CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I can see many similarities between St. Francis and the Buddha. More so than I would between Jesus and the Buddha
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Has Buddhism influenced Christianity ?
- Thread starter Agnimitra
- Start date
Yeah, I can see many similarities between St. Francis and the Buddha. More so than I would between Jesus and the Buddha
Franscetic44
Embracing the Yin
Also the fact that Francis was on a mission to "Rebuild the Church" and founded a religious order that was based upon principles that were very contrary to the way many so-called "Catholics" were living their lives at the time. He sought a deeper meaning in life and a change from the norm at the time.
The Buddha, originally being a Hindu, (also destined to be a warrior or "knight"), went on a similar mission for deeper truth. The development of his teachings and philosophy came about in a similar fashion to Francis'. The outcome was a belief system that was contrary to and rejected many of the traditional Vedic teachings.
Both had similar beginnings, both were considered radicals by their peers as well as many contemporaries, and both lived lives centered around nature and characterized by poverty, simplicity, and humility. To me, Francis is the "Catholic Buddha".
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
Or the "Christian Buddha", both religions would do well to study St. Francis.
Franscetic44
Embracing the Yin
Indeed. There are still many other spiritual greats to study, I just happen to have a fondness of St. Francis since I've been educated by OSF nuns and OFM Cap.'s for the majority of my life. Or maybe it's because of the meter sticks that they used hit me with...:sarcastic
Agnimitra
Member
Moving on to the next phase of life,adolescence....
Young Buddha is revered by an old wise man, Asita, like Jesus was revered by Symeon. In the Gospel according to Luke (2:25-34) we read:
" there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout and it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ. And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, , then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God and said, Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel "
Now compare this with what is said in the Suttanipâta (689f) of the encounter of Siddhârtha and Asita:
"[FONT="]The long-haired wise man looked upon the child, and with a great joy he took him up a man who now, filled with pleasure, raised his voice and said: This one is unique, the most prominent human being! In the same moment the hermit remembered that he would soon die - and this made him so sad that he began to cry This boy will attain the perfect awakening, he who sees what is the most pure will set the wheel of the law in motion out of compassion for the salvation of the many; and his teaching will be spread afar."[/FONT]
Even as a young boy Siddhârtha is very wise, he is revered in the temple, and at school he proves to master all spoken and written languages. When travelling in company with adults, they lose him, and when they finally find him again, he is in deep meditation (Lalitavistâra 8, 10, 11). Compare this with how Mary and Joseph looses Jesus in jerusalem.Even the baptism of Jesus in Jordan and his temptation in the desert have their direct parallels. Siddhârtha bathes in the river Nairanjanâ, then sits down under a tree and experiences an inner awakening, that causes a great joy in heaven. "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went straightway out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
Dan Hopkins: "An analysis and commentary on the Buddhist sources to Christianity made known through the findings of Dr. Christian Lindtner"
Young Buddha is revered by an old wise man, Asita, like Jesus was revered by Symeon. In the Gospel according to Luke (2:25-34) we read:
" there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout and it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ. And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, , then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God and said, Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel "
Now compare this with what is said in the Suttanipâta (689f) of the encounter of Siddhârtha and Asita:
"[FONT="]The long-haired wise man looked upon the child, and with a great joy he took him up a man who now, filled with pleasure, raised his voice and said: This one is unique, the most prominent human being! In the same moment the hermit remembered that he would soon die - and this made him so sad that he began to cry This boy will attain the perfect awakening, he who sees what is the most pure will set the wheel of the law in motion out of compassion for the salvation of the many; and his teaching will be spread afar."[/FONT]
Even as a young boy Siddhârtha is very wise, he is revered in the temple, and at school he proves to master all spoken and written languages. When travelling in company with adults, they lose him, and when they finally find him again, he is in deep meditation (Lalitavistâra 8, 10, 11). Compare this with how Mary and Joseph looses Jesus in jerusalem.Even the baptism of Jesus in Jordan and his temptation in the desert have their direct parallels. Siddhârtha bathes in the river Nairanjanâ, then sits down under a tree and experiences an inner awakening, that causes a great joy in heaven. "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went straightway out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
Dan Hopkins: "An analysis and commentary on the Buddhist sources to Christianity made known through the findings of Dr. Christian Lindtner"
Tumah
Veteran Member
Jews call it Gematria too. Not sure where you got the word Sophia from. The Hebrew letters have numerical equivalents and were used instead of a separate number system. So you can add up the numbers in a given word to get the Gematria.
Also, I'm not sure how these particular numbers were derived, since there is no spelling of Jesus that comes out to 888 in Hebrew.
Agnimitra
Member
Mark 6:39-40. No satisfactory explanation for the two Greek expressions symposia symposia, “companies companies”, and prasiai prasiai, “groups groups”, has ever been offered. Both are translations of the frequent samghât samgham pûgât pûgam, “from group to group, from multitude to multitude”, which occurs in the same sense e.g. Mahaparinirvanasutra 26:5. The Greek gives the original sense, and at the same time it attempts to reproduce the sounds and the order of the original Sanskrit. Since this is the only place where the four words occur as such in the Gospels, this also proves that “Mark” had direct and independent access to the Sanskrit original.
Some sanskritisms in the Gospels by Dr. Christian Lindtner
Some sanskritisms in the Gospels by Dr. Christian Lindtner
I think it would depend less on the origin of the teachings so much as whether they conflicted with his own. Remember that he told his disciples:
He seems to have had a relatively tolerant view of people outside his small group of followers. Therefore, I am unsure as to whether he would reject a doctrine off-hand for being "heathen".
Moreover, consider Matthew 8:5.
Note that the centurion was most likely a pagan:
Non-Jews will come from all over the world and sit with the Patriarchs in Paradise. That is pretty universalistic to me for a first century Jewish Rabbi.
Based on the evidence from the Synoptics, he comes across as tolerant.
Outside of the reference to "vain repetitions", what other often not so nice things did he say? I think the interpretation that Jesus was condemning mantra use is overstated, actually. I think the operative word is "vain". If someone uses a mantra to transport them to interior places of the spirit, that is not vain. If someone uses them as magic words, saying them over and over to get the gods to listen, that is vain. The focus of vain repetitions is not on the communion of the heart with God, but a narcissistic, give me, give me focus. Catholics use the Lord's Prayer as a mantra, as well as the Rosary. So obviously they don't understand "vain repetitions" to mean that.
I'm actually not familiar where he was about how everyone outside Judaism was lost simply by virtual of not being a Jew.
You know, I think people think about these things the wrong way quite a lot. I used to think things like, I wonder if Jesus was exposed to this religion's teachings here or there, because of the similarities. I've come to a much simpler understanding.
People come to the same realization and speak the same truths about it, because it is something ANYONE can access at any time. It doesn't have to be taught to you. There are universal truths of the heart and soul and spirit that people can and do access all the time. And when they do, they will say the same things about it! So no, I do not believe Jesus would have rejected Buddhist teaching because it came from outside Judaism. He was not a religionist. He was a Realizer. And as someone who has that exposure, you will know when you hear it and see it in another, regardless of the source. That's just how it works.
I believe personally there are mysteries to how certain realizations occur at the same time frames in our human history that are spontaneous realizations. They do not have to have had any contact whatsoever for these truths to come to conscious awareness. And anyone how realizes that themselves, hears the voice of another who speaks that same Light. We are so prone in our reasoning to think in strict terms of cause and effect relationships, who said it first and who told who sort of equations. It just muddies the water to say things must follow this pattern, and this pattern alone. We all see the moon, and no one has to tell you it exists.
Last edited:
In the sense that they were magic, yes. This is what Jesus was saying as well. This does not mean the mantras are not an effective tool in meditation, which they certainly can be. But without very focused intention for the purpose of opening to the Infinite, they are "vain repetitions". Without intention towards transformation, they are cheap shortcuts, magical wishing which will yield no fruit.
Consider also, for comparative purposes, this partially mutilated passage from the apocryphal "Book of Thomas the Contender" an early Christian text in the Nag Hammadi corpus:
The Book of Thomas the Contender
According to John D. Turner in the Anchor Bible Dictionary:
Therefore the text above may contain some distant relation to an original saying of Jesus in which the "fire" that burns in people's bodies is explicitly described as the fire of lustful desire, only that it is cloaked in later amended material that serves to further embellish its meaning in rich un-Jesus-like prose.
Last edited:
Source for Buddha?
Sure, if you wish to share where he said mantra's were unnecessary. I don't know that that matters, does it? I seem to recall however having heard several times that the Buddha instructed making a mala of 108 beads and instructed people to use them. I'm no expert by any means on Buddhist scriptures, but I do know that's something I've heard referenced several times. I would say from experience mantra is beneficial, but its only because it is a tool to help focus the mind through intention. It's the intention and focus that's important, not the words. They could be any words if they helped like, "Love. Peace. Truth", repeated over an over. It takes the soul within, and are anything but "vain repetitions". They are "unnecessary" in that they are not the magic themselves. It's you through your intention that is. But unnecessary, is not the same as unhelpful. They are in fact very helpful to many, but not a requirement. Therefore they are "unnecessary" in the sense of being required. I wouldn't over-read what "unnecessary" means as saying they should not be used. That's a legalistic interpretation.
Edit: I just did a search and found this reference I have heard. It doesn't cite the scripture, but whether or not it actually is in scripture there is certainly no argument it is a common Buddhist practice.
"There is a story in the Buddhist scriptures of a king who approached the Buddha to say that the Buddha's teaching was too vast for the people to practice. The Buddha instructed the king to tell his people to make a circular string of 108 beads from the seed of the Bodhi tree and to repeat the trisharana, a prayer taking threefold refuge in Buddha, in his teaching and in the community, which every Buddhist now knows by heart. While using beads is not universal in Buddhism, those who use the mala often repeat the word, Buddho, Buddho, "awaken, awaken," on each bead."
Souce: http://www.maryknollmagazine.org/index.php/magazines/430-beads-gateway-to-prayer
Last edited:
I loosely associate Theravada with a nihilist version of Christianity, though frankly my toes are just barely wet into Theravada. I think though that Theravada texts are sometimes interpreted in a nihilist way, an acceptance of and appreciation of death. The benefits of 'The next life' recognize that we and those both before and after us are connected. In that frame of view Buddhism and Christianity come together fairly closely.
Mahayanist seems to be related more closely to the mystical Christianity to me, not that I know much about either. They just seem vaguely alike.
Mahayanist seems to be related more closely to the mystical Christianity to me, not that I know much about either. They just seem vaguely alike.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Thats pretty much the case.
Just because some Buddhists might use mala beads, it doesn't mean that is something Buddha taught. It could be a cultural thing, as it doesn't run acrossed all of the different schools of Buddhism.
Here's a sutta where Buddha refutes the caste system. In this sutta, he tells the young Brahmin this:
"First, Assalayana, you went by birth. Then, having gone by birth, you went by mantras. Then, having gone by mantras, putting them both aside, you have come around to the purity of the four castes that I prescribe."
Assalayana Sutta: With AssalayanaI can also provide suttas where Buddha refutes those who do ritual bathing and reciting matras as being on the wrong path.
I wasn't suggesting that just because large numbers of Buddhist uses malas it meant Buddha directly taught them, anymore than the fact Catholics do means Jesus taught their use. It does suggest pretty clearly however they find no conflict with the teaching of either the Buddha or Jesus with their use.
Out of curiosity, which schools don't use them? Might that be the Theravada branches? I believe you do see them in the Mahayana and Vajrayana schools. Theravada tends to be more fundamentalist in their approaches, striving to be "true" to Buddha's actual words without deviation sort of approach, unless I'm mistaken.
I can tell you at just a cursory glance that there is a context where "how" the mantras are being used is the issue, not the fact of manta use. It sounds like he is putting them into the same category as caste systems. It's no different than when Jesus decries the Jews laying claim to bloodlines as their claim to righteousness, or those who stand on the corner and make elaborate prayers (like some mantras) to God to be seen of men. Jesus then goes to say that they should instead make clean the inside of the cup, without fooling yourself that doing these external things, being part of a bloodline, or making special elaborate prayers to denote your status makes you on your path. They don't. And that is exactly what I am hearing in this passage of the Buddha. It's the context.
But people looking for external things to follow literalize the criticism of mala use in this context to mean ALL mala use is bad. It most certainly is not, in practice. If you rely on them to tell yourself you're righteous because you do them, then they are.
It's the same thing with beliefs in the gods. Buddha would say they are not necessary too, but not that they are "forbidden". You see, the focus is meant to get you to look within and quit distracting yourself with your religious objects as the thing in themselves. But again, this does not translate into "Thou shalt not use them!". It means focus within, and if you find the use of them helps that focus (which they demonstrably can and do if coupled with correct intention), then they are good. Anything that helps along that path, is good.
To follow the "strict teachings of the letter of the law," so to speak, is equally as much a distraction from the inner path as believing the mala is what makes it all work. A focus on strict observance is equally an external sign one looks to as a caste system or special prayers reflecting yours status, rather than setting them all aside for the inner path. "I am of this teacher!", is the same thing. But if that teacher helps you through your intention, then it is good, just as the mala use is. It's not the object, it's the intention of the heart. Hence why Jesus' focus was on "Vain" repetitions, and he followed with an example of prayer showing a personal, devotional relationship. It brought the heart of the individual into it, or put another way, their intention. No difference I can see here in the two.
Last edited:
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
I agree with your thought that since Buddha and Jesus got knowledge and wisdom from the same one source, which I believe to be the light/revelation from the One-True-God, hence similarities in their teachings and the world-view; though they were some five hundred years apart in time.
Regards
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
For more similarities in life accounts and teachings of Buddha and Jesus one may like to read quite a few pages from the book "Jesus in India":
"SECTION 2
Evidence from books on Buddhism"
Let it be clear that Buddhist scriptures have made available to us evidence of various kinds, which, on the whole, is enough to prove that Jesus (on whom be peace) must have come to the Punjab and Kashmir, etc. I set out this evidence herein, so that all impartial people may first study it, and then by arranging it as a connected account in their minds, may themselves come to the aforesaid conclusion. Here is the evidence. First: the titles given to the Buddha are similar to the titles given to Jesus. Likewise, the events of the life of Buddha resemble those of the life of Jesus. The reference here, however, is to the Buddhism of places within the boundaries of Tibet, like Leh, Lhasa, Gilgit and Hams, etc., which are the places about which it is proved that they were visited by Jesus."
Pages 83-99
"Jesus in India" by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad
http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Jesus-in-India.pdf
Regards