buddhism

[paarsurrey]

Hi
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908, the PromisedMessiahImamMahdi continues presenting evidences that Jesus came to India from Buddhist/Tibetan historic resources:
alislam.org/library/books…india/ch4.html
Evidence from books on Buddhism

"Among the testimonies contained in Buddhist records is the evidence mentioned on page 419 of Buddhism by Oldenberg. In this book, on the authority of the book named Mahawaga page 54, section 1, it is recorded that a successor to the Buddha would be a man called ‘Rahula’, described also as a disciple; nay, rather, his son. Now here I am emphatic that the ‘Rahula’ of Buddhistic records is the corrupt form of ‘Ruhullah’ which is one of Jesus’ titles. The story, that thistandards of character to Jesus or to Gautama Buddha. If the Buddha loved not his wife, had he no pity on a poor woman and her suffering child either? This amounts to a serious lack of character; so serious that I have been pained to think of it after the lapse of hundreds of years. One fails to understand why he did all this. To be a bad man, it is enough to be careless towards one’s wife – except that she might be immoral, disobedient or faithless and hostile to her husband. Hence, we cannot ascribe any such offensive behaviour to the Buddha; this being against even his own teachings. These circumstances therefore show that the story is wrong.

In point of fact ‘Rahula’ refers to Jesus, whose other name is ‘Ruhullah’. The word ‘Ruhullah’ in Hebrew becomes similar to ‘Rahula’, and the ‘Rhaula’, i.e., ‘Ruhullah’, has been called the disciple of the Buddha because, as I have already stated, of Jesus coming after him and bringing a teaching similar to the teaching of the Buddha, and because of the followers of the Buddhist faith declaring that the source of that teaching was the Buddha and that Jesus was one of his disciples. It should not be surprising if the Buddha, on the basis of revelation from God, should declare Jesus to be his ‘son’. Another piece of circumstantial evidence is that in the same book it is recorded that when ‘Rahula’ was separated from histandards of character to Jesus or to Gautama Buddha. If the Buddha loved not his wife, had he no pity on a poor woman and her suffering child either? This amounts to a serious lack of character; so serious that I have been pained to think of it after the lapse of hundreds of years. One fails to understand why he did all this. To be a bad man, it is enough to be careless towards one’s wife – except that she might be immoral, disobedient or faithless and hostile to her husband. Hence, we cannot ascribe any such offensive behaviour to the Buddha; this being against even his own teachings. These circumstances therefore show that the story is wrong.

In point of fact ‘Rahula’ refers to Jesus, whose other name is ‘Ruhullah’. The word ‘Ruhullah’ in Hebrew becomes similar to ‘Rahula’, and the ‘Rhaula’, i.e., ‘Ruhullah’, has been called the disciple of the Buddha because, as I have already stated, of Jesus coming after him and bringing a teaching similar to the teaching of the Buddha, and because of the followers of the Buddhist faith declaring that the source of that teaching was the Buddha and that Jesus was one of his disciples. It should not be surprising if the Buddha, on the basis of revelation from God, should declare Jesus to be his ‘son’. Another piece of circumstantial evidence is that in the same book it is recorded that when ‘Rahula’ was separated from his mother, a woman who was a follower of the Buddha and whose name was Magdaliyana, acted as a messenger. It would be noticed that the name Magdaliyana is in reality a corrupt form of Magdalene, a woman follower of Jesus mentioned in the Gospels."
Unquote

Thanks

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908, the PromisedMessiahImamMahdi continues presenting evidences that Jesus came to India from Buddhist/Tibetan historic resources:
alislam.org/library/books…india/ch4.html

Evidence from books on Buddhism

"All this evidence, which has been briefly set out( in the previous post ), leads impartial people to the conclusion that Jesus must needs have come to this country, and, apart from all such clear evidence, no wise man can afford to disregard the similarity, to be found especially in Tibet, between the teaching and the ceremonial of Buddhism and Christianity. Nay, rather, there is such a striking resemblance between them that most Christian thinkers believe that Buddhism is the Christianity of the East, and Christianity the Buddhism of the West.

It is strange indeed that just as Jesus says, ‘I am the Light and the Way’, the same is said by the Buddha; just as the Gospels call Jesus the Saviour, the Buddha too calls himself the Saviour (see Lalta Wasattara). In the Gospels it is stated that Jesus had no father, and with regard to the Buddha it is stated that in reality he was born without a father, although apparently, just as Jesus had a father, Joseph, so had the Buddha a father. It is also stated that a star rose at the time of the Buddha’s birth; there is also the story of Solomon ordering the cutting of the child in two halves and giving one of these halves to each of two women, which is found in the Buddha’s Jataka. This, apart from showing that Jesus has come to this country, also shows that the Jews of that country who had come to this land had developed connections with Buddhism.

The story of Genesis as stated in books of the Buddhist faith has a great resemblance to the same story given in the Torah. Just as according to the Torah man is considered superior to woman, so, in the religion of the Buddha, a monk is considered superior to a nun. It may be observed, however, that the Buddha believed in the transmigration of souls, but his transmigration is not opposed to the teaching of the Gospels.

According to the Buddha, transmigration is of three kinds: (1) that the dying man’s actions and efforts necessitate the coming into being of another body; (2) the kind of transmigration which the Tibetans believe to be operative among the Lamas, i.e., some part of the spirit of some Buddha or Buddha Satwa transmigrates into the Lama for the time being; which means that his power, temper and spiritual qualities are transferred into such a Lama and that his spirit begins to animate the latter; (3) that in this very life man goes through different creations – there comes a time when he is, as it were, a bull; when he grows in greed and evil, he becomes a dog, the first existence dying out, giving rise to another corresponding to the quality of his actions; all these changes, however, take place in this very life.

This creed is not opposed to the teaching of the gospels."

Unquote

Thanks

 

[blacktiger057]

What do you mean when you say that God is in Buddhism? Are you referring to the Wiccan belief that there is God in everything in the universe?

Heh, funny. NO! I mean that buddhists have a God, the “divine being”. It’s the same thing as the Christian God except that the teachings on love and emotion are better.

The place where I first heard that God was everywhere was in my Catholic school, so, no, it is not just a Wiccan belief.

 

[notself]

Heh, funny. NO! I mean that buddhists have a God, the “divine being”. It’s the same thing as the Christian God except that the teachings on love and emotion are better.

The place where I first heard that God was everywhere was in my Catholic school, so, no, it is not just a Wiccan belief.

Who is this “divine being” of Buddhism?

There are devas in Buddhism which are beings on another plane of existance, similar to angels. These devas are mortal and eventually die. Some traditions of Buddhism, Tibetan for example, have rituals involving devas and other spiritual beings called Bodhisattvas. However these beings are not worshipped as Christians worship God.

There is no Creator God or creation story in Buddhism. The Buddha said that he taught only that there is suffering in the world and a way out of suffering. This way is called the Noble Eightfold Path.

 

[Contarini]

I don’t know why your friend thinks the way she does. She may worship Buddha, her friends may worship Buddha, but Buddhists don’t worship Buddha.

You have seen posts by a Zen Buddhist stating that Buddhist don’t worship the Buddha.

You have seen posts by a Dhammayut Buddhist saying that Buddhist don’t worship the Buddha.

You have seen my posts saying that Theravada Buddhists of the Forest tradition do not worship the Buddha.

But we have seen no posts from a representative of the devotional Mahayana tradition (I know that devotional Mayahana and Zen are not incompatible, but someone who had been into Zen might never have participated in other aspects of the Mahayana tradition).

Obviously the definition of “worship” is up for dispute (try listening in on a debate about whether Catholics “worship” saints!). But I can easily see that the devotion paid to the Buddha by Theravada Buddhists is quite distinct from what I would call worship. That is not in dispute, I think. But Mahayana Buddhism, most strikingly the “Pure Land” version, does seem to engage in what I would call worship of Buddha. I’m willing to grant that this is different from the worship I pay to God. But I’d like to hear from a representative of that tradition to understand just how it is different.

Furthermore, isn’t it the Mahayana view that there is a “Buddha nature” in everything, and that the historical Buddha has some kind of cosmic body that exists outside space and time? (I’m probably butchering their belief, but it does appear quite different from the Theravada view that the Buddha has simply “gone out” like a candle now that he’s attained Nirvana.) And finally, your emphasis on the “self-help” aspect of Buddhism seems, again, very Theravada. Don’t the Mahayana believe that a boddhisattva is precisely someone who has chosen to devote himself or herself to saving others? Again, the Pure Land Buddhists are the best (but not, I think, the unique) examples of this.

In short, it seems to me that you are presenting a Theravada perspective as if it was the only Buddhist perspective.

Edwin

 

[rossum]

But Mahayana Buddhism, most strikingly the “Pure Land” version, does seem to engage in what I would call worship of Buddha. I’m willing to grant that this is different from the worship I pay to God. But I’d like to hear from a representative of that tradition to understand just how it is different.

I am not a Pure Land Buddhist.

Pure Land Buddists do not worship the historical Buddha, they look to the Amida Buddha, as described in the Pure Land sutras.

rossum

 

[Contarini]

I am not a Pure Land Buddhist.

Pure Land Buddists do not worship the historical Buddha, they look to the Amida Buddha, as described in the Pure Land sutras.

rossum

Yes, but isn’t the historical Buddha the same kind of being? Aren’t all Buddhas essentially equal?

Edwin

 

[notself]

Contarini;

But we have seen no posts from a representative of the devotional Mahayana tradition…

Zen is part of the very diverse Mahayana tradition which also includes Chan and Pure Land and may other practices of Buddhism. There are many types of Buddhism as there are many types of Christianity.

… But Mahayana Buddhism, most strikingly the “Pure Land” version, does seem to engage in what I would call worship of Buddha. I’m willing to grant that this is different from the worship I pay to God. But I’d like to hear from a representative of that tradition to understand just how it is different.

The word buddha comes from the root word budh which means “to know”, Mahayana Buddhists refer to the historical Buddha as Shakyamuni Buddha. They refer to any enlightened person as a buddha. Theravada refers to any enlightened person as an Arahant and the historical Buddha as “the Buddha”.

When people who follow Pure Land pray, they are praying to a buddha, an enlightened being, who resides in a spiritual realm called the Pure Land. This buddha made a vow to help all people gain rebirth in the Pure Land. From this spiritual state of Pure Land, it is said to be very easy to attain enlightenment. Prayers to Amitabha Buddha, the enlightened being, are prayers for assistance much in the way that Catholics pray for assistance to saints. The difference is that the Buddhist prayers are not requests for Amitahba to intercede with God on behalf of the believer.

Furthermore, isn’t it the Mahayana view that there is a “Buddha nature” in everything, and that the historical Buddha has some kind of cosmic body that exists outside space and time? …

Yes, this buddha nature is believed to be the nature of all existence and is part of everything. Mahayana believes that the goal is to uncover this pure nature which has always been there. This is quite different than the Catholic belief in Original Sin. Mahayana believes in Original Purity. As I understand it, buddha nature is the underlying quality of all existence including space and time.

And finally, your emphasis on the “self-help” aspect of Buddhism seems, again, very Theravada. Don’t the Mahayana believe that a boddhisattva is precisely someone who has chosen to devote himself or herself to saving others?..
In short, it seems to me that you are presenting a Theravada perspective as if it was the only Buddhist perspective.

The Bodhisattva Vow taken by Pure Land and other Mahayana, is a vow to dedicate any merit they may accumulate to the well being of others. This dedication of merit exists in all forms of Buddhism.

I found this explanation by a Theravada monk on what appears in the Pali Canon.

*“Having crossed over, may I cause others to cross over. Having become free, may I free others. Having tamed myself, may I tame others. Having pacified myself, may I pacify others. Having comforted myself, may I comfort others. Having attained nibbāna, may I cause others to attain nibbāna. Having purified myself, may I cause others to be pure. Having awakened, may I cause others to awaken.”

So is the goal the same or different? I think both. It’s the same in that both seek to extinguish the āsavas [impurities]; but different in that for the bodhisatta this extinguishing is a means and for the arahant it’s an end.*

Even with the dedication of merit or the Bodhisattva Vow, each person must still be responsible for his own “salvation”. He or she must lead a moral life and come to the understanding of reality. Friends (Bodhisattvas) can only do so much.

Here is a link from a Zen site on the Bodhisattva Vow.

geocities.com/zennun12_8/bodhivows.html

I have previously identified myself as Theravada several times on this board. Perhaps I should continue to do so.

Regardless of the tradition, all accept the Pali Canon as the authentic words of the Buddha. Other tradition have additional teachings from the sages of their cultures.

 

[Bennie_P]

All religions are connected. In the end it is the same God, just differnt ways of worshipping him. If we are to kill non believers, then I’m leaving CHristianity and forming my own version of it right now,

Sounding like a true theosophist - The whole thing about westernized religions based on eastern religions and philosophies have thier roots based on people just doing that, starting thier own form of Christianity, it is the American thing to do.

Here are a couple links to look at, for your entertainment and enjoyment - a trip to the Twilight Zone -

First link is the Religion that sparked interest for eastern thought to Westerners -
religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/theosophy.html

In 1875 Olcott became involved with a religious group in India, the Arya Samaj. This group was fighting against the modern corruptions of Hinduism, and Theosophy fit well with their attitudes. Although the Theosophical Society and the Arya Samaj were not affiliated for long, it provided HPB and Olcott an opening for expanding their group. In 1878, they moved to India, and became involved in Indian politics. A year later, Blavatsky began writing for the magazine Theosophist, which was very popular among Hindus as well as Theosophical Society members (Campbell 1980: 83-90). In 1882 a headquarters facility was established in Adyar, near Chennai (formerly Madras) in South India, where it is still located today (Algeo 2005: 9142).
While in India, during the peak years of the Theosophical Society, there was a great deal of controversy surrounding Blavatsky, and in 1885 she left India.

And here is an overview about Buddhism with links to Buddhist sites. religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/buddhism.html

And here is link to Christian vs Buddhist ideology biblia.com/theology/buddhism7.htm

http://biblia.com/theology/buddha-jesus12.gif
My question to those that were not raised Buddhist, but as Christians, what was it that you didn’t want to give up to follow Christ?

 

[notself]

My question to those that were not raised Buddhist, but as Christians, what was it that you didn’t want to give up to follow Christ?

Here are two links to the same site that is bit clearer and easier to navigate than the ones you posted.

A comparison between Buddhism and Christianity:
religioustolerance.org/buddhism4.htm

An Overview of Buddhism:
religioustolerance.org/buddhism.htm

I would like to answer your question as a former Roman Catholic, but I don’t know what you mean by, “what is that you didn’t want to give up…”

Could you explain a bit more?

 

[Bennie_P]

I would like to answer your question as a former Roman Catholic, but I don’t know what you mean by, “what is that you didn’t want to give up…”

Could you explain a bit more?

Being a Theravada Buddhist just analysis the question: what did you keep by rejecting Christ in order to follow Buddha, that you would had to give up in order to follow Christ?

 

[notself]

Being a Theravada Buddhist just analysis the question: what did you keep by rejecting Christ in order to follow Buddha, that you would had to give up in order to follow Christ?

I was educated in Parochial School, one of the best in the nation, but still, in my teens, my faith in Catholicism, as the one true church, just faded away. The first thing that I stopped believing in was the need for a priest to perform the sacraments and the ritual of mass. I found I could not believe in original sin.

But I didn’t run away from the Church. I decided to study the Bible and its history and that of the Church. I read the Bible cover to cover along with all of the footnotes and end notes written by the Church in explanation of what each passage meant. It didn’t help. I read about the lives of the Saints. I read a great deal about Saint Francis of Assisi.

It became clear to me, after five or six years of thinking and studying, that I was not a Catholic. I also realized that for the same reasons, I no longer considered myself a Christian.

It was at this time that I started to read about other faiths. I was deeply impressed by the beauty and wisdom of the Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu.
religiousworlds.com/taoism/ttcstan3.html

I read Joseph Campbell. He not only spoke of the Hero’s Quest as it appears in the legends of the Holy Grail, but he gave explanations of many belief systems and religions as well as an excellent series of books tracing the migrations of human kind across the planet. I read the Qur’an, the Rig Veda, the History of Civilization by Will and Arial Durant and books on philosophy.

Finally I ran across a copy of “What the Buddha Taught” by Wapola Rahula. I then started reading the Suttas directly. The teachings of the Buddha make so much sense to me. I have been able to explore those teachings and experience them for myself. I am content.

I wish you as much contentment in your belief.

.

 

[rossum]

Yes, but isn’t the historical Buddha the same kind of being? Aren’t all Buddhas essentially equal?

All living beings are essentially equal. Since the Buddhas are also living beings then they also are all essentially equal.

All of us will attain enlightenment. Some have already done so, the rest of us stil have it to do. In the final analysis we are all destined for nirvana.

rossum

 

[Ahimsa]

All of us will attain enlightenment.

Well, you may certainly hope. Classical Theravada doesn’t make any such guarantee. (A very Catholic position, I might add.)

 

[Bennie_P]

I was educated in Parochial School, one of the best in the nation, but still, in my teens, my faith in Catholicism, as the one true church, just faded away. The first thing that I stopped believing in was the need for a priest to perform the sacraments and the ritual of mass. I found I could not believe in original sin.

I wish you as much contentment in your belief.

.

I have contentment and I have joy.

Just wondering what the name of that Parocial School you went to? If is the best in Nation what went wrong? They didn’t happen to have you read Thomas Merton did they?

Besides original sin what other Church teachings did you/do you reject?

 

[Bennie_P]

Well, you may certainly hope. Classical Theravada doesn’t make any such guarantee. (A very Catholic position, I might add.)

I noticed that too, except no help along the way.

 

[notself]

I have contentment and I have joy.

Just wondering what the name of that Parocial School you went to? If is the best in Nation what went wrong? They didn’t happen to have you read Thomas Merton did they?

Besides original sin what other Church teachings did you/do you reject?

Nothing went wrong. I just don’t believe. No, they did not make me read Thomas Merton. I never have read Thomas Merton. I can understand why a Trappist Monk would be facinated by many aspects of Buddhism. I believe he got into trouble with the Vatican over it.

This priest also feels that Buddhism has something to offer.

Jesuit Fr. Robert E. Kennedy is an American Catholic priest and a Zen master (roshi). “I have never felt that I was a Buddhist. I have always felt that I am Catholic and a Jesuit,” Kennedy tells Tom Fox. “But I wanted a faith that was deeper, that was rooted in my experience, that was not a theory that could be blown away with a change in culture.” He explains: “Christianity is not a triumphal march to the Kingdom.” It is an emptying of self. “This profound teaching of Christian life is very close to Buddhism. Buddhism tries to empty ourselves of a false identity and to come to the world as naked and as crucified as Christ was.”

ncrcafe.org/node/1057

It may perplex you that some one could be born and raised a Catholic,can have a family that is still very devout, and still leave the Church. Well, Catholics do it all the time. I belong to a Buddhist forum and a large number of Western Buddhists who post on that board are former Catholics. I can’t give you any statistics, but there is a surprising number.

As for Church teachings, I don’t like the word reject. It sounds as though I picked them up and without concern, threw them out the window. That is not the case. My faith in Catholic teachings, for that matter, Christian teachings started to fade when I was a young teenager and was completely gone by the time I was 21. Just gone.

I don’t want to go into detail on what I don’t believe and why I don’t believe it, because someone reading this may be on the edge of leaving the Church. I don’t want to influence anyone to leave or to be a Buddhist. Buddhism is not an evangelical religion. You either find it on your own or you don’t.

I found this site because I was looking for a good Catholic site for my sister. If you notice, I don’t start topics and I ususally only respond to posts about Buddhism. I do enjoy the level of discussion here.

 

[Ahimsa]

I noticed that too, except no help along the way.

The Buddhas are always helping.

 

[paarsurrey]

Sounding like a true theosophist - The whole thing about westernized religions based on eastern religions and philosophies have thier roots based on people just doing that, starting thier own form of Christianity, it is the American thing to do.

Hi

While making a comparison betwee Buddha and Jesus you have mentioned against Buddha, that he did no prophesize.

There is a prophecy of Maitereya ascribed to Buddha.
I have following questions related to it:

Did Buddha make this prophecy of Maitereya?

If, yes; does it not make him a Prophet?

If, yes; what was his source of this prophecy?

Was it devil? I don’t thinks so.

If, not, then his source must be God.

The logical conclusion then is that Buddha was a believer in God.

Those who do not come to this conclusion; what are their arguments in this connection?Please

Thanks

Buddha was a believer in God!?.

 

[Bennie_P]

Nothing went wrong. I just don’t believe. No, they did not make me read Thomas Merton. I never have read Thomas Merton. I can understand why a Trappist Monk would be facinated by many aspects of Buddhism. I believe he got into trouble with the Vatican over it.

This priest also feels that Buddhism has something to offer.

http;//ncrcafe.org/node/1057.

It may perplex you that some one could be born and raised a Catholic,can have a family that is still very devout, and still leave the Church. Well, Catholics do it all the time. I belong to a Buddhist forum and a large number of Western Buddhists who post on that board are former Catholics. I can’t give you any statistics, but there is a surprising number.

As for Church teachings, I don’t like the word reject. It sounds as though I picked them up and without concern, threw them out the window. That is not the case. My faith in Catholic teachings, for that matter, Christian teachings started to fade when I was a young teenager and was completely gone by the time I was 21. Just gone.

I don’t want to go into detail on what I don’t believe and why I don’t believe it, because someone reading this may be on the edge of leaving the Church. I don’t want to influence anyone to leave or to be a Buddhist. Buddhism is not an evangelical religion. You either find it on your own or you don’t.

I found this site because I was looking for a good Catholic site for my sister. If you notice, I don’t start topics and I ususally only respond to posts about Buddhism. I do enjoy the level of discussion here.

Father Kennedy is problematic for a lot of people, for you cannot serve two gods and be a Good Catholic. But, I’m glad you decided to check out this site. As to Merten, I think he got too excited about Buddhism IMHO. I just wonder, by what you say about a lot of ex-Catholics being on that Buddhist forum, what got them into Buddhism?
PAX