Jesus was not a Christian and Buddha was not a Buddhist

[psychoslice]

There is a saying among non-religious spiritual folks that "Jesus was not a Christian and Buddha was not a Buddhist" which I agree with. It basically means that Jesus and Buddha both taught similar simple spiritual truths about loving others, keeping moral values/integrity, cultivating a spiritual life, transcending the material world and the ego from within, losing one's sense of self/ego to merge with God and others, and shifting awareness from egocentricity to cosmocentricity (in other words, shifting from focus on oneself and one's individual needs to those of the collective interconnected universe, aka "God"). However, their FOLLOWERS are the ones who changed their leader's original teachings, gradually developing them into the religions we have today.


Thus, theoretically, if Jesus and Buddha were around today (physically on Earth), they would probably not agree with the modern versions of the religions attributed to them. For example, Buddha originally taught that we should not make idols or worship them, yet many of his followers today, even in the different Buddhist sects, do make idols of Buddha and worship or pray to them (even though they try to deny it by trying to claim that they are just "focusing" on him, yeah right). And Jesus as depicted in the earliest writings of the gospels preached simple messages of love as the way to God and Heaven, rather than the atonement teachings that "You have to believe in me to be saved. You have to repent for your sins and believe that I died on the cross for you to be saved and get into Heaven." etc. which his followers set up later (e.g. Gospel of John and Paul's Epistles) that have become canon today.


But suffice to say, neither Jesus nor Buddha wrote anything down themselves, so all we have is second and third hand testimony of what they taught, mainly from anonymous sources, even if some of it is consistent and agreed upon. I don't have to tell you though, that humans are fallible, and that the authors of the Christian and Buddhist scriptures are privy to the same imperfections and mistakes that you and I are.


These are examples of how our religions evolve over time, molded by humans for their own agendas and colored by their perceptions, even though they may begin from spiritual teachers with good intentions.
The above words are not mine but they are what I feel and for me personally make a lot of sense, how do you feel about what these words say, do you agree ?.

 

[psychoslice]

Hindus destroy the possibility of knowing Krishna, Buddhists destroy the possibility of knowing Buddha, and Christians destroy the possibility of knowing Jesus -- because knowledge becomes more important than knowing, and knowledge is second-hand. Only knowing can help

 

[buddhist]

I agree with much of it.

Most of what is called "Buddhism" today is unfortunately not in harmony with the earliest records of Buddhism, and most adherents are cultural Buddhists. Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism, centuries older than early Buddhism, changed the self-development, self-mastery, and self-knowledge ideal to a new system where blind faith in celestial bodhisattvas, celestial Buddhas, and other saviors became their norm. So, in that sense, I'd agree that Buddha, as I understand him, would not recognize most of "Buddhism" today.

For many early Buddhists, including myself, it doesn't really matter if the historical Buddha really said the words attributed to him in the earliest Buddhist scriptures or not. What matters is the truth of the words themselves. If they prove to correctly point me to a personal understanding of Reality, then they have served their use, and are worthy to be honored.

(FYI, I do have a Buddharupa (a statue of Buddha), and I bow to it occasionally, but not in worship, for I know that there is no "living spirit" indwelling the statue to receive the gesture. I bow because I find that the gesture simply reinforces in myself various ideals such as respect, honor, loving-kindness, compassion, joy, equanimity, etc.)

 

[psychoslice]

I agree with much of it.

Most of what is called "Buddhism" today is unfortunately not in harmony with the earliest records of Buddhism, and most adherents are cultural Buddhists. Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism, centuries older than early Buddhism, changed the self-development, self-mastery, and self-knowledge ideal to a new system where blind faith in celestial bodhisattvas, celestial Buddhas, and other saviors became their norm. So, in that sense, I'd agree that Buddha, as I understand him, would not recognize most of "Buddhism" today.

For many early Buddhists, including myself, it doesn't really matter if the historical Buddha really said the words attributed to him in the earliest Buddhist scriptures or not. What matters is the truth of the words themselves. If they prove to correctly point me to a personal understanding of Reality, then they have served their use, and are worthy to be honored.

(FYI, I do have a Buddharupa (a statue of Buddha), and I bow to it occasionally, but not in worship, for I know that there is no "living spirit" indwelling the statue to receive the gesture. I bow because I find that the gesture simply reinforces in myself various ideals such as respect, honor, loving-kindness, compassion, joy, equanimity, etc.)

Nicely said, and thanks for sharing your words and improving this thread.

 

[psychoslice]

Somebody is using the Bible as the pillow, somebody else is using the Koran as the pillow. And you are snoring over your scriptures. And Jesus and Mohammed and Buddha and Krishna remain strangers. ?

 

[serp777]

Somebody is using the Bible as the pillow, somebody else is using the Koran as the pillow. And you are snoring over your scriptures. And Jesus and Mohammed and Buddha and Krishna remain strangers. ?

Not to mention the fact that religions get heavily modified over the centuries as people manipulate them for their own political or social goals. There's also the fact that the original people who recorded these prophets probably misinterpreted, forgot, or flat out lied about what their prophet said. I guarantee you Jesus or the Buddha would laugh to see the state of religions today and be amused about all the ridiculous ceremonies and expense and the vatican, etc. I mean it wouldn't even surprise me if they apostles lied about the whole son of God think because son of God from a virgin sounds a lot better and more convincing than Jewish carpenter from a woman who was violated by a Roman soldier. They would find these religions today to be a sinister inversion of their teachings.

 

[psychoslice]

Buddha is reported to have said to his disciples ‘If you meet me on the way, kill me immediately. Never allow me to stand between you and the reality. Hold my hand as far as you are not capable of walking alone and on your own. The moment you are capable of walking alone and on your own, just forget about me. Go ahead. Then don’t cling to me. Then don’t try to remain a shadow of me. If you meet me on the way, kill me immediately!’ he says.

 

[psychoslice]

Not to mention the fact that religions get heavily modified over the centuries as people manipulate them for their own political or social goals. There's also the fact that the original people who recorded these prophets probably misinterpreted, forgot, or flat out lied about what their prophet said. I guarantee you Jesus or the Buddha would laugh to see the state of religions today and be amused about all the ridiculous ceremonies and expense and the vatican, etc. I mean it wouldn't even surprise me if they apostles lied about the whole son of God think because son of God from a virgin sounds a lot better and more convincing than Jewish carpenter from a woman who was violated by a Roman soldier. They would find these religions today to be a sinister inversion of their teachings.

Thanks for sharing, that really makes so much sense, and I must say, nicely said.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That post is a mess. Jesus and Siddhartha did not teach the same things. For one, Buddhism is not theistic in of itself (although the more esoteric variants have things like deity yoga and revered beings such as Tara). You can an atheist and be a Buddhist. Yes, compassion and right conduct is a big part of Buddhist ethics, but that's not the whole of Buddhism.

As for Jesus, he did tell his followers to love one another, be merciful and practice charity. He also encouraged humbleness. But he did also say that he is the the way, the truth and the life and that no one comes to the Father but by him. He also threatened people with hellfire and promoted end of the world beliefs.

Neither taught anything about "merging" with something else, either.

 

[psychoslice]

That post is a mess. Jesus and Siddhartha did not teach the same things. For one, Buddhism is not theistic in of itself (although the more esoteric variants have things like deity yoga and revered beings such as Tara). You can an atheist and be a Buddhist. Yes, compassion and right conduct is a big part of Buddhist ethics, but that's not the whole of Buddhism.

As for Jesus, he did tell his followers to love one another, be merciful and practice charity. He also encouraged humbleness. But he did also say that he is the the way, the truth and the life and that no one comes to the Father but by him. He also threatened people with hellfire and promoted end of the world beliefs.

Neither taught anything about "merging" with something else, either.

On the surface that my be so, but for me there is a lot more going on, Jesus to me was nothing but an example, he may have existed or not, that makes no difference to me, its the words that point beyond the words that I am more interested in. So many cling to the words and even argue over them, for me that is stupid, the words no matter where they come from are nothing but that, words. The whole point is that we ourselves must become that which the Buddha became, that which Jesus became, they are no higher than you an me, so many have shoved their favourite god-man up high on a pedestal, so high that no one can reach them, this is the big lie, that the ego has put in between our god-men, this lie is the metaphor called the devil.

 

[psychoslice]

To belong to a religion is not an experience, it is just a belief system in which you have been brought up. It is all borrowed. And remember that truth cannot be borrowed. Either it is yours, or it is not there. True religion is found only from within, not in any scriptures, or a building called a church, these are all man made, and because of this, they are full of man made promises.

 

[psychoslice]

Gautam Buddha may have known the truth, but there is no way to follow him, because to follow means to imitate, to follow means to become a shadow, to follow means to betray yourself. Following is nothing but the effort of trying to be somebody that you are not. I feel that we need to not follow but become, to be what they, be that Christ, Krishna, or the Buddha, to be what they became, that is your true SELF, that self is called many names, such as the Christ, the Buddha, Krishna, whatever name we give it, that isn't what truly is, for these are only concepts, labels, this is my understanding.

 

[tjgillies]

Gautam Buddha may have known the truth, but there is no way to follow him, because to follow means to imitate, to follow means to become a shadow, to follow means to betray yourself. Following is nothing but the effort of trying to be somebody that you are not. I feel that we need to not follow but become, to be what they, be that Christ, Krishna, or the Buddha, to be what they became, that is your true SELF, that self is called many names, such as the Christ, the Buddha, Krishna, whatever name we give it, that isn't what truly is, for these are only concepts, labels, this is my understanding.

Out of curiosity have you looked at Baha'i at all before. You might find it amusing if nothing else.

 

[psychoslice]

Out of curiosity have you looked at Baha'i at all before. You might find it amusing if nothing else.

No I don't need to, I'm not interested in rituals, or prays, or any of that stuff, but thanks for the suggestion.

 

[psychoslice]

he I feel that the organized religions are all dead; the churches, the temples, the mosques, the synagogues...
they are all graveyards of the past. And the sooner we convert them into museums the better, otherwise they are going to kill the whole of humanity - they have already killed too much in every man. They have crippled everybody, poisoned everybody; their destruction is uncountable.

 

[tjgillies]

No I don't need to, I'm not interested in rituals, or prays, or any of that stuff, but thanks for the suggestion.

I was more curious if you've ever heard of us before rather than suggesting that it would be something you should get into. I think it has a fascinating premise and deserves at least a glance from anyone who is the least bit interested in the future of humanity

 

[psychoslice]

I was more curious if you've ever heard of us before rather than suggesting that it would be something you should get into. I think it has a fascinating premise and deserves at least a glance from anyone who is the least bit interested in the future of humanity

Sorry, yes please tell me more, I am interested.

 

[tjgillies]

Sorry, yes please tell me more, I am interested.

You could just look it up on wikipedia. They probably do a lot better job than I could. Essentially we believe that all religions are one and that world peace is the true meaning of life.

 

[psychoslice]

An interesting little story.

Mick had returned to his native town after many years overseas. "I hope," said the parish priest, "that you have been loyal to your faith while you have been away."

"Indeed, Father," said Mick, "I have lied, I fought, I cursed, I robbed and I made love to women; but not for a moment did I forget the religion I was brought up in."

 

[psychoslice]

You could just look it up on Wikipedia. They probably do a lot better job than I could. Essentially we believe that all religions are one and that world peace is the true meaning of live.

Well that sound nice, do you have a doctrine that you feel is true, or should I say more true than other peoples interpretation of their own doctrine, but yes I will have a look on Wikipedia.