Jesus was not a Christian and Buddha was not a Buddhist

[psychoslice]

Hi tjgillies, don't be shy, please share more.

 

[psychoslice]

I WOULD LIKE TO TELL YOU about something that happened to a fakir I know. He was a very lonely man. One night he met God in a dream. Much to his surprise has saw that God's loneliness was even greater than his. He said to God, "Are you alone too? But so many people believe in you!

Where are they all?"

God replied with serenity, "I am always alone. This is why only a man who is also alone can see me.

 

[serp777]

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.

Who is saying that Jesus and Siddhartha did teach the same thing or that Buddhism is the same as Christianity? I think the point here was that there has been so much modification and alteration of what these prophets originally said and did that the religious institutions and dogma today are just a shadow of their former selves. centuries of time can lead to some huge changes to doctrine and scripture. I doubt the bible, for instance, after various translations, transcriptions and subject to politically savvy religious leaders, contains even half of the content written in the original gospels, not to mention the fact that entire gospels were excluded when the cannon was being compiled.

 

[psychoslice]

All religions say they want to foster love in the world, but since they want individual organizational unity they must ultimately take shelter in hatred. And so they only pay lip service to love. Their hatred of each other is the backbone of each and every one of them.

 

[serp777]

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

If you're interested in the future of humanity read up on the technological singularity that could occur within this century. That will determine our future and whether we will survive.

 

[psychoslice]

So-called religious people say they want their children to learn to live together in harmony, but they insist this be learned under the mantle of their own particular religion. Why is this so? Is it because they are so very interested in religion? No, they are definitely not interested in religion at all. Their concern is only for their own religion. And this kind of self-interest is completely irreligious because anything that has to be identified as "mine" or "yours" is not religion. Religion is only present when there is no "mine' or "yours'. And that is the beginning of the wisdom that leads to God.

 

[psychoslice]

Who is saying that Jesus and Siddhartha did teach the same thing or that Buddhism is the same as Christianity? I think the point here was that there has been so much modification and alteration of what these prophets originally said and did that the religious institutions and dogma today are just a shadow of their former selves. centuries of time can lead to some huge changes to doctrine and scripture. I doubt the bible, for instance, after various translations, transcriptions and subject to politically savvy religious leaders, contains even half of the content written in the original gospels, not to mention the fact that entire gospels were excluded when the cannon was being compiled.

I myself have no time for scripters, or any beliefs of any religions, the whole thing to me is completely useless, go within yourself and find the truth.

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

That sounds self-defeating to me.

The implication is that both were such unskilled teachers that they failed to find people capable of learning and transmitting their teachings even early on.

If their direct disciples could not figure it out, what would the point be in anyone else even trying?

 

[tjgillies]

Hi tjgillies, don't be shy, please share more.

Sorry I had to sleep it was already 2am my time . I don't really have anything else to say except I hope you have a great day today

 

[tjgillies]

So-called religious people say they want their children to learn to live together in harmony, but they insist this be learned under the mantle of their own particular religion. Why is this so? Is it because they are so very interested in religion? No, they are definitely not interested in religion at all. Their concern is only for their own religion. And this kind of self-interest is completely irreligious because anything that has to be identified as "mine" or "yours" is not religion. Religion is only present when there is no "mine' or "yours'. And that is the beginning of the wisdom that leads to God.

The Baha'i believe there is only one religion and that anyone who has religious faith is part of that religion. It is the same religion that has always existed and will always exist.

 

[tjgillies]

So-called religious people say they want their children to learn to live together in harmony, but they insist this be learned under the mantle of their own particular religion.

The Baha'i actually encourage their children not to declare a faith until they are at least 15. Once they are 15 they are encouraged to investigate for themselves what truth is.

http://www.bahaiprinciples.org/IndependentInvestigation/index.php

 

[BSM1]

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 ?.

And Mohammad wasn't a Muslim; and Confuscious wasn't Confused; and Zoroaster wasn't Zorro. Didn't the names and definitions evolve after the fact? And isn't this why we have such division because most people try to live up to the teacher instead of the teachings?

 

[Mindmaster]

All religions say they want to foster love in the world, but since they want individual organizational unity they must ultimately take shelter in hatred. And so they only pay lip service to love. Their hatred of each other is the backbone of each and every one of them.

This is a pretty good observation and one I struggle with. It is also the silliest one... If we take every member of the human race no matter where they stand and DNA test them you will find that even in the worst case past 1000 years everyone has a direct common blood relative. Every single person living is a cousin, and every 25 years a new generation ties us all together even more. Of course, this isn't the message that any of these organizations will teach. Past 1000 years, we have several common relatives (more than one) and by 0 AD we have as many common relatives as we have uncommon (nearly 50%)... If we go way back, say 10,000 years or more the number is 80% and at 100,000 years it is nearly 100%.

These religions are founded by creating an artificial divide genetically/culturally that doesn't exist. It's revisionism in full effect -- become a Christian, wipe out the 2 million years of commonality between you and everyone else and use it as a reason to be terrible to certain folks. Ditto, Muslims, ditto Buddhists... or Hindus... It doesn't even matter... Every single one of these groups is founded on non-acceptance and revisionism - showing how non-related they are to someone else.

These concepts are the enemy of love, oneness, tolerance, and all of the other noble and altruistic things. This is why I reject every single one of them. They will never know absolute love and compassion or know the connected-ness or oneness of creation. They can't even accept the oneness of the human race with scientific data presented for cripes sake -- let alone getting into the realm of consciousness.

 

[psychoslice]

That sounds self-defeating to me.

The implication is that both were such unskilled teachers that they failed to find people capable of learning and transmitting their teachings even early on.

If their direct disciples could not figure it out, what would the point be in anyone else even trying?

There is nothing to work out, this is my point, and this is where many religions go wrong.

 

[psychoslice]

The Baha'i believe there is only one religion and that anyone who has religious faith is part of that religion. It is the same religion that has always existed and will always exist.

I see religion as something only found within each one of us, it can never be organized, for then it would be someone elses say, second hand.

 

[psychoslice]

The Baha'i actually encourage their children not to declare a faith until they are at least 15. Once they are 15 they are encouraged to investigate for themselves what truth is.

http://www.bahaiprinciples.org/IndependentInvestigation/index.php

yes that would be great if truly practised, but I think too many are to egocentic to do that, but yes, in theory it sounds nice.

 

[psychoslice]

And Mohammad wasn't a Muslim; and Confuscious wasn't Confused; and Zoroaster wasn't Zorro. Didn't the names and definitions evolve after the fact? And isn't this why we have such division because most people try to live up to the teacher instead of the teachings?

yes that is so true, and trhat is my point, in fact once the words of the teaching do their job we need to throw them away, for the words are not the truth, but I know you know that.

 

[LuisDantas]

There is nothing to work out, this is my point, and this is where many religions go wrong.

I am not following, sorry.

 

[psychoslice]

I am not following, sorry.

Well we are already that which is, consciousness, the source, god, whatever name you want to call it, what most religions do is to separate us from who we are, to something we are not.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well we are already that which is, consciousness, the source, god, whatever name you want to call it, what most religions do is to separate us from who we are, to something we are not.

I am really not following at all.