Is Jesus Actually Buddha?

[jinc1019]

First rule of internet theology: verify your interlocutor’s claims. Have you read the source material?

Yes and there is absolutely a simalarity if you go line by line…but as I mentioned earlier, if Solomon did not write Wisdom or any of the other books he is attributed to writing, it may not matter because depending upon when those books were written, Buddha may have already lived and died.

 

[Gaber]

So you are suggesting then that humanity is born with this knowledge in their DNA and are then able to produce this on their own, or that God has divinely inspired all these authors, including Buddha, so it is no surprise their beliefs and teachings are so similar?

Idon’t know that much about DNA relative to this question, but that might be an interesting avenue of research.

As for divine inspiration, that is a term bandied about mostly in ignorance, as far as I can see. My assertion is based on the nature of awareness relative to Consciousness as I have experienced and studied tha,t relative to “spiritual” insight. One Source, necesssarily one Conclusion. Alpha and Omega. As asked before, if we are ALL made in the image and likeness of God, that being, I would add, in particular pertinent to awareness, something few look into the nature of, then why would we expect differences in the deepest experiences and revelations?

And really, unless someone has had the experience of being completely without thought and seeing awareness in its purity, does such a person have other than a speculative basis for comment on this? Surely religion is one are where book learning is bandied about as if it was actually experiential knowledge. The mind abhors a vacume, and wher there is not knowledge, there is belief. I choose the former. Perhaps for many this is not an important distinction. How many have found the “off” button for their discursive mind?

 

[Spirithound]

…simalarities of parables, stories, and names of apostles, etc. between Jesus and Buddha. Has anyone actually done any research on this?

It’s just occurred to me that our religion is set in history. We have the bones of several of the apostles. Also, the reference to Jesus appearing before the 500 is corroborating evidence. It was included in the Scripture specifically because some of those 500 were still alive to verify the events.

 

[Qoeleth]

I am not sure if you have heard this argument before, but someone recently argued with me that Christianity, and possibly even parts of the Old Testament, are nothing more than borrowed stories and traditions about Buddha with name-changes to fit the Jewish perspective of the writers. Obviously I don’t believe this…but some people have written rather extensive articles on it (I have included one below) and some of the claims are definitely interesting, especially those claims about the simalarities of parables, stories, and names of apostles, etc. between Jesus and Buddha. Has anyone actually done any research on this?

Buddha is not a person, but a title- unless you mean specifically Gotama (the) Buddha, the founder of Buddhism- that theory is obviously rubbish. Buddhist texts refer to multimillions of Buddhas in the infinite past.

From a Buddhist point of view, I think it would be fair to call Jesus a Buddha (“an awakened one”).

Obviously, the ideas and ethics of the two religions significantly overlap.

 

[mab23]

That first link looks to me like an incoherent argument for a book that doesn’t exist. So in answer to your question, I’m going to go with “no”

this!

 

[rossum]

Buddha is not a person, but a title- unless you mean specifically Gotama (the) Buddha, the founder of Buddhism- that theory is obviously rubbish. Buddhist texts refer to multimillions of Buddhas in the infinite past.

And in the future, the Maitreya Buddha is the next Buddha due to appear on Earth. And in the rest of the universe, there can be Buddhas on other planets round other suns who are alive now.

From a Buddhist point of view, I think it would be fair to call Jesus a Buddha (“an awakened one”).

Not quite. He is usually seen as a Bodhisattva, not as a Buddha. The fact that He returned from the dead indicates that He was not a Buddha. A Buddha does not return from the dead. That is the whole point – a Buddha has escaped the round of rebirths.

Obviously, the ideas and ethics of the two religions significantly overlap.

The moralities are very similar: “Love others as you love yourself.” - Bhadramayakara vyakarana sutra, 91.

rossum

 

[UnityofTrinity]

My claim is not that Jesus is Buddha, but that overlaps in teachings does not prove that Jesus is an another Buddha. While love one another is a common teaching shared by different religions, Jesus Christ lessons are different than Buddha. Jesus taught us suffering, Buddha taught cessation. Jesus taught “If you deny me, you deny my Father”, Buddha taught the middleway. Jesus taught of God, and Buddha taught of self. These differences in doctrines and philosophies are enough ti set the two faiths apart and the two men apart. While Buddha asks men to consider only the teachings, Christ asked us to consider also His Godhood, and to have faith in God and in Him.

 

[Publisher]

I am not sure if you have heard this argument before, but someone recently argued with me that Christianity, and possibly even parts of the Old Testament, are nothing more than borrowed stories and traditions about Buddha with name-changes to fit the Jewish perspective of the writers. Obviously I don’t believe this…but some people have written rather extensive articles on it (I have included one below) and some of the claims are definitely interesting, especially those claims about the simalarities of parables, stories, and names of apostles, etc. between Jesus and Buddha. Has anyone actually done any research on this?

No, Buddha lived 500 years before Jesus of Nazareth. If one were to “push” the envelope and seek to draw parrallels between Buddhism and Christianity…one COULD say that both Gautama Sidhartha and Jesus of Nazareth were “enlightened” and “annointed”…making them “Buddhas” and “Christs”…but no…they each stem from different traditions…different continents…and different times.

 

[Qoeleth]

Not quite. He is usually seen as a Bodhisattva, not as a Buddha. The fact that He returned from the dead indicates that He was not a Buddha. A Buddha does not return from the dead. That is the whole point – a Buddha has escaped the round of rebirths.

Yes. It depends upon how you view the Resurrection. If it is viewed in terms of a transcendence of the duality of life and death, existence and non-existence, I think it could be Bhuddahood- not that Jesus is reborn ‘as such’, but the duality of life and death cease to mean anything. cf. the Diamond Sutra:
Subhuti, what do you think? Does a venerable one who will
never more be reborn as a mortal say within himself: I obtain
the fruit of a Non-returner? Subhuti said: No, World-honored
One. Wherefore? Because “Non-returner” is merely a name.
There is no non-returning

I think also we see in Jesus the destruction of the dualities of ‘existence/non-existence’, life/death’, ‘poverty/riches’, ‘mourning/rejoicing’.

Is such an interpretation true? It no longer matters to in the context of Enlightenment:
“that Truth to which the Tathagata has attained is neither real nor unreal.”

From the ‘Collection of Stone and Sand’:
A university student while visiting Gasan asked him: “Have you even read the Christian Bible?”

“No, read it to me,” said Gasan.

The student opened the Bible and read from St. Matthew: “And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow. They toil not, neither do they spin, and yet I say unto you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these…Take therefore no thought for the morrow, for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself.”

Gasan said: “Whoever uttered those words I consider an enlightened man.”

The question/non-question of the Buddhood of Jesus calls to mind the 1 Koan of the ‘Gateless Gate’: “Has a dog Buddha-nature?” “Mu”. I am sure the rest is known…

To paraphrase the sage Mummon:
Has a (Jesus) the Buddha nature?
This is a matter of life and death.
If you wonder whether (Jesus) has it or not,
You certainly lose your body and life!

 

[rossum]

The question/non-question of the Buddhood of Jesus calls to mind the 1 Koan of the ‘Gateless Gate’: “Has a dog Buddha-nature?” “Mu”. I am sure the rest is known…

“Mu” is the Japanese pronunciation. The story comes from China, where that same character is pronounced, “Wu”. I strongly suspect that the original answer to the question was somewhere between “Wu” and “Woof”.

rossum

 

[Gaber]

My claim is not that Jesus is Buddha, but that overlaps in teachings does not prove that Jesus is an another Buddha. While love one another is a common teaching shared by different religions, Jesus Christ lessons are different than Buddha. Jesus taught us suffering, Buddha taught cessation. Jesus taught “If you deny me, you deny my Father”, Buddha taught the middleway. Jesus taught of God, and Buddha taught of self. These differences in doctrines and philosophies are enough ti set the two faiths apart and the two men apart. While Buddha asks men to consider only the teachings, Christ asked us to consider also His Godhood, and to have faith in God and in Him.

Ihardly think that Jesus’ Teaching centers on suffering, or learning to suffer! I mean one might think so, given such phenomenon as “los penitentes,” but to claim that His work was about suffering, though He may have, pain and suffering being distinct from one another, is, imho, naieve.It might be, however, that people at that time and later suffered som much as a norm, that that became an overlay of what wasn’t about that to begin with.

Depending on definition, it can be said that God and Self are One, seeing that in our culture, it being so selfish, we have practically no clue as to what Buddha or others like Him might mean by “Self.” That usage does not refer to person by any means.

More to the point thatn considering His Godhood, Jesus emphasised His Presence as authority. There is a lot of misinterpretation, omo, about what jesus meant by “I,” as in Eastern teachings, of which His is one, “I” often refers to the usage of “Self” that we culturally misinterpret.

Ishort, the contrasts you make may not be considered proper “oppositions” or distinctions other thatn saying “we have here apples and oranges.”

 

[Gaber]

Yes. It depends upon how you view the Resurrection. If it is viewed in terms of a transcendence of the duality of life and death, existence and non-existence, I think it could be Bhuddahood- not that Jesus is reborn ‘as such’, but the duality of life and death cease to mean anything. cf. the Diamond Sutra:
Subhuti, what do you think? Does a venerable one who will
never more be reborn as a mortal say within himself: I obtain
the fruit of a Non-returner? Subhuti said: No, World-honored
One. Wherefore? Because “Non-returner” is merely a name.
There is no non-returning

This sounds like a good point. My spiritual adviser said of Jesus,as the Christ, “That was never born to die, nor did that die to come again.”

I think also we see in Jesus the destruction of the dualities of ‘existence/non-existence’, life/death’, ‘poverty/riches’, ‘mourning/rejoicing’.

More to the point, He said “I and the Father are (IS) One” that might as well be “Atman is Brahman.”

Is such an interpretation true? It no longer matters to in the context of Enlightenment:
“that Truth to which the Tathagata has attained is neither real nor unreal.”

The manifest and unmanifest are ultimately One.

From the ‘Collection of Stone and Sand’:
A university student while visiting Gasan asked him: “Have you even read the Christian Bible?”

“No, read it to me,” said Gasan.

The student opened the Bible and read from St. Matthew: “And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow. They toil not, neither do they spin, and yet I say unto you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these…Take therefore no thought for the morrow, for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself.”

Gasan said: “Whoever uttered those words I consider an enlightened man.”

The question/non-question of the Buddhood of Jesus calls to mind the 1 Koan of the ‘Gateless Gate’: “Has a dog Buddha-nature?” “Mu”. I am sure the rest is known…

To paraphrase the sage Mummon:
Has a (Jesus) the Buddha nature?
This is a matter of life and death.
If you wonder whether (Jesus) has it or not,
You certainly lose your body and life!

Love that Mummon! He rubs your nose into your own face!

 

[Gaber]

“Mu” is the Japanese pronunciation. The story comes from China, where that same character is pronounced, “Wu”. I strongly suspect that the original answer to the question was somewhere between “Wu” and “Woof”.

rossum

Didn’t know that! that’s hilarious! Thanks!