Buddha and Jesus

[buddhist]

i don't know about you all but it seems to me that talk of release from samsara and talk of buddha nature tends to be bit beyond a atheistic and is rather non-theistic. In that it depends on how one defines god, when god is some guy in the sky that certainly is not buddhism but talking of god as more of an ultimate reality is not outside the realm of non-theism. It seems to me that the notion of nibbana is describing a notion similar to ultimate reality. It is also sounds similar to hinduisms ideas of reincarnation and ultimate liberation from maya. All of which are not usually atheistic concepts.

I think the "God" idea is irrelevant in Buddhism; whether or not there is an "Almighty God", it is irrelevant to the question of suffering in our daily lives.

After all, because of suffering, many seek for reasons for that suffering - especially in the idea of "God". IMO Buddha, instead, says "Why seek out metaphysical reasons for suffering? Seek the cessation of suffering itself."

 

[idav]

I think the "God" idea is irrelevant in Buddhism; whether or not there is an "Almighty God", it is irrelevant to the question of suffering in our daily lives.

After all, because of suffering, many seek for reasons for that suffering - especially in the idea of "God". IMO Buddha, instead, says "Why seek out metaphysical reasons for suffering? Seek the cessation of suffering itself."

Yes, I don't think Buddha answered the question according to the texts, but said the question is unimportant.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

i don't know about you all but it seems to me that talk of release from samsara and talk of buddha nature tends to be bit beyond a atheistic and is rather non-theistic. In that it depends on how one defines god, when god is some guy in the sky that certainly is not buddhism but talking of god as more of an ultimate reality is not outside the realm of non-theism. It seems to me that the notion of nibbana is describing a notion similar to ultimate reality. It is also sounds similar to hinduisms ideas of reincarnation and ultimate liberation from maya. All of which are not usually atheistic concepts.

I think you're leaning towards Hinduism. Buddhism doesn't have an ultimate reality, god, divinity, heaven, and anything like that. Samsara is just the state of being in rebirth until we have full understanding of life: suffering via birth, age, sickness, and death. We understand this by practice and the goal (depending on school) is to understand cause and affect.

Nibanna isn't ultimate reality. You can use the adjective ultimate to describe understanding. Ultimate understanding or ultimate wisdom. It isn't supernatural nor is it divine. It's just the nature of reality however a person perceives it.

Buddhism isn't atheistic. There are many gods in Buddhist teachings. The difference is the gods are no higher than we are and are not the source of enlightenment. Buddhism isn't theistic. There is no god or ultimate reality underlining all of life unless you mean wisdom and understanding. Anything outside of the mind is a delusion and obstruction to enlightenment both positive and negative things.

The teachings are simple, just don't get wrapped up in the interpretations unless you are interested in learning more about Buddhist thought outside of pantheism.

 

[idav]

I think you're leaning towards Hinduism. Buddhism doesn't have an ultimate reality, god, divinity, heaven, and anything like that. Samsara is just the state of being in rebirth until we have full understanding of life: suffering via birth, age, sickness, and death. We understand this by practice and the goal (depending on school) is to understand cause and affect.

That sounds like Hinduisms description of being trapped in Maya unitil rebirths stop.

Nibanna isn't ultimate reality. You can use the adjective ultimate to describe understanding. Ultimate understanding or ultimate wisdom. It isn't supernatural nor is it divine. It's just the nature of reality however a person perceives it.

I don't think ultimate reality or god or whatever are supernatural. Divine attributes have to do things like eternal and such which was one of the descriptions I noticed when Nibbana is described. I don't believe supernatural exists, there is only nature.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That sounds like Hinduisms description of being trapped in Maya unitil rebirths stop.

I don't think ultimate reality or god or whatever are supernatural. Divine attributes have to do things like eternal and such which was one of the descriptions I noticed when Nibbana is described. I don't believe supernatural exists, there is only nature.

What is another word for divine?

 

[idav]

What is another word for divine?

Of from or like god. I realize saying the word god makes people think supernatural but that isn't what I mean. Some claim that pantheism is just "spiritual naturalism" or "feel-good atheism" because you take the god label away and your left with atheism.

 

[buddhist]

Ultimately, from the perspective of this Buddhist, the Buddha taught full liberation from suffering (nibbana), whereas IMO Jesus (before the Council of Nicea redefined him) was a man who was reborn in this world after dying from the heavenly Brahma-realms of love. Having remembered his former heavenly life, he taught others how to get back to (rebirth back into) the heaven of Brahma (a title for the god who believes himself to be the Creator - not a name). As the Buddha taught (DN1):

"a certain being, after passing away from that plane, takes rebirth in this world. Having come to this world, he goes forth from home to homelessness. When he has gone forth, by means of ardour, endeavour, application, diligence, and right reflection, he attains to such a degree of mental concentration that with his mind thus concentrated he recollects his immediately preceding life, but none previous to that. He speaks thus [erroneously]: ‘We were created by him, by Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be. He is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and he will remain the same just like eternity itself. But we, who have been created by him and have come to this world, are impermanent, unstable, short-lived, doomed to perish.’"​

 

[paarsurrey]

Yes, I don't think Buddha answered the question according to the texts, but said the question is unimportant.

I agree with one, only valid questions are to be answered, Buddha was wise to say so. Please
Regards

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Of from or like god. I realize saying the word god makes people think supernatural but that isn't what I mean. Some claim that pantheism is just "spiritual naturalism" or "feel-good atheism" because you take the god label away and your left with atheism.

That makes sense. How would you define god?

I don't like the term since I breathe in god every day I walk out of my apartment. However, how do you see pantheism any more than what it is? Do you give reverence what you define as the source of all life? Ultimate reality sounds like using universe or other words that define life. Could all these terms: god, ultimate reality, universe, spirit, just mean life itself and that underlining force of life is undefined and leave it at that? It's not atheism. The source is there but we give reverence to it not as a god and not separate as in panentheism. It's gratitude in and of itself.

That's how I see it when it comes to pantheism so I don't identify with it. It just seems so evident in all that to call it anything but life would not be doing it justice other than poetic expression.

 

[idav]

That makes sense. How would you define god?

I don't like the term since I breathe in god every day I walk out of my apartment. However, how do you see pantheism any more than what it is? Do you give reverence what you define as the source of all life? Ultimate reality sounds like using universe or other words that define life. Could all these terms: god, ultimate reality, universe, spirit, just mean life itself and that underlining force of life is undefined and leave it at that? It's not atheism. The source is there but we give reverence to it not as a god and not separate as in panentheism. It's gratitude in and of itself.

That's how I see it when it comes to pantheism so I don't identify with it. It just seems so evident in all that to call it anything but life would not be doing it justice other than poetic expression.

I define reality as god because of attributes such as being eternal or timeless, and omnipresent which can easily lend to an all knowing state. I feel that science has shown that the nature of reality is indeed a lot stranger than we can imagine, especially when taking into account things like special relativity where science has shown that increased mass or increased speed slows down time itself. The state of the universe from the beginning would have to have been eternal. This tells me that similar to the view of Buddhism that the cycles need to be escaped, is a real physical thing that can, in theory, truly be done due to the nature of reality. I believe the universe "knows" things for lack of a better term and has some sort of direction so I can't ascribe to atheism.

 

[ukok102nak]

~;> unlike some people in
buddhism and hinduism
For concerning those who were once enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit,
and tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to come,
and then fell away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance; seeing they crucify the Son of God for themselves again, and put him to open shame.
For the land which has drunk the rain that comes often on it, and brings forth a crop suitable for them for whose sake it is also tilled, receives blessing from God;

also
but if it bears thorns and thistles, it is rejected and near being cursed, whose end is to be burned.
But, beloved, we are persuaded of better things for you, and things that accompany salvation, even though we speak like this.
For God is not unrighteous, so as to forget your work and thea love which you showed toward his name, in that you served the saints, and still do serve them.
We desire that each one of you may show the same diligence to the fullness of hope even to the end,
that you won't be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherited the promises.

as they say
For men swear by a greater one, and in every dispute of theirs the oath is final for confirmation.
In this way God, being determined to show more abundantly to the heirs of the promise the immutability of his counsel, interposed with an oath;

that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have a strong encouragement, who have fled for refuge to take hold of the hope set before us.
This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and entering into that which is within the veil;


:ty:




godbless
unto all always

Unlike Christianity, Buddhism does not depend on an actual historical "Buddha", but on the Dhamma. Whomever "discovered" the Dhamma can be called the "Buddha" (the Enlightened One), whether he was a man, woman, monkey, or anything else.

 

[arthra]

It may be of interest here to share some similarities between Jesus Christ and Guatama the Buddha.

See the following:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.culture.singapore/miQHm4suMSg

 

[buddhist]

~;> unlike some people in
buddhism and hinduism
For concerning those who were once enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit,
and tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to come,
and then fell away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance; seeing they crucify the Son of God for themselves again, and put him to open shame.
For the land which has drunk the rain that comes often on it, and brings forth a crop suitable for them for whose sake it is also tilled, receives blessing from God;

also
but if it bears thorns and thistles, it is rejected and near being cursed, whose end is to be burned.
But, beloved, we are persuaded of better things for you, and things that accompany salvation, even though we speak like this.
For God is not unrighteous, so as to forget your work and thea love which you showed toward his name, in that you served the saints, and still do serve them.
We desire that each one of you may show the same diligence to the fullness of hope even to the end,
that you won't be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherited the promises.

as they say
For men swear by a greater one, and in every dispute of theirs the oath is final for confirmation.
In this way God, being determined to show more abundantly to the heirs of the promise the immutability of his counsel, interposed with an oath;

that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have a strong encouragement, who have fled for refuge to take hold of the hope set before us.
This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and entering into that which is within the veil;


:ty:




godbless
unto all always

I don't know any of these things for myself.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It may be of interest here to share some similarities between Jesus Christ and Guatama the Buddha.

See the following:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.culture.singapore/miQHm4suMSg

I wanted to read this but it's too small of print. They are a like since they are both human, both have goals to end human suffering, and both follow discipline to achieve such. We shouldn't need to put everyone in one boat from once source because they overlap in goals. We need to respect people for their differences in culture and when we do this, we respect their different religious worldviews as well.

The Gautama Siddhartha and Jesus similarities:

1. Both had a goal to end human suffering
2. Both gave their lives to help end human suffering
3. Both taught disciples to spread the Way to end suffering
4. Both have scripture that helps one practice the Way

Gautama Siddhartha and Jesus differences

1. Jesus was a miracle birth and Guatama a regular birth (very important)
2. Jesus believed in god. Guatama believed in himself
3. Jesus sacrificed himself literally. Guatama sacrificed himself by charity
4. Jesus separated himself from his Jewish culture. Guatama's teachings can't spread without his culture
5. Jesus said god told him, he (Jesus) was god's word made flesh. Gautama left actual words to his disciples. His disciples wrote Gautama's words; the Dharma isn't scripture.

The similarities between The Buddha and Christ

1. Both achieved the highest state of their goal (former enlightenment latter one with the father)
2. Both succeeded in spreading their "gospel" from their disciples to others. (former by word of mouth. Later through the Church/Christianity or Prophets)
3. Both said they will guide people who want to find the Way.

The differences between The Buddha and Christ

1. The Buddha found enlightenment from himself-from changing his mind.
Christ was not enlightened. He was anointed and blessed with vocation of his father to be a representative of god. There is no god in Buddhism.

2. The Buddha left oral scripture that is not meant to be studied but practiced. Depending on denominations, Jesus was the Word and without reading the words, some claim we wouldn't know who Jesus actually is. In other words, the Word is depended on the words so that believers know god. Buddha says this is an attachment.

3. The Buddha wanted to end suffering when he came among his people, tried different spiritual practices, and concluded that the source is from the mind not from the spirit. Christ taught that everything comes from his father-an outside source. If the sources are different, how can both be similar to each other?

4. The Buddha means enlightenment. Christ means anointed. One had full understanding of the meaning of life. The other had full connection with the source/who created life. The Buddha was concerned about right understanding. Christ was concerned over right relationship with his father. (Former understanding, latter relationship)

Since there is no god in Buddhism, The Buddha (an enlightened one) could not be enlightened by god.

The Buddha was never a prophet. He was a Bodhisattva before he became enlightened. Bodhisattva's work to help people from suffering before they become liberated from it. Prophets and messengers already connected with god before going out as a prophet or messenger of god's teachings and commands.

The Dharma is Buddha's teachings written by his disciples. It isn't the source of enlightenment nor does it lead anyone to enlightenment. In Christianity, the Bible (god's word/Christ) is the source of being with god (which is not enlightenment). Without the Bible, how would one know who Christ is. We can be enlightened without the Dharma, but without knowledge of Christ and his father, how can one be saved?

The Buddha's goal for others is for their minds to change and unattached from their delusions. He says that is the source of suffering. Christianity has linked suffering to flesh, sacrifice, satan, and other outside sources rather than looking at oneself in relation to their environment and thought process that influences our true nature that brings suffering.

The list is long.

They have many similarities as they are both humans like you and I. When it comes to spirituality and religion, they are like night and day.

One big difference is Jesus focused on death to save someone. The Buddha focused on living to save another. Sacrifice vs. charity. You can link the two but at the end, death doesn't bring life. The only way to bring life is for another life to help out in healing.

But then again, I never understood how anyone can be saved from a sacrifice over 2,000 years ago. If it's not from oneself, one's own thoughts creating the experience of sacrificial experience, who is actually doing the saving?

 

[sayak83]

I define reality as god because of attributes such as being eternal or timeless, and omnipresent which can easily lend to an all knowing state. I feel that science has shown that the nature of reality is indeed a lot stranger than we can imagine, especially when taking into account things like special relativity where science has shown that increased mass or increased speed slows down time itself. The state of the universe from the beginning would have to have been eternal. This tells me that similar to the view of Buddhism that the cycles need to be escaped, is a real physical thing that can, in theory, truly be done due to the nature of reality. I believe the universe "knows" things for lack of a better term and has some sort of direction so I can't ascribe to atheism.

There are two crucial differences.
Universe is not self conscious and has no intentions. It just is what it is. So its not a being. Something that is not a being is not God. Its a phenomena.

 

[loverofhumanity]

What religion one belongs to? Please inform us, if one may like to. Please
Regards

Baha'i.

 

[Thanda]

Since this thread is still moving, let me ask...

How can one person who teaches life through sacrifice and another person who teaches life through charity have anything to do with each other?

Jesus and prophets before him always emphasized sacrifice whether of oneself, an animal, and human.

The Buddha and his disciples always emphasize giving oneself to others alive. One of his greatest tenants is the value and sacredness of life and not taking life.

How can you save people from suffering if you are not literally and spiritually interacting in their well-being? The Buddha did interact in people's well-being. He didn't just say "show compassion", he wasn't just compassion, he acted in compassion and through his actions not his words (our practice not our beliefs) we are relieved from suffering.

Totally different message that Jesus gave. Christianity shows death is the way to life. It puts a lot of emphasis on "you have to get rid of something to gain something."

The Buddha didn't teach to "give away to gain." He taught to "train and change." He didn't deny that we "sin", if one likes. We all act in our delusions. We, ourselves, change how we think. No one can do it for us. Our offerings and sacrifices are a way to thank who or whatever we give reverence to but they are in no way a replacement for our own spiritual development.

The Buddha and Jesus Christ may have other people's thoughts in mind. I just find The Buddha had a more healthier solution to the issue and way less political at that than Jesus and his father.

I feel you are overly simplifying Jesus message in order to boost the importance and uniqueness of the Buddha's message.

Firstly Jesus didn't have a lot to say about animal sacrifices. In fact, off the top of my head I can't remember if it is written that he ever said a single thing about them (and I know the gospels well enough that if something doesn't spring to my head, there is a good chance it isn't there).

Secondly Jesus did a lot more than teach about his impending sacrifice. In fact, he very rarely spoke of his impending death, and of those few occasions when he did it was mostly to his closest disciples. Other than that his message appears to encompassed many topics including purity of the heart, commitment, sacrifice (in a spiritual sense) assisting your fellow man, mercy, justice, judgement etc.

You say Christianity puts a lot of emphasis on "you have to get rid of something to gain something." But I would argue that Buddhism does the same. Does Buddhism not teach that one must lose their ego in order to gain enlightenment? Does Buddhism not encourage a monastic lifestyle - which requires giving up of a worldly lifestyle? If there was something wrong with you before, how will you get better unless you give up that which was wrong for that which is right?

 

[paarsurrey]

Baha'i.

Thanks and regards

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Thanda, I don't feel it's negative nor debative what I'm saying. This comes from experience rather than just study.

I feel you are overly simplifying Jesus message in order to boost the importance and uniqueness of the Buddha's message.

Actually, Jesus message is very simple. We can see them through the his sacraments. Baptism (changing old to new), communion (becoming one with the Body of Christ), Repentance (Telling god you are sorry and will turn from your ways), confirmation (saying you want Jesus to be your lord and savior). There is scripture for each of these but I have many posts with the basics of Christianity, so I'll leave it here.

Christianity means sacrifice and resurrection. You give yourself to be resurrected and be with god. How you give yourself whether its fasting or taking time out in prayer is up to you and god. The point in the sacrament and living his passion is to die to your old self, repent of your sins, and live your knew self in Christ returning your relationship with his father.

It's not hard to understand. I can see why it's hard to follow though.

Yes. I see The Buddha's teaching more healthier and productive that Jesus'. I value The Buddha's Dharma is positive and it always talks about life. When I read Psalms, almost every other verse has something to do with obedience (form of sacrifice), death if not obedient, a form of repentance, or giving oneself without choice.

Firstly Jesus didn't have a lot to say about animal sacrifices. In fact, off the top of my head I can't remember if it is written that he ever said a single thing about them (and I know the gospels well enough that if something doesn't spring to my head, there is a good chance it isn't there).

The gospels aren't separate from the OT. They are actually a foundation of the OT especially that of communion where one the sacrificial lamb (real lamb in OT) is given to god to cover peoples sins which in the NT is the sacrificial lamb referring to Christ.

Christ show this through the Last Supper. He doesn't use animal sacrifices but emphasis that people must give up their old ways and turn to his father. That is the ultimate sacrifice he taught.

Secondly Jesus did a lot more than teach about his impending sacrifice. In fact, he very rarely spoke of his impending death, and of those few occasions when he did it was mostly to his closest disciples. Other than that his message appears to encompassed many topics including purity of the heart, commitment, sacrifice (in a spiritual sense) assisting your fellow man, mercy, justice, judgement etc.

Baptism, Repentance, and Communion are ways of sacrifice. He talked about them greatly in the gospels. If not, Paul, in Galations, wouldn't have known that to be with Christ he needs to crucify himself in Christ. Commitment is dedicating or sacrificing your time and actions to discipline and relationship with your lord. Sacrifice has no spiritual sense. In the OT it was literal. In Jesus' communion it is literal. Unless Jesus is a liar. When you live the passion, you are living a sacramental (giving up old) and resurrected (living a new life with god) lifestyle. It's easier to understand when literally experienced. Spiritual experiences can fluctuate but when you have physical mean to confirm these things, and scriptural back up, its kind of difficult of see otherwise.

Purity of the heart can only come from changing your ways and thoughts towards god (giving up your old ways for new ways),

It's all about his Passion. He doesn't have to say anything to show his message.

You say Christianity puts a lot of emphasis on "you have to get rid of something to gain something." But I would argue that Buddhism does the same. Does Buddhism not teach that one must lose their ego in order to gain enlightenment? Does Buddhism not encourage a monastic lifestyle - which requires giving up of a worldly lifestyle? If there was something wrong with you before, how will you get better unless you give up that which was wrong for that which is right?

Christ taught we should give yourself to live with god through his passion. He taught literal sacrifice. This didn't just involve changing ones ways (repentance), it didn't involve just praying in secret, it really means sacrifice literally dying to yourself in Christ.

The Buddha taught this is from our mind. He didn't teach literal death as in the OT and new NT via communion and passion. His first "commandment" was life is valued. To kill is wrong. Instead, he talked about change not death of one's sins or delusions.

Christ says to get rid of sin to be with his father through him.

The Buddha says acknowledge you have delusions, change your mindset, to live with a liberated mind instructed by the Dharma and practiced by oneself.

Every religion has a form of offering etc. Not every religion other than Christianity and many African religions that I know of foundation is based on literal and physical sacrifice, blood, renewal of body and spirit, thus life.

To the Buddha, this method of getting rid of things is a tad barbaric (in my opinion). His method was much more cleaner.

 

[arthra]

Jesus believed in god. Guatama believed in himself

Carlita,

Thanks for your post!

I would question whether as you wrote above that the Gautama Buddha "believed in himself"... as you can find in His teachings that have come down to us the virtue of "selflessness" as a way of dealing with the issue of suffering.

When a man is without self-identification with any object or idea, and does not grieve for what does not exist - that is
what is called a bhikkhu.

~ Dhammapada - Sayings of the Buddha 1 (tr. J. Richards)

You might also be interested in reading the article on "Apophatic theology" I have attached here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology

But have a wonderful day and I admire your perseverance!