N
notself
Guest
Perhaps someone who is from the Zen tradtion can respond to this?
In Theravada there is no “all in all”.
- Status
In Theravada there is no “all in all”.
P
paarsurrey
Guest
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/jesus-in-india/index.html
Evidence from books on Buddhism
I now mention the books/characters/references used in this thread by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the Promised Messiah 1835-1908, updated later.
This may also be termed as Bibliography
of the essay in the thread:
(Continued from the previous post)
Sir. M. Monier Williams, The Mystery of the Ages (1887).
Buddhism is the Christianity of the East and as such even in better conservation than is Christianity, the Buddhism of the West. (Page 541, footnote).
I. Tsing, A Record of The Buddhist Religion practised in India and the Malaya Archipelago, A.D. 671-695. Translated by J. Takakusu, B.A., Ph.D. (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1896).
On pages 223-224: It is indeed curious to find the name of Messiah in a Buddhist work, though the name comes in quite accidentally. The book is called The New catalogue of the Buddhist Books compiled in the Chiang Yuan Period (A.D. 785-804), in the new Japanese edition of the Chinese Buddhist Books (Bodleian Library, Jap, 65 DD, p. 73. This book is not in Nanges’ catalogue).
Moreover, the Sanghayama of the Sakya and the monastery of Ta-Chin (Syria) differ much in their customs, and their religious practices are entirely opposed to each other. King-Ching (Adam) ought to hand down the teaching of Messiah (Mi-Shi-ho), and Sakya Putiyiya-Sramanas should propagate the sutras of the Buddha.
The Nineteenth Century, Vol. 3, July-December (London, October 1894). British Museum wo. p.p. 59, 39.
On page 517. In an article by Max Muller under the heading ‘The alleged sojourn of Christ in India’, and which he criticises Nicolas Notovitch, who went to Tibet and saw there some old record and manuscripts in the Buddhist Himis Monastery, speaking of Jesus Christ having visited Tibet and Kashmir, and who on his return wrote a book in French ‘Vie inconnue de Jesus-Christ’, Paris 1894. Nicolas Notovitch was by nationality a Russian.
But M. Notovitch, though he did not bring the manuscripts home, at all events saw them, and not pretending to know Tibetan, had the Tibetan text translated by an interpreter and has published seventy pages of it in French in his ‘Vie inconnue de Jesus-Christ’. He was evidently prepared for the discovery of a Life of Christ among the Buddhists. Similarities between Christianity and Buddhism have frequently been pointed out of late, and the idea that Christ was influenced by Buddhist doctrines has more than once been put forward by popular writers. The difficulty has hitherto been to discover any real historical channel through which Buddhism could have reached Palestine at the time of Christ. M. Notovitch thinks that the manuscript which he found at Himis explains the matter in the simplest way. There is no doubt, as he says, a gap in the life of Christ, say from his fifteenth to his twenty-ninth year. During that very time the new Life of Christ found in Tibet asserts that Christ was in India, that he studied Sanskrit Pali, that he read the Vedas and Buddhist Canon, and then returned through Persia to Palestine to preach the gospel. If we understand M. Notovitch rightly, this life of Christ was taken down from the mouths of some Jewish merchants who came to India immediately after the Crucifixion (p. 237). It was written down in Pali, the sacred language of Southern Buddhism; the scrolls were afterwards brought from India to Nepal and Makhada (Quaere: Mazadhe) about 200 A.D. (p. 236) and from Nepal to Tibet, and are at present carefully preserved at Lhassa. Tibetan translations of the Pali text are found, he says, in various Buddhist monasteries, and among others, at Himis. It is these Tibetan manuscripts which were translated at Himis for M. Notovitch while he was laid up in the monastery with a broken leg, and it is from these manuscripts that he has taken his new Life of Jesus Christ and published it in French, with an account of his travels. This volume, which has already passed through several editions in French, is soon to be translated into English.
Unquote
This is just for the information of the members here.
Thanks
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908, the PromisedMessiahImamMahdi continues presenting evidences that Jesus came to India from Buddhist/Tibetan historic resources:
alislam.org/library/books/jesus-in-india/index.html
Evidence from books on Buddhism
I now mention the books/characters/references used in this thread by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the Promised Messiah 1835-1908, updated later.
This may also be termed as Bibliography
of the essay in the thread:
(Continued from the previous post)
Sir. M. Monier Williams, The Mystery of the Ages (1887).
Buddhism is the Christianity of the East and as such even in better conservation than is Christianity, the Buddhism of the West. (Page 541, footnote).
I. Tsing, A Record of The Buddhist Religion practised in India and the Malaya Archipelago, A.D. 671-695. Translated by J. Takakusu, B.A., Ph.D. (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1896).
On pages 223-224: It is indeed curious to find the name of Messiah in a Buddhist work, though the name comes in quite accidentally. The book is called The New catalogue of the Buddhist Books compiled in the Chiang Yuan Period (A.D. 785-804), in the new Japanese edition of the Chinese Buddhist Books (Bodleian Library, Jap, 65 DD, p. 73. This book is not in Nanges’ catalogue).
Moreover, the Sanghayama of the Sakya and the monastery of Ta-Chin (Syria) differ much in their customs, and their religious practices are entirely opposed to each other. King-Ching (Adam) ought to hand down the teaching of Messiah (Mi-Shi-ho), and Sakya Putiyiya-Sramanas should propagate the sutras of the Buddha.
The Nineteenth Century, Vol. 3, July-December (London, October 1894). British Museum wo. p.p. 59, 39.
On page 517. In an article by Max Muller under the heading ‘The alleged sojourn of Christ in India’, and which he criticises Nicolas Notovitch, who went to Tibet and saw there some old record and manuscripts in the Buddhist Himis Monastery, speaking of Jesus Christ having visited Tibet and Kashmir, and who on his return wrote a book in French ‘Vie inconnue de Jesus-Christ’, Paris 1894. Nicolas Notovitch was by nationality a Russian.
But M. Notovitch, though he did not bring the manuscripts home, at all events saw them, and not pretending to know Tibetan, had the Tibetan text translated by an interpreter and has published seventy pages of it in French in his ‘Vie inconnue de Jesus-Christ’. He was evidently prepared for the discovery of a Life of Christ among the Buddhists. Similarities between Christianity and Buddhism have frequently been pointed out of late, and the idea that Christ was influenced by Buddhist doctrines has more than once been put forward by popular writers. The difficulty has hitherto been to discover any real historical channel through which Buddhism could have reached Palestine at the time of Christ. M. Notovitch thinks that the manuscript which he found at Himis explains the matter in the simplest way. There is no doubt, as he says, a gap in the life of Christ, say from his fifteenth to his twenty-ninth year. During that very time the new Life of Christ found in Tibet asserts that Christ was in India, that he studied Sanskrit Pali, that he read the Vedas and Buddhist Canon, and then returned through Persia to Palestine to preach the gospel. If we understand M. Notovitch rightly, this life of Christ was taken down from the mouths of some Jewish merchants who came to India immediately after the Crucifixion (p. 237). It was written down in Pali, the sacred language of Southern Buddhism; the scrolls were afterwards brought from India to Nepal and Makhada (Quaere: Mazadhe) about 200 A.D. (p. 236) and from Nepal to Tibet, and are at present carefully preserved at Lhassa. Tibetan translations of the Pali text are found, he says, in various Buddhist monasteries, and among others, at Himis. It is these Tibetan manuscripts which were translated at Himis for M. Notovitch while he was laid up in the monastery with a broken leg, and it is from these manuscripts that he has taken his new Life of Jesus Christ and published it in French, with an account of his travels. This volume, which has already passed through several editions in French, is soon to be translated into English.
Unquote
This is just for the information of the members here.
Thanks
S
Sixtus
Guest
Unquestionably that part of His life is not recorded except for the teaching that He probably worked at the trade of His step-father Joseph.
This may be mere conjecture. No doubt God did whatever God deemed necessary and if God deigned that the Second Person of the Trinity made incarnate, should preach to ‘other sheep not of this fold’ then that was His perogative.
Either way, He is still God and the second Person of the Trinity.
It is not by chance that the See of Rome encourages us to address the Deli Lama as ‘his holiness’
This may be mere conjecture. No doubt God did whatever God deemed necessary and if God deigned that the Second Person of the Trinity made incarnate, should preach to ‘other sheep not of this fold’ then that was His perogative.
Either way, He is still God and the second Person of the Trinity.
It is not by chance that the See of Rome encourages us to address the Deli Lama as ‘his holiness’
C
Contarini
Guest
N
notself
Guest
I have been discussing this issue with some Mahayana Buddhists on another board.
There are some schools in that Mahayana tradition which have the concept of Buddha-mind or one mind. Since Zen is part of the Mahayana Tradition, I can see how a Catholic could interpret this “one mind” as union with God.
The concept of one mind (although not the words themselves) appear in the Lotus Sutra which is in the Mahayana Canon. The Lotus Sutra does not appear in the Tipitaka which is the Canon of Theravada Buddhism. Theravada is the oldest form of Buddhism in existence today and is practiced mainly in South East Asia. Mahayana is practiced in Northern Asia, China and Japan.
Both forms of Buddhism teach the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path. This is the core of Buddhism. Neither of these Traditions describes an All Powerful Creator God.
Hope this helps you with your students.
C
Contarini
Guest
Yes, I’m aware of this. We started discussing Buddhism today and went over the FNTs and the EP. In the next few days we’ll be looking at some specific Theravada texts that talk about these things–the Fire Sermon at Benares and the simile of the chariot from the Questions of King Milinda.
My students, being evangelical Protestants, find it hard to get their minds around the concept of a universe with no creator. Today I was trying to explain the five skandhas and how rebirth works if there is no atman. I think I represented it correctly, but they were still quite confused. Hopefully the Questions of King Milinda will help.
Edwin
N
notself
Guest
Heck, Buddhist have a tough time in getting their minds around Buddhist concepts. That’s why we call it practice.
I can’t remember if I sent this to you before. It is an essay on Bhavanga, the life continuum. It may help or may add to the confusion. Who knows?
geocities.com/~madg/gangessangha/Bhavanga.html
Here is a link to a good online glossary of Buddhist terms.
palikanon.com/english/wtb/dic_idx.html
You can look up the definition of Bhavangan-sota if your students ask, “What is reborn?”.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
You should introduce them to some good ol’ Process Theology, then.
G
Greg27
Guest
In my understanding of Buddhist philosophy, the union with the Absolute can’t be described in terms of nothingness or annihalation, or in terms of a spiritual substance uniting with another spiritual substance. This is because the Absolute is totally ineffable and can’t be articulated in terms of any words, ideas and concepts, but can only be ‘experienced’ in terms of a special state of concious awareness (achieved by careful meditation and the cultivation of a moral path). A more accurate concept for nirvana is ‘Transcendence’, i.e. moving past all forms, names, dualities, concepts, embodied experience, and discursive states of awareness.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
…nor can it be described in terms of “union.”
R
rossum
Guest
Correct - to accept nothingness is one extreme, to accept spiritual substance is another. The Buddhist Middle Way avoids both extremes.
Good.
Less good, but that is common when trying to describe nirvana in words.
- Samsara does not have the slightest distinction from Nirvana. Nirvana does not have the slightest distinction from Samsara.
- Whatever is the end of Nirvana, that is the end of Samsara. There is not even a very subtle slight distinction between the two.
In most cases, nirvana is not what you think it is.
Some people come to Zen expecting that Enlightenment will be the Ultimate Peak Experience. The Mother of All Peak Experiences. But real enlightenment is the most ordinary of the ordinary. Once I had an amazing vision. I saw myself transported through time and space. Millions, no, billions, trillions, Godzillions of years passed. Not figuratively, but literally. Whizzed by. I found myself at the very rim of time and space, a vast giant being composed of the living minds and bodies of every thing that ever was. It was an incredibly moving experience. Exhilarating. I was high for weeks. Finally I told Nishijima Sensei about it . He said it was nonsense. Just my imagination. I can’t tell you how that made me feel. Imagination? This was as real an experience as any I’ve ever had. I just about cried. Later on that day I was eating a tangerine. I noticed how incredibly lovely a thing it was. So delicate. So amazingly orange. So very tasty. So I told Nishijima about that. That experience, he said, was enlightenment.
Source: Zen is Boring!
rossum
R
richardwy
Guest
They reject the faith and morals of the Church. They place themselves in oppostion to the truth.Why do you think your friends are anti-Christian?
How does “being friendly to buddhism” make them anti-Christian?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Hinduism and its branches are atheistic. There is no God, Father, Almighty. There is something. Something does not equal theism.
Fables and myths don’t count either.
N
notself
Guest
I can understand your comments that Buddhist do not accept the Catholic Faith. But what makes you think that Buddhists are less moral than Catholics? Just curious.
N
notself
Guest
Of course all of this is based on some Mahayana POV’s and not all of Mahayana believes these statements to be a true reading of the Sutras.
Of course none of these statements conform to the Theravada POV nor to the Suttas of the Pali Cannon.
Samsara is not the same as Nibbana (Nirvana). There is no union with Nibbana (Nirvana)
Nibbana is the unconditioned.
Well, everyone is entitled to their own Path. There are only 84,000 of them.
Best wishes to you on your journey.
C
Contarini
Guest
The Hindu concept of God is more than just “something.” And whatever “something” does or doesn’t equal, it certainly doesn’t equal atheism. (Buddhism is another matter.)
Why not?
Edwin
N
notself
Guest
One person’s True Faith is fables and myths to another.
Please give a source for you statement that Hinduism is atheistic.
A
Alexius
Guest
One cannot possibly be a Hindu and be an atheist at the same time. That is like saying that one can be a Catholic and reject the Trinity. Just because a Hindu rejects (or rather do not acknowledge) what the Church teaches on faith and morals, it does not follow that they are an atheist. On that note, this does not mean that they are okay or they are just as acceptable before God. Argue on that issue, but do not say that they are atheists…
Prayers and petitions,
Alexius
Prayers and petitions,
Alexius
R
richardwy
Guest
I was not describing Buddhists, but my some of my friends who quasi new-age whatevers.
They are more friendly to their own made up versions of religion.
R
richardwy
Guest
A source is not necessary. You know that. And if you’ve read a bit, which I guess you have, you know. Hinduism and all its branches including Buddhism are not theistic.
If it were said that Buddhism is an observation of effects whose conclusion is undefinable, of course they would be right.
Does that cover the entirety of Buddhism. Of course not.
Are you a devout Buddhist?
N
notself
Guest
Hinduism is an offshoot of Brahmanism, aka Vedic. Buddhism developed in India when the Brahmin/Vedic was one of the predominant religions. The other major religion at that time was Jainism. Both Jainism and Brahmanism are theist. Buddhism is atheistic.
Hinduism is theistic. In fact Hinduism has just claimed the Buddha as one of its gods. The Buddha would not have been amused.
Yes, I am a practicing Theravada Buddhist. No branch of Buddhism worships a Creator God. For this reason, some consider Buddhism more of a philosophy than a religion. Most consider Buddhism a religion because of its well developed moral and ethical code.
Why do you consider Hinduism with all of its many Gods to be atheistic? I don’t understand.
- Status