Jesus was a Buddhist

Discussion in 'Comparative Studies' started by SalamanderRC, Nov 11, 2007.

  1. China Cat Sunflower

    China Cat Sunflower Nimrod

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,924
    Likes Received:
    10
  2. Neemai

    Neemai that's my Boss in the pic

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    Messages:
    210
    Likes Received:
    0
    Was Jesus a Buddhist? Well, I've put some thought into this and come to the following conclusion:

    If Jesus was a Buddhist he would have -
    a) followed the teachings of Buddha;
    b) denounced the existance of any external saviour (i.e. God)
    c) chanted "Om mani padme hum", or similar
    d) wore red robes and shaved his head (probably)
    e) taught the four noble truths
    f) promoted meditation as a means to still the mind

    Now, as Jesus
    a) never mentions Buddha
    b) gave as his primary commandment that we should Love God with all our heart
    c) never recorded as chanting "Om mani padme hum" or similar
    d) wore white robes, and had long hair and a beard (probably)
    e) doesn't mention the four noble truths
    f) not recorded as promoting any mediation form especially

    I think it's safe to say that he wasn't a Buddhist. I hope that clears things up. :D


    Om Gouranga Namah!

    ... Neemai :)
     
  3. taijasi

    taijasi Gnōthi seauton

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    I am still waiting for the addressing of any one of my Seven points ...
     
  4. Francis king

    Francis king New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,318
    Likes Received:
    1
    ooh, well said neemai...!

    hare krsna hare krsna krsna krsna hare hare hare rama hare rama rama rama hare hare!
     
  5. Bruce Michael

    Bruce Michael New Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2007
    Messages:
    797
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's "arse" unless your talking about your donkey.
    Do you understand the concept of idealism?


    There is areal one there among the forgeries.

    She never called it a religion.

    -Steiner
    What are your qualifications for saying so?

    -Steiner

    -Br.Bruce
     
  6. bananabrain

    bananabrain awkward squadnik

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,749
    Likes Received:
    4
    which kabbalist? what was his name? how curious (and, dare i say, convenient) that this work has not yet been published.

    you don't find this, well, er, kind of dismissive? kind of contemptuous? "servile copying"? "not original"? "monosyllabic and apparent poverty of the hebrew"? and you wonder why people don't smack their foreheads and cry "of *course*!!! you're right! why didn't anyone point this out before??" surely it's utterly amazing that the Torah managed to be studied for 3000 years without anyone noticing this!

    frankly, if you think this counts as "clear, documented historical fact" i don't think you understand the meaning of that phrase. and i think you already know what my opinion of your approach to all four - clarity, documentation, history and facts - is.

    even if you accept that (which i don't) how would you actually be able to work out how old it was with any degree of certainty? and the fact that something's in zoroaster doesn't mean he came up with it first and we nicked it. it doesn't take a genius to work out what the universal moral laws are likely to be, after all. there's a "golden rule" in every culture. what's your point exactly?

    do you mean humans? if so, the word for "stranger" (ger) in this context means someone not jewish; in other words, everyone else. if you actually mean "all beings", look at genesis 1:28, where the original hebrew does not in fact have the oppressive meaning of "subdue", but something closer to stewardship, including responsibility.

    i don't think you mentioned non-violence in the original question. as you know, we're not pacifists - but the passage from isaiah about swords, ploughshares, vines and fig trees ought to pass muster in this respect. that too is older than buddha.

    and with reference to the good samaritan, if you understand the halakhic concept of the met mitzvah, the story makes absolute sense within its jewish concept. jesus is criticising the priest and the levite for not knowing the Law and consequently following the correct procedure, whilst a samaritan *of all people* (the samaritans being generally considered at that time Not Our Kind Of People and a bunch of traitorous heretics) still found it within himself to do what ought to have been done according to the correct procedure.

    b'shalom

    bananabrain
     
  7. taijasi

    taijasi Gnōthi seauton

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    Yep.
     
  8. bob x

    bob x New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    1
    I am, as bananabrain can testify, a thoroughgoing scoffer of the notion that the Torah came down from heaven at Mt. Sinai and has not changed by one letter ever since, but-- Exodus still being reworked in the 5th century BCE? In my humble opinion, that is utter rot and nonsense.
     
  9. bananabrain

    bananabrain awkward squadnik

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,749
    Likes Received:
    4
    ta, bob, we may not agree on Torah me'sinai, but you certainly know the difference between well-documented evidence and assertion masquerading as such.

    b'shalom

    bananabrain
     
  10. Vajradhara

    Vajradhara One of Many

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,786
    Likes Received:
    45
    Namaste all,

    interesting thread.

    there are several salient arguments to be made and, seemingly, they have already been made.

    Jesus did not teach the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path which form the foundation of every Buddhist praxis lineage and philosophical tradition.

    however... it is a western idea that Buddhism arose around 500 B.C.E. the famous Buddhist historian Asanga (i know, you've not heard of him ;) ) actually cites the arising of the Buddhadharma some 2000 years earlier than the standard date which would place it well prior to the arising of the Judaic system.

    not that this has anything to do with whether or not Jesus was a Buddhist that i can tell.

    oh.. Neemai.. they could be saffron robes as well ;)

    metta,

    ~v
     
  11. Dondi

    Dondi Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2005
    Messages:
    2,615
    Likes Received:
    3
    Interesting, but how would you have Buddhism long before Siddhartha Gautama? Isn't Buddhism based on his teachings? Is there another enlightened teacher before his time? Would appreciate some cites here.
     
  12. Vajradhara

    Vajradhara One of Many

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,786
    Likes Received:
    45
    Namaste Dondi,

    thank you for the post.

    Buddha Shakyamuni was not the first Buddha to arise in this world system during this fortunate eon nor will he be the last.

    Buddhadharma is based on the Dharma rather than any being; recall the word "Buddha" is a title and not a proper name.

    Asanga, the historian mentioned, dates the arising of Buddha Shakyamuni to the earlier time frame as for citations i'm afraid that i have never found a copy of Asangas history of Buddhadharma on the web to cite from :( i have only had a chance to read it one other time and even then i was not able to complete the text as it became rather baroque in some areas dealing with the initial 18 schools of Buddhadharma of which we have one still extant, Theraveda.

    metta,

    ~v
     
  13. taijasi

    taijasi Gnōthi seauton

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    Vaj and Dondi,

    This is why it's so frustrating, when Theosophists speak sometimes of the cycles of Buddha and Bodhisattvas. We get a hard time for supposedly inventing certain doctrines, yet we also get yelled at (usually by these same people) for simply co-opting the teachings of the `real' world religions.

    Ha! WHICH is it!?! Make up your mind!

    There have been five Buddhas in the current world cycle (manvantara), with Kashyapa preceding Shakyamuni, and Dipankara earlier than that. Buddhas prior to the third of these did not incarnate into dense physical matter, as Humanity itself (prior to 18 million years ago) was an etheric, even an astral entity.

    Exoteric Buddhism will recognize five Dhyani Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, as well as their manushis, or human incarnations. And as Vaj can almost certainly tell us, Siddharta Gautama, the MUNI (Sage) from the SHAKYA clan ... was the incarnation of one specific Dhyani.

    Only the five Buddhas (each of whom might be spoken of in a threefold manner - with Dhyani Buddha, Dhyani Bodhisattva and manushi buddha) which correspond to the Theosophical Root Races three through seven ... are enumerated in exoteric religion.

    Yet esoteric teachings acknowledge all Seven, just as the esoteric portions of every other world religion. And yes, both Kashyapa, as well as Dipankara, are historical, just as was Shakyamuni. So, too, were the 1st and 2nd Root Race Buddhas (and Bodhisattvas), yet why ask us to produced PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, when we have TOLD YOU PLAINLY that there were NO PHYSICAL BODIES for those Buddhas, for Humanity, or even for civilization itself (inasmuch as there was any) ... during this time?

    What is demanded, is something which we say, has never existed to begin with. Demanding `proof,' at this point, in the form of empirical evidence, makes us begin to wonder ... Can our diehard skeptics, who so pride themselves around here on their philosophical skills and various academic credentials ... READ? :confused:

    Apparently not.

    Btw, I gave SEVEN REASONS why Jesus might very well have needed to travel Eastward, and have yet to have seen even one of them refuted. The prior influence of the Buddhistic Essenes is something that no one has rightly addressed, either. Instead, all we see is, `Gee, he didn't recite the Four Noble Truths,' and such things as we can probably safely say are accurate.

    Hmm, I didn't realize that religion was such a SHALLOW enterprise that all I had to do was a little lip service in order to BE a X, Y or Z. Hmm, so - if today I feel like reciting from the Koran, am I a Muslim? And when I prefer the Paternoster tomorrow, am I suddenly a Christian? Then, next week, I think I'll say a few Persian Gathas ... and become a Zoroastrian!

    How convenient, when we equate followers of an entire philosophy, and way of life, with alliterative utterings and vain repetitions. I had always thought there a bit more to being a Buddhist. And that's why I say, for Christ to have gone around, preaching the Gospel of Brotherly Love and Forgiveness, sounds about as BUDDHIST ... as I thought it was possible to get.

    Silly me for THINKING.
     
  14. Francis king

    Francis king New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,318
    Likes Received:
    1
    so, thats what all the noise was... it was andrewX thinking for himself! congrats, andrew..
     
  15. bananabrain

    bananabrain awkward squadnik

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,749
    Likes Received:
    4
    well, at least you're honest about it. however, i think you might have trouble reconciling this line of argument with your insistence that all this is documented and evidenced. i mean, i ask you: "18m years ago humanity was etheric", forsooth. this is the point at which mrs bb starts going "woo-woo!"

    hehehe.

    b'shalom

    bananabrain
     
  16. taijasi

    taijasi Gnōthi seauton

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    Tell me something bananabrain, when God decides to write, which language does He write in? ;)

    Try it sometime, Francis. You'd be surprised the amazing opinions, and conclusions you can come up with on your own ... when you aren't busy toeing someone else's party line!

    Or shall we simply continue to Theosphy-bash because it's in vogue, and will win you points with the pompous pontificators? :eek:
     
  17. earl

    earl ?

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,623
    Likes Received:
    18
    V, you piqued my curiosity about earlier origins and found this intriguing passing comment about Atisha pegging it at 2100 BCE:
    Origins

    have a good one, earl
     
  18. Bruce Michael

    Bruce Michael New Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2007
    Messages:
    797
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello Br.Andrew,
    The reason why we need the physical presence of the Masters in this world is because they bear the future form of the bodies we all will have one day. They quicken those around them. However, mostly when you meet a Master you only realise after the event.
    -Steiner

    Kind Regards,
    Br.Bruce
     
  19. taijasi

    taijasi Gnōthi seauton

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    Thank you, Br. Bruce. I agree, on both counts. I think They also serve a purpose, along similar lines, for all disciples who are currently incarnate within all the various spheres (physical, astral, mental and higher).

    I know the Manu, and the 1st Ray line (Master M., or whoever holds the 1st Ray Chohan office is called `the Finger of God') are especially concerned with the forms which Humanity incarnates within - on every level from mental downwards.

    Also, all of the forms, or types of bodies of the 7 `Cultural Epochs' (Root Races) already exist upon our planet ... and have since the very first epoch. Isn't this so?

    ~Andrew
     
  20. bananabrain

    bananabrain awkward squadnik

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,749
    Likes Received:
    4
    i would have thought that depends on who was being addressed. wouldn't you? we have a principle: "the Torah speaks in the language of humanity", which also means that things are explained in a manner which we can relate to, not how they are perceived by G!D, which would be incomprehensibly beyond us.

    it's amazing how your own independent thought appears to do the toeing of its own accord, though, ain't it?

    i'm not theosophy-bashing at all. i'm simply pointing out when it gets things wrong about judaism. and i hardly think that someone who can't answer a question without 1000 words of cut-and-paste (to say nothing of the ponderous over-formatting) is in any position to describe anyone else as a "pompous pontificator". but let's not let this get personal again, shall we?

    b'shalom

    bananabrain
     

Share This Page