Is there any evidence whatsoever to support the theory that Jesus Christ was in fact a Buddhist or became a Buddhist during an exile to the Far East?
Sometimes I like to make myself believe this is true because it explains why so much of his teachings align with that of Buddhist teachings.
I suppose it could just be Christianity just ripping off the concepts of another religion though.
It's not that Jesus ripped off Buddhism but that the truth is the same whether you're Christian or Buddhist. Present moment mindfulness, the ephemeral nature of reality, the futility of worldly ambition - these are universal truths that are not confined to certain geographical areas or time periods
And if I'm not mistaken Liberalism also preaches such messages and values.
I constantly have fantasies about being the first person to witness the second comming of Christ to where he heals me and turns me into a female. From that point forward, I live to serve him the best of my abilities as a Christian woman. He assigns me a new name since I owe it to him.
>the truth is the same whether you're Christian or Buddhist.
Shit tier meme beliefs
Christians believe Jesus Christ is God and the only way to reconcile ourselves to Him is by accepting His sacrifice and submitting to Him as Lord, and allowing His Holy Spirit to conform us to His standard of Holiness.
Where does Buddhism (or any religion) teach this?
There's not really any evidence that Jesus was a Buddhist, and claims of evidence that he traveled to India are outright bullshit. But given that Greek thought had some buddhist influences via both conquests in India and missionaries and that Jewish thought at that time was heavily influenced by Greek thought there may be some tenuous connection there. It's pretty much impossible to prove though, and there's no evidence of any major influence.
People with only surface level understanding of religion dumb it all down to "they all teach not to be a shitty person, so they all must be the same!" without realizing the importance of religions means of not being a shitty person. Christianity specifically teaches that we can only do it through Christ.
It wouldn't make any sense, since Jesus was a radical Jewish preacher. His entire message was based around Judaism, and how to clean it up. Christianity and Buddhism also don't align very well. Maybe in some very general ways, but lots of other religions would share those similarities as well; at their core, they're very different religions.
They are framed similarly, however, and that's because they were both reactionary religions. Christianity was founded as a reaction to Roman role and unhappiness with the state of Judaism at the time. Jesus spends a lot of time criticizing and framing the "right way" in terms of opposition. Buddhism was started as a reaction to Hinduism and Jainism, and Siddartha similarly frames a lot of his teachings as critiques.
that is a very nice view and one that I share, but given that the vast majority of Christians don't agree I think that you are barking up the wrong tree
on a related topic you should read pic related, its central theme is the unifying factors between all world religions
There is plenty of Jesus outside the Bible especially Hindu texts like srimad bhagavatam I believe and also bhavishya puruna
All religion is from the same area pretty much, if you ever notice how Brahma and Saraswati sound like Abraham and Sara is not just a coincidence, or the phonetic Christ and Krsna sound as well..
>Christianity was founded as a reaction to Roman role and unhappiness with the state of Judaism at the time. Jesus spends a lot of time criticizing and framing the "right way" in terms of opposition.
He did? All I remember is the "render unto Caesar" bit, but other than that He mainly focused on schooling the pharisees, unless I'm forgetting something? I don't remember Him ever speaking on how to oppose justly at all.
Amida Buddhism has similar although not exact beliefs in regards to all of humanity being saved through the grace of Amitabha who will lead his followers to the "Pure Land"
He is also the Buddha of love. Sounds pretty similar to Christianity.
Yes. A lot of the values that Jesus talks about are in direct opposition to Roman values. The weak being powerful, the sick having value, not judging people, and the other sermon on the mount-type things he talks about all subvert Roman values pretty heavily. His main problem was with the Pharisees, because they were closer, but it's obvious he didn't like Roman occupation, either.
Graeco-Buddhism was well established by 300 BCE and flourished until c. 10 CE. Its influence has been mostly eastward but Seneca the Younger, a Roman contemporary of Jesus the Christ's time from modern day Spain, mentions silk road exchanges between the Kushan Empire and the Roman. Establishing direct relation is impossible, but there's no reason to assume that second-/third-hand influence didn't happen. Judeans and Romans were both into mystery and foreign cults and religions, and Jesus could have easily either traveled to the East or have been introduced to foreign moralist concepts, only to then integrate them into the Second Temple Judean religion.
>The weak being powerful, the sick having value, not judging people, and the other sermon on the mount-type things he talks about all subvert Roman values pretty heavily.
Those, in no way, imply that He's referring specifically to Roman values. He's simply speaking on how God chooses to bless the rejected, rather than the powerful. He even healed a centurion's child, and commended him for his great faith.
Not really. Hindu texts are older and more reliable talking about Oneness with God once you open up to it's teaching, despite the many who praise idols, Hinduism holds the essential philosophy about the Soul, the One Highest God (which is the same in all religions, to an extent) and how to get there (yoga, the real one not this class you go to to meet people and stretch)
Jesus even mentions the third eye and yoga in Matthew if you look at it in a proper context. "Stay close to my yoke" the root word in Sanskrit is yuj, or yoke, and is the root for the word Yoga.
Matthew 6:22 Jesus mentions the treasure of the eye, not the two eyes(physical) the eye(spiritual, thrid eye)
He was heavily devoted to God and bringing this knowledge to the area of Jeruselem because the souls were hevaily conditioned at the time, hence why Jesus starts off in the Bible as around 30, so obviously He was somewhere else if they didn't record Him being in Jerusalem or wherever.
He was living in a Roman world, and those values were pretty inherent to the Roman culture everyone was exposed to. What do you think he was doing? His values are basically phrased as "the Romans don't value you because of X, but I do, so listen to me."
And the gospels weren't written by him. They were written by people who were actively selling their religion to Roman citizens. Do you think they'd have Jesus directly come out and say "Fuck the Romans?"
Too bad Christianity was hijacked into faith without works and condemn your neighbour.
Jesus taught gold, and the world made it shit.
Jesus wanted is to love, and many "christians" are intolerant and I am also guilty of the same. All people are free to to good or bad and recieve according to their works is a tenet in every "religion", and teachings of Christ and Buddha can be (not always) easily defiled by basing it on structure
Pretty much every religion tries to claim Jesus desu.
Muslims claim him, Buddhists claim him, Zoroastrians claim him, Manichaeans claim him.
But they all alter or outright deny the things he did or the things he taught. They say "Oh well the Christians changed it". Well if all we know, we got from the Christians, then what the hell do we know? How can you claim that he's a holy man when you conveniently change the very core of what he said to a completely different teaching and paradigm.
Jesus, or a figure who inspired him, is generally thought to have existed, non-religious accounts of his life are pretty sparse though and it's hard to say how much he resembled the mythical Jesus seen in the gospels.
That wasn't good enough for you?
Hindus talk about Brahman (which is God, the oneness thereof) and how to get there. Jesus taught people how to get to God, however in a place that obviously did not want Him to because He claimed to be God as well, though many gospels are just perspectives of what people seen Jesus as and most are credible definately.
It is a pretty valid hypothesis, because it makes sense why this stuff would be hiding from a collective mass of people, especially by thr Carholic Church but this is why there is violence because of difference in opinion causing wars which is not of God but of misbehaved men.
>Do you think they'd have Jesus directly come out and say "Fuck the Romans?"
Well Paul essentially came out and said "fuck your gods". Not to mention Peter telling the Jews "you fools killed the messiah". I don't think they were too concerned with offending anyone.
Also, its very naive to say the apostles were "selling" their religion. This implies they were doing it for some sort of gain, but all they actually had to gain was torture and death
It matters because Jesus specifically said that He alone is the way to God. If what He said is true, then its of the utmost importance to discern whether His claim has more validity than this nonexistent Buddha.
>You can be a non-shitty person without Christ in your life. Buddhists do that everyday.
Well you have a different definition of "non-shitty" than the Creator of the universe. He demands perfection, because He is perfect.
And if the figure that did exist is so different, then I would argue that it counts that the colloquial jesus didn't exist. Horses exist, but whatever conceptual deviation resulted in unicorns doesn't make unicorns real.
Regardless of their respective metaphysics the behavior of a saint and Bodhisattva are p much identical so either way, a life aligned with the divine/truth/the sharks, whatever is the same across all times and cultures
>Well you have a different definition of "non-shitty" than the Creator of the universe. He demands perfection, because He is perfect.
Nobody is made perfect, you mora. Your autism is fueling your narcissism again.
>Jesus the Jew
I love this meme as much as the next person, but you and I both know it's bullshit.
The word Jew in the Bible is used to refer to Israelites, who weren't Jews in the same sense they are today. The Jews of today are heretics that appropriated heathen beliefs from Babylon and denied their messiah. They have a holy book called the Talmud that supercedes the Torah, and holy traditions that also supercede the Torah. The Pharisees are the precursors to the jews of today, and they were the very people that Jesus denounced.
A whole group of people took over Jesus and His teaching which is in not only 4 easily available texts in the Bible, but in many places outside the Bible, however the constitution of organized religion has made Jesus into a white guy who only like Catholics and burns people in hellfire for whatever reason. "If you don't believe what I believe you should be slaughtered by the masses" is not what Jesus taught whatsoever and the fact people did that is true that we are literally are living in an age of irreligion
But apparently there were Buddhist missionaries in the Hellenistic world, so a Buddhist inspiration may not be as far fetched.
Still don't think they had much to do with each other though.
Reincarnation is essentialy being born a bunch of times until one fully finds God, and doesn't have to return to the material world we live in, just because a typical Christian doesn't preach it doesn't mean that Jesus did not believe in reincarnation or that it is not real
The role of women in the church comes to mind; Jesus was very respectful of them (Mary Magdalene, the Samarian woman at the well, not throwing the first stone at an adultress) but Paul came along and wrote lots of 'submit to your husband' stuff and forbade them to teach the Bible - not surprising, since he started out as a Pharisee himself.
Gotta mention though that there wasn't a clear cut form of christianity apparently until held congress about what to include into the offical canon. Reincarnation was part of the christian hemisphere of believes until that. Not mainstream maybe but it was there.
>Paul came along and wrote lots of 'submit to your husband' stuff and forbade them to teach the Bible
This is in the OT as well. Peter also wrote on wives submission to their husbands in in his first epistle.
Blessed are the women who become men
This is a spiritual meaning of how women do have a sense of being inferior when ot comes to submission, most feel the need for a man, have flip out moments that create all sorts of problems, yet are our mothers and also a source of comfort.
Man, heavily patriarchs control in ways that benefit one into finding structure or control others with domination.
There is no male.
There is no female.
>Well Siddhartha probably didn't exist.
Positions on Siddhartha's historicity are pretty similar to those on Jesus. His existence, general era, and the broad strokes of his life are generally thought to be known but the specifics of his teachings compared to the teachings attributed to him by his religion and the specific events of his life are unknown and probably unknowable.
Not really. The principles of Buddhism are fundamentally different from those of any of the Abrahamic religions. While superficially similarities might exist, there's no reason to believe that Christ was drawing inspiration from Buddhism. He was explicitly drawing upon Talmudic tradition. Later reformers of the movement who did adopt elements from other religions, but generally from those prominent in the region, not distant traditions like Buddhism.
The best way to think of Christianity is a de-tribalization of Judaism. Separating the religion from the ethnic Jews to anyone who wants to convert made Christianity a viable missionary religion, and also made it very appealing to rulers who wanted a unifying religious tradition that was not specifically tied to any one ethnic group.
Islam was a different experiment, in that it was not de-tribalized, and was fundamentally an Arabic religion until the Turks essentially co-opted it. The two religions are excellent examples of the power of ideological identity, albeit in different ways. In China today, Christianity is the fastest growing religion, whereas Islam has stagnated--this is because the Chinese feel no affinity towards Arabic culture, having their own storied history. Christianity on the other hand is culture-neutral, and so can find purchase even in a country like China.
It is only buddhist because you give it a title, if it wasn't called buddhist it is called wisdom, and if it is wise it might as well be buddhist.
Christianty might not exactly be the same as Judaism because according the Gnostic traditions the material world is a prison created from a false god and many gnostics were the first Christians, but the Church claimed Gnosticism a heresy and then adopted the Judaism and made it one religion, and there is a huge distinction between the God of the OR and God of the NT, but is not in the Bible because the Church is most likely Antichrist to the degree that we don't get the liberation techniques but rely on rituals, and creates faith without works, as long as you believe you don't need to be a good person, just donate to the church "you're healed"
Anyone else see
>Gotta mention though that there wasn't a clear cut form of christianity apparently until held congress about what to include into the offical canon.
The canonization process was gradual and never covered all of Christianity. Even today there are several major competing canons, and many minor ones.
There is no biblical canon covering the whole religion and there never has been.
Jesus didn't write OT, the OT has also been hijacked, unfortunately this happened
Because you lack faith that is a simple fact doesn't matter what "facts" you bring to the table the internet is a place of opinions and constant trolling and the most unreliable source for all information
>Because you lack faith that is a simple fact doesn't matter what "facts" you bring to the table the internet is a place of opinions and constant trolling and the most unreliable source for all information
Jesus is not god. There's a thing called holy trinity you know?
You don't need to give defintion to God, even in the trinity, it is just a small way to explain something that in the material plane is not able to even begin properly the inability to fathom God through words alone
According to Gnostic tradition they are different, it is very important to take note of.
There are many Creation stories, especially the Sumerian (being the oldest) that describe beings making men, and if you look into it God is not these creator "gods" but yet they are inside Hin as we all are inside God. So they say (;
This is just your personal fan fiction. I didn't make the rules of christianity. You literally find nobody besides some offshoot sect that will say Jesus was god. He might have been an aspect of god, but not god himself. A limb isn't you either.
Gnostic tradition has nothing to do with Jesus. It was made over a hundred years after Christ died, and offered "secret wisdom" to appeal to Greeks who still valued philosophy over truth.
"I am not a divider am I?"
Many people look at their guru as God due to the guru's wisdom which is not uncommon
God is within us, and on the outside of us, and above us. What makes you think this is personal fan fiction? There is no difference between what you and I have to say
Depending the "gnostic" tradition but much of it was before Jesus, when people knew the "creator god" was not the real transcendental God.
However God plays an active role in both these, being the real breath of life.
This whole "God of Abraham" thing should br "God of Jesus" if you are not a Jew, all religion is an attempt of finding the One God, even though the lore behind many religions can have its historical faults to certain extents and differences in opinion or statements cause tension.
Usually when I hear God used by itself with no qualifiers it refers to the entire trinity, with God the Father being used when referring to the specific person that is neither Jesus nor the Holy Spirit.
God in three persons.
Trying to definr things that don't need defintion. "Son of God" or "One being with the father" and you are all "sons of God" and "should unite with the Father"
Jesus was the perfect Son, the rest of us fall short, however we also have to at least attempt to understand His way to "heaven" which is pretty much all this is saying. We are "gods" of our own reality so to speak, but One God is forever holding all things in balance with total indifference.
It is all the same. God is Jesus on Earth and God is the Holy Spirit, right from wrong. Jesus is The Holy Spirit, a soul telling us to unite with God, Jesus is the Father, for He was before all beings with the Father in the real beginning, God's plan for when the Earth gets corrupted and needs resolve. The Holy Spirit is God, for if the spirit of God is not holy it is not God and the Holy Spirit is Jesus, the Jesus who is very much alive today in many beings
Due to his years lived in Egypt, probably Alexandria, he is probably more likely to be a neo-platonist.
Jesus is both God and human. To deny Jesus as God would to be to deny the nature of his sacrifice; Jesus cannot forgive the totality of our sins if he is not divine. His sacrifice would ultimately fall short, like our sacrifices, if he were human. To deny Jesus as human would to deny the meaning of his sacrifice; if he is divine, his suffering is ultimately futile and meaningless, as he has sacrificed nothing if the pain isn't real.
Theology & Philosophy should just go back to /lit/.
Maybe I forgot this is 4chan and people don't actually care about logical discussion rather they care about bad jokes which are anonymous and do not last. "Forget what this guy said" because I have a funny joke I need to say, and most people miss out on stuff that not only gets presented to them, but neglect the fact it was even in front of them.
You could get off the internet anon you have potential to go to real resources for answers
It's mostly basic trinitarian doctrine, which is the position of most denominations today. It was a schismatic issue in the early church though.
Jesus is God.
God the Father is God.
The Holy Spirit is God.
But there is only one God.
>fug thats dum makes no sence
I wouldn't expect the very nature of God's being to be fathomed by mortal creations.
>someone give me source evidence
Implying people on 4chan are going to provide you with facts
Go to a library dude, the internet is a bad place to ask for shit like this, make up your own mind and be real to yourself
You are being very conditional not accepting something because somebody else hasn't done the work yet, many of you are, we have to ability to do this stuff ourselves, but many don't and expect someone else to do it to blame those who did not do it because it makes them feel less shameful
We are all guilty to some degree
No, the official stance of mainstream Christianity is trinitarianism. There is a single God who exists in three expressions. God the Father, the god of Abraham and the old testament. God the Son, who is Jesus Christ and whose sacrifice on the cross paid for the sins of the world. And the Holy Spirit.
This is summed up in the diagram here >>47676 and is also laid out in the Apostle's Creed, used in the liturgy of the Catholic Church and many Protestant Churches. This lays out the basic beliefs that many churches consider essential to being Christian.
I believe in God the Father Almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth:
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord,
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
Born of the Virgin Mary,
Suffered under Pontius Pilate,
Was crucified, dead, and buried:
He descended into hell;
The third day he rose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost;
The holy Catholick Church;
The Communion of Saints;
The Forgiveness of sins;
The Resurrection of the body,
And the Life everlasting.
What the fuck are you on about? There are different sects of christianity, and sects in those sects too. I'm assuming you were raised in a Protestant country, because this is common knowledge where I live
How can Jesus rip of Buddha if they're best friends?
There are some, but there aren't very many. They're probably referring to the separate persons of the Godhead (God the Father vs Jesus vs the Holy Spirit) unless they're something unusual like Jehovah's Witnesses.
d-do you know know that the Bible is written in greek, not english? The greek word for yoke is zygós.
that bible quote (Matt 6:22) is also referring to the whole "if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out" theology He taught.
Christianity and Buddihism are fundmentally different. They are only alike on the most superficial and meaningless levels.
Buddhism is about erasing sufferings. It accomplishes this by severing the suffer from attachment and creating transcendence.
Christianity is about dealing with an imaginary concept called sin. It accomplishes this by having you worship Jesus to receive imaginary forgivness for your imagenary sin. In other words non of the concepts exist beyound your willingness to imagine they exist. The violent hatred for other faiths (pain promised to non-beleivers, long history of trying to destroy other faiths) also seems to be very unBuhidist.
There is however the idea that Jesus never intended his teachings to be something so trivial (and it's probably the historical truth). This is the idea that after he died his followers created new dogma to justify why their teacher was overcame by his enemies, they had to explain it was all part of an elborate plan. And they revenged themself against his executioners through the idea that those that disobeyed their teacher would suffer and those that obeyed would be rewarded.
If you take this path than Jesus's teachings seem to be a guide for the weak and powerless to feel special. Being oppressed, being poor, even having people mock you and your faith are all things he says make one blessed. The submissive nature of his teachings, turning the other cheek, and never dare speaking ill of Rome is a message to be content with the world and your misfortunes. In this regard it is not like Buddah.
It should be noted that Buddah (and other real philosophers) give detailed explanation for why their ideas will work out exactly the way they say and why such results of desirable. Jesus does no such thing, it's simply a list of commands to be obeyed.
Jesus is also only concerned with the poor or discriminated. He has a social message. While Buddah doesn't look at things in a social context at all.
This might sound weird, but I consider buddhism a meta religion. Buddhism as a system is just a tool that has to be discarded once it filled it's purpose. I'm pretty sure buddhist don't deny the existence of gods, or one god, but they think even the gods suffer.
Nah, I remember they explicitly denying the Holy Trinity
>unless they're something unusual like Jehovah's Witnesses.
I believe that could be true in my relative's case. The city I live is majoritaly catholic, much like I am, people here just call them "believers" without much regard to what kind of sect of protestantism they are from.
Are you talking about Zen, Mahayana, Theravada, Indian, Tibetan, or American Buddhism?
Likewise, are you talking about Catholicism, Coptic Christianity, Orthodox Greek/Russian, Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism, Baptism, Pentecostalism, or Chinese Christianity?
yes, the reason was it was a common word in equivalence to the latin (translated from greek) word during the time the Bible was translated into (modern)english, in 1582 by french catholics (Douay–Rheims Bible), then copied over, word for word, into the protestant King James Bible in 1611.
Partly because the phrasing is archaic and means something more like the realm of the dead than specifically the realm of the damned in that context. There's also a whole thing about him freeing all the righteous souls who died before he came.
to redeem all the souls that where righteous and whoever would follow Him.
St. John the Baptist also temporarily went to hell to prepare them for the coming of Christ, like he did on earth, even though Catholics, Orthodox, Coptics, and to some extant Anglicans and Lutherans believe him to be the model example of a man.
So the thing about Pure Land is NOT that Amnitaba is GOD or the one person to believe in, just that Sidhartha's words are no longer relevant in OUR world but Amnitabe has his own world where his words toward enlightenment are still relevant and will lead you to enlightenment. He is NOT a god as you suggest.
No, the gnosic tradition became distinct from Christianity about one hundred years after Jesus died. Before that they were largely part of the same Greek Christian movement. Early Christan practiced all sorts of mystic practices that would never fly in the Orthodox or Catholic Church today
Why are you asking me?
Hell is a place for the wicked, those who earned serious karma for evil deeds. Perhaps Earth is hell, and we keep being reborn here as a punishment so suffer the physical life until we find God (not just reading the Bible, I mean really out there, beyond all preconceptions) and live free with Him and love all beings, even out enemies
That is my take
If he went to hell to save their souls it wouldn't make any sense unless he was time travelling to a future hell that consists future generations. Otherwise he has to do it again every couple of hundred years.
No, it means that all those who died before 33 A.D. got a chance to go to heaven. It helps erase that grey area of "what about those who where good people, but where born before the messiah could redeem them?" He redeemed everyone for eternity. In Orthodoxy, there is usually the bones of Adam under His Cross in the icons, as symbolism of the Crucifixion brings life into the world that Adam brought death into. Also we was crucified on the traditional burial ground of Adam in the jewish folklore, even jews admit that in the Talmud.
Jesus would never have been Buddhist because he was a black and there is absolutely zero evidence of blacks being Buddhist at that time. Jesus was just a man who could utilize the superconductivity of his melanin.
That is certainly true. They probably did not draw the strict line between prayer and magic we do today.
its also worth noting that traditional Christianity (Catholic/Orthodox) has a structure very similar to Greek mystery cults. Of course the church maintains this was all handed down from on high, but to anyone without faith it appears to follow the same models of development you see everywhere else.
Perhaps that is why He is coming back because we live in Kali and just by going online you can see the irreligious principle.
He most likely went to "hell" to get people into "heaven" and also is with is into helping us escape our own hell (illusion, sin, material greed) and bring us to heaven (liberation, truth, salvation)
Liberalism is literally the antithesis of Christ, jackass. Christ teaches love, not tolerance. Stop perverting God, degenerate.
>“Then neither do I condemn you,”Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
>leave your life of sin.
>leave your life of sin.
Notice how it doesn't say, "Keep practicing sodomy because NO H8 :DDDDD"
By the way, to the folks that are saying Amnitabha = Jesus I'd like to point out that there are a few things about Pure Land that you need to understand
1: Vajryana is considered a JOKE by most people in the Buddhist space.
2:Even AMONG Vajryana Pure Land is considered a joke by some
3: There isn't even a consensus on what Amnitaba meant by calling out to him some think you have to say his name only once, some think you have to do it 10 times, and others think you have to dedicate your entire life to calling out to Amnitabha for help
4: Getting to the Pure Land isn't like getting to Heaven because once you are there you have to dedicate your life IN the Pure Land to following Amnitabhas words.
It's not the end of the line like Christianity, there is such a misunderstanding of Buddhism in this thread it's shocking.
Well basically what Amnitabha said was "ask me for help and I'll let you in my land where my words still apply" and everyone argues about the words. Personally I've done the ten times method because I mean why not? But over all Pure Land is a hodgepodge of beliefs that not even the practitioners can agree on, which is like a lot of religions and other aspects of Buddhism but I feel like it weakens the Jesus comparison.
Any Buddhism that isn't the Greater Vehicle is wrong anyway.
Don't worry, buddy, almost everyone is getting everything wrong with Christianity ITT as well.
It's always tough to remember the average armchair theologian doesn't know about the desert fathers.
if you weren't such a memey faggot you'd know that just means that lasting fulfillment can never come from outside of oneself instead of "420 blaze up sell my house lmfao". but sick nasty burn tho bro
that's what some people believe yes, Others say it's a life long commitment, others say you need to call out to him once. What you are describing is in no way unique to Pure Land also reaching the Pure Land means that you then can work towards enlightenment, it is not guaranteed just that you have a Buddha whose words will never stop being relevant like Siddhartha's have or will.
I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make.
I imagine if that buddha existed he had a lot of students who wanted to get enlightened and basically told him to call upon his name and he would help them. But it was more like a trick to get them meditating with an easy to follow method. No books, no learning, just the mantra.
That's what some subscribers to Pure Land think yeah, saying the words has always been important in all forms of Buddhism, my main point in this thread has been that no one can really agree remotely on how Pure Land works.
You won't be able to say, 'Here it is!' or 'It's over there!' For the Kingdom of God is already among you." Luke 17:10
this parallels the buddha's statement that enlightenment can not be achieved by grasping at externalities, but only as an inner condition. an inner condition that we are all born with but must work at to keep pure
When you love someone, you will want to please them and make them happy. You're not following the commandments out of obedience but out of love.
Christianity is about agape love- the love of sacrifice. Just as Jesus sacrificed for us, we do so for others.
Buddhist monks traveled as far as Egypt and Macedon, so its not entirely unlikely.
Ashoka sent them and he lists which kings he sent them to as well in his Edicts:
Amtiyoko (Antiochus, the Seleucid emperor)
Tulamaya (Ptolemy II in Egypt)
Maka (Magas in Cyrene, rebel brother of Ptolemy)
Antakana (Antigonus in Macedon)
There are multiple explicit references to Greek monks and monasteries ("Yona," eg "Ionians") and Menander is actually held to have been an arhat (reached nirvana). Interestingly enough, it's not at all impossible that Christianity actually influenced the development of Mahayana Buddhism and its later more theistic incarnations.
Why discuss the similarities of christianity to buddhism when it was clearly influenced by zoroastrianism. If it was influenced by buddhism it was only through zoroaster
You are daft if you can't read enough to see the HUGE influence that Pure Land has in the lightning way and the appeal it has to those not willing to commit to the betterment of all man instead of just themselves. I'm not denything that Hinayana Buddhism doesn't also have practitioners of Pure Land, what I AM saying is that anyone that isn't Mahayana is missing the point of Buddhism.
He clearly is, he's writing as if he were Brian, who in recent seasons has become an insufferable pretentious douche. The file name would suggest that he looked up an image of brian just for this post.
A number of recent books have proposed the idea that Buddha and Jesus are practically brothers. Close to the end of Living Buddha, Living Christ, Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh asserted, "When you are a truly happy Christian, you are also a Buddhist. And vice versa.
many Buddhist consider Jesus a type of buddha, a Samyaksambuddha
Goes like this
Sri Lankan and Thailander etc westernize Buddhism in response to Protestant missionaries
Later gets picked up by West
Buddhists missionaries later make it more palatable to the west new age type by removing dogmatic elements
Finally it is watered down by rich white suburbanites who don't know jack("Reincarnation is a metaphor, Buddhism is not a religion/a peaceful religion).
Jesus came 5 _centuries_ after Buddha.
New testament authors most certainly know Buddhism.
In those days people read all religion thing they can get their hands on, and wrote their own Bible. New testament is a small collection of those.
say you know messiah is coming from some Jewish book, and also read about Buddha...
"If i don't go to hell, who go to hell?"
Sound similar to Christian human scarify to me.
>Christianity specifically teaches that we can only do it through Christ.
yes and there were many many schools of christianity which were killed because some spergs could not stand them
not all christians believe that Christ is God btw.
>Buddhism as a system is just a tool
this is right, I remember this story that describes buddhism as like a raft that you use to get across a river, but then you dont carry the damn raft with you when you get across
If anyone abuses you to your face, strikes you with a fist, throw clods of earth at you, beats you with a stick or gives you a blow with a sword, you must put aside all worldly desires and considerations and train yourself like this: ‘My heart will be unwavering. No evil words shall I speak. I will live with compassion for the good of others, with a kindly heart, without resentment.’ Thus must you train yourself.
There where 3 buddhas before Buddha Shakyamuni (Guatama), but they existed in pre-history so there is no written accounts about them.
also this. Jesus wasn't a Buddha, but he probably was very highly realized. Maybe Buddhisattva level. He probably discovered this entirely on his own.
Buddha Amitabha is a celestial Buddha that exists in the western pure lure land. Amitabha reached enlightenment in a previous universe.
yes it is. The pure lands also exist in Vajrayana.
I studied in a Vajrayana monestary and we did regular meditation on Amitabha.
There are also Vajrayanists who meditate on the Buddha of the eastern purebland.
The whole point of Vajrayana is to include and harmonize all other buddhist teachings in one system. So saying a buddhist teaching is not Vajrayana is contradictory to Vajrayana.
Any Buddhism that isn't the Greater Vehicle is wrong anyway.
Like I said above this is a contradiction.
Hinaya is included in Mahayana and Vajrayana.
Without understanding basic Hinaya teachings its impossible to understand Mahayana.
Greater doesnt mean "better" in this context. It means "more" as in its an extension of the teachings.
Please learn about the 3 turnings of the wheel of Dharma.
kek. Everything except 4 is a lie.
There is mutual respect between Hinayana and Vajrayana. Oh the irony. Try meeting some actual monks or nuns from all schools before making statements. You will see there is a lot of tolerance.
I bet nobody talking about Buddhism here has actually read any sutras, been in a monestary, or met monks.
Just because you read a "introduction on Buddhism" doesnt make you an expert.
Reminder that there is a christian contemplation and prayer which corresponds more about the loving-kindness (metta) contemplation of the buddhist
so basically, Christianity is samatha meditation but has not developed an explicit vipassana meditation. some buddhist nun says that the mystics discovered vipassana meditation. but obviously, today, nobody talk about this in Christianity.
I heard about that.
Apparently Ajahn Brahm pin pointed a path towards full enlightenment in the writings of Saint Teresa of Jesus.
>But obviously, today, nobody talk about this in Christianity.
The Catholic Church does, they've released multiple treatise on this exact subject and even told off a bunch of priests for practising Buddhist medication.
>Buddhism is about erasing sufferings. It accomplishes this by severing the suffer from attachment and creating transcendence.
no buddhism is the phenomenology, a method in order to see how things are. the dharma is the doctrine of such-ness
>Nitpicking the difference in Pali and Sanskrit spelling for words that have exactly the same meaning.
Its like saying the english word "egg" has a different meaning then the dutch word "ei".
>Jesus that came back the Jesus that already faught the apocalypse and threw satan and his lackies into the firey lake
Hell is different from the Second Death. Both are commonly referred as Hell, but they serve different purpose.
Reducing Jesus to the level of a eastern guru is just one of many methods used to diminish Him. If Jesus is just a guru then his words are wise, but if I decide to pick and chose his teachings then it's no big deal. If Jesus is just a guru then I am not accountable to him.
Jesus is not just a guru. Jesus in the Word of God made flesh, and all flesh will ultimately stand before Him and be held accountable. To take the knowledge of the ultimate revelation of God and reduce it to the level of eastern mysticism, is incredibly dangerous. God has given you great light and knowledge through the revelation of Jesus Christ... you don't reduce and rationalize Jesus to make him conform to your life, you conform your life to fit Jesus.
ITT people really KNOW what they are talking about.
Believe me, normal people know good and bad.
>In Good Religions: Good people go to heaven. Period.
That's just laziness. Why create a complete set of rules, norms and values if every person will have a free pass?
That's what protestants tried to do and thanks to that a lot of people didn't give a shit their religion and forget everything. I mean, if you can go to heaven no matter what, why bother to learn about religion?
>insurmountable amount of time? not really.
>still takes his time
> However, there are a lot of people still fell for it. I want to help...
So you want to spread your word? sounds familiar
atheism is a crutch
1 – If there is no judge, there is no judgment.
2 – atheists suffered while they were a religious
3 – If God exists, their loved one went to Hell
5 – As an atheist, they can appear as intellectual elitists
basically, atheism is a crutch for those who cannot bear the reality of God
So is Buddhism basically just about learning to focus on the world around you?
Is the endgame of Buddhism someone who is completely immersed in their external surroundings?
Whoa! whoa! whoa!
You want to actually talk about what the thread was posted for in the first place and not get side tracked by Christian vs atheist shitposting?
Where do you think we are buddy?
See>>55926 that's pretty much how the west is towards buddhism
Buddhism is a mind virus that tries to convert lazy people to anti-intellectualism. Its concept of "enlightenment" is nothing more than striving to weaken one's mind until only the most superficial kind of consciousness remains. I think it's probably even worse than suicide.
It's pretty easy to get into it because it mostly doesn't make any sense, you just have to "contemplate" supposed paradoxes, which are in fact simple puns.
Enlightenment, at least, is the buddhist sense, is free yourself of desire, but then again, the desire of enlightenment is a desire of itself, but one will not achieve enlightenment if one does not desire for it, so in the end, you do not escape from desire, you are just letting the desire of no desire controlling your state of mind.
It is quite paradoxical, like nothingness does not exist, because even if it does, then we lose everything, we still have nothingness because it belongs outside of that everything, which is contradictory.
“Enlightenment is a destructive process. It
has nothing to do with becoming better or being happier. Enlightenment is the
crumbling away of untruth. It's seeing
through the facade of pretence. It's the
complete eradication of everything we
imagined to be true.”
I thought it was obvious. God exists in all of his "kingdoms" so to speak, Jesus is God's presence on earth, or the toilet realm of mortals, the Holy Spirit is the omnipresence and the Father is the one inhabiting wherever heaven is. Three different manifestations of the one.
I had a religious studies professor who indicated that there were some historians who think those parts might have been inserted because they don't jive with the rest of the text. But I can't find any sources about that.
He also wrote the "there is no male or female" line so it's strange. There were certainly some women in positions of authority in the church, though it's not like Paul had dictatorial authority.
>what I AM saying is that anyone that isn't Mahayana is missing the point of Buddhism.
why ? what is the point of buddhism that you do not find with the theravada ?
there are three persons on earth :
-the one who has faith in such or such doctrine
(this person has one foot in one doctrine and one foot in another: she does not know what she wants and follows the precepts of each doctrine blindly and she reaches the second kind below)
-the one who knows that such or such doctrine is appropriate
(stream entry and once returner for the buddhists for example)
(occasionally, he can still do bad things according to the doctrine, but he knows even before he does these bad things occasionally that these behaviours are not appropriate)
-the one who embodies such and such doctrine (he knows and act appropriately)
the first person will not hold any principles in danger since she believes everything and she knows nothing. the second kind of person might have ill-will, but the buddhist say that it lasts for one second and she knows that it will not lead her to anything good in her life.
The "Enlightenment" phenomenon happens everywhere throughout history, but you have to know how to read the signals. What happens is that many people don't know how to explain or what to call this experience so they use the language they already know. Jesus used "Father," "Kingdom of God" and other phrases to explain what he meant. If you read the Gospel of Thomas, you could easily confuse it with a book of Buddhist sayings if you substitute out the references to "God" or "The Father."
Throughout the history of the West, many people have had the same people who have had this or similar experiences. The writings of Heraclitus sound exactly the same as a list of Zen koans. Plotinus famously had the enlightenment experience, and he called his version of it "The One" or "The Good." In the Islamic empires, more than one mystic had this experience, and of course in India this phenomenon is written all over every single bit of literature starting from the early Vedic texts, the founder of Jainism must have had the same experience, and Laozi in China very clearly had the same idea in his Dao de Ching. Ramakrishna is a great example of attaining this experience through different forms of practice, in Christian terms, Islamic terms, and Hindu religion/yogi terms.
I would argue that Gautama was the first one to codify this experience into an attainable journey that could be had with intent and not just by pure accident, but in order to do so you have to, as Plotinus said, "Take away everything." Gautama provides a path in order to do so to attain this state, and was, as far as I know, the first to do so.
There's this one story from when the OG Buddha was still knocking about where Buddha gets a serial killer to convert and then he becomes a pacifist buddhist and meditates a bunch and is nice to people. He still gets attacked by people who hate him for his past misdeeds (i.e. murdering loads of people) but Buddha says this is merely karma coming back at him for his misdeeds but by becoming passive and meditating and seeking enlightenment he can endure the rebound of his karma in the current life, thus sparing him from much worse consequences in the afterlife. Even if you think the whole story is bollocks it I hope it helps you feel a little better about your defects.
>Is the endgame of Buddhism someone who is completely immersed in their external surroundings?
The buddha compared the sense entries from which sense conciousness arises to a piece of hot iron.
You can't touch them without getting burned.
The enlightened mind understands that mind and mind object are two different things so it doesn't discriminate between them.
This is /his/ so some homework:
Aesop (c. 620 BCE)
Gautama Buddha (563 or 480 BCE)
Confucius (September 28, 551 – 479 BCE)
Socrates (470/469 BCE)
Epicurus (February 341 BCE)
Gospels authors were aware of all those writings and were influences by them.
Was Jesus a Buddhist? No. But some of the stories ideas came from others writings.
Buddhism and Christianity share many similarities when it comes to "how to be a good person", but once you start talking about metaphysics they're completely different. There being no place for neither God nor souls in Buddhism is a starting point.
Also, despite the similarities in the aforementioned field, the 2 religions approach it in quite different terms and the depth of development is different.
That's extremely unlikely. Hellenism had died out in Judea with the victory of the Maccabees, and Hellenism is pretty much the only way theyd have heard of anything dharmic-related
The disciples were just Jewish people (fishermen, moneylenders) who didn't have the luxury to even think about ideas like that (if Hellenism and by extension Buddhism was at all present in 1st century Judea)
This is afro-centrist tier delusion m8. Jesus was very clearly a Messiah claimant who just tried a different approach than what most were expecting the messiah to be. He was a product of his time and place and nothing more.
>Any Buddhism that isn't the Greater Vehicle is wrong anyway.
In what way? The selfish 'hinayanist' who only thinks of himself is a caricature.
The only thing that is wrong is pushing stuff that go against the Pali Canon and the Agamas.
It's about coming to realize that the "world around you" (and yourself) are an illusion of sorts. The endgame is a person that is purified of wrong conduct and thought, that doesn't have anything to do with dukkha and that has no more clinging to existence, will never be reborn again.
>I'm pretty sure buddhist don't deny the existence of gods, or one god,
Gods, no. They're just an umbrella class of beings with many divisions among themselves, each of them ultimately mortal and without the power to create and govern creatures.
One God, as in an all-powerful creator being, is refuted.
The point of Buddhism that is missed in Theravada teachings is that the idea of the individual is false - we are simply part of the universe. That's part of the reason why communism has survived in China and other parts of Asia where Mahayana is prevalent. In Theravada, the idea of the collective is downplayed.
>we are simply part of the universe
What does this really bring to the table though?
Since there is no self in Hinayana either, there's no real possibility that those who were truly able to understand the dharma actually thought themselves as individuals separate from the "whole". That "whole" in itself is more complex than just "the universe", since it comprises of innumerable number of universes, and its real significance is a whole of suffering, something that should not be admired.
But that's wrong.
Jesus is god, the father is god, and the Holy Spirit is god.
However jesus is not the father nor the Holy Spirit, the father isn't jesus nor the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is neither the father nor jesus.
But they are all equally God.
Let me as Mahayanist lecture you on Hinayana (out of compassion ofcourse).
The 3 vehicles are not classified on worse or better.
Its classified on the potential of the invidual and their motivation.
Not everyone has an equal level of realization just like some people can run 10 miles and others 20 miles. This doesnt mean those who can run only 10 miles should be ridiculed, but rather they should be helped and after enough practice they too can run 20 miles.
The teachings of the buddha is defined as:
Any word spoken by a buddha, any word spoken in the presence of a buddha and approved by the buddha, any tought or word inspired by a buddha, any action done by a buddha, any action in the presence of a buddha and approved by the buddha, any action inspired by the buddha.
"inspired" here means either trough meditation or by looking at a buddha statue.
The Hinayana, Mahayana, and Vajrayana all fall under the above definition. This means that if you ignore the Hinayana teachings it literally means you are ignoring the Buddha.
Basically almost the only difference between Hinayana and Mahayana is the Buddhisattva vows. Wich are vows to stay in Samsara until everyone before you is awakened and to help others on the path. This vow is taken for eternity and continues in the next lives.
How do you help others? By becoming awakened ourselves.
Its impossible to make other people awakened. This is what the Buddha himself said.
Everyone is responible for their own actions, and only by oneself can one remove suffering.
One can not remove the suffering of others, one can only try to not add more suffering to others.
One can not force others to be good.
One can maybe give motivation to others, but in the end they are the ones who actually need to put in effort.
A simple example.
Somebody hits their toe on something.
We can not feel their suffering both mentally and physically. We might imagine or approximate their suffering, but its in no way the same.
>“This guy hasn’t got it yet… That one, I’m not sure about the way she practices….” Don’t entertain such thought; don’t push it off on someone else. If a tiger is chasing, you don’t wait for the other person to run – how will you escape the tiger like this? This is a danger to you!
>If your legs can carry you, don’t wait for the ones with broken legs.
>You should know do what you can according to your liabilities. If you wait for the other, you might be eaten by fish and turtles.
Not him but I don't think he was greentexting about Mahayana there.
The Bodhisattva ideal is, from the little exposure I had to Chinese Buddhism, not that simple to define. I might be wrong about this but I believe most see the point of Bodhisattva vows as practicing deeper than the Arhats so that they can become Tathagatas and directly cause the liberation of many, and help many on the way (the latter is what all true practitioners should do whether this is their final life or not anyway).
> I might be wrong about this but I believe most see the point of Bodhisattva vows as practicing deeper than the Arhats so that they can become Tathagatas and directly cause the liberation of many
This line of thought exists in theravada as well but without the doctrine to intentionally stay in samsara.
In fact the very notion of differen vehicles existing is an absurdity (not to confuse with different way to find final release).
Never mind, it's just a thought that came to my mind when I read anons post.
Yeah, that's a kilesa right there.
To be honest it's a really complex subject as there's not exactly a consensus on the questions of what, how and why concerning Bodhisattvas. I think Bhikku Bodhi's text "Arahants, Bodhisattvas, and Buddhas" makes some pretty good points about it, if you haven't read it.
In any case "Mahayana elitism" doesn't really have meaning today. Maybe it was valid at a certain point in time. But with all the access we have to the Buddha's fundamental teachings today, be they in the Agamas or the Pali Canon, we know that it's absurd to think that such a thing as "liberating oneself without helping and benefiting others" (even Paccekkabuddhas surely benefit others even if they can't teach them the methods to attain liberation).