The Buddha a Catholic Saint...

bodhi_mindisfree · 09-27-2006, 03:55 AM

Did anyone know that Buddha Shakyamuni is actually a Catholic saint? I don't want to get in trouble plagarizing, so I will quote the whole section in ESSENTIAL BUDDHISM, A COMPLETE GUIDE TO BELIEFS AND PRACTICES by Jack MaGuire. Page 30 and 31:

Quote:

Sometime early in the second millennium c.e., the Roman Catholic Church unwittingly made the Buddha a saint. It happened when a centuries-old hero named Josaphat was canonized. Church authorities knew him only by popular legend, but that's all it took back then, as long as the story was engrossing, inspiring, and doctrinally sound.
Josaphat's story qualified on all three counts. He was born to a royal couple in India, at which time it was prophesied that he would become a religious leader rather than succeeding his father as king. Determined to thwart this fate, the king wouldn't allow his son to leave the palace grounds for many years. Finally Josaphat did, and what he saw horrified him: the old, the sick, and the dead. Fortunately, he also encountered Barlaam, a Christian monk from Sri Lanka, whose wise counsel impressed him so much that he too brecame a monk.
Desperate to win Josaphat back, the king gave him half the kingdom to rule. Josaphat quickly turned this land into a model Christian state. His father was so moved by the results that he himself converted to Christianity. When he died shortly afterward, Josaphat refused to take the throne. Instead, he joined Barlaam as a wandering ascetic and performed many miracles before his peaceful and widely mourned death.
In Josaphat's legend, modern scholars recognize the story of the Buddha, which apparently shape-shifted as it traveled west from region to region. They attribute the name Josaphat to a linguistic contortion of the Buddha's title, Bodhisattva (in an earlier, Arabic version of Josaphat's story, his name was Yudasaf). Even the name Barlaam probably derives from the term Bhagavan (Blessed One), which is often bestowed in the Buddha. Thus Josaphat's story can be interpreted symbolically to describe Josaphat saving hmself-a truly Buddhist concept!
Although Josaphat is no longer liturgicallyh celebrated by the Catholic Church, his name remains in the Roman Martyrology, the official catalog of saints, and his day of worship is still listed as November 27. Because he was made a saint before the canonization process was reformed (1588),

wil · 09-27-2006, 02:26 PM

Looking forward to validation or repudiation of this. Life is downright fun sometimes.

bodhi_mindisfree · 09-28-2006, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Looking forward to validation or repudiation of this. Life is downright fun sometimes.

Me too...

Postmaster · 09-28-2006, 01:06 AM

Nothing shocks me anymore. So potensially a Christian can pray to a saint who is really a founder of a totally different religion. How Ironic.

Terrence · 09-28-2006, 01:17 AM

A Christian wont pray to anyone but God.

Postmaster · 09-28-2006, 01:20 AM

Saints act as go betweens to God.

Terrence · 09-28-2006, 02:10 AM

God must be busy, huh? Nah, Im just playing. There's only one mediator between God and man, and thats the Christ, Jesus. Oh and by the way...Saints are anyone who have repented and put their trust in Christ. Like me, the wretched guy talking with u now.

Grace and Peace!

Postmaster · 09-28-2006, 03:08 AM

withdraw my responce, not worth it!

cavalier · 09-28-2006, 06:06 AM

Terrence, please try and understand that some people have views different to your own.

Terrence · 09-28-2006, 06:46 AM

Oh, I know. I was just going by the bible though. I know not even believes the Bible or exactly as the Bible says.

taijasi · 09-28-2006, 08:25 AM

Then again, there are different interpretations and understandings of the Bible. As the saying around here goes, mileage may vary.

(I forget who to credit for that one ... wil?)

andrew

cavalier · 09-28-2006, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terrence

Oh, I know. I was just going by the bible though. I know not even believes the Bible or exactly as the Bible says.

Quote:

Originally Posted by taijasi

Then again, there are different interpretations and understandings of the Bible. As the saying around here goes, mileage may vary.

There is also the fact that there are many who have no problems accepting Christ and not believing all of the Bible.
I don't know where it's set in stone that Christians have to accept the Bible in it's entirity.

taijasi · 09-28-2006, 03:52 PM

Cavalier, I know you're aware ... so for Terrence, and anyone who hasn't seen it, there's this thread which might be relevant here. Several lines from the Dhammapada have been posted, and Seattlegal has shared some parallels from Christian teachings. Reminds me of the book Living Buddha, Living Christ, by Thich Nhat Hanh ... which I need to reread.

cheers,

andrew

Terrence · 09-28-2006, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cavalier

There is also the fact that there are many who have no problems accepting Christ and not believing all of the Bible.
I don't know where it's set in stone that Christians have to accept the Bible in it's entirity.

Therein lies your problem and why you err, incidentally. No one can accept Christ. Christ is King of kings and God. He must accept us. Also, when it comes down to the issue of salvation, there arent many different interpretation of the Bible, only one. God is not the author of confusion and He left His word in stone...actually, He left it in scripture, that we may know what He says and do it. Our opinions on the issue dont matter at all, especially when considering that God has already spoken on the matter. On many of the nonessential issues that have no baring on salvation, Christians disagree, and thats fine. But again, the essentials are essential to the faith and is the litmus test whereby a person can be named a Biblical Chrisitan.

cavalier · 09-28-2006, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terrence

Therein lies your problem and why you err, incidentally. No one can accept Christ. Christ is King of kings and God. He must accept us. Also, when it comes down to the issue of salvation, there arent many different interpretation of the Bible, only one. God is not the author of confusion and He left His word in stone...actually, He left it in scripture, that we may know what He says and do it. Our opinions on the issue dont matter at all, especially when considering that God has already spoken on the matter. On many of the nonessential issues that have no baring on salvation, Christians disagree, and thats fine. But again, the essentials are essential to the faith and is the litmus test whereby a person can be named a Biblical Chrisitan.

That's an interesting qualification.