscure to say the least.
To me, Christ comes to earth. And then comes again. And when he is here, he knows that he will come again with some vague insight into who he will come. This is terribly hard to substantiate from texts, or anything of the like, but it is something that easily substantiates in my heart. So in finding even some fishy texts of that nature, and in sharing them, I hope perhaps to substantiate the same feeling in your heart.
My heart tells me, God is manifesting as we ourselves evolve. The conciousness that began evil cannot begin to solve it. And to quit the old way, when god chooses a body to come to earth in the highest form he can manifest at the time, is not such bad advice. For even God evolves. And we indeed do evolve today, even if tomorrow we decline. If Buddha came back today, or Jesus, I am sure as hell he would say "do as I say now. For now I know better."
Such that, you know better than you did in the past. And I know better. So does God know better. But for many, to consider God imperfect, would be to consider God ungodly. To me, God is God becoming. And when God in the past gave the impression he was perfect, that was only because he knew, that if his children did not consider him perfect, they would not trust and understand that he is the road to perfection. If they found a flaw in him, they might just consider themselves God, when indeed they could not consider themselves God, until they found a path that leads only to the light.
When Jesus says, The father is perfect. The father is who jesus will become, yet also from where he comes. For perfect is creation. And creation never ends.
Peace.
It is hard to determine what is authentic and what is not. I just thought it was interesting to the thread. I simply found the quote in another forum, and cannot prove its authenticity right now and to find the source would have been to put in effort, and it that respect, I guess I am lazy.
It's not as difficult as you might imagine to determine that what you have posted is inauthentic.
The bit you quote has been re-posted over and over in many Xtian forums, every time in exactly the same form, and from the same source. Looks like a case of wishful thinking-cum-group hysteria to me.
The full quote is this:
"When Buddha was travelling and living in this world, there was an old Brahman priest who wore white robes who asked the Buddha, "How will all men and all Brahman continue in their merit-making so as to escape the results of sin?" The Buddha answered, "Even though all of you give alms according to the 5 precepts, the 8 precepts, the 10 precepts, or the 227 precepts for 9 trillion years and you raise your hands and offer yourselves as a burnt offering, or you pray 5 times a day, you will still not escape the results of your sins. If you do this every day, your merit gained will only be equal to the smallest strand of hair of an unborn infant extremely small. You shall not enter heaven's doors."
The old Brahman priest asked further, "What are we all to do to be saved?" The Buddha answered the old Brahman priest, "The results of sin and karma are very great, heavier than the sky, thicker than the earth, and so high that it would be like an angel dusting the corner-posts of the temple compound with a cloth post that are 18 inches high dusting them one time per year - until the posts were worn down to the ground. When the posts are worn down, that's how long it would take to end your sins."
The Buddha said further, "I have given up my high position and entered the priesthood. I considered that even though I am good, I would have only a very small amount of merit at the end of the year. If I was given this same amount of merit for 100,000 epochs and live 10 more lifetimes, I would not be saved from sin's results even once.
The old Brahman priest asked further, "So what should we all do?" The Buddha answered, "Keep on making merit and look for another Holy One who will come and help the world and all of you in the future."
Then the old Brahman priest asked, "What will the characteristics of the Holy One be like?" The Buddha answered him, "The Holy One who will keep the world in the future will be like this: in the palms of his hands and in the flat of his feet will be the design of a disc, in the side will be a stab wound; and his forehead will have many marks like scars. This Holy One will be the golden boat who will carry you over the cycle of rebirths all the way to the highest heaven (Nirvana). Do not look for salvation the old way; there is no salvation in it for sure. Quit the old way. And there will be a new spirit like the light of a lightening bug in all of your hearts and you will be victorious over all your enemies. Nobody will be able to destroy you. If you die, you will not come back to be born in this world again. You will go to the highest heaven (Nirvana)."
A Brahmin would never ask the the question, "How will all men and all Brahman continue in their merit-making so as to escape the results of sin?". Nor would a Brahmin ask the Buddha, "What are we all to do to be saved?".
Brahmins just didn't think in those terms, period.
Nor did the Buddha answer inquiries as He is depicted in the story above.
This appears to be a transparent and weak attempt by Xtians to co-opt and use familiar literary devices and story-telling pattens to spin counterfeit tales to beguile the ignorant and represent the Buddha as subservient to Xtian mythology.
You are probably right. So what is left for me to say. Other than I just liked the quote. And perhaps sometimes a good lie is as helpful to truth, if the substance of the lie is true.
No. But to say that the proposed truth came out of someone's mouth, who did not say it, in order to give the proposed truth momentum, would be the lie. So that the inside of the flame is sweet. It is probably best to not lie at all. But the serpent's tools are just so useful when thrown back at him! I figure, a lie a day, keeps the doctor away. But a lying apple, gives us lies as truths, and truths as lies. So maybe, just maybe we can lie our way out of web of lies, if only the lies are good ones.
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
edited September 2009
The fourth precept, not to tell lies or resort to falsehood, is an important factor in social life and dealings. It concerns respect for truth. A respect for truth is a strong deterrent to inclinations or temptation to commit wrongful actions, while disregard for the same will only serve to encourage evil deeds. The Buddha has said: "There are few evil deeds that a liar is incapable of committing." The practice of the fourth precept, therefore, helps to preserve one's credibility, trustworthiness, and honor.
No. But to say that the proposed truth came out of someone's mouth, who did not say it, in order to give the proposed truth momentum, would be the lie.
That is indeed true. But such a lie does nothing to further that truth; in fact, seemingly "useful" lies only cloud and stifle the truth.
The truth doesn't need a lie to present it.
It is very much like this "useful lie" of the Buddha supposedly teaching "inter-being" -- we know the Buddha did not teach such a metaphysical doctrine, and even though it might be a good and useful "morality" teaching, to claim that the Buddha actually taught it only serves to cast doubt on what might otherwise have been a valuable idea.
There is no need to attempt to falsely stuff an idea that would otherwise stand well on its own into the Buddha's mouth, or into your own God's mouth, or into Mohammed's mouth, or Allah's mouth, or the Great Pumpkin's mouth, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster's, to bolster its credibility.
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 like that precept. It gives me the freedom to be cruel.
The woman asked me "Am I ugly"? And I said, "Yes". She cried.
That is not the truth.
That is you opinion.
There is a difference.
What you perceive to be true, may not be the perception of others.
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
edited September 2009
The first precept admonishes against the destruction of life. This is based on the principle of goodwill and respect for the right to life of all living beings. By observing this precept one learns to cultivate loving kindness and compassion. One sees others' suffering as one's own and endeavors to do what one can to help alleviate their problems. Personally, one cultivates love and compassion; socially, one develops an altruistic spirit for the welfare of others.
That's the problem. Good ideas just don't stand well on their own. That is the WHOLE problem of humanity in one. People need a figurehead to follow. Noone listens to the homeless, and certainly noone listens to a thief. So in order for a thief to be heard, he must painfully become a figurehead, and have all eyes on him, all envy on him, all power in his hands, to corrupt the very innocence that brought him the truth.
Doubt is only found from doubters. And if the heart cannot find the truth amongst doubt, then it is your heart that is to blame. Not the person who spins truth within doubt, and doubt within truth, in order that he might weave through the paradox of your ears. For God spins truth within doubt. And is you say that is a bad idea, well then you say you know better than God, when he gives you this path for your own betterment, as is the path to God. The spirit knows all truth and all lies. And your soul would find doubt in the truest truths, if it were not true in itself. It doesn't matter what anyone else says. It is all about what you hear. May aswell learn from the 'cat in the hat' than learn from words without faces, without sounds, without the energy clean and pure. Noone will learn on this internet. Noone. Its very purpose is to hide. Nothing I say will do any good on the internet. I waste my time.
I like that precept. It gives me the freedom to be cruel.
The woman asked me "Am I ugly"? And I said, "Yes". She cried.
This sort of enthusiasm toward a perceived moral loophole giving free license to indulge in cruelty seems a cause for concern. We hope that this is not actually a Christian teaching.
Both the question and the answer, from a Buddhist perspective, come from flawed perspectives.
The Buddha taught that we should not seek to know each other by appearances, on account of visual forms, by the way each of us looks: He said - for each of us -- that "This body is made up of (and contains) shit, piss, snot, bile, vomitus..." -- and all manner of other foul and offensive things.
The question is a plea for "affirmation", though expressed on a superficial level, but on a deeper level there is an expression of a desire for selfless compassion and real interpersonal connection.
But in truth, "ugly" IS as "ugly" DOES.
"Ugly" is only a word.
But for one who only seeks "freedom to be cruel", it is just another opportunity to strike.
That is not the truth.
That is you opinion.
There is a difference.
What you perceive to be true, may not be the perception of others.
No I don't see difference. Buddha says, "you all are ugly". Christ says "you are all ugly". Why is one opinion truth and another just opinion? What is different from the outside and the inside, the downside, and the upside, when they are one? If everyone knows that they are only going to receive opinions, why does everyone always ask for the truth. Because they know the truth, but do not share it, seek the truth, but cannot hear it. For they are afraid to consider themselves ugly or tell anyone else the same. Everyone is ugly. But if everyone tells everyone opinions only, and not the truths, we can all pretend together that we are perfect.
your body is your aura of now, never was there any other aura than the aura of the body, but you are afraid to change it, as you are afraid to clean your soul with spirit, to negate any body you like, to create any body you like. jesus does not have opinions, and so do I not have opinions, and what jesus perceives to be true, I perceive to be true. And if one day, Jesus perceived you to be true, then one day you became true. And if he now perceives you not to be true, then one day you will not be true.
Stuka, I indeed seek freedom to be cruel. I claim it bright and high.
Only crying brings death.
Only hurt brings life.
You will not become spirit, without crying the long death of your soul.
And I do not enjoy cruelty.
But I enjoy the hurtful truth that brings love.
It's refreshing that you approach pain in such a matter-of-fact fashion. Hopefully, it means you will find the following feedback useful: your writing is vacuous and pompous. Try to simplify it. If the simplified version seems not to be saying anything, or saying something stupid, wait until you have something more meaningful to say. You're not fooling anyone by trying to cover up vacuity and idiocy with flowery language, except possbily yourself. If you like to write, you'd probably get a lot out of the book Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace. People sometimes accuse its author of pomposity, but never of vacuity.
<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5Ckmh%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> No I don't see difference. Buddha says, "you all are ugly". Christ says "you are all ugly". Why is one opinion truth and another just opinion? What is different from the outside and the inside, the downside, and the upside, when they are one? If everyone knows that they are only going to receive opinions, why does everyone always ask for the truth. Because they know the truth, but do not share it, seek the truth, but cannot hear it. For they are afraid to consider themselves ugly or tell anyone else the same. Everyone is ugly. But if everyone tells everyone opinions only, and not the truths, we can all pretend together that we are perfect.
<o></o><o></o>
Your questions are irrelevant as they are not directed properly. You fail to comprehend the point that was being made which is no fault of yours. It’s due to the fact of views based upon incorrect perception. You just need to discover the method for cutting away the delusions. The meaning that was being made is simply “ugly” is a judgment, an opinion, make believe if you will. It is a mental projection, a belief that one chose to define as truth somewhere down the line but, truth cannot be and is not based upon speculations and assumptions defined by someone’s likes and aversions.
your body is your aura of now, never was there any other aura than the aura of the body, but you are afraid to change it, as you are afraid to clean your soul with spirit, to negate any body you like, to create any body you like. jesus does not have opinions, and so do I not have opinions, and what jesus perceives to be true, I perceive to be true. And if one day, Jesus perceived you to be true, then one day you became true. And if he now perceives you not to be true, then one day you will not be true.
<o></o>
You constantly speak of your speculations and opinions in just about every post you submit. Soul, spirit, aura, reincarnation, the fact that you constantly believe you know what others are thinking. Buddha called such things unponderables. No matter how much you think on such subjects you will never come up with the definite answer. So why waste your time creating diluted views based on nothing more than opinions? Look at what you actually know to be true and move on from there.
The problem with talking about Jesus (Yeshua ben Yosif) is that we cannot know anything about the "historical" Jesus because he did not himself write anything, and the four Gospels were all written many decades after his death in what is obviously a very mythical style of writing designed to be filled with allegorical truths and this pretty well slips past most Christians, who tend to favor a literal view of their Bible which renders the true meaning of Jesus lost in fantastic obfuscations about making water into wine and a literal belief in his resurrection.
Jesus was probably the most misunderstood man in history. He was not a man that favored organized religion, he spoke in a style that any Guru or Zen master would have understood immediately, and his followers failed utterly to understand much of what he said to them. This was only compounded by Paul (the artist formerly known as Saul) and his insistance that to be a Christian required unquestioning faith in the mythical Jesus over all other considerations including common sense. This is why to this hour we have millions of devout Christians who sincerely "believe" in Jesus while at the same time doing nothing that he taught (love thy enemies, etc).
Certainly there are many myths and legends that surround the person known as the Buddha, Siddartha Gautama, the Tathagata. But here is the difference: we as Buddhists understand that these are myths and legends and don't see them as historical events but as essential truths illustrated by mythical narrative.
In short- most Christians have made that mistake so often made by neophyte Zen students, they have mistaken the finger (Jesus) for the Moon (truth).
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:
With respect, I feel that I must point out that the Buddha denied the existance of the soul (Atman) and that the idea of an enduring permanent self is an illusion. Therefore there can be no "reincarnation" simply because there is nothing to "reincarnate" after the death of the body and the dissolution of the five aggregates.
Therefore-
1. Anything isn't possible.
2. Speculation here seems highly unlikely.
Jesus: "Do to others as you would have them do to you." Luke 6:31 Buddha: "Consider others as yourself." Dhammapada 10:1
Jesus: "If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also." Luke 6:29 Buddha: "If anyone should give you a blow with his hand, with a stick, or with a knife, you should abandon any desires and utter no evil words." Majjhima Nikaya 21:6
Jesus: "Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me." Matthew 25:45 Buddha: "If you do not tend to one another, then who is there to tend you? Whoever would tend me, he should tend the sick." Vinaya, Mahavagga 8:26.3
Jesus: "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword." Matthew 26:52 Buddha: "Abandoning the taking of life, the ascetic Gautama dwells refraining from taking life, without stick or sword." Digha Nikaya 1:1.8
Jesus: "Those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will save it." Mark 8:35 Buddha: "With the relinquishing of all thought and egotism, the enlightened one is liberated through not clinging." Majjhima Nikaya 72:15
Jesus: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you." Matthew 28:19-20 Buddha: "Teach the dharma which is lovely at the beginning, lovely in the middle, lovely at the end. Explain with the spirit and the letter in the fashion of Brahma. In this way you will be completely fulfilled and wholly pure." Vinaya Mahavagga 1:11.1
Interesting how most westerners place Jesus first.
A more accurate title would be "borrowed sayings" rather than "parallel sayings".
How silly would it be if I became a famous teacher borrowing from the Buddha and in 500 years time someone wrote a book called DhammaDhatu and Buddha: The parallel Sayings.
The above sayings are mostly about morality. They are not reflective of the respective core teachings. The exception below is not similar:
Jesus: "Those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will save it." Mark 8:35
Buddha: "With the relinquishing of all thought and egotism, the enlightened one is liberated through not clinging." Majjhima Nikaya 72:15
The teaching of Jesus above is both self-sacrifice (which the Buddha admonished) and ego transference. It is guru-yoga of Hinduism. It has little to do with Buddhism or Emptiness.
Interesting how most westerners place Jesus first.
A more accurate title would be "borrowed sayings" rather than "parallel sayings".
How silly would it be if I became a famous teacher borrowing from the Buddha and in 500 years time someone wrote a book called DhammaDhatu and Buddha: The parallel Sayings.
I'm in absolute agreement here. There's also a tendancy sometimes to take 'sayings' of Jesus out of their original context in the gospels completely and then present them as parallels to Lord Buddha.
Interesting how most westerners place Jesus first.
A more accurate title would be "borrowed sayings" rather than "parallel sayings".
How silly would it be if I became a famous teacher borrowing from the Buddha and in 500 years time someone wrote a book called DhammaDhatu and Buddha: The parallel Sayings.
If Jesus and Buddha were to meet, they would recognize one another as fellow prophets because they were teaching the same truths. This is the spirit conveyed, both in words and images, by this lavishly illustrated gift book.
Readers will cherish both the book's message and presentation. Here are two great spiritual teachers from two very different traditions guiding us - whether talking about love, wisdom, or materialism - along the same path.
Using meditative color photos to complement the universal truths these two charismatic figures proclaimed, this - the first trade paper edition of the illustrated edition - is an important and illuminating oracle of wisdom for all who believe that the spiritual outweighs the material. At the same time, it is a fascinating and appealing anthology of key beliefs within two of the world's great religions
Doesn't sound like they are putting one person before the other, or claiming either was the original.
Perhaps you will remember that the Bible describes Jesus going to the elders at the Temple in Jerusalem at the age of 12 and teaching them (Luke 2:41-52)?
My view is this is just a story. It could not be true. It is a matter of faith.
But even if it was true, Jesus probably would have taught the Jewish law and some Jewish spirituality. How many teenagers do we know who can lecture us idealistically about the moralities of 'right' or 'wrong'? Plenty. Also, the metaphor of the 'Father' exists in the Old Testament.
Please recall Jesus' brother James was a pharisee. As such, it appears to be a fabrication that Jesus was a carpenter. The impression gained was he was born into a priestly caste.
All this appears to be quite unrelated to what the Buddha taught.
It is the same as regarding Prince Siddhatha as enlightened when he entered the first jhana spontaneously when he was six years old (whenever). Our young Prince was far from enlightened.
BTW Palzang. I hope you are not implying Jesus was in the temple teaching The Four Noble Truths, Dependent Origination, Emptiness, The Eight Jhanas, etc.
In short- most Christians have made that mistake so often made by neophyte Zen students, they have mistaken the finger (Jesus) for the Moon (truth).
Many are Mahayana students or sympathisers but few accept what Jesus was or what he offered. The impression gained is not considering what a Bodhisatva is or what Mahayana is. The Mahayana talk about saving all sentient beings but then all they talk about is Hinayana practises such as Zen or Emptiness.
Jesus is like a Vajrayana deity. Jesus was like a Mahayana Bodhisatva. He took the sins of the people or masses ('Maha') upon himself and through his sacrificial death atoned the sins of the word via his great forgiveness. He did the work for those who could not do it and radiated his love upon them.
Jesus was a Great Vehicle or Mahayana because he could save many sentient beings via his love.
Thus what St Paul established and what Christianity is today is this 'Great Vehicle'.
Whilst there are many Hinayana teachings in the Gospels, what we know to be Christianity today is essentially a Mahayana religion.
Strange how the Mahayanas cannot see this and start to project Hinayana qualities upon Jesus.
Many are Mahayana students or sympathisers but few accept what Jesus was or what he offered. The impression gained is not considering what a Bodhisatva is or what Mahayana is. The Mahayana talk about saving all sentient beings but then all they talk about is Hinayana practises such as Zen or Emptiness.
Jesus is like a Vajrayana deity. Jesus was like a Mahayana Bodhisatva. He took the sins of the people or masses ('Maha') upon himself and through his sacrificial death atoned the sins of the word via his great forgiveness. He did the work for those who could not do it and radiated his love upon them.
Jesus was a Great Vehicle or Mahayana because he could save many sentient beings via his love.
Thus what St Paul established and what Christianity is today is this 'Great Vehicle'.
Whilst there are many Hinayana teachings in the Gospels, what we know to be Christianity today is essentially a Mahayana religion.
Strange how the Mahayanas cannot see this and start to project Hinayana qualities upon Jesus.
I think that you have a very good point, DD. Most of the Buddhist-Christian dialogue that I have come across is certainly with Mahayana Buddhists (HHDL, TNH, Robert Aitken Roshi, Masao Abe). It could be added that much of this dialogue is, on the Christian side, with Catholic theologians, particularly monastics (Brother Steindl Rast, Thomas Merton, Daniel Berrigan), although there are some particularly interesting contributions from significant Protestant theologians on Masao Abe in John Cobb Jr's The Emptying God.
Perhaps the similarity between Mahayana, which holds to a developing understanding of the Dharma beyond the Perinibbana, and Catholicism which accepts an unfolding of understanding of the Christ message, together with their monastic tradition, make dialogue easier.
I am not sure what you mean, DD, by your last comment. After all, am I not right that what you term "Hinayana qualities" are aspects of the Pali scriptures which are common to both Mahayana and 'Hinayana' traditions (I use therm 'Hinayana' with some reluctance and stress that it is not intended to convey any sense of lesser value, and because it is the term that you use yourself).
That Jesus or Socrates, Mahomet or Spinoza demonstrate similarities to words attributed to the Buddha Shakyamuni is not surprising, surely? As I have said elsewhere, is it not true that the truth usually resembles itself?
It may be possible to show parallels in the teachings of Jesus and Buddha, but the quotes given above don't make a case for meaningful parallels. The similarities were created by taking things out of context, and by editing out parts that indicated different thoughts. Not only were Jesus and the Buddha different thinkers from different traditions living in different societies, but the four Gospels describe four different Jesuses. So in order to make Jesus like the Buddha, you not only have to gloss over the differences, but you also have to gloss over the differences in the different versions of Jesus.
It takes time to type this, so I'm just going to give one example. The quote from Mark about saving and losing one's life comes from the following group of verses.
"Those who want to come after me should deny themselves, pick up their cross, and follow me! Remember, those who try to save their own life are going to lose it, but those who lose their life for the sake of the good news are going to save it. After all, what good does it do a person to acquire the whole world and pay for it with life? Or, what would a person give in exchange for life?
"Moreover, those who are ashamed of me and my message in this adulterous and sinful generation, of them the son of Adam will likewise be ashamed when he comes in his Father's glory accompanied by holy angels!"
And he use to tell them, "I swear to you: Some of those standing here won't ever taste death before they see God's imperial rule set in with power!"
As the last two statements make clear, Mark's Jesus was apocalyptic. The statement about saving and losing one's life is actually a threat; God's going to establish his rule within a generation, and anyone who was afraid to publicly follow Jesus is going to lose their life.
Here's a translation of the supposedly parallel statement from the suttas, translated by Bhikkhus Nanamoli and Bodhi.
Therefore, I say, with the destruction, fading away, cessation, giving up, and relinquishing of all conceivings, all excogitations, all I-making, mine-making, and the underlying tendency to conceit, the Tathagata is liberated through not clinging.
If you look at the other "parallels", you'll see that they show similar editing and taking out of context.
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'm sure you mean something innocuous by it, but please be mindful of how you phrase questions...
There is a very thin line between irony and insult.....
I'm sure you mean something innocuous by it, but please be mindful of how you phrase questions...
There is a very thin line between irony and insult.....
OK?
Agreed. It was just a joke... Nevertheless, DD seems to be very opposed to the notion of there being any parallels between the teachings of Buddha and Christ. And several of his/her arguments are as trivial as whose name comes first in the title of a book.
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
edited October 2009
Well, I suppose it's a bit like Film credits....
If Kirk Douglas starred in a film with his son Michael, I'd expect dad to get top billing.... he was around a lot earlier, and he's had a longer career.....
Even if you consider it alphabetically, Pops wins hands down.....
so I can see DD's point.....
And as for reliability, I know who I throw my hat into the ring with.
It may be possible to show parallels in the teachings of Jesus and Buddha, but the quotes given above don't make a case for meaningful parallels. The similarities were created by taking things out of context, and by editing out parts that indicated different thoughts. Not only were Jesus and the Buddha different thinkers from different traditions living in different societies, but the four Gospels describe four different Jesuses. So in order to make Jesus like the Buddha, you not only have to gloss over the differences, but you also have to gloss over the differences in the different versions of Jesus.
It takes time to type this, so I'm just going to give one example. The quote from Mark about saving and losing one's life comes from the following group of verses.
As the last two statements make clear, Mark's Jesus was apocalyptic. The statement about saving and losing one's life is actually a threat; God's going to establish his rule within a generation, and anyone who was afraid to publicly follow Jesus is going to lose their life.
Here's a translation of the supposedly parallel statement from the suttas, translated by Bhikkhus Nanamoli and Bodhi.
If you look at the other "parallels", you'll see that they show similar editing and taking out of context.
Wow!
I'm no expert but I found this post to be excellent.
Well, I suppose it's a bit like Film credits....
If Kirk Douglas starred in a film with his son Michael, I'd expect dad to get top billing.... he was around a lot earlier, and he's had a longer career.....
Even if you consider it alphabetically, Pops wins hands down.....
so I can see DD's point.....
And as for reliability, I know who I throw my hat into the ring with.
Yup.
The 'Big B' gets my vote......
I'd expect the actor with the biggest appeal to get the top billing. At this point in time Michael is going to draw more people in than his dad would. Similarly, like it or not, in the western world Jesus is going to draw more folks in the Buddha will.
And several of his/her arguments are as trivial as whose name comes first in the title of a book.
This is not trivial friend. This is part of seeing clearly and giving credit or gratitude where it is due.
Buddha said gratitude is the mark of a good man.
Buddhism teaches cause & effect. This is the fundamental Buddhist teaching.
Buddha said: "He who sees dependent origination, sees the dhamma. He who sees the dhamma sees me".
Jesus said: "He who sees the Father, sees the Son, etc".
So based on the law of cause & effect or dependent origination, if you see Buddha as Father & Jesus as Son, due to your need for Christainity, at least you can pass seeing dependent origination here (in my opinion).
I think that you have a very good point, DD. Most of the Buddhist-Christian dialogue that I have come across is certainly with Mahayana Buddhists (HHDL, TNH, Robert Aitken Roshi, Masao Abe). It could be added that much of this dialogue is, on the Christian side, with Catholic theologians, particularly monastics (Brother Steindl Rast, Thomas Merton, Daniel Berrigan), although there are some particularly interesting contributions from significant Protestant theologians on Masao Abe in John Cobb Jr's The Emptying God.
Simon
My point is not what you have asserted and you have missed my point.
The dialogue you are referring to above is Hinayana. It is dialogue about saving oneself thru meditation.
Mahayana and especially Vajrayana is saving others through one's presence, where the other does not do any work.
Catholicism which accepts an unfolding of understanding of the Christ message, together with their monastic tradition, make dialogue easier.
This monasticism is more Hinayana. By Mahayana, I mean teachings such as those by Martin Luther and the fundies.
I am not sure what you mean, DD, by your last comment. After all, am I not right that what you term "Hinayana qualities" are aspects of the Pali scriptures which are common to both Mahayana and 'Hinayana' traditions (I use therm 'Hinayana' with some reluctance and stress that it is not intended to convey any sense of lesser value, and because it is the term that you use yourself).
Hinayana is the path of saving oneself.
Mahayana is the path of commitment to save others.
Vajrayana is manifesting the qualities of a deity so one can do the work of saving others.
When Christians believe Jesus loves them, forgives their sins and promises them a place in heaven, this is Vajrayana practise.
That Jesus or Socrates, Mahomet or Spinoza demonstrate similarities to words attributed to the Buddha Shakyamuni is not surprising, surely? As I have said elsewhere, is it not true that the truth usually resembles itself?
Did the folks you refer to teach the higher teachings the Buddha taught?
Can you please quote the authority for this assertion?
14. "He understands : 'It is impossible, it cannot happen that two Accomplished Ones, Fully Enlightened Ones, could arise contemporaneously in one world-system - there is no such possibility.' And he understands: 'It is possible that one Accomplished One, a Fully Enlightened One, might arise in one world-system - there is such a possibility.
I'd expect the actor with the biggest appeal to get the top billing. At this point in time Michael is going to draw more people in than his dad would. Similarly, like it or not, in the western world Jesus is going to draw more folks in the Buddha will.
What you'd expect, and what might happen, would probably two different things. I suspect the Son would insist on his father receiving top billing, myself....
We might be living in 'the Western World' but we're in a 'Buddhist forum'. It's only natural therefore, given our location, that we question such prioritising.
Comments
This is all I can offer to the discussion.
Then why does the messenger need to keep coming back to repeat the same message over and over? But I see where you are coming from. People in general tend to debate pedantics of what, where, who. Agreed. Although on the subject of reincarnation this thread does hold interest and substance.
Jesus, Buddha. Same.
The soul remembers nothing. But the spirit always knows. The soul of jesus comes like a thief, and picks the locks of the spirit, and then picks the locks of your soul, to open the door to the spirit.
When goodness grows weak, when evil increases, I make myself a body. In every age I come back to deliver the holy, to destroy the sin of the sinner; to establish righteousness.
“What will the characteristics of the Holy One belike?” The Buddha answered him, “The Holy One who will keep the world in the future will be like this: in the palm of his hands and in the flat of his feet will be the design of a disk, in his side will be a stab wound; and his forehead will have many marks like scars. This Holy One will be the golden boat who will carry you over the cycle of rebirths all the way to the highest heaven. Do not look for salvation in the old way; there is no salvation in it for sure. Quit the old way. And there will be a new spirit like the light of a lightening bug which will come down from the sky above to live in all of your hearts and you will be victorious over all your enemies. Nobody will be able to destroy you. If you die, you will not come back to be born in this world again. You will go to the highest heaven."
The first quote was one of Krishna. The Buddha quote is from some scriptures from a buddhist temple in thailand, and if you know how to use google, it will tell you the same. Indeed it could be deemed very fishy. And indeed nearly any word spoken out of any mouth in all the history of time could be deemed very fishy. This of course does not make the quote uninteresting. And truly this quote does speak to my heart, in ways I could not explain, in ways I could never explain my own personal connection to God, that which is very obscure to say the least.
To me, Christ comes to earth. And then comes again. And when he is here, he knows that he will come again with some vague insight into who he will come. This is terribly hard to substantiate from texts, or anything of the like, but it is something that easily substantiates in my heart. So in finding even some fishy texts of that nature, and in sharing them, I hope perhaps to substantiate the same feeling in your heart.
My heart tells me, God is manifesting as we ourselves evolve. The conciousness that began evil cannot begin to solve it. And to quit the old way, when god chooses a body to come to earth in the highest form he can manifest at the time, is not such bad advice. For even God evolves. And we indeed do evolve today, even if tomorrow we decline. If Buddha came back today, or Jesus, I am sure as hell he would say "do as I say now. For now I know better."
Such that, you know better than you did in the past. And I know better. So does God know better. But for many, to consider God imperfect, would be to consider God ungodly. To me, God is God becoming. And when God in the past gave the impression he was perfect, that was only because he knew, that if his children did not consider him perfect, they would not trust and understand that he is the road to perfection. If they found a flaw in him, they might just consider themselves God, when indeed they could not consider themselves God, until they found a path that leads only to the light.
When Jesus says, The father is perfect. The father is who jesus will become, yet also from where he comes. For perfect is creation. And creation never ends.
Peace.
It's not as difficult as you might imagine to determine that what you have posted is inauthentic.
The bit you quote has been re-posted over and over in many Xtian forums, every time in exactly the same form, and from the same source. Looks like a case of wishful thinking-cum-group hysteria to me.
The full quote is this:
A Brahmin would never ask the the question, "How will all men and all Brahman continue in their merit-making so as to escape the results of sin?". Nor would a Brahmin ask the Buddha, "What are we all to do to be saved?".
Brahmins just didn't think in those terms, period.
Nor did the Buddha answer inquiries as He is depicted in the story above.
This appears to be a transparent and weak attempt by Xtians to co-opt and use familiar literary devices and story-telling pattens to spin counterfeit tales to beguile the ignorant and represent the Buddha as subservient to Xtian mythology.
From here.
Hope that clears it up for you, YT-OG
The woman asked me "Am I ugly"? And I said, "Yes". She cried.
That is indeed true. But such a lie does nothing to further that truth; in fact, seemingly "useful" lies only cloud and stifle the truth.
The truth doesn't need a lie to present it.
It is very much like this "useful lie" of the Buddha supposedly teaching "inter-being" -- we know the Buddha did not teach such a metaphysical doctrine, and even though it might be a good and useful "morality" teaching, to claim that the Buddha actually taught it only serves to cast doubt on what might otherwise have been a valuable idea.
There is no need to attempt to falsely stuff an idea that would otherwise stand well on its own into the Buddha's mouth, or into your own God's mouth, or into Mohammed's mouth, or Allah's mouth, or the Great Pumpkin's mouth, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster's, to bolster its credibility.
That is not the truth.
That is you opinion.
There is a difference.
What you perceive to be true, may not be the perception of others.
Doubt is only found from doubters. And if the heart cannot find the truth amongst doubt, then it is your heart that is to blame. Not the person who spins truth within doubt, and doubt within truth, in order that he might weave through the paradox of your ears. For God spins truth within doubt. And is you say that is a bad idea, well then you say you know better than God, when he gives you this path for your own betterment, as is the path to God. The spirit knows all truth and all lies. And your soul would find doubt in the truest truths, if it were not true in itself. It doesn't matter what anyone else says. It is all about what you hear. May aswell learn from the 'cat in the hat' than learn from words without faces, without sounds, without the energy clean and pure. Noone will learn on this internet. Noone. Its very purpose is to hide. Nothing I say will do any good on the internet. I waste my time.
This sort of enthusiasm toward a perceived moral loophole giving free license to indulge in cruelty seems a cause for concern. We hope that this is not actually a Christian teaching.
Both the question and the answer, from a Buddhist perspective, come from flawed perspectives.
The Buddha taught that we should not seek to know each other by appearances, on account of visual forms, by the way each of us looks: He said - for each of us -- that "This body is made up of (and contains) shit, piss, snot, bile, vomitus..." -- and all manner of other foul and offensive things.
The question is a plea for "affirmation", though expressed on a superficial level, but on a deeper level there is an expression of a desire for selfless compassion and real interpersonal connection.
But in truth, "ugly" IS as "ugly" DOES.
"Ugly" is only a word.
But for one who only seeks "freedom to be cruel", it is just another opportunity to strike.
How sad.
No I don't see difference. Buddha says, "you all are ugly". Christ says "you are all ugly". Why is one opinion truth and another just opinion? What is different from the outside and the inside, the downside, and the upside, when they are one? If everyone knows that they are only going to receive opinions, why does everyone always ask for the truth. Because they know the truth, but do not share it, seek the truth, but cannot hear it. For they are afraid to consider themselves ugly or tell anyone else the same. Everyone is ugly. But if everyone tells everyone opinions only, and not the truths, we can all pretend together that we are perfect.
your body is your aura of now, never was there any other aura than the aura of the body, but you are afraid to change it, as you are afraid to clean your soul with spirit, to negate any body you like, to create any body you like. jesus does not have opinions, and so do I not have opinions, and what jesus perceives to be true, I perceive to be true. And if one day, Jesus perceived you to be true, then one day you became true. And if he now perceives you not to be true, then one day you will not be true.
Only crying brings death.
Only hurt brings life.
You will not become spirit, without crying the long death of your soul.
And I do not enjoy cruelty.
But I enjoy the hurtful truth that brings love.
Your questions are irrelevant as they are not directed properly. You fail to comprehend the point that was being made which is no fault of yours. It’s due to the fact of views based upon incorrect perception. You just need to discover the method for cutting away the delusions. The meaning that was being made is simply “ugly” is a judgment, an opinion, make believe if you will. It is a mental projection, a belief that one chose to define as truth somewhere down the line but, truth cannot be and is not based upon speculations and assumptions defined by someone’s likes and aversions.
<o></o>
You constantly speak of your speculations and opinions in just about every post you submit. Soul, spirit, aura, reincarnation, the fact that you constantly believe you know what others are thinking. Buddha called such things unponderables. No matter how much you think on such subjects you will never come up with the definite answer. So why waste your time creating diluted views based on nothing more than opinions? Look at what you actually know to be true and move on from there.
Jesus was probably the most misunderstood man in history. He was not a man that favored organized religion, he spoke in a style that any Guru or Zen master would have understood immediately, and his followers failed utterly to understand much of what he said to them. This was only compounded by Paul (the artist formerly known as Saul) and his insistance that to be a Christian required unquestioning faith in the mythical Jesus over all other considerations including common sense. This is why to this hour we have millions of devout Christians who sincerely "believe" in Jesus while at the same time doing nothing that he taught (love thy enemies, etc).
Certainly there are many myths and legends that surround the person known as the Buddha, Siddartha Gautama, the Tathagata. But here is the difference: we as Buddhists understand that these are myths and legends and don't see them as historical events but as essential truths illustrated by mythical narrative.
In short- most Christians have made that mistake so often made by neophyte Zen students, they have mistaken the finger (Jesus) for the Moon (truth).
With respect, I feel that I must point out that the Buddha denied the existance of the soul (Atman) and that the idea of an enduring permanent self is an illusion. Therefore there can be no "reincarnation" simply because there is nothing to "reincarnate" after the death of the body and the dissolution of the five aggregates.
Therefore-
1. Anything isn't possible.
2. Speculation here seems highly unlikely.
Some examples:
Jesus: "Do to others as you would have them do to you." Luke 6:31
Buddha: "Consider others as yourself." Dhammapada 10:1
Jesus: "If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also." Luke 6:29
Buddha: "If anyone should give you a blow with his hand, with a stick, or with a knife, you should abandon any desires and utter no evil words." Majjhima Nikaya 21:6
Jesus: "Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me." Matthew 25:45
Buddha: "If you do not tend to one another, then who is there to tend you? Whoever would tend me, he should tend the sick." Vinaya, Mahavagga 8:26.3
Jesus: "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword." Matthew 26:52
Buddha: "Abandoning the taking of life, the ascetic Gautama dwells refraining from taking life, without stick or sword." Digha Nikaya 1:1.8
Jesus: "Those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will save it." Mark 8:35
Buddha: "With the relinquishing of all thought and egotism, the enlightened one is liberated through not clinging." Majjhima Nikaya 72:15
Jesus: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you." Matthew 28:19-20
Buddha: "Teach the dharma which is lovely at the beginning, lovely in the middle, lovely at the end. Explain with the spirit and the letter in the fashion of Brahma. In this way you will be completely fulfilled and wholly pure." Vinaya Mahavagga 1:11.1
A more accurate title would be "borrowed sayings" rather than "parallel sayings".
How silly would it be if I became a famous teacher borrowing from the Buddha and in 500 years time someone wrote a book called DhammaDhatu and Buddha: The parallel Sayings.
The teaching of Jesus above is both self-sacrifice (which the Buddha admonished) and ego transference. It is guru-yoga of Hinduism. It has little to do with Buddhism or Emptiness.
I'm in absolute agreement here. There's also a tendancy sometimes to take 'sayings' of Jesus out of their original context in the gospels completely and then present them as parallels to Lord Buddha.
.
Doesn't sound like they are putting one person before the other, or claiming either was the original.
Buddha spent 6 years searching for enlightenment but Jesus was enlightened by birth it appears.
But even if it was true, Jesus probably would have taught the Jewish law and some Jewish spirituality. How many teenagers do we know who can lecture us idealistically about the moralities of 'right' or 'wrong'? Plenty. Also, the metaphor of the 'Father' exists in the Old Testament.
Please recall Jesus' brother James was a pharisee. As such, it appears to be a fabrication that Jesus was a carpenter. The impression gained was he was born into a priestly caste.
All this appears to be quite unrelated to what the Buddha taught.
It is the same as regarding Prince Siddhatha as enlightened when he entered the first jhana spontaneously when he was six years old (whenever). Our young Prince was far from enlightened.
BTW Palzang. I hope you are not implying Jesus was in the temple teaching The Four Noble Truths, Dependent Origination, Emptiness, The Eight Jhanas, etc.
Jesus is like a Vajrayana deity. Jesus was like a Mahayana Bodhisatva. He took the sins of the people or masses ('Maha') upon himself and through his sacrificial death atoned the sins of the word via his great forgiveness. He did the work for those who could not do it and radiated his love upon them.
Jesus was a Great Vehicle or Mahayana because he could save many sentient beings via his love.
Thus what St Paul established and what Christianity is today is this 'Great Vehicle'.
Whilst there are many Hinayana teachings in the Gospels, what we know to be Christianity today is essentially a Mahayana religion.
Strange how the Mahayanas cannot see this and start to project Hinayana qualities upon Jesus.
I think that you have a very good point, DD. Most of the Buddhist-Christian dialogue that I have come across is certainly with Mahayana Buddhists (HHDL, TNH, Robert Aitken Roshi, Masao Abe). It could be added that much of this dialogue is, on the Christian side, with Catholic theologians, particularly monastics (Brother Steindl Rast, Thomas Merton, Daniel Berrigan), although there are some particularly interesting contributions from significant Protestant theologians on Masao Abe in John Cobb Jr's The Emptying God.
Perhaps the similarity between Mahayana, which holds to a developing understanding of the Dharma beyond the Perinibbana, and Catholicism which accepts an unfolding of understanding of the Christ message, together with their monastic tradition, make dialogue easier.
I am not sure what you mean, DD, by your last comment. After all, am I not right that what you term "Hinayana qualities" are aspects of the Pali scriptures which are common to both Mahayana and 'Hinayana' traditions (I use therm 'Hinayana' with some reluctance and stress that it is not intended to convey any sense of lesser value, and because it is the term that you use yourself).
That Jesus or Socrates, Mahomet or Spinoza demonstrate similarities to words attributed to the Buddha Shakyamuni is not surprising, surely? As I have said elsewhere, is it not true that the truth usually resembles itself?
It takes time to type this, so I'm just going to give one example. The quote from Mark about saving and losing one's life comes from the following group of verses. As the last two statements make clear, Mark's Jesus was apocalyptic. The statement about saving and losing one's life is actually a threat; God's going to establish his rule within a generation, and anyone who was afraid to publicly follow Jesus is going to lose their life.
Here's a translation of the supposedly parallel statement from the suttas, translated by Bhikkhus Nanamoli and Bodhi.
If you look at the other "parallels", you'll see that they show similar editing and taking out of context.
There is a very thin line between irony and insult.....
OK?
Agreed. It was just a joke... Nevertheless, DD seems to be very opposed to the notion of there being any parallels between the teachings of Buddha and Christ. And several of his/her arguments are as trivial as whose name comes first in the title of a book.
If Kirk Douglas starred in a film with his son Michael, I'd expect dad to get top billing.... he was around a lot earlier, and he's had a longer career.....
Even if you consider it alphabetically, Pops wins hands down.....
so I can see DD's point.....
And as for reliability, I know who I throw my hat into the ring with.
Yup.
The 'Big B' gets my vote......
I'm no expert but I found this post to be excellent.
Thanks RenGalskap!
I'd expect the actor with the biggest appeal to get the top billing. At this point in time Michael is going to draw more people in than his dad would. Similarly, like it or not, in the western world Jesus is going to draw more folks in the Buddha will.
However, I did deny parallels per se because the teachings of Jesus were borrowed.
Buddha taught only one 'self-enlightened being' can arise in one world system.
This is the Buddhist view.
Are you the anti-Buddha?
Buddha said gratitude is the mark of a good man.
Buddhism teaches cause & effect. This is the fundamental Buddhist teaching.
Buddha said: "He who sees dependent origination, sees the dhamma. He who sees the dhamma sees me".
Jesus said: "He who sees the Father, sees the Son, etc".
So based on the law of cause & effect or dependent origination, if you see Buddha as Father & Jesus as Son, due to your need for Christainity, at least you can pass seeing dependent origination here (in my opinion).
Kind regards
DD.
Can you please quote the authority for this assertion?
My point is not what you have asserted and you have missed my point.
The dialogue you are referring to above is Hinayana. It is dialogue about saving oneself thru meditation.
Mahayana and especially Vajrayana is saving others through one's presence, where the other does not do any work.
This monasticism is more Hinayana. By Mahayana, I mean teachings such as those by Martin Luther and the fundies.
Hinayana is the path of saving oneself.
Mahayana is the path of commitment to save others.
Vajrayana is manifesting the qualities of a deity so one can do the work of saving others.
When Christians believe Jesus loves them, forgives their sins and promises them a place in heaven, this is Vajrayana practise.
Did the folks you refer to teach the higher teachings the Buddha taught?
Kind regards
What you'd expect, and what might happen, would probably two different things. I suspect the Son would insist on his father receiving top billing, myself....
We might be living in 'the Western World' but we're in a 'Buddhist forum'. It's only natural therefore, given our location, that we question such prioritising.
Innit?