Buddha and Jesus

[Rick O'Shez]

Hey, I've practiced straight for about two years and off and on since and still get it. However, probably yourself, I read the sutras so that gives me a hint of what The Buddha actually taught etc.

People love to talk bollocks about nothing.

 

[ukok102nak]

1. 1. ~;> when somebody is askin them about being all knowing
   
   then somebody should admit first that its not for them to be all knowing
   or should we say
   that someone must submit first to all knowing for humans must learn first all its limitation before askin some impossible
   things
   
   as they say
   being a human is a one way to make a difference between a creator and
   its creation
   some humans who has some belief and faith unto gods
   is askin the impossible
   such as were those choosen people who prophesied with the help of their god who told them about the things to come
   were they all knowing or whatever comes unto their thoughts
   Because, knowing God, they did not glorify him as God, neither gave thanks, but became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless heart was darkened.
   Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
   and traded the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed animals, and creeping things.
   
   Therefore God also abandoned them in the lusts of their hearts to uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves,
   who exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
   
   
   :ty:
   
   
   
   
   godbless
   unto all always

I don't agree what I have colored in magenta. Please give one's arguments to prove that "G-d's messengers/prophets are All-Knowing and infallible". Right? Please
Regards

 

[loverofhumanity]

How can The Buddha be a messenger and prophet from god? The belief in god isn't universal; and, the gods the Buddha believed existed wasn't the foundation to his and others enlightenment. Since god isn't universal, how can The Buddha be a prophet and messenger of a god that does not exist nor gave him a vocation to act on this non-existent god's behalf?

We believe the Buddha was a Manifestation of God and taught the oneness of God but that we don't possess all His TeachIngs.

 

[loverofhumanity]

How can The Buddha be a messenger and prophet from god? The belief in god isn't universal; and, the gods the Buddha believed existed wasn't the foundation to his and others enlightenment. Since god isn't universal, how can The Buddha be a prophet and messenger of a god that does not exist nor gave him a vocation to act on this non-existent god's behalf?

There is a way of knowing.

 

[arthra]

I believe there are many parallels between Buddha and Jesus... however They appeared in very different societies and eras... Both had to deal with priestly castes such as the Brahmins and the Pharisees that had a hold on the spiritual life of the people and They (Jesus and Buddha) attempted to free the people from many of the rules and constraints of the society they lived in. The Buddha opposed the caste system and animal sacrifices. Jesus also opposed the regulations of the Temple and even drove out the money changers and those who sold animals for ritual sacrifices.

The teachings of the Buddha were largely based on the concept of "neti neti" meaning "not this" "not this". So He opposed many of the theistic teachings of His day that were based competing deities and legends.. His approach was "via negativa". He also opposed the materialistic approach of the Carvakins.

There are some interesting cross overs between Christianity and Buddhism. Consider the legend of St. Ioasaph and Barlaam that were accepted as Christian saints but the story was a borrowing from the life of the Buddha and His renunciation of the world..

See:

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

 

[idav]

I can just say I disagree given the sutras say differently.

However, everyone has their own perspective of god. I mean, as a Buddhist (or someone looking to be at peace by addressing the workings of the mind) and as someone who believes in god (believes in life and gratitude thereof), the only spiritual thing I can think about when coming nibanna and god is finding life (god) without suffering by addressing the mind through Buddhist practice.

Anything supernatural regardless of what we call it isn't part of Buddhist teachings. Maybe Mahayana Buddhist school have some spirituality in it but not a universal force. The Buddha actually taught against divinity as a path to enlightenment.

I'm a "sola scriptura" gal, though. If it's not a Buddhist practice from the sutras and culture of it, it's not Buddhism. But it's just a word. What can I say?

I am aware of buddhas teachings of divinity. Yet you said your pantheist so I don't see the issue.

Mahayana leanings certainly less "spiritual" than Theravada whom believe in the Nirvana stuff.

Pantheism isn't the same as the monotheistic traps Buddha spoke of. Especially with naturalistic pantheist leaning, I've never had any issues with what Buddha allegedly said. It isn't against Buddhism to believe in monism which is essentially what pantheism is, monism has to do with what we think the nature of reality is. One could see it as either everything is divine or nothing is, no worries either way, however you want to label it. However I tend to think the nature of reality to have divine attributes which makes human level of awareness possible at all.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

There is a way of knowing.

Logically and historically it doesn't make sense. However, spiritually, I don't see an problem with how you see The Buddha. I just disagree.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I am aware of buddhas teachings of divinity. Yet you said your pantheist so I don't see the issue.

Mahayana leanings certainly less "spiritual" than Theravada whom believe in the Nirvana stuff.

Pantheism isn't the same as the monotheistic traps Buddha spoke of. Especially with naturalistic pantheist leaning, I've never had any issues with what Buddha allegedly said. It isn't against Buddhism to believe in monism which is essentially what pantheism is, monism has to do with what we think the nature of reality is. One could see it as either everything is divine or nothing is, no worries either way, however you want to label it. However I tend to think the nature of reality to have divine attributes which makes human level of awareness possible at all.

I can't say you're right; and, I don't want to argue against it. I'll just tell you what I believe.

In Nichiren Buddhism (Ten Tai sect in the Mahayana school of thought), we believe The Buddha is the mind. The processes of the mind and so forth, our inner nature when brought out, is the same compassion, wisdom, and thought of The Buddha himself. We believe that everyone has a Buddha nature or "nature of emptiness and no emptiness at the same time" and we have all of these delusions that keep us from seeing our true nature.

In this school, Zen (I practiced before), and others in Mahayana do not teach divinity (supernatural). The Buddha rejects it. It's not close to pantheism at all. Buddha-nature you may can get by with divinity but it would be severely incorrect to imply our Buddha-nature has any divinity within it.

I believe and know The Buddha's teachings are true one hundred percent. So, our beliefs about pantheism, in my opinion and to compare with other faiths and other faiths are truth because of how we perceive it from our minds. What we call truth is a reflection of how we see things, influenced by things, and so forth. That's why you can have people change beliefs, become born again, and so forth. You can't change facts, but when people change beliefs, it's not a physical thing. It's something that fluctuates. The Buddha taught that our beliefs et cetera changes and nothing is static.

Maybe it's to simple or it makes people feel belittled, I don't know.

 

[idav]

Buddha-nature you may can get by with divinity but it would be severely incorrect to imply our Buddha-nature has any divinity within it.

I do want to point something out here in this "buddha-nature" you speak of. Saying there is a buddhha nature that isn't divine in some way seems counter intuitive to me. To me buddha nature is akin to theosis in eastern orthodoxy, just cause it sounds like they are trying to achieve the same thing, a oneness with the greater reality.

Also I never remember Buddha outright argue against divinity but rather stating not to be preoccupied with divinity. If you have the verse though I'd like to see it.

As I understand buddhahood teaches that we can all achieve such a state, this something we are tapping into, sounds like some sort of divinity. What is it that is being tapped into, just mind, is there nothing more to it than just getting a clear head?

 

[paarsurrey]

We believe the Buddha was a Manifestation of God and taught the oneness of God but that we don't possess all His TeachIngs.

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

 

[buddhist]

Did Buddha write any scripture himself, or dictate it to anybody or authorized anybody to write on his behalf and checked it before releasing that to the public?
There are no chains of narrators that reach to Buddha and checking the characters of the narrators in between, please
One is not to quote anything from Buddha without qualifying it with the words like, may be he said. Then one could see the reasoning in the words ascribed to Buddha, only to be accepted if found reasonable, otherwise straightly and without hesitation to be rejected. Please
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Anybody, please

Regards

Nope, that's why I wrote "it was written".

 

[idav]

People love to talk bollocks about nothing.

Thats no joke, I'm sure you've seen those threads on "nothing" go on forever.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I do want to point something out here in this "buddha-nature" you speak of. Saying there is a buddhha nature that isn't divine in some way seems counter intuitive to me. To me buddha nature is akin to theosis in eastern orthodoxy, just cause it sounds like they are trying to achieve the same thing, a oneness with the greater reality.

Also I never remember Buddha outright argue against divinity but rather stating not to be preoccupied with divinity. If you have the verse though I'd like to see it.

As I understand buddhahood teaches that we can all achieve such a state, this something we are tapping into, sounds like some sort of divinity. What is it that is being tapped into, just mind, is there nothing more to it than just getting a clear head?

I can't give you verses here and I'm fasting from religious debates, so. I can say its in the Lotus Sutra and The Buddha has thousands of sutras that what I read is not even one percent of them.

The Buddha was against god(s), esoteric practices, god(s), etc in that none of these things lead to enlightenment. Whatever took people from enlightenment (delusion their minds) he was against. He didn't yell and fuss like Jesus, but he was against them nonetheless.

As for Buddha-nature being divine, divine meaning supernatural and sacred, no. Compassion, patience, love, etc are all natural qualities in each of us (our true nature). When we practice The Buddha's teachings, these characteristics come from us. In some schools the source of these teachings they call Buddha-nature or the nature of The Buddha. So, The Buddha was enlightened and when we act in the nature of The Buddha, as in the Lotus Sutra says, we will become Buddhas too.

Divinity as in god, no. All the asuras, gods, lay men, women, demons, and so forth were all on the same level listening to The Buddha preach The Law or Dharma. His disciples wrote the Lotus as if The Buddha was above everyone but I read the Pali and it was more he was on the same level as people. When you assign divinity to Buddha, you basically make him god (however defined). He's just a man.

Enlightenment just means full understanding of the nature of life: suffering, cause, a way to end it, and how to end it so that we won't be going through rebirth which means the constant circle of cause and affect that brings on suffering. Its about finding wisdom and peace within oneself to help others from suffering. Whether one wants to call it divinity is up to them. I wouldn't call The Buddha's teachings close to divinity. I do believe in the Spirits and so forth, but to relate that as a Buddhist teaching would be an insult. So, everything stays in its place and time.

 

[idav]

Enlightenment just means full understanding of the nature of life: suffering, cause, a way to end it, and how to end it so that we won't be going through rebirth which means the constant circle of cause and affect that brings on suffering. Its about finding wisdom and peace within oneself to help others from suffering. Whether one wants to call it divinity is up to them. I wouldn't call The Buddha's teachings close to divinity. I do believe in the Spirits and so forth, but to relate that as a Buddhist teaching would be an insult. So, everything stays in its place and time.

Ok thanks. Sure I wouldn't call buddhas teachings close to divinity, just that pantheism is compatible is all. I certainly wouldn't call Buddha a pantheist, lol, but I might call Jesus one who was certainly more theistic in his teachings.

 

[buddhist]

To me nirvana and liberation from samsura coincides with a pantheistic type of god. Many buddhists tend to stay away from the god label but in the end it is just a label describing the same thing, a oneness that exists beyond yet a part of the "material" realm.

The pantheistic view of god is more like Hinduism & Brahman/atman (one with all), not Buddhism's nibbana (beyond the all).

 

[buddhist]

And the same could be said of your Buddha, so you can stop with the stupidity and hypocrisy.

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.

 

[idav]

The pantheistic view of god is more like Hinduism & Brahman/atman (one with all), not Buddhism's nibbana (beyond the all).

That is interesting. Do you have any reference for the description of nibbana being "beyond all"? To me there isn't a beyond all, to me samsara and nibbana are two sides of the same coin, only for the fact that I think there is only one ultimate reality, not two separate ones which would be describing more of a pan-en-theistic view.

 

[buddhist]

That is interesting. Do you have any reference for the description of nibbana being "beyond all"? To me there isn't a beyond all, to me samsara and nibbana are two sides of the same coin, only for the fact that I think there is only one ultimate reality, not two separate ones which would be describing more of a pan-en-theistic view.

Sure, the Adittapariyaya Sutta (SN 35.28):

"... the All is aflame. What All is aflame? The eye is aflame. Forms are aflame. Consciousness at the eye is aflame ... etc."

Essentially, I read it as stating that the khandhas and their associated factors constitute the "All", and then he goes on to teach detachment from the All to attain nibbana.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Ok thanks. Sure I wouldn't call buddhas teachings close to divinity, just that pantheism is compatible is all. I certainly wouldn't call Buddha a pantheist, lol, but I might call Jesus one who was certainly more theistic in his teachings.

Pantheism is god or divinity is in all. The Buddha doesn't stop there nor calls it that. He says the famous phrase "emptiness is form and form is emptiness". He is basically saying there is no one or the other. There is no divinity vs divinity. Full understanding of life is a blank slate. Once you name it it is no longer a Buddhist teaching.

The Buddha taught non attachment and that means attachment to calling something divine. So, pantheism wouldn't be a good fit for Buddhism because it's labeling the source of life (divinity) where The Buddha taught there is none and there is a source at the same time. There is a source in Buddhism and that source is there is no source. It wraps around each other. Once you put ears, eyes, and noes on it, it becomes an attachment to defining something that, by its nature, isn't definable.

Reminds me when Jews say they cannot or not allow to describe or define god. Extend that a bit. It's not that a Buddhist can't describe reality or life. It's just once you start describing you defeat the point of non attachment. Describing life includes labeling the divine within it as well.

That's what I think @buddhist means "beyond all". Though, I haven't read that sutra before and can't make out the context.

 

[idav]

Sure, the Adittapariyaya Sutta (SN 35.28):

"... the All is aflame. What All is aflame? The eye is aflame. Forms are aflame. Consciousness at the eye is aflame ... etc."

Essentially, I read it as stating that the khandhas and their associated factors constitute the "All", and then he goes on to teach detachment from the All to attain nibbana.

Pantheism is god or divinity is in all. The Buddha doesn't stop there nor calls it that. He says the famous phrase "emptiness is form and form is emptiness". He is basically saying there is no one or the other. There is no divinity vs divinity. Full understanding of life is a blank slate. Once you name it it is no longer a Buddhist teaching.

The Buddha taught non attachment and that means attachment to calling something divine. So, pantheism wouldn't be a good fit for Buddhism because it's labeling the source of life (divinity) where The Buddha taught there is none and there is a source at the same time. There is a source in Buddhism and that source is there is no source. It wraps around each other. Once you put ears, eyes, and noes on it, it becomes an attachment to defining something that, by its nature, isn't definable.

Reminds me when Jews say they cannot or not allow to describe or define god. Extend that a bit. It's not that a Buddhist can't describe reality or life. It's just once you start describing you defeat the point of non attachment. Describing life includes labeling the divine within it as well.

That's what I think @buddhist means "beyond all". Though, I haven't read that sutra before and can't make out the context.

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.