RoaringSilence
Active Member
May i ask what made you ask this question? and what is your opinion to begin with?
-
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!
Buddha and Jesus
- Thread starter jaybird
- Start date
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Depends on how you look at things. Some do. Some don't.
DIR stands for Discuss Individual Religions. Since this is comparing Jesus and Buddha, I will move it to Comparative Religions, as per your (the original poster) request.
RoaringSilence
Active Member
i think its better to inquire what the OP is trying to aim at. Does he find any similarities to begin with , or is he looking for some particular doubts to be cleared, or just to understand if he is here to learn or to teach.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Well the similarities deals with human nature and behavior. The religious aspects remain diametracally opposed. I see no similarities that would suggest the Buddha or Jesus ever crossed paths or the teachings of Jesus were influenced in respect with it's narrative concerning the divine and such.
Fantastic, that is an excellent passage Von Bek. What penetrating insights into the workings of the human mind the Lord Buddha had! He was undoubtedly unmatched in his understanding of the human condition, the nature of suffering etc.
The "unskillful thoughts" described bear a strong resemblance to what the early monks and nuns referred to as "logismoi" or disturbing thoughts - the kind of passionate, wild thoughts that distract our attention and scatter the focus of the mind (which for Christian monks is, of course, directed ultimately to God in our theistic mind-set).
The fundamental issue for Evagrius and the Desert Fathers was clear thinking, which is to say clear insight. The Desert Fathers called this 'apatheia' which means 'passionlessness' of the mind or a state of imperturbable calm. This is where we get the word 'apathy' from in English but it's a poor description of the original meaning of being undisturbed by passionate thoughts born of attachments to objects of sense. Angelus Silesius, a much later Roman Catholic contemplative, described it thus:
- "...He has not lived in vain
who learns to be unruffled
by loss, by gain,
by, joy, by pain..."
If this state of mind was achieved, this apatheia, the monks believed that they could understand God's purpose "undistorted". I've heard Buddhists speak often of "equanimity".
So as earlier, in prayer one observes the arising and passing away of thoughts and bodily sensations. All very focused, rather than the normal disordered state which our mind is usually in, where our thoughts swarm about like hordes of locusts.
The goal is then apatheia, to become undisturbed by mental images or thoughts at the time of prayer - so-called "imageless prayer". Thus, free from the distorting effects of uninhibited passions, a monk would begin to see more clearly the revelation of God’s purpose - that is, understand the nature both of mind and the physical universe. Abbas Evagrius again:
"...Christianity is the teaching of Christ our Saviour. It is composed of the ascetical life, of the contemplation of the physical world, and of the contemplation of God.
The Kingdom of Heaven is apatheia [imperturbable calm, dispassion] of the soul along with true knowledge of existing things.
The proof of apatheia is had when the spirit begins to see its own light, when it remains in a state of tranquillity in the presence of the images it has during sleep, and when it maintains its calm as it beholds the affairs of life.
The spirit that possesses health is the one which has no images of the things of the world at the time of prayer.
The ascetic life is the spiritual method for cleansing the [the mind].."
- Abba Evagrius Ponticus (345-399 AD), Early Desert Father
The Kingdom of Heaven is apatheia [imperturbable calm, dispassion] of the soul along with true knowledge of existing things.
The proof of apatheia is had when the spirit begins to see its own light, when it remains in a state of tranquillity in the presence of the images it has during sleep, and when it maintains its calm as it beholds the affairs of life.
The spirit that possesses health is the one which has no images of the things of the world at the time of prayer.
The ascetic life is the spiritual method for cleansing the [the mind].."
- Abba Evagrius Ponticus (345-399 AD), Early Desert Father
The true nature of the mind is described as "luminous" like sapphire when freed of incoming defilements (that is attachment to sense-impressions and mental images). Abbas Evagrius again:
"...A sure sign of apatheia (passionlessness) is a mind that has begun to see its own light and which remains still in regard to the apparitions which occur during sleep and which remains in an undisturbed state when it sees sense objects...
If one wishes to see the state (katastasis) of the mind, let him deprive himself of all representations, and then he will see the mind appear similar to sapphire or to the color of the sky. But to do that without being passionless (apatheia) is impossible...The mind would not see itself unless it has been raised higher than all the representations of objects...
Apatheia (passionlessness) is a quiet state of the rational soul. It results from gentleness and self-control...
A man in chains cannot run. Nor can the mind that is enslaved to passion see the place of spiritual prayer. It is dragged along and tossed by these passion-filled thoughts and cannot stand firm and tranquil...
The ascetical mind is one that always receives passionlessly the representations of this world...The state of the mind is an intellectual peak, comparable in color to the sky. Onto it, there comes, at the time of prayer, the light of the holy Trinity..."
- Abba Evagrius Ponticus (345-399 AD), early desert father
If one wishes to see the state (katastasis) of the mind, let him deprive himself of all representations, and then he will see the mind appear similar to sapphire or to the color of the sky. But to do that without being passionless (apatheia) is impossible...The mind would not see itself unless it has been raised higher than all the representations of objects...
Apatheia (passionlessness) is a quiet state of the rational soul. It results from gentleness and self-control...
A man in chains cannot run. Nor can the mind that is enslaved to passion see the place of spiritual prayer. It is dragged along and tossed by these passion-filled thoughts and cannot stand firm and tranquil...
The ascetical mind is one that always receives passionlessly the representations of this world...The state of the mind is an intellectual peak, comparable in color to the sky. Onto it, there comes, at the time of prayer, the light of the holy Trinity..."
- Abba Evagrius Ponticus (345-399 AD), early desert father
So the three criteria given by Abba Evagrius for this "sapphire luminosity" of mind are:
1. The mind begins to see its own light in prayer.
2. The mind remains still (undisturbed, detached) in regard to images even during sleep
3. The mind remains in an undisturbed state when it sees objects of sense (that is it can view them without passion)
2. The mind remains still (undisturbed, detached) in regard to images even during sleep
3. The mind remains in an undisturbed state when it sees objects of sense (that is it can view them without passion)
I wonder if this is at all similar to the concept of "luminous mind" in the Tipitaka?
Here is a description from Pope St. Gregory the Great of detachment from images and sense-impressions during contemplative prayer:
"...[In contemplation] the mind must first have learned to shut out from its eyes all the phantasmata [mental images or representations of objects] of earthly and heavenly images, and to spurn and tread underfoot whatever presents itself to its thought from sight, from hearing, from smell, from bodily touch or taste, so that it may seek interiorly as it is without these sensations...
If our mind be distracted by earthly images, it can no way consider itself or the nature of the soul, because by how many thoughts it is led about, by so many obstacles it is blinded. And so the first step is that it collect itself within itself (recollection); the second, that it consider what its nature is so collected (introversion); the third, that it rise above itself and yield itself to the intent contemplation of its invisible Maker (contemplation).
But the mind cannot recollect itself unless it has first learned to repress all phantasmata of earthly images, and to reject and spurn whatever sense impressions present themselves to its thoughts, in order that it may seek itself within as it is without these sensations. So they are all to be driven away from the mind's eye, in order that the soul may see itself as it was made...
When the soul raised up to itself understands its own measure, and recognizes that it transcends all bodily things, and from the knowledge of itself passes to the knowledge of its Maker, what is this, except to see the door opposite the door?..."
- Pope. St Gregory the Great (Homilies on Ezechiel II.V.), published in AD 593
If our mind be distracted by earthly images, it can no way consider itself or the nature of the soul, because by how many thoughts it is led about, by so many obstacles it is blinded. And so the first step is that it collect itself within itself (recollection); the second, that it consider what its nature is so collected (introversion); the third, that it rise above itself and yield itself to the intent contemplation of its invisible Maker (contemplation).
But the mind cannot recollect itself unless it has first learned to repress all phantasmata of earthly images, and to reject and spurn whatever sense impressions present themselves to its thoughts, in order that it may seek itself within as it is without these sensations. So they are all to be driven away from the mind's eye, in order that the soul may see itself as it was made...
When the soul raised up to itself understands its own measure, and recognizes that it transcends all bodily things, and from the knowledge of itself passes to the knowledge of its Maker, what is this, except to see the door opposite the door?..."
- Pope. St Gregory the Great (Homilies on Ezechiel II.V.), published in AD 593
This description by Pseudo-Dionysius is a classic in the history of Christian Spirituality:
http://www.esoteric.msu.edu/VolumeII/MysticalTheology.html
"...Let this be my prayer; but do, dear Timothy, in the diligent exercise of mystical contemplation, leave behind the senses and the operations of the intellect, and all things sensible and intellectual, and all things in the world of being and nonbeing, that you may arise by unknowing towards the union, as far as is attainable, with it that transcends all being and all knowledge. For by the unceasing and absolute renunciation of yourself and of all things you may be borne on high, through pure and entire self-abnegation, into the superessential Radiance of the Divine Darkness. But these things are not to be disclosed to the uninitiated, by whom I mean those attached to the objects of human thought, and who believe there is no superessential Reality beyond, and who imagine that by their own understanding they know it that has made Darkness Its secret place..."
- Pseudo-Dionysius, Mystical Theology (5th-6th century)
- Pseudo-Dionysius, Mystical Theology (5th-6th century)
Last edited:
YAY!!!
I feel the thread is at long last in its rightful home.
But seriously, thank you for showing me such exquisite hospitality over on the Buddhist DIR!
jaybird
Member
i was taught anything and everything outside anglo - american / non Catholic Christianity was wrong. all my life i knew deep down this was wrong but didnt know how to explain it.
I think Jesus and Buddha came from same source. i follow what Jesus taught. Jesus taught on false teachers, we will know them by their fruit, Jesus says He is the gate and he teaches who does not go through the gate, thieves, murderers and destroyers. i look at Buddhism and i see teachings on love, compassion, humility, that doesnt sound like bad fruit. i dont see the buddhist culture spawning murder, thievery and destruction.
RoaringSilence
Active Member
If someone tells you that following an "x" path is the only way or else it makes the creator angry /jealous. Would you like to spend eternity with such a creator. Or if a friend of yours told you that his father , demands to be worshiped by your friend, in return for the favor he did by bringing him to life along with his mother. And it makes him angry/jealous if your friend hangs out at your place. Could you stay with that kind of father for eternity? If by human morals we can evolve to understand that such a father is being too harsh to his creation (your friend) , Then you can easily assume that a higher power that is beyond us would have better than human morals and not be that harsh to his creation.
Last edited:
Here is the Pabhassara Sutta: Luminous for comparison:
"Luminous, monks, is the mind.[1] And it is defiled by incoming defilements." {I,v,9}
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements." {I,v,10}
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn't discern that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — there is no development of the mind." {I,vi,1}
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — there is development of the mind." {I,vi,2}There are numerous notes following the sutta available at the link.
"Luminous, monks, is the mind.[1] And it is defiled by incoming defilements." {I,v,9}
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements." {I,v,10}
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn't discern that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — there is no development of the mind." {I,vi,1}
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — there is development of the mind." {I,vi,2}
In the Kalama Sutta, Buddha advised to reject doctrines/teaching that preach greed, hatred, and delusion as leading to long term harm, as when a person's mind is overcome by any of these, they will do harmful things. Buddha advised to accept teachings that teach an absence of greed, hatred, or delusion as leading to long term benefit.
jaybird
Member
im trying to remember but its been a while but i read once a story on Buddha walking on water across a river, he called to a student , he walked towards Him, the water got rough, he sank and Buddha taught him you you have doubts in your belief.
Jesus walked on water, called to a disciple, he walked towards Him, the water got rough, he sank. Jesus told him he needed stronger faith.
just a coincidence?
Jesus walked on water, called to a disciple, he walked towards Him, the water got rough, he sank. Jesus told him he needed stronger faith.
just a coincidence?
This is especially perceptive:
As they sat there, the Kalamas of Kesaputta said to the Blessed One, "Lord, there are some brahmans & contemplatives who come to Kesaputta. They expound & glorify their own doctrines, but as for the doctrines of others, they deprecate them, revile them, show contempt for them, & disparage them. And then other brahmans & contemplatives come to Kesaputta. They expound & glorify their own doctrines, but as for the doctrines of others, they deprecate them, revile them, show contempt for them, & disparage them. They leave us absolutely uncertain & in doubt: Which of these venerable brahmans & contemplatives are speaking the truth, and which ones are lying?"
"Of course you are uncertain, Kalamas. Of course you are in doubt. When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born. So in this case, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' — then you should abandon them.
"Of course you are uncertain, Kalamas. Of course you are in doubt. When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born. So in this case, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' — then you should abandon them.
I think that many people have found themselves in a similar type of situation.
Last edited:
That is a siddhi. See this sutta and this sutta.
One thing if for sure, mindfulness immersed in the body practice will induce lucid dreaming, where you know you are dreaming and take control of the dream. When you lucid dream, you can do all of these things and more in the dream.
Gday all,
Yes,
I think they came from the same place -
The creative imaginations of smart, but normal human beings.
I think both Buddha and Jesus Christ are myths who never existed in history.
(Like Adam, Noah, Moses, Solomon, Hercules, Ajax, Krishna, Jason and many more.)
Both just characters found only in BOOKS handed down to us from unknown sources.
Kapyong
Yes,
I think they came from the same place -
The creative imaginations of smart, but normal human beings.
I think both Buddha and Jesus Christ are myths who never existed in history.
(Like Adam, Noah, Moses, Solomon, Hercules, Ajax, Krishna, Jason and many more.)
Both just characters found only in BOOKS handed down to us from unknown sources.
Kapyong
I should note that, from my recollection, one of Gautama Buddha's primary emphases in the Atthakavagga - the earliest Pali teaching attributed to the Buddha, I do believe, on account of its archaic language - is on detachment from any metaphysical doctrines that lead to bewilderment, competition, strife, animosity and as a consequence ultimately human suffering.
In the Culaviyuha Sutta of the Atthakavagga the question is raised as to why different thinkers put forward divergent views about truth, widely disagreeing among themselves without expressing agreement on a single truth. The Atthakavagga thus discusses the consequences of holding dogmatically to beliefs.
This fits well with Crossfire's link to the Kalama Sutta.
Here's a little compilation from it:
In the Culaviyuha Sutta of the Atthakavagga the question is raised as to why different thinkers put forward divergent views about truth, widely disagreeing among themselves without expressing agreement on a single truth. The Atthakavagga thus discusses the consequences of holding dogmatically to beliefs.
This fits well with Crossfire's link to the Kalama Sutta.
Here's a little compilation from it:
Sn 4.3: Dutthatthaka Sutta — Corrupted {Sn 780-787}
There are some who dispute
corrupted at heart,
and those who dispute
their hearts set on truth,
but a sage doesn't enter
a dispute that's arisen,
which is why he is
nowhere constrained.
Now, how would one
led on by desire,
entrenched in his likes,
forming his own conclusions,
overcome his own views?
He'd dispute in line
with the way that he knows.
Whoever boasts to others, unasked,
of his practices, precepts,
is, say the skilled,
ignoble by nature —
he who speaks of himself
of his own accord.
But a monk at peace,
fully unbound in himself,
who doesn't boast of his precepts
— "That's how I am" —
he, say the skilled,
is noble by nature —
he with no vanity
with regard to the world.
One whose doctrines aren't clean —
fabricated, formed, given preference
when he sees it to his own advantage —
relies on a peace
dependent
on what can be shaken.
Because entrenchments[1] in views
aren't easily overcome
when considering what's grasped
among doctrines,
that's why
a person embraces or rejects a doctrine —
in light of these very
entrenchments.
Now, one who is cleansed[2]
has no preconceived view
about states of becoming
or not-
anywhere in the world.
Having abandoned conceit[3] & illusion,
by what means would he go?[4]
He isn't involved.
For one who's involved
gets into disputes
over doctrines,
but how — in connection with what — [5]
would you argue
with one uninvolved?
He has nothing
embraced or rejected,[6]
has sloughed off every view
right here — every one.
"I see the pure, the supreme,
free from disease.
It's in connection
with what's seen
that a person's purity
is."[1]
Understanding thus,
having known the "supreme,"
& remaining focused
on purity,
one falls back on that knowledge.
If it's in connection
with what is seen
that a person's purity is,
or if stress is abandoned
in connection with knowledge,
then a person with acquisitions
is purified
in connection with something else,[2]
for his view betrays that
in the way he asserts it.
No brahman[3]
says purity
comes in connection
with anything else.
Unsmeared with regard
to what's seen, heard, sensed,
precepts or practices,
merit or evil,
not creating
anything here,
he's let go
of what he had embraced.[4]
Abandoning what's first,
they depend on what's next.[5]
Following distraction,
they don't cross over attachment.
They embrace & reject
— like a monkey releasing a branch
to seize at another[6] —
a person undertaking practices on his own,
goes high & low,
latched onto perception.
But having clearly known
through vedas,[7] having encountered
the Dhamma,
one of profound discernment
doesn't go
high & low.
He's enemy-free[8]
with regard to all things
seen, heard, or sensed.
By whom, with what,[9]
should he
be pigeonholed
here in the world?
— one who has seen in this way,
who goes around
open.[10]
They don't conjure, don't yearn,
don't proclaim "utter purity."
Untying the tied-up knot of grasping,
they don't form a desire for
any
thing
at all in the world.
The brahman
gone beyond territories,[11]
has nothing that
— on knowing or seeing —
he's grasped.
Unimpassionate for passion,
not impassioned for dis-,[12]
he has nothing here
that he's grasped as supreme.
"From where have there arisen
quarrels, disputes,
lamentation, sorrows, along with selfishness,
conceit & pride, along with divisiveness?
From where have they arisen?
Please tell me."
"From what is dear
there have arisen
quarrels, disputes,
lamentation, sorrows, along with selfishness,
conceit & pride, along with divisiveness.
Tied up with selfishness
are quarrels & disputes.
In the arising of disputes
is divisiveness."
"Where is the cause
of things dear in the world,
along with the greeds that go about in the world?
And where is the cause
of the hopes & fulfillments
for the sake of a person's next life?"
"Desires are the cause
of things dear in the world,
along with the greeds that go about in the world.
And it too is the cause
of the hopes & fulfillments
for the sake of a person's next life."
There are some who dispute
corrupted at heart,
and those who dispute
their hearts set on truth,
but a sage doesn't enter
a dispute that's arisen,
which is why he is
nowhere constrained.
Now, how would one
led on by desire,
entrenched in his likes,
forming his own conclusions,
overcome his own views?
He'd dispute in line
with the way that he knows.
Whoever boasts to others, unasked,
of his practices, precepts,
is, say the skilled,
ignoble by nature —
he who speaks of himself
of his own accord.
But a monk at peace,
fully unbound in himself,
who doesn't boast of his precepts
— "That's how I am" —
he, say the skilled,
is noble by nature —
he with no vanity
with regard to the world.
One whose doctrines aren't clean —
fabricated, formed, given preference
when he sees it to his own advantage —
relies on a peace
dependent
on what can be shaken.
Because entrenchments[1] in views
aren't easily overcome
when considering what's grasped
among doctrines,
that's why
a person embraces or rejects a doctrine —
in light of these very
entrenchments.
Now, one who is cleansed[2]
has no preconceived view
about states of becoming
or not-
anywhere in the world.
Having abandoned conceit[3] & illusion,
by what means would he go?[4]
He isn't involved.
For one who's involved
gets into disputes
over doctrines,
but how — in connection with what — [5]
would you argue
with one uninvolved?
He has nothing
embraced or rejected,[6]
has sloughed off every view
right here — every one.
"I see the pure, the supreme,
free from disease.
It's in connection
with what's seen
that a person's purity
is."[1]
Understanding thus,
having known the "supreme,"
& remaining focused
on purity,
one falls back on that knowledge.
If it's in connection
with what is seen
that a person's purity is,
or if stress is abandoned
in connection with knowledge,
then a person with acquisitions
is purified
in connection with something else,[2]
for his view betrays that
in the way he asserts it.
No brahman[3]
says purity
comes in connection
with anything else.
Unsmeared with regard
to what's seen, heard, sensed,
precepts or practices,
merit or evil,
not creating
anything here,
he's let go
of what he had embraced.[4]
Abandoning what's first,
they depend on what's next.[5]
Following distraction,
they don't cross over attachment.
They embrace & reject
— like a monkey releasing a branch
to seize at another[6] —
a person undertaking practices on his own,
goes high & low,
latched onto perception.
But having clearly known
through vedas,[7] having encountered
the Dhamma,
one of profound discernment
doesn't go
high & low.
He's enemy-free[8]
with regard to all things
seen, heard, or sensed.
By whom, with what,[9]
should he
be pigeonholed
here in the world?
— one who has seen in this way,
who goes around
open.[10]
They don't conjure, don't yearn,
don't proclaim "utter purity."
Untying the tied-up knot of grasping,
they don't form a desire for
any
thing
at all in the world.
The brahman
gone beyond territories,[11]
has nothing that
— on knowing or seeing —
he's grasped.
Unimpassionate for passion,
not impassioned for dis-,[12]
he has nothing here
that he's grasped as supreme.
"From where have there arisen
quarrels, disputes,
lamentation, sorrows, along with selfishness,
conceit & pride, along with divisiveness?
From where have they arisen?
Please tell me."
"From what is dear
there have arisen
quarrels, disputes,
lamentation, sorrows, along with selfishness,
conceit & pride, along with divisiveness.
Tied up with selfishness
are quarrels & disputes.
In the arising of disputes
is divisiveness."
"Where is the cause
of things dear in the world,
along with the greeds that go about in the world?
And where is the cause
of the hopes & fulfillments
for the sake of a person's next life?"
"Desires are the cause
of things dear in the world,
along with the greeds that go about in the world.
And it too is the cause
of the hopes & fulfillments
for the sake of a person's next life."
RoaringSilence
Active Member
Not that i agree with your conclusion , but even by your conclusion Those "normal human beings" were Creative , smart and imaginative ,( and were also "visionaries" ), They are far better visionaries than the most esteemed writers or our times can be.
jaybird
Member
you ever think it strange that Greeks, Jews, Indians would take their top five percent of their absolute best thinkers and put them to work in the priesthood to study spirituality and the heavens.
where do we put our top minds today, banking, bio tech, marketing and lets not forget military technology. and every day they are at those jobs they will make the world a worse place, dont believe me, look around the world, we have little kids sign their name on bombs before they drop them on city's that kill other kids, countries like Brazil that are top 5 agri producer with a top 5 starvation /malnutrition rate.
maybe your right, those people back then were just a bunch of simple minded foolish people believing in such things. we are way smarter today and know better.