Jesus was a Buddhist

AndrewX said:
G!D would suddenly be able to create a rock which even G!D was not capable of lifting.
that's not right at all. this is such an old chestnut. G!D Is by definition "capable" of anything. the fact that something doesn't generally happen doesn't mean it can't. G!D, in general, does not violate the laws laid down for how the cosmos functions for very good reasons. we are left to get on with things. we do not expect, for example, to be able to pray to be let off gravity for the day. besides, by definition, if you understand the way esoteric judaism works, even the rock is not empty of G!D. therefore whether the rock was "liftable" or not is determined ultimately by G!D's Will. by the same logic, physicists are not able to go beyond the assumption that there was some first cause beyond the first nanosecond of the big bang, although they may not "capitalise" "it". i guess one could say that G!D Is not "capable" of lifting said rock without violating the laws of physics, but then again G!D could do that if required - it just happens very, very, rarely if ever. in other words, G!D sets the universe to function according to certain rules, which are not often violated except for very good reasons. it's not about whims, or caprice, but about the mysterious workings of causality. i don't pretend to understand why exactly G!D wants me to be jewish, but it seems pretty clear that this is what is required of me. unfortunately, i think what you are doing is creating some sort of straw man around anthropomorphised supernatural forces, in order to say how the G!D i worship is one of these lesser forces and there's an ultimate one that is bigger. but i'm afraid that's just not correct. we can, of course, argue about whether G!D would be concerned about specifics down here, people and so forth, but that's a slightly different question. as we say, "everything is in the hands of Heaven except the awe of Heaven itself".

Which "basic issues" are we talking about here?
the only recent one that's specifically text-based i can remember off the top of my head was actually nick's rather than yours, but i'm fairly sure we didn't get into these debates over nothing. it's things like ascribing to the word "Le-'OLaM" meanings that it does not have and missing meanings it does have. other than that, there's the one we've just discussed, where you appear to believe that i worship some sort of inferior tribal deity, rather than the Infinite Divine, based on, as far as i can see, absolutely ignoring what i've continually said on this subject and the basic fundamentals of jewish belief; indeed, not just that of so-called "orthodoxy". we do *not* worship one of the sefirot, G!D Forbid, nor should you conclude from the usage of particular Divine Names in the Torah that they refer only to this one aspect or interface. this is how you come across - but if this is not the case, then please tell me as much and we can stop arguing at cross-purposes.

And remember, my understandings may not come by reading the same books you do. If possible, and when convenient, I am certainly not averse to consulting sources directly. Remember, however, that in some cases, we cannot do this.
i understand this, which is why i'm trying to give you an insight into what the sources say when you *do* consult them directly, as i do.

NO THEOSOPHIST since HPB's time, with rare exception (of certain gifted and carefully-trained clairvoyants) can even view the Stanzas of Dzyan in the Senzar, as she observed and translated them.
then the position that any of this actually exists at all is one of pure faith, with very little evidence to back it up. have you ever met one of these clairvoyants? even if you have, you are basically having to trust what they say, because you have no way to verify it for yourself. all i am saying is that you appear to be berating me for being pig-headed about my tradition, whilst being equally pig-headed about the faith and trust that your tradition seems to rely on. there's also the small matter that we actually have our sacred texts and have had them for a very long time and that the jewish people has a long and for the most part entirely verifiable history, unlike these secret wossnames of yours, which are, well, secret.

So, you must be willing to accept, that even among your greatest Jewish authorities, I may find a need to appeal to what I consider higher, even much higher authorities ... though I will always do my best to arrive at TRUTH, regardless of who presents that truth.
look, i do understand what you are trying to achieve, but the fact is, these "much higher authorities" are (assuming they exist) only attainable to a very small, select élite, as well as not exactly relevant to everyday life. we had an episode during the talmudic period where we resolved that running to G!D to arbitrate every time we had a dispute over an oven was simply evading our responsibility to think for ourselves. we cannot expect a Divine Voice (or indeed an "arahant") to speak up every time we need an answer - we need to take responsibility for ourselves. this principle is known as lo bashamayim hi - "it is not in Heaven" (deut. 30:11) and it is the basis for trusting human interpretation. it's not worth bothering the CEO for his decision about how often facilities management should clean the washrooms, if you could just read the manual. it doesn't mean he isn't there and isn't capable of intervening, it just means there's a time for that, but we're not children.

is NOT SAFE to ASSUME - that simply because the Jewish teachings are being presented by individuals who do not consider themselves Jewish ... these presentations, and interpretations, are flawed, inaccurated, or biased.
er... this isn't what i think. non-jews have been some of my greatest teachers about jewish sources. i'm always recommending people to read mary douglas and karen armstrong, for example. this isn't about who's allowed - it's about who's actually credible.

But to insist that, "No, there's only one God" just seems to miss the point entirely ... if we're speaking of the plurality of the term `elohim.' ELOHA is the singular, is it not? NOW I would certainly appreciate a lesson in ancient Hebrew, clarifying -- since you say I'm mistaken -- what does `ELOHIM' translate to, in English, directly? Am I misinformed?
we've had this argument already. i told you it was a *proper name*, with the implied sense of the "royal we" and you thumbed your nose at me and told me "buzzz, wrong answer" or something like this, when in fact that is what it means and that is what everyone agrees that it means. your grounds for doing so were, as i recall, what it says in some theosophical dictionary. in fact, i'm not aware of a place in Torah where the singular of this word is in fact used (although please feel free to correct me). the E-Name is an interface, not a plural noun, used for a particular purpose. what i told you at the time, i seem to remember, is that thousands of jewish scholars have analysed these words for more than 2000 years and *none* of them have concluded what seems so obvious to you. are they all lying? are they all ignorant of what a plural noun looks like when andrewx, fresh from his perusals of the theosophical dictionary can go "ohohoh, those stupid jews, they've not noticed that it's a simple plural, which means it must be a group of celestial wossnames, not G!D at all" - i mean, our entire tradition is founded on asking difficult questions and you think this hasn't occurred to us?

Deny these Regents, or informing Intelligences ... and we have nothing more to say to each other on this point!
i have no idea what these terms refer to, but if you try and link them to existing jewish terms, i will try and understand why this is so. the trouble is the theosophical tendency to make what are, to me (and apparently to vaj and thomas too) entirely arbitrary connections; like bob says, "use a different word".

She had something else in mind, and she could just have well have used another word instead of Torah.
then perhaps she should have. if you want to master Torah, you have to actually learn the stuff.

Did the dentist create those teeth, did he assist in the development, the evolution, of the human form itself? Or does he merely study teeth, and learn how to fix broken ones, and talk to us about health issues?
again, you're missing the point. the dentist didn't have to create the teeth - but he does need to understand how they work. if you want to go to an evolutionary biologist who specialises in teeth, go right ahead, but he's not actually going to be much practical use to you.

But I am a pluralist, a Universalist, a believer in a future One World Religion (however remote that may be in our future, however many hurdles we must leap in order to arrive at that goal)
it's been tried many times, from the tower of babel (you should really read the midrashim about nimrod) to communist china - and the only thing that we've learnt from it is how much tragedy and oppression it causes whenever anyone tries to do it.

and I feel no need, at the present moment, to convert to Judaism, just so I can learn about the Jewish people, the Jewish religion, etc.
in case i haven't been sufficiently clear about this, judaism is not an evangelising religion. i am not out to convert you, nor am i interested in doing so. someone does not have to be jewish to be a good person.

What do I have to say, to get the point across? If you are not FREE to think for yourself, then even to choose the RIGHT path - for the wrong reasons - will not get you where you are going.
i am as free as anyone else is to think for myself. as i said earlier, everything is in the hands of Heaven except the awe of Heaven; human free-will is paramount; we must have choice, otherwise we cannot have good and evil.

you will see these major religions beginning to converge. The seemingly separate paths come closer together, and eventually all of the many tributaries arrive in the same place.
perhaps - but not at the place where we go "oh, we've been so stupid - all this time we should have been training our *clairvoyants* to read the stanzas of dyzan".

And you wrote the book on it? Who did then? And where did they get their information?
in the mishnah (tractate 'avot', also known as the "sayings of the fathers") the "chain of tradition" is described in minute detail.

And God stopped talking to us directly with WHICH great Prophet? Thomas may say, Jesus ... you may say, Moses. I will show you four or five people who incarnate God, today.
our opinion (and it is our *opinion*, of course) is that moses talked to G!D in a way that nobody else ever has. the subsequent prophets were on a lower level and true jewish prophecy or neviut ceased with the last prophet (micah, i think, but i can never remember that one), although some lesser forms of prophecy known as "ruah ha-qodesh" still continued or continue, depending on who you talk to. we don't express opinions on other people's prophecy as we're not qualified to do so, but if said prophets presume to express opinions on Torah or to contradict Torah law, then we are entitled to use the Torah's criteria for how to evaluate what they say.

Let's hear about which came first, the idea - or the Hebrew words for ideas. What language does GOD think in, eh?
there are a lot of mystical ideas about this, in fact; it was a subject that greatly exercised the kabbalists. opinions vary, but most people seem to approve of the esoteric midrashic idea that in the beginning, G!D Wrote the Torah in letters of white fire, upon black fire. it is a way of describing how we understand what goes on in the Divine Mind - we only begin to understand it at the expense of distancing ourselves from the Pure Source; as we add more detail, we lose the clarity. there are a lot of ideas about why the first letter of the Torah is a "bet", the second letter of the alphabet - and from my own knowledge of the subject this relates to the relationship between the aleph and the bet themselves. the glyphs convey many different mystical concepts. to understand this, you'd have to study the sefer yetzirah and the bahir, although the zohar has a certain amount to say too.

And how do YOU know that the ideas YOU'VE come to accept - are Gospel?
because i've studied where they're from. how do you know your new meanings are meaningful?

In truth, I have been taught very little directly, about Judaism, and even much of what I've learned (certainly as a child) has come via Christianity ...
and that's one of the reasons we're in this situation.

And I am interested in learning more, though increasingly trying to focus on "learning the Torah," in the sense I referred to above.
well, that's all well and good, but how are you to learn if you don't first understand the basics, before you end up leaping off into esoteric gymnastics?

All that said, it only saddens me, when I see that a person - whatever his or her background - is not willing to take the time to try and understand, carefully, what has been presented ... either by HPB, or by Alice Bailey, or even by later authors ... regarding exoteric religions (especially the Judeo-Christian traditions), and see how this fits in with a larger worldview.
because every time i am shown what these people have to say about "exoteric" judaism, all it does is show up how ignorant they are about what it is and how it actually works. for a start, the phrase "judeo-christian" is an absolutely misleading concept. and if i am to encompass a "larger world view", then it is more reasonable to expect it to be empirical and evidence-based - which is very far from this etheric-texts-cloud-cuckoo-land. i can understand what is close and personal to me based on my own experience, but stuff outside my experience i have to go on a basis of critical enquiry. thus, if you posit a million-year-old document, i want to see evidence. "a clairvoyant says it exists" is not evidence.


Hi Andrew

Well I can see the need for brevity, so I shall not delay you with argument and evidence.

These are the beliefs that I hold, based on my limited understanding of the true, esoteric Initiatic process as it applies to all human beings

I accept that, and they are binding for you, but they are not binding for me, and there you have the difference between us in a nutshell. In my Hermetic days I would have agreed with you ... but from my Christian perspective, I no longer believe that to be the case. I respect this as an article of your faith, but it is not mine.

If pressed, I would argue that you insist on a dogma according to a Tibetan tradition (and it is a dogma), not according to mine — That you insist that everything must conform to the teachings of your Tibet Masters comprises a dogma (whether an individual chooses to adhere to it or not is by-the-by). The simple fact that it is your way, or no way, is a dogma to me.

Likewise it seems to me your insistence that Jesus must have travelled East is dependent on the fact that no man can become illumined without the direction of your Masters.


You quote texts presenting your position, but I simply do not accept the premise. To me these are interpretations of Christian Scriptures through the lens of a predeterminate system ... and thus the seeker brings what he or she wants to find to the text: "This is what I believe, so your doctrine must conform to mine... "


At the end of the day, it seems to me that in denying the Incarnation of the Logos Itself, you have placed a limit on what God can and cannot do according to human preconception and precondition. We hold no such limits. And I believe God to be Absolute, Infinite indeed as we have discussed before, the apeiron, 'the boundless' ...

And Andrew........ "the initiatic process" is your own, and in your own making.

Thank God the rest of humanity has choice, as I myself have chosen after many years working out and away from the worm hole from that known as the mystery traddition. They called it The Search For Truth...... It has been many years refinding the real and only truth that matters, the one known as my own..... where love, harmony and balance are in accord.

You choose your path as you will, although you must be aware by now the will of an initiate is no longer their own. And thus the system of the mystery traddition I would advise to no man, Yet alone the rest of humanity.

- c -
And Andrew........ "the initiatic process" is your own, and in your own making.

Thank God the rest of humanity has choice, as I myself have chosen after many years working out and away from the worm hole from that known as the mystery traddition. They called it The Search For Truth...... It has been many years refinding the real and only truth that matters, the one known as my own..... where love, harmony and balance are in accord.

You choose your path as you will, although you must be aware by now the will of an initiate is no longer their own. And thus the system of the mystery traddition I would advise to no man, Yet alone the rest of humanity.

- c -
Ciel, I expected more from you. But if all you can do is jump on the bandwagon of not only Theosophy-bashing, but public SCAPEGOATING ... I think my next move is unavoidable.
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 ;)


Dear Vajradhara,
That 500 BC refers to the last incarnation of the Great Gautama. There are many Buddhas, but why would they all have the same teachings?

Zarathustra was also a Bodhisattva. And our Buddha is a Christian saint.

I got 1,400 results when I searched for the term "Christian Buddhists" just now.

That fact that Grail Christianity (traceable in Parsifal) and Esoteric Christianity also teach the Eightfold Path does not mean we appropriated it from Buddhism- though we do recognise the teaching of Lord Buddha.

The Eightfold Path is a reality for all initiates.

Of course some of the traditional Buddhist doctrines will not fit in with our Christian doctrines (for one thing, times have changed)- by the same token some of the Church doctrines have had their day.

Ciel, I expected more from you. But if all you can do is jump on the bandwagon of not only Theosophy-bashing, but public SCAPEGOATING ... I think my next move is unavoidable.

Far from it. I only speak the truth from my own experience. And from that experience this voice has been silent for too long. How and why does my experience offend you if you are strong in your faith that the Mysteries and Ancient Wisdom traditions can do no wrong. The linearship of the one I moved through appeared to break every rule of universal law in the book. Oh how I wanted to believe all was how it should be..... dont you know the occult sciences love to mould and form and present humans as petit god and they become no more than playthings of the astral. I have no dealings with Theosophy except you appear to speak the same language from your postings here and the cultural teachings run along the same lines.............some things are beyond words. To many it's all as far removed as science fiction, and it has been.

One thing....... if there is the attribute of such great love and compassion for humanity within these sacred circles, does it do credit to a man to act any other way himself.

peace - c-
Was Jesus a Buddhist?
Yes,as a man who was able to be with perfect peace and men's minds became still, silent, able to recieve the grace of God. But did Buddhism really have anything to do with it...... did he need to be taught by anyone when he had all encoded in his genetic DNA.

- c -
Namaste AndrewX,

thank you for the post.

Try again, Vaj:

with dismissive responses such as this it hardly seems worthwhile, but i shall try.

when a Theosophist disagrees with your explanation of your religion rather than trying to understand why we may say that your understanding is not correct the response seem to be a defensive lashing out and accusations of attacking your religion all in an effort, so it seems, to silence those that would speak out

i would be pleased to hear your own words rather than mine quoted back to me.

the main issue with this, AndrewX, seems to be that my views are grounded in the Suttas whereas yours are not and i give priority to Buddhist views that are, to be frank, Buddhist when explaning Buddhist thought and teachings. i honestly cannot understand why a being would engage in the methodology which seems evidenced by the Theosophists.

if you'd like Buddhists, in general, to agree with your exposition of Buddhism it would be a fine idea to be conversant in our teachings and all of that sort of thing.

Sorry man, I chose to enter by the Theosophical path, some 18+ years ago, because I CAN ask questions. I AM free to do that, with regard to Buddhism, with regard to Christianity, and with regard to any religion, spirituality or philosophy.

nobody has said otherwise.

I haven't the right to sit here and tell you, "You MUST see things my way," and ya know what, friend?

You don't either.

you've mistaken my critique of your religious teachings regarding Buddhism as a personal attack on you. my comments regarding Theosophical teachings are not comments regarding Theosophists in general or particular. should i have the need to address someone directly i typically do so.

it would seem that you *do* want me to see things your way or at least the Theosophical way and, seemingly, to disregard the thousands of Buddhist teachers which have continued the tradition for thousands of years.

Thank you for clarifying that the suttas do not say such and such. Yes, I realize that.

then i can only wonder at your continued misrepresentation of them.

There's a great deal presented in exoteric Buddist teachings which I don't agree with ... and so long as we're here on comparative studies, I'm going to free free - as well I should - to give my own interpretation, my own understanding, and to clarify that "such and such is what I think is REALLY being indicated."

again, nobody suggested otherwise.

It would almost surprise me if you folks didn't look to correct my `errors.' After all, this is how you see them, and you just want to set the record straight, for those who might be looking on, as Thomas has put it.


So, what I'll try to do in the future (although Vaj, if you look carefully, I think you'll see that I did it this time, already) ... is to MAKE IT CLEAR that what I'm speaking about is NOT the exoteric, everyday Buddhist teachings -- or, in some cases, what you call `Buddhism' at all.

what is "exoteric" Buddhism and what, conversely, is "esoteric" Buddhism? so far these seem to simply be names without substance, some sort of differential engine at work determineing some teachings to be one way and some to the be another. what is the basis for such a veiw?

HPB did seek to clarify that the teachings given out should have been spelled `Budhism,' in an effort to make this distinction more evident, but this was beyond her control - as Sinnett was the author of the book, not herself. In The Secret Doctrine, she explains at length and repeatedly, exactly what I'm talking about.

i'm unclear how mispelling the word makes anything more clear let alone the disctinction which is being intimated.

So, again, as a courtesy, you can rely upon me to say things like, "Exoteric Buddhism will recognize five Dhyani Buddhas and Bodhisattvas" ... and "esoteric teachings acknowledge all Seven."

and you can rely upon me to continually ask you to explain these terms and teachings which you are attributing to my religion.

Here, I point out clearly that the teachings which Theosophists, and other esotericists follow, are NOT the same, as your exoteric Buddhist suttas ... and I would kindly appreciate it if you would make sure you don't say, "This is the REAL Buddhism, that crap you're shoveling is a sham," as you will never find me saying this, or implying that you are missing out, or missing the mark.

you continually make use of the term "exoteric" and "esoteric" with the implication that what you say is correct Buddhist teaching if only we held the esoteric point of view but that exoteric Buddhist teachings don't agree with you yet you have not explained what you actually mean by these terms "exoteric" and "esoteric".

What I will suggest, is that there was an inner, or esoteric portion of the Buddha's teachings, just as Christ's, and that what is printed in the exoteric canons is not all that can be learned and known on the subject ... nor the only possible approach or interpretation.

that is a fine thing to believe. of course that is a thing which the Buddha specifically spoke about and denied, i.e. that there was some part of the teaching which he held back.

i have not and do not suggest that only one approach is possible. my religion specifically teaches that this is not so, there are many, many approaches.. in our teachings, each being requires a unique blend of approaches and methodolgies to make progress on the path.

You can go on the defensive, feel slighted for someone daring to explain things in a different manner (even despite the caveats and clarification as to WHY) ... and become huffy about all this, OR you can look at it as a presentation which you yourself do not take, and respect the fact that other people have a different understanding.

you have misunderstood me and my motivations.

i do not care what or how you explain anything.

my only concern is when you slander the Dharma and seek to have others think your/Theosophies presentation of the Buddhadharma is correct. further, i am not asking you to accept my views on these things, i am asking you to read the actual Suttas and see if what they teach agrees with what you are claiming of them.

So, once more, please don't feel the need to `CORRECT' my poor, misguided misunderstandings ... as I think you'll see, quite plainly, where I've noted that what I'm talking about is not exoteric Buddhism at all. Nor is this the Buddhism forum, thus we should have no need for you to come try to police things ... but thank you kindly, just the same.



i will continue to provide a balanced point of view regarding the Buddhadharma, Andrew, regardless of where said misundestandings are propagated. if you do not wish to see my rebuttals of your religions teachings concerning my religion, don't post them.


Namaste AndrewX,

thank you for the post and an opportunity to illustrate what i am saying.

AndrewX said:
that we must not believe in a thing said merely because it is said; nor traditions because they have been handed down from antiquity; nor rumors, as such; nor writings by sages, because sages wrote them: nor fancies that we may suspect to have been inspired in us by a Deva (that is, in presumed spiritual inspiration); nor from inferences drawn from some haphazard assumption we may have made; nor because of what seems an analogical necessity; nor on the mere authority of our teachers or masters. But we are to believe when the writing, doctrine, or saying is corroborated by our own reason and consciousness. "For this," says he in concluding, "I taught you not to believe merely because you have heard, but when you believed of your consciousness, then to act accordingly and abundantly."

this is a rather famous Sutta within the canon, i'm curious why did you not quote the rest of the Sutta? why did you not explain to whom this teaching was given and why? why did you select that one sentence out of the Sutta to present?

you are listing the criteron for acceptance, so i'll just focus on that:

"Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them."

so, let me ask you.. who are "the wise" in this Sutta and why would their praise have any bearing on the view which you think this Sutta is presenting?


Namaste Bruce Michael,

thank you for the post.

Dear Vajradhara,
That 500 BC refers to the last incarnation of the Great Gautama. There are many Buddhas, but why would they all have the same teachings?

quite simply it is what the Suttas teach, all Buddhas of the three times and 10 directions teach the same teaching using a variety of means to do so.

Zarathustra was also a Bodhisattva.


That fact that Grail Christianity (traceable in Parsifal) and Esoteric Christianity also teach the Eightfold Path does not mean we appropriated it from Buddhism- though we do recognise the teaching of Lord Buddha.

that's unusual. if a tradition arises prior to another and the later adopts the formers teachings the means by which they've done so seems abundently clear. then again, you may not mean the actual Noble Eightfold Path as taught in the Buddhadharma.

Of course some of the traditional Buddhist doctrines will not fit in with our Christian doctrines (for one thing, times have changed)- by the same token some of the Church doctrines have had their day.


i am unaware of any but the most superficial coorelations with the Christian paradigm even though such as been asserted many, many times. generally speaking, it has been my experience that beings who coorelate the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Buddha Shakyamuni lack firm foundation for these views within the two reference paradigms, but that is simply my experience so far.


I dunno...Jesus does seem pretty Buddhisty. Let's not forget, though, that Eastern religions evolved as political vehicles too. Confucius and Lao Tzu (whoever he was) wrote their high philosophy for their courtly patrons. Theirs is a philosophy of civil pacification. "Keep the people's minds empty and their bellies full" kinda thing. Their advice is meant for rulers. Of course, just like Sun Tzu- a philosopher tactician to the stars, the biggies in Eastern philosophy provide timeless wisdom to anyone with a brain and time to ponder.

Jesus is quite holographic. You could be looking at spiderman, but then tilt the cereal box just a hair and Jesus pops up.

I'm probably going to drift along soon also.
That would be a shame
Nice of you to say so, but talking to religious people is bad for my mental health, just too depressing. I'll probably be back, but I badly need a break.
Maybe Jesus, Buddha and several other important religious figures never really existed and their stories were all just modified copies of an even older story?
I believe the original teachings of Buddha and Jesus were identical. Look how much their followers changed what they taught!