That seems like a glib and superficial judgment to me.
That’s shifting the ground. The OP argued that Buddha’s actions were self-serving. Clearly that isn’t the case for his actions after enlightenment.
Right on. One cannot be self-serving when there is no self to serve. The notion of ‘self’ is overcome in enlightenment.
Every Buddha has cultivated the special divine eye which allows him to see layers of realms, including its inhabitants. I don’t have any idea whether the Demiurge you mentioned is the same being as the Mahabrahma in the Brahma realm I mentioned. But realm is not created. It is called realm depends on the sentient beings who are born and dwelling there. Each realm corresponds to the mental state of the inhabitants. The higher the quality of the mental states, the higher the level of the realm. Some realms can overlap each other physically, such as human realm, animal realm and ghost realm. Animal has fewer, limited mental states than human. Animal can be happy, unhappy, angry, not angry, hungry, full, sleepy, awake. Human mental states can be more various, fuzzier. Human can be proud, envious, jealous, sympathetic, or even alter the mental state, such as using meditation, trance, drugs, or alcohol. While hungry ghost always in hunger, unsatisfied mental state. If after a sentient being has died its consciousness establishes a new unique mental state, then we have a new distinct realm.Nice comments, saybuddho
This “divine realm” you speak of seems - in some ways - similar to the Gnostic Christian view of the Demiurge. With no offense meant, I am just observing that these “heretical” Christians pictured the Demiurge as a great creator-god. In fact, he did create “the heavens and the earth”. But as “first citizen” of his god-realm and designer of heaven/earth, the Demiurge falsely imagined that he was not a god, but rather, the true God. Two observations from Buddhism to follow up on this:
Nor is this utterly foreign to Jesus’ teaching: Jesus taught that knowledge of God is not just faith-related, but experiential. Moreover, he taught that the “Way” to God and the Kingdom is through a somewhat “buddhistic Path” of self-denial… the Way of dying to self (“Take up your cross daily, and follow me”), followed by a new life centered in Spirit. According to Jesus and Buddha, true spiritual living can only be achieved by losing our “self”. The culmination of that process is entering God/Spirit or Bodhi/Nirvana.
- Buddha is said to have told the high god Brahma that even gods - exalted and long-lived as they may be - live in an impermanent state, and will not remain gods forever. Moreover, Buddha said that the highest virtue is not godhood, but rather Buddhahood, Bodhi, or “Enlightenment”. As long as any god is centered in an egoic self, that god lacks the ego-transcendence required of the true Enlightened state.
- Buddha said that the essential human question is not really about who or what created you, but rather how to transcend the “poisoned wound” of suffering caused by living centered in the ego - ego defined as “the anxious, grasping self”. Therefore, discovering or believing in a creator deity is not central to the Buddhist life-perspective. On the contrary, Buddha tended to dismiss such issues as “not tending to edification” - as mostly pointless distractions from the real problem of ego and ego-transcendence.
Therefore I venture the suggestion that, at least from one perspective, losing our self to find the divine Self, transcending ego to live in Spirit, to live as alter-Christi and as Buddhas … is a much more important spiritual issue than debating the existence or non-existence of a Creator-god. *That *God may or may not be reachable at the far end of syllogisms, but the living Spirit is available experientially-and-now, through a process of dying and rising taught by both Buddha and Jesus.
But I personally think comparing the Jesus’ teaching with the Buddha’s teaching is kinda funny. Why? Because they are the same, in the sense that Jesus taught what the Buddha had taught. In other words, Jesus has learned the Buddha’s teaching. The next question is, how could that be, or what is the prove? The explanation starts with a ultimate question, what was Jesus doing from the age of 12 to 30? Where was he? Why doesn’t it exist in the Bible? It is known as the lost years of Jesus. Many has come with their theories, but they lack supporting evidence. I would like to know about it directly from the Christians. What is your answer? I mean the answer that is the reality, the fact about the lost years, not a speculation or baseless claim. Unless you can provide the supporting evidence, it can not be considered as a fact.
Jesus and Buddha taught similar things. They can never be identical when the language structure is radically different. Sanskrit and Greek have different plausibility structures (conceptual frameworks). One language allows for a range of perspectives, while another language allows for a different range of perspectives. The higher you go in abstraction (from ethics to metaphysics), the harder it will be to reconcile each perspective.
While there is the story of St Thomas making it to India, and the story about how some of Jesus’ 70 disciples reaching various cities in the Middle East, neither of these stories have been widely accepted. And, given the nature of the Jewish religion, of which both, Mary and Joseph (his parents) were a part of, it is unlikely that they would have sent Jesus to a non-Hebraic school. Most Jewish people were suspicious of even the Hellenistic schools nearby.
My friend, you are focusing on ethical principles, which are same for most religions and philosophy. Mencius in the Confucian tradition said similar things about loving others and oneself. Did Buddha teach Mencius? When one starts to examine the metaphysical claims of each system (high abstractions), one can see the greater differences. Bodhisattvas are like Christian saints in an ethical sense. Both achieved virtuous perfection (although I think even the virtues of the two traditions are different). But Christian saints are metaphysically in union with Jesus Christ. And Jesus is both God and Man. Bodhisattvas are radically different from saints and Jesus.
I understand the possibility that Buddha had reached a special state of awareness (i.e. Enlightenment) where he was no longer limited to his self. He somehow transcended it and was now able to fully understand the suffering of all. Yet, for some mysterious reason, I’d rather place my hope on a person who literally died for the people than someone who intellectually died to himself. These are two radically different paths. I would even argue that later monks like Thích Quảng Đức (who immolated himself) was in reality following the path of Jesus Christ, not Buddha. Just compare the two symbols. Jesus suffering on a Cross and Buddha looking calm in the Lotus position. Something in my intuition says that Buddha does not really know the suffering of the world.
No that is not what we Christians believe. We think his death was not merely a teaching. His death was very good teaching, but it was something more metaphysically. His death was a metaphysical necessity. There was an ontological shift in the cosmos sometime in the long past which we call “the Fall.” Now, God and man were in a state of metaphysical chaos. The only way to bring back wholeness or Shalom is through the death of a specific kind of personal entity who was both fully God and fully man. The paradoxes of subjectivity and objectivity, facts and values, unity and plurality are not of mere epistemological significance, they reflect a deep metaphysical disruption than can only be repaired by a personal entity that is both God and man.
But not all speculations are equal. It’s reasonable to assume that he was working on Joseph’s shop as a carpenter and minding his own business, living as a good Jew in Nazareth. That makes sense with the evidence and the cultural context. It’s also possible that he spent some time at Qumran or some similar community, though that’s already getting a bit far-fetched.
Why?
Not just Tibetan Buddhism. And there’s nothing strange about it. Compassion is found in most religious traditions in one form or another.
Yes. Exodus 23:4: if you find your enemy’s ox or donkey wandering off, take it back to him.
The culmination of Buddhism is not to “rid” oneself of suffering, either. That’s a common misconception. The culmination is the ending of “tanha”/“trishna” (or thirstful craving).
Like I said previously, the way Jesus taught is not the same because he needed to adjust it to suit the audience, situation, condition, time, etc. That’s why you think the language structure is different. But I think language is not suppose to be a problem, since the important thing is the meaning, the point of the message that was delivered.
Oh I see, you want something metaphysical (I think I got what you mean by metaphysics) not only ethical. Sorry I haven’t written the metaphysical aspect regarding both teachings. I’ll tell you some later.
I don’t know about the story. But if there is supporting evidence that’s hard to doubt, I’d accept the story. It’s possible his father wanted him to be an educated person (just like most, if not all parents). Whether it’s true his parents’ religion was Jewish or not Jewish, his parents’ religion didn’t really matter. Because Nalanda was known as the center of education at that time, it was not nearby and the school was not secular (not specific to Buddhism since there was also Hinduism and other philosophies, and various science fields). It is said that there was only one education center (school,university) at that time. That’s why it was very famous (many students from many far away countries came to study) and had so many fields of learning. If you can mention any (specific) name of other school which existed at that time (BC era), I’d like to know.
Well, my friend, you’ve missed some important points. I meant to show you the same ethical principles which is “only and really” exist in the Buddha’s and Jesus’ teaching and doesn’t really exist in other religions. Yes it is true loving others exists in most religions and philosophy. But merely exists may not really mean ethical principle if there is inconsistency (contradiction). Advice, even command to kill others contradict with loving others(metta), and it can be found in the Bible (without Jesus’ teaching), Quran, Torah, and Confucius. How can you say something is a principle if there is inconsistency. If it is not even a principle, you can’t equal it with a specific principle. In the Buddha’s teaching you can’t find any advice or command to kill, and Jesus’ teaching are parallel with the Buddha’s teaching, for example: to overcome evil with good, which can’t be found somewhere else. You only consider the metta principle, how about the example. It seems that you failed to recognize the high wisdom of Jesus.
Again, you know almost nothing about the Buddha and his teaching but you make a conclusion with mistaken understanding to support it. If you say the Buddha died to himself, you are mistaken. You are comparing by applying the concept that (you think) applies to Jesus, but not to the Buddha, since that’s not the case. In some previous comments someone said like comparing apple with orange. The Buddha didn’t die for anyone. He died normally, peacefully. Teaching others doesn’t mean he needs to die in order to do it. One’s sins can’t be paid by someone else, other people can only help to pay it yourself. That’s why Jesus taught love, the foundation to be able to pay your sins yourself.
You need to differentiate between incarnation (taking another form, which can be found easily in Hinduism) and a man who has a divine attainment (which may exceeds the capacity of the so called “God”.) And thanks to Sufjon who posted the youtube video link for us. Someone in the BBC documentary tried to explain the misunderstanding of resurrection concept. There is evidence that suggests it’s more to relieve than resurrect. And I agree if there is supporting evidence.
Now talking about metaphysics in the context of your belief. You need to know the big picture. Anyway, it’s good for you to know another perspective. It is still related to my previous post. Divine beings (you used the word “God”), their food is not physical things like human (even though they have physical form, which is light). Its food is intangible, happy feelings which come from the devotion, praise, admiration, loyalty of the beings with lower divine capacity (ranking or level) including human. Just like human being, it also wants its food always available, sufficient, preserved. When its devotees died, the devotees’ next life if not lower than human, will be human. Memory from the previous life usually won’t be brought totally to the new life, so the devotion is likely become lesser (or even gone), which means less food. For you who tend to accept the belief in “God” is likely has some degree of the memory still remain, and the religion leaders probably have the largest. They might have been the right-hand of the so called “God”, and thus always try to re-cultivate the foods which they might have enjoyed too in the past, and inherently they want to enjoy it again in the future. Some divine beings can communicate directly with human. That’s why in some holly books you can find the record of such communication between a subject of devotion and the devotee, lord and servant.
Next time please don’t use uncommon (or difficult) words, try to explain the phrase if you think there is no other words can be used, and an example or reference will make it even better.
I think the discussion is (as often happens) becoming confused because of the common use of the English word “suffering” to translate dukkha.
My gut says yes, even though I’m not a qualified Buddhist or scholar on the subject. At least according to the accounts of his life, Buddha was not squeamish about suffering himself for enlightenment or the greater good. For a time he subjected himself to horrible ordeals of asceticism, quite nearly starving himself to death in hopes of enlightenment, which he then tried very hard to spread for the benefit of humanity.
My thinking is that Buddha saw God in His creation (nature, the world around). Buddha realized what it takes to be with God, but he is without the benefit of Divine Revelation given to the Jews by the Prophets, and ultimately by Jesus Himself. I don’t have a deep knowledge of Buddhism, but from the little I know there were a lot of things that fits Christian teachings (helping others, denial of attachment to material things) that tells me that Buddha recognized God somewhat but failed to understand fully about God because he didn’t have divine revelation.
If so, it means he was near, didn’t go anywhere, then why isn’t it mentioned in the Bible that he was also in Nazareth between age 12-30?
This is answered in my previous post.
I also explained what I meant in the previous post.
This example has nothing to do with loving kindness (compassion), it’s more to not to steal other’s. You may argue it has some relation to love, but the degree is not the same. It’s like comparing someone’s life with money.
Neighbor and enemy are not similar things. Other users said: “you tried to shift the ground”, and “you compared apple with orange”, I would say so too. Please think about it first, is “love your enemy” comparable to “love your neighbor”? Let it be your guidance in comparing things, so that later you can find the same teaching from other religion or philosophy.
No one can argue with ignorance, I mean belief without supporting evidence. You should at least provide the evidence that supports your saying. And you don’t need to imagine, but to prove it otherwise, so it’s proven that I’m mistaken, simple.
“historically reasonable manner”, do you think you use this principle in explaining the lost years of Jesus? You haven’t given any quite reasonable comment or answer.
You don’t even able to compare things properly. How can I trust you have a much more reasonable theory? If you have it, then show it, prove it.
I think this might fit this conversation perfectly. It calls into question the divisions that people somehow see between different faiths. This is in eleven parts, but in my opinion, it is very much worth the time for anyone who might care to view it. It is the only documentary I have ever been able to find that properly explains the views I have been taught in my faith regarding the interconnectedness we all share.
I think you have correctly stated the reason why the philosophy of Buddhism is diametrically opposed to Christianity. The first seeks to deny, ignore and end personal suffering, the second seeks to embrace the suffering humanity endures because of sin and end it through redemption.
The former aims to transcend suffering, which usually means first moving into it and then through it. That is profoundly different than to deny or ignore suffering. The latter does indeed embrace suffering in the hope of something better at the other side. Both reflect the endeavors of the human heart to realize an outcome that is something better than misery. Both are born. Both suffer. Both are worthy of respect.
