Buddha and Christ identical Beings

[TransmutingSoul]

In this thread, the comparison is about Jesus and Buddha...Bahaiullah is irrelevant. Since neither wrote anything whatsoever, authenticity can only be made plausible through historical critical analysis, but never be definitively established or refuted.

Well maybe to your view it is irrelevant, to a Baha'i view Baha'u'llah has confirmed they are from the same source and that we will find common themes.

The key is one has to want to and be motivated to, look for what binds them.

In that critical analysis of Buddha and Christ, Baha'u'llah has also given another key thought,

All good is from God, the source of both Buddha and Christ and all else is from our own selves.

I am willing to suggest both Buddha and Christ would have offered the same advice.

Regards Tony

 

[crossfire]

In Buddhism, the desired effect is the reduction of dukkha. Any teaching that does not have this desired effect even when practiced with dilligence is false then, by definition.

The ending of dukkha is the practice. There are many effects resulting from the practice of the ending of dukkha, including liberation, gaining knowledge and insight, and nibbana. There is a difference between practice and effect.

Simsapa Sutta: The Simsapa Leaves

Spoiler: 12 sentence sutta

Once the Blessed One was staying at [1] forest. Then, picking up a few simsapa leaves with his hand, he asked the monks, "What do you think, monks: Which are more numerous, the few simsapa leaves in my hand or those overhead in the simsapa forest?"

"The leaves in the hand of the Blessed One are few in number, lord. Those overhead in the simsapa forest are more numerous."

"In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have taught]. And why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have not taught them.

"And what have I taught? 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress': This is what I have taught. And why have I taught these things? Because they are connected with the goal, relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. This is why I have taught them.

"Therefore your duty is the contemplation, 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress.' Your duty is the contemplation, 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.'"

 

[shunyadragon]

God exists, but whether humans are capable of revelation is a different matter. I suppose our beliefs are not the same on this as I don't believe in progressive revelation.

Humans are not capable of Revelation. Revelation is from God. The concept of progressive Revelation is essentially the progressive spiritual evolution of humanity, and our physical existence. It is the relation of the different belief systems over the history of humanity.

 

[shunyadragon]

With Buddhists, there is another thing to consider: any doctrine that preaches greed, hatred, or delusion is to be rejected as harmful, no matter how much pretzel logic is applied to try to justify it. (Greed and hatred are pretty easy to spot, but delusion can be quite tricky. A "desired effect" can be based on and propagated by delusion.) You can often tell the delusion by its fruit: people whose minds have been overcome by delusion will kill other beings, tell lies, take what is not given, go after someone else's spouse, and tell others to do the same. (See Kalama Sutta.)

I believe this is in some way true of all the belief systems and the relationship with the 'Source.'

 

[InvestigateTruth]

So Buddha said stuff and Jesus said stuff. Did either one write down anything? If not, there is no "original" teachings. So all we have is people that say that this is what they said. Then, we have people interpret those things. You already say the interpretations are wrong, and Baha'is also say that the writings are not "wholly" authentic. So what do we have? Definitely, nothing that can be called the "original" teachings. So how do you know they are the same? Only because Baha'is say so.

Jesus or Buddha did not write Scriptures with their own hand, but Their disciples were inspired and wrote scriptures. This does not mean, there is no original teaching in their scriptures. There are certain teachings or sayings that These Holy Beings taught, and their disciples wrote. Bahaullah says in Book of Iqan: would a man who has believed in these scripture to be Holy, alter them? No! They would not make any changes to Their quotes. However, their followers, also wrote interpretations and explanations, which may not have been a correct interpretation. The effect of these misinterpretations, have caused the original Teachings to be distorted. Not that, the original quotes were changed. It is no different than how resurrection is misinterpreted. We are not saying, Bible description of resurrection is false. We are saying it is misinterpreted. Same is with sayings of Buddha or Krishna. Again, i repeat the statement of Bahaullah: would a man who believed in the scriptures alter them? ...moreover, these scriptures has been spread in many cities. It is not confined to a place that they can go and alter them.

 

[Jainarayan]

How many people in the world do you know, who have said, "I am the first, I am the last"?

One other, Krishna said it, far earlier than Jesus.

O Arjuna, I am seated in the heart of all living entities. I am the beginning, middle, and end of all beings. Bhagavad Gita 10.20

Much of what Jesus said was said earlier by Krishna. The only commonality between Jesus, Krishna and Buddha is their emphasis on compassion. And come to think of it, Krishna was stressing duty and one's relationship to God in the Bhagavad Gita. Compassion is something he taught by example, not words. The Buddha actively avoided discussions of theology.

Superficial comparisons are superficial. Like false cognates.

 

[Jainarayan]

There are many of Jesus's sayings that are quite puzzling unless you have heard the Buddhist sutta explaining it.

There's a book The Sermon on the Mount According to Vedanta by Swami Prabhavananda. He not only draws comparisons, but he goes into what he says are the true, deeper meanings of what Jesus said, what even Christians are not taught.

 

[Jainarayan]

It would be interesting and illuminating to compare Buddhist and Chritian works in and of themselves without shoehorning them into predetermined ideological boxes.

"Ask and ye shall receive."

https://www.amazon.com/Going-Home-Jesus-Buddha-Brothers/dp/1573228303

 

[Jainarayan]

...But I guess if people do feel that they somehow do know, that is their right too.

We, you and I, and other Sanātana Dharmāḥ (being pedantic here and using the nom. masc. pl. inflection of dharma/dharmi-s ) understand that. Especially given that 1.1 billion Hindus see God in probably 2 billion ways. We can't help but say "Oh, that's your belief... cool! Do tell ... ".

 

[Vinayaka]

We, you and I, and other Sanātana Dharmāḥ (being pedantic here and using the nom. masc. pl. inflection of dharma/dharmi-s ) understand that. Especially given that 1.1 billion Hindus see God in probably 2 billion ways. We can't help but say "Oh, that's your belief... cool! Do tell ... ".

I don't really know how many times I've heard one of my Gurus start an answer with "Well ... that's not what we believe." Quite a few, for sure. There is a certain politeness in it.

 

[Jainarayan]

Fair enough, but why do you think, both Buddha, and Jesus said, 'I am the first, I am the Last'? This is a very unique statement one can make about himself. Is it coincidental? Yet, Krishna, said the same 'I am the first..and the last'. Now, ironically, Those who claimed such a station, were Founders of great Religions that have endured for thousands of years. Whereas when did an ordinary grue or hindu teacher, or a Muslim teacher, ever said, 'I am the first and the last'.

Two possible reasons:

1. They are the same being.
2. The teachings were passed down through the centuries, and/or "plagiarized".

My money is on number 2. I can't quite bring myself to accept they are the same being. I've seen this image, which admittedly sort of irritates the snot out of me... says the guy who professes tolerance.

I can tolerate this one if its intention is to show similarities in some of their teachings.

 

[Jainarayan]

I don't really know how many times I've heard one of my Gurus start an answer with "Well ... that's not what we believe." Quite a few, for sure. There is a certain politeness in it.

And the polite response would be "Can you explain more"? if one is truly interested. If not, a namaskar and take leave. I have conversations like this with coworkers. One of them worships Krishna in his Bala, or baby form. Very different from mine. But we share and respect.

 

[crossfire]

Two possible reasons:

1. They are the same being.
2. The teachings were passed down through the centuries, and/or "plagiarized".

My money is on number 2. I can't quite bring myself to accept they are the same being. I've seen this image, which admittedly sort of irritates the snot out of me... says the guy who professes tolerance.

or #3--not necessarily plagerized, but falsely attributed. For instance in Buddha's example, the Vaishnavites who declared Buddha to be an avatar of Vishnu probably thought Buddha and Krishna were the same being, so had no problem creating this legend and attributing it to Buddha. (It is a legend, not a sutta.)

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Two possible reasons:

1. They are the same being.
2. The teachings were passed down through the centuries, and/or "plagiarized".

My money is on number 2. I can't quite bring myself to accept they are the same being. I've seen this image, which admittedly sort of irritates the snot out of me... says the guy who professes tolerance.

I can tolerate this one if its intention is to show similarities in some of their teachings.

@crossfire
It would be number one, because it has other evidence as well:

Buddha said:

"I am not the first Buddha who came upon Earth, nor shall I be the last. In due time, another Buddha will arise in the world - a Holy One, a supremely enlightened ..."

In OP, Buddha says, I am the First, and before everyone, as He is the eldest. Notice, Buddha was born, how could He be the Eldest? The answer is in the above quote. There is One Enlightened One, who had manifested before again and again, and will manifest Himself again and again. That is, He is the First and before all, and the Last, and after everyone. Since both quotes are compatible, they are confirming each other.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

In my view, ancient history is conjecture, nothing else.

Ancient history is more difficult to verify, than earlier ones. But just as they can know a big bang happened for sure, from its evidence, they can also, sometimes, through logical deduction know about if certain sayings came from Buddha or not
Even after 2500 years, still many people consider Buddha Wise.
As regards to whether or not Buddha have said that, it is also compatible with the other saying attributed to Buddha 'i am not the first Buddha, nor the last', denotes He is claiming eternal existence pas and future. When we find several sayings in different sources confirming each other, they serve as historical evidence.

.

As for Krishna, some Hindus are indifferent, some figure it was literal, God walking on earth, and still others see the Mahabharata as a story with many lessons within it.

How would that prove that Krishna did not say He is the First, and the Last?
For krishna, there is a similar evidence, as in the case of Buddha. Krishna also, said, He is not the first time or the last time He appeared on earth. He appears anywhere and anytime, true religion is declined.

 

[Jainarayan]

or #3--not necessarily plagerized, but falsely attributed. For instance in Buddha's example, the Vaishnavites who declared Buddha to be an avatar of Vishnu probably thought Buddha and Krishna were the same being, so had no problem creating this legend and attributing it to Buddha. (It is a legend, not a sutta.)

Yeah, you're right. I use 'plagiarized' facetiously. There are a few theories why Buddha is considered an avatar of Vishnu, but t's not a south Indian belief. In my temple, which is south Indian style, around the Vishnu sanctum are the Dasavatara, but in 9th position is Balarama. Around the Guruvayurappan (presiding deity, Krishna in 4-armed form) sanctum is Harihara, Dhanvantari, Mahavishnu and other manifestations of Vishnu, but the Buddha is nowhere to be found.

 

[Vinayaka]

Ancient history is more difficult to verify, than earlier ones. But just as they can know a big bang happened for sure, from its evidence, they can also, sometimes, through logical deduction know about if certain sayings came from Buddha or not
Even after 2500 years, still many people consider Buddha Wise.
As regards to whether or not Buddha have said that, it is also compatible with the other saying attributed to Buddha 'i am not the first Buddha, nor the last', denotes He is claiming eternal existence pas and future. When we find several sayings in different sources confirming each other, they serve as historical evidence.

.
How would that prove that Krishna did not say He is the First, and the Last?
For krishna, there is a similar evidence, as in the case of Buddha. Krishna also, said, He is not the first time or the last time He appeared on earth. He appears anywhere and anytime, true religion is declined.

Nobody is proving anything here. I am not even trying to prove anything.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Nobody is proving anything here. I am not even trying to prove anything.

Jesus Christ said "...Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

More than likely the Buddha also taught this as well as Krishna.

Is that not a worthy aim?

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

Jesus Christ said "...Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

More than likely the Buddha also taught this as well as Krishna.

Is that not a worthy aim?

Regards Tony

Not a worthy aim at all because they didn't define truth. Good chance it was never said by any of them either. I've personally been told this, sure, but it went in one ear and out the other, because it was never 'truth', whatever that is, but each time it was nothing more than that individual's belief. I hope and pray that I would never be so condescending as to say that to anyone. But in a low moment, sure.

Free from what? I'm in bondage?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Free from what? I'm in bondage?

Only you can know your answers.

I have found bondage takes many forms and I have found this ancient tradition is a good meditation;

"The good deed of the righteous, are the sins of the near ones."

Regards Tony