M
mee
Guest
Jesus will come "with his powerful angels it will not be physical
17th Angel
לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות
- Messages
- 9,437
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 0
Or rather, Jesus would have been a Buddhist
Or a stoner.
I do think that there is probably a golden thread weaving its way through all the great teachings and it’s good to look for commonalities. However…
The fundamental purpose behind “traditional” Buddhist teaching is to escape from the eternal, endless lives of samsara. The Buddha was therefore not failing to latch on to an idea that he had not heard of, or considered, it is something that he was trying to find a solution to.
The Buddha considered and rejected the idea of a creator deity, I believe. Given this, he would not then be having the personal relationship of which you speak.
s.
The fundamental purpose behind “traditional” Buddhist teaching is to escape from the eternal, endless lives of samsara. The Buddha was therefore not failing to latch on to an idea that he had not heard of, or considered, it is something that he was trying to find a solution to.
Yes, I think the Buddha lived in a time and place associated with what we now call Hinduism. He was not concerned with gods (whether Hindu or otherwise) ultimately I believe, but in the emancipation of all beings, whether dalit, merchant or king (though of course there are gods in Buddhist cosmology).
The Buddha considered and rejected the idea of a creator deity, I believe. Given this, he would not then be having the personal relationship of which you speak.
s.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
I don't know about rejected. I would say more agnostic. Conjecture would limit the possibilities, and close the mind, bringing madness and vexation.
Acintita Sutta
Unconjecturable
Translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...
"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...
"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."
Unconjecturable
Translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...
"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...
"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."
BlaznFattyz
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,589
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
if he was seeking after truth, and seeking after peace, then i strongly believe he would have sought a personal relationship with god. even uneducated criminals to hardened soldiers to the wisest kings to the blind could see who jesus was, surely buddha would have or have to live with rejecting the one true god revealed to him.
bob x
Well-Known Member
No, those events occurred in 585
Buddha taught that the gods were of no particular importance, anymore than a high-ranking human is really any different from a low-ranking one. Some of the sutras depict Brahma (the creator) as worshipping the Buddha, saying that he had created the universe precisely in the hope that such a one as the Buddha might appear in it. Buddha saved Brahma, not the other way around.
pattimax
Somewhat returning
The only gods he understood and rejected were Hindu gods (maybe he also rejected others, understanding them as similar) , and he was correct; they were of no particular importance.
pattimax
Somewhat returning
That was my point. If he knew Jesus, their would be no endless samsara.
(man-made gods)
I don't think the Buddha really had access to enough information.
bob x
Well-Known Member
I thought if he knew Jesus, there WOULD be "endless samsara" (eternal life, retaining your individuality forever and ever).
pattimax
Somewhat returning
Samsara-the endless wheel of existence in the state of being unenlightened in which the mind is enslaved to desire, anger, and ignorance.
It is only when one has realized the empty nature of phenomenon and dispelled all mental obscurations that one can free themselves from samsara. In less, in fact, you know Jesus Christ and then you can just have fun. (Responsibly, of course.)
Well I'm not aware that there is an end or beginning of time described, which would suggest an absence of a creator deity, as an option (oh no I feel madness coming upon me). But I'm happy to stay with the word "agnostic" to refrain from what, to me would seem like hair-splitting.
Finally from me here, cos I'm aware of what garden I'm in, one could refer to this Q&A from buddhanet:
A Basic Buddhism Guide: Buddhism and the God-idea
s.
pattimax
Somewhat returning
Originally the Buddha was speaking to fearful primitive people whose only concept was Hindu. Please don't forget, he was referring to little "g" gods.
bob x
Well-Known Member
In particular you need to realize the empty nature of your own ego. An "eternal life" in which your individual self continues forever and ever is samsara.
Your god, too, would be included in that: so long as you perceive "God" as a personal being (like us, except a lot "bigger"), that is just one more empty ego.
pattimax
Somewhat returning
Maybe the way you percieve life, but Jesus Christ has taught us there is a better way.
Our Creator is infinite. You cannot place the Lord in a little
box, although it doesn't stop you from trying.
(also meant to say…)
I would have thought a major stumbling block to this is the simple fact that most historians date the life of Siddhartha Gautama as being somewhere around 560 – 480 BCE, i.e. he was well and truly dead before Jesus was born (and never left India).
If one is interested in contemplating a spiritual “meeting” of the two, then the interested reader might look to the likes of Thomas Merton and Thich Nhat Hanh.
s.
IMO patti, fear is an emotion common in all times. I personally would not describe the Indian civilisation of the Buddha's time as primitive. The society and it's people were as intelligent and sophisticated as today, more so than much of western society today, in some respects I would say.
s.
bob x
Well-Known Member
I agree with that, actually. But I consider the Biblical conception of God to be, precisely, a "little box" way too small to hold even a decent approximation to truth.
I would. But it was certainly more advanced than the Middle Eastern civilization.
pattimax
Somewhat returning
Fear is a common emotion...
My point was that the Buddha (hence, his followers) were not even aware of His existence. You cannot reject what you don't know.
Give me an example of what you mean.
M
mee
Guest
The Bible was written over a 1,600-year period. Its writers lived at different times and came from many walks of life. Some were farmers, fishermen, and shepherds. Others were prophets, judges, and kings. The Gospel writer Luke was a doctor. Despite the varied backgrounds of its writers, the Bible is harmonious from beginning to end.