Was Jesus a Buddhist?

[Sniffles]

I've said it: Jesus probably never existed! You have no historical proof of that. You know, every real historians specialized in late Antiquity are aware of that, I've already had plenty of time to discuss this with some of them; it's an open secret, but you don't have to say it too loud.

Care to provide us with some of the names of these historians? I wasn't aware that the First Century A.D. was considered "late Antquity", considering this was during the period of the Pax Romana, the high point of Roman power. "Late Antiquity" is usually dated from the 3rd century AD to the early Medieval period.

Personally, I don't care what you think, I don't give a damn, because my goal wasn't to convert you, or even start a discussion about this.

Well that's great, since I've kinda stopped caring about what you think too.

This is not a rational discussion.

Well I guess as an NF, that doesn't bother me as much as it would you.

 

[uberrogo]

One difference between Budda and Jesus that has been brought to my attention recently is that: Buddism has the yin-yang/middle-ground-is-best.... while Christianity is more of a "'this' complements 'that'" concept which is similar but not exactly the same.

 

[Prototype]

dude, just, no.

Ill start just with the religions you gave:

Hindusim: The goal of life, according to the Advaita school, is to realize that one's ātman is identical to Brahman, the supreme soul.
Buddhism: In Buddhism, suffering is meaningless, except insofar as it it exhausts bad karma. The principle aim of Buddhism is to end pointless suffering.
Christianity: The goal is realize that you are a guilty sinner, and to beg for forgiveness in the hopes of either avoiding afterlife pain/or gaining afterlife living at all
Islam: The goal is complete submission to allah (to the point that you are willing to die)

How in the world can anyone conclude they are the same religion?! Once you remove the differences, all you have left is a generic belief in some sort of deism. If you cant find yourself to believe in one of the big 4, then rather trying to hodgepodge more crap to satisfy this need of something bigger than ourselves, why dont you seek rational enlightenment? Spiritualism doesnt have to have anything to do with supernatural (or souls etc).

Agnosticism could be the answer to all of our prayers!...

Was Jesus a Buddhist?... I can't doubt it, I wasn't there!

 

[Shaula]

Was Jesus a Buddhist?

According to Sergei Khrushchev (not Nikita Khrushchev!) he was a communist.


Just thought I'd add that into the mix.

 

[Hyperions Shadow]

I agree with OneWithSoul. Most religions are generally the same once you boil them down.

It's like a mountain. If I approach it from the south, and you from the north, we're going to see different things, but it's still the same mountain. Once we get to the summit, we'll see the same thing, but not before then.


This thread reminds me of a movie. If you haven't seen it, I'd recommend it.
The Man from Earth

Anyone seen it?

 

[Oberon]

I agree with OneWithSoul. Most religions are generally the same once you boil them down.

No.

Many religions have much in common, but that's not the same thing.

 

[Litvyak]

Jesus actually learned from Buddha.

"Man from Earth", anyone?

 

[Blackmail!]

Jesus actually learned from Buddha.

"Man from Earth", anyone?

I've seen it. Interesting movie, by the way...

But I don't agree with the fellow atheist who has written this script.

 

[Oberon]

...I don't agree...

Of course you don't. Your lack of agreement is the entire reason you ever post anything. It makes it appear from this distant perspective that contrarianism is the only thing that gets you out of bed in the morning.

 

[Blackmail!]

It makes it appear from this distant perspective that contrarianism is the only thing that gets you out of bed in the morning.

"Contrarianism" is a deeply rooted tradition within French culture!

(Does that mean I'm agreeing with you? How paradoxical!)

 

[Kiddo]

The fundamental difference I see between the Judeo-Christan ethic and the Buddhist ethic is in regards to self regulation of desire.

The former thinks in terms of sin and temptation. They see a natural order ordained by God and it is human's duty to live in accordance with it by resisting any desire to sway from it. Therefore humans must fight, control, reject, and effectively remain ever vigilant in their crusade against sinful desire.

Whereas the latter thinks in terms of outcomes. They see the attempt to reject or control desire as a desire in itself. And thus they focus on moderation and the acceptance of the futility of trying to conquer desire. Hence yielding, letting go, acceptance, and nonattachment are the tenets of Buddhist living,

Jesus has some incredibly similar practices to the Buddhists. However, Paul and others interpreted much of what he did in terms of the Old Testament and I think a lot of that has been lost. All I know is the more I have learned about nature and how ignorant human's conception of the "natural order" has been over the centuries, the more I realize the latter method makes sense in light of what Jesus actually said himself.

 

[Samvega]

“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.”

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."

— Buddha

Millions of Africa Americans are Christians today because their ancestors were converted against their will to the religion of the slave-master.

Hundred of thousands of American Indians are Christians today because the Christian missionaries converted their ancestors against their will.

In Europe, it was the same thing. When Rome controlled most of the world, the Roman Emperor, Constantine, in 325 CE forced Christianity onto his subjects.

The people of Lithuania did not become Christians because they read the Gospels and decided to accept their teachings. On the contrary, the people of Lithuania were forced into Christianity against their will, as a result of relentless military force.

I don't deny that Jesus the Man and Buddha the man may have had many of the same values, ideas, beliefs and so on but what the men that followed them decided to do with those teachings is vastly different.

I personally believe Jesus would be INCREDIBLY disappointed with what has been done with and to his teachings where as Siddhartha Gautama by contrast would be very proud to see them being followed and practiced much the way they were some 2,600 years ago.

 

[Fluffywolf]

Watch the movie "The man from earth". It covers this in a very interesting way.

 

[Riva]

Like Babylon Candle tried to explain, Buddhism and Christianism are NOT AT ALL the same religion, with the same teachings and ideologies.

Usually, the Western world understands nothing about the concept of "nothingness" that is prevalent in Buddhism. They would even find it terrifying, believe me, since the aim is to feel nothing. No hate, no love, nothing... so that "we" could disappear forever and for good.

So far Blackmail! is the one who has given the best description of Buddhism coming from a non Buddhist in this whole forum.

Nothingness!!!!

Perfect description..

----

Off topic.

Professors/ Lecturers are such slackers, nothing more to do than lecture for 2 hours and read their eyes off when in the mood. Cool job description these lecturers have.

 

[sLiPpY]

hmm... Nothingness? I perceive it a little differently.

The middle pathway, of the warrior...being ruled by neither thought nor emotion. An opportunity for self-mastery...a chance to experience life by riding the wave.

vs. being drowned by digging one's feet into an unrealistic sand.

I'm not a Buddhist per se...but I do listen to some of the instructors on audio. Among other things I find, that I can self-identify with vs. accepting as dogma.

 

[Scott N Denver]

So far Blackmail! is the one who has given the best description of Buddhism coming from a non Buddhist in this whole forum.

Nothingness!!!!

Perfect description..

----

Off topic.

Professors/ Lecturers are such slackers, nothing more to do than lecture for 2 hours and read their eyes off when in the mood. Cool job description these lecturers have.

shunyata is often or usually translated as "emptiness", or "suchness", or sometimes as "nothingness" which is an alternate word for nothingness

 

[Scott N Denver]

hmm... Nothingness? I perceive it a little differently.

The middle pathway, of the warrior...being ruled by neither thought nor emotion. An opportunity for self-mastery...a chance to experience life by riding the wave.

vs. being drowned by digging one's feet into an unrealistic sand.

I'm not a Buddhist per se...but I do listen to some of the instructors on audio. Among other things I find, that I can self-identify with vs. accepting as dogma.

The Buddha, and others, looked into the fundamental nature of reality and, in the language of Buddhism, basically discovered that there isn't one.

All things lack fundamental or intrinsic essence. All phenomena are compounds of other phenomena. "All conditioned forms are temporary, strive on with diligence" is the supposed last words of the buddha on his deathbed. Nothing is intrinsic or fundamental.

"It is just this, just this." would be a very typical zen expression of this

 

[sLiPpY]

Somehow I sense that "nothingness" is similar to a recent encounter with "hopelessness."

Hopelessness in the english language doesn't carry the same nuiance of the experience. Which I found hopelessly liberating.

bodhichitta!

 

[Scott N Denver]

Somehow I sense that "nothingness" is similar to a recent encounter with "hopelessness."

Hopelessness in the english language doesn't carry the same nuiance of the experience. Which I found hopelessly liberating.

bodhichitta!

I don't understand what you are trying to say, nor do I know anything about this "recent encounter with hopelessness." But, for what it is worth, in my 15 years of practicing buddhism I have never encountered the word "hopelessness", either by itself nor as a translation for some other sanskrit or pali word. I have, however, read books of american teachers pointing out that things like "hopelessness" "despair" etc are western misunderstandings of buddhism. "People suffer because they want things to be different than they are. Reality is the way it is, the wise person would do well to understand how it is, and to act in accordance with that" is how I would expect a teacher of buddhism to talk.

Pema Chodron is a very popular author. Personally I really like Traleg Kyabgon's stuff. There are plenty of others out there as well.

 

[Scott N Denver]

bodhichitta!

this word I have heard VERY often however