Jesus the Buddha and the rest :)

[footprints]

Were they saying the same thing to different audiences?

Simple put yes. Jesus wasn't talking to anybody else other than the Hebrew people, albeit his teachings were open to all who have ears and would hear. The same of course applies to Buddha, Krishna, Biami, Muhammad et al with their own respective people, and others who would have ears and hear.

The paths of enlightenment each left are timeless and relevant to any time and period of life, be this in the past, the present or in the future. Albeit, much of what they said was relevant only to the period of time in which they personally existed, which is the cause of much confusion when some things are related to today.

 

[arthra]

Were they saying the same thing to different audiences?

Of course They were addressing different needs and situations so Their social teachings varied accordingly..

In my opinion, the reason the Buddha did not stress Atman or theology was that there were many schools of theology when He lived...had He aligned Himself with one of them He would be no different and one of His goals I believe was to question the foundations of religion and the prerogatives of the Brahmin caste..

Similarly the mission of Jesus was to question the legalism and prerogatives of the Pharisees and the sacrificial system that had developed in the Temple of Jerusalem..

So both Jesus and the Buddha had similar goals and threatened the established religious order of the day..

 

[Agnostic75]

Were they saying the same thing to different audiences?

No, the Bible is much harsher than Buddhism is.

 

[LooseEnd]

Not that it is impossible to have both of them...Like in Hinduism there is both creationism and non-creationism.

Hmm seems like that. Agreed. But not in Buddhism and Chirstianity though.

 

[LooseEnd]

Because my perspective is Hindu and according to Hinduism, both what Jesus taught and Buddha taught hold truth. They present those truths in different ways. It seems to me that some of their basic principles are similar.

Yes some of their basic principles are similar.

But it does not mean that they were saying the same thing. I mean, does it?

 

[Madhuri]

Yes some of their basic principles are similar.

But it does not mean that they were saying the same thing. I mean, does it?

I suppose not completely. They were just presenting different aspects of reality. I suppose what I really think is that they were working for the same Guy and for a similar purpose. More appropriately though, the way they have been interpreted is far different.

 

[Metempsychosis]

Hmm seems like that. Agreed. But not in Buddhism and Chirstianity though.

Yes ... we are not sure of what Christianity exactly is....I don't take the Bible as the original word of Jesus Christ.This increases our dilemma.

 

[joea]

Jesus taught, "believe in me is to believe in the truth"....to Buddha, belief is not the truth, but only a belief. Truth can be experienced, tasting it and realized only through meditation.. and only through meditation you will know what truth is.

 

[footprints]

Yes some of their basic principles are similar.

But it does not mean that they were saying the same thing. I mean, does it?

Yes it does mean they were saying the same thing. However, in order to understand that, a person does need to become enlightened first, else they will only ever be seeing things through their own intelligence.

Jesus spoke to the Hebrew, his relationship of associations pertained to their perceptual beliefs and what they had become. Biami, spoke to the Australian aboriginal, and spoke to them of what they would become if perceptual beliefs engulfed them.

Where they aligned and appear to be similar, is where the cultures they were talking to; a) had the same, or very similar problem, or b), had the same inner beauty trapped inside of them which needed to be released, or c), was doing something perceived good which needed to be kept and not discarded by human intelligence.

 

[sandandfoam]

Jesus taught, "believe in me is to believe in the truth"....to Buddha, belief is not the truth, but only a belief. Truth can be experienced, tasting it and realized only through meditation.. and only through meditation you will know what truth is.

Don't Pure Land Buddhists offer a path that is belief?

 

[Breathe]

Don't Pure Land Buddhists offer a path that is belief?

You're right. Pure Land Buddhists believe you are liberated by the grace of Amitabha Buddha, because Nirvana has become so difficult to get to in the modern world (due to the dharma being replaced with a shadowy form which itself is even beginning to disappear), if I recall correctly.

I was told something like this by a Japanese classmate who was a follower of Pure Land Buddhism, anyway..

 

[joea]

Don't Pure Land Buddhists offer a path that is belief?

Buddhism is not a theology or religion. Christianity exists around the concept of God. In Buddhism, man is the coal. Man is the end unto itself. God is not something above humanity...God is something hidden within humanity, man is carrying God within himself as a potentiality.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I believe that Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Confucius, Zoroaster, Krishna, and even Muhammad were all teaching similar ideas in a different way, and to different cultures. I don't know that they taught the exact same or believed the exact same, but the good parts are the same, like kindness, etc. Now I must go back to another point, some have said, Buddhism is non-theistic. It depends which school of Buddhism you're talking about. If you go into China and Japan you will find that Buddhism can be very Theistic. As for the Buddha being atheistic, well, he did mention the Hindu gods a lot, so I don't think he was an atheist, he just said that professing to believe in any god, but not practicing what you preach yields no fruit. Did not the Buddha say that it was through perseverence that Indra became the Lord of gods, and hence he is respected? I end here because this is getting lengthy. Peace.

 

[zenzero]

Friends,
each buddha occupy a particular time and space and so use different languages to convey *TRUTH*.
Jesus too was a buddha and his followers were not familiar with the *god* concept whereas Buddha grew up in a land which had a rich history of understanding of the *god* concept and he tried to bring out the point that each individual has to realise IT.

Love & rgds

 

[LooseEnd]

Buddhism is non-theistic. It depends which school of Buddhism you're talking about. If you go into China and Japan you will find that Buddhism can be very Theistic.

I doubt this. Theism is the belief in at least one Omnimax GOD right? In that sense I do not believe theism is in any form of Buddhism(Mahayana or Theravada). Buddha has spoken of many creatures that exist beyond the grasp of our senses(i.e. Cannot be seen, smelt,etc). To describe one of these creatures he has used the word "GOD'. This GOD has nothing to do with the theist GOD we talk about.

As for the Buddha being atheistic, well, he did mention the Hindu gods a lot,

A lot? Where? I have never seen any mention of hindu GODs. Buddha rejected the creationism in which he said that Maha Brahma, to my understanding a hindu GOD is false. If he mentioned anything about hindu GODS, that is to say they are false.

so I don't think he was an atheist, he just said that professing to believe in any god, but not practicing what you preach yields no fruit.

Where did he say this?

Did not the Buddha say that it was through perseverence that Indra became the Lord of gods, and hence he is respected?

He did? First time I heard of this. Where did he say this?

I think there's really no argument in "Was buddha a theist?". He obviously was not.

 

[LooseEnd]

Yes it does mean they were saying the same thing.

I disagree. Some of the basic concepts can be same. But some concepts are not. They will make the difference.

 

[footprints]

I disagree. Some of the basic concepts can be same. But some concepts are not. They will make the difference.

Each spiritual teacher was first and foremost, speaking to their own flock. Fixing their own problems and issues first. Sigh, the flock never had ears to hear, though some have done a better job than others. It is written of course, Shiva will destroy them all.

You will never know that all their concepts were the same, Just different paths to getting to the same spot, unless you follow all the paths of enlightenment to the very end, or accept the word of somebody who has. Both very unlikely scenarios, given human intelligence.

 

[sandandfoam]

I see Jesus, Buddha, Mohammad and the rest as trying to lead us into the unity of life. I think there is a longing for peace and unity at the core of human being. I think our longing defines us. The longing is not unique to Christian, Buddhist, Jew, Hindu, Shaman or Muslim but I think they all offer paths to unity and peace - paths to the Ground of Life.
Philip Newell wrote of John as "an image of listening within life for the beat of God's presence". I think that's what the enlightened are encouraging us to do.

 

[Twilight Hue]

From my understanding Pure Land is a form of Buddhism of which holds a linguistic appeal differentiating itself from other schools by use of metaphoric terminology of which Pure Land translates as ultimate reality. Essentially Pure Land is the same practice as that of other recognized Buddhist schools, and therefore is accredited and recognized as such.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Originally Posted by Yosef1986
Buddhism is non-theistic. It depends which school of Buddhism you're talking about. If you go into China and Japan you will find that Buddhism can be very Theistic.

In addition to LoseEnd's reply you should know that it's not wholly uncommon for Buddhism to be practiced in tandem alongside another religion, or an integration of beliefs of which acknowledges and recognizes a form of theism. As it stands, all schools of Buddhism are quite secular.