What Christ taught the Western world about Buddha

Im curious about the implications of this belief.
for example;
In my neighbourhood there is a woman who has just simply had the worst run of life. I dont know the medical names but at a young age she came down with some disease that has pretty much caused her to become more and more 'mentally retarded' and it also effects her motor functions.
So she is basically decaying into more physical pain but also less able to think... its really bad.
I mean, she pretty much missed out on love and romance, she is consequently fairly poor and lives from government handouts.
People are often rude to her (sadly).

Anyways, the other guy in my neighbourhood, i swear has a horseshoe up his arse.
Born into a wealthy family, pretty much does what he wants and at 55 is so healthy and strong he even has a virtual 'harem' of young girls heh.
He spends 2-4 months a year in Hawaii for crying out loud and he really does seem to have a natural abundance of energy.

Anyways,
If I accept your belief system then really - I accept that he deserves what he has.
She also deserves the shitty life she has.
After all its justice?

If anything Im right to give him credits and lauding and respect him for what he deserves and if anything I should realise that she brought her misfortune on herself by her own actions. (in previous life).

Wouldnt that be the logical conclusion?

 

IKD--


Well, as an ex-buddhist, I can tell you that the general response to that would be that if I in turn mistreated/neglected the woman, and just left her to live out her karma without showing compassion, then I in turn would get bad karma, so a buddhist wouldn't want to do that.

Skip--

The main original idea that I see in christianity is that while the Buddha and Mohammed and Abraham were all considered wise, and/or prophetic, Jesus was the only one who claimed to be the son of god--half god, half man, with the full qualities of both.

I have nothing but respect for other religious traditions (except, admittedly, for scientology, but that's another thread..) and the vast majority of ALL religions have the Golden Rule in common, amongst many other similarities. Islam came from Abraham (Judaism) and Jesus, and Buddhism is based on Hinduism. It's about sharing ideas, not infringing on another religion's "copyright", which didn't really exist back then (which could help explain why jesus came at that point in history, lol).

You didn't give any hard-core evidence of Jesus being in India, but assuming it's true, christ's teachings still had critical differences, namely the fact that he claimed to be the son of god, so I'm not sure how it's supposed to make any difference whether or not he went to India. Assuming that jesus did make the unheard-of claim of divinity, this means one of three things--he was either 1) A lunatic--he honestly thought he was god but wasn't 2) A liar--he knew he wasn't but said it anyway or 3) the story was true.

You can accept whatever version you like. Jesus did have alot of good ideas (no matter what the Pat Robertsons do to make us look bad), and as I wouldn't find him credible in the first two scenarios, I prefer to believe the latter. My point is, the Buddha never had much to say on god, and while I believe it's important to remind ourselves that religions have more in common than not, I think to say Jesus was a buddha is stretching it a bit.

I will say that there are similarities between Jesus' morality and Karma, except Buddhism teaches that to do harm to others you are only harming yourself, which I agree with, but Jesus went a step further and said that you are not only harming yourself, you are harming god. Christianity is about having a relationship with god, and the only way it is possible to show your love for god is by showing love to others--"the kingdom of god is within you." I feel, like the Hindu concept of Brahman (sp?), that there is a bit of god in everyone, and when you deny that in someone, you are only hurting yourself--and god.

And just for the record, I am adding my 2 cents because you asked; I'm not preaching to anyone.

-Kate

 

There is no reincarnation in Buddhism, but there is rebirth. It isn't the same thing at all.

There is no "self" in Buddism, thus there is no "spirit" or soul. In Christianity, once you go to hell you're there for keeps. You can be reborn in many realms in Buddhism, but few of them are permanent.

Your karma comes from this life, and past lives. When/if it will come to fruition is unknown.

Look into Pureland Buddhism. Instant Karma, if you qualify. If you see a strong similarity between it and Christianity, you'll be far from the first to notice ... although, typically, both parties will deny the sameness with their dying breath.

 

Too broad. Some of each do, many of both do not. Many Taoists meditate,"Hindus" meditate, Jains meditate, for all I know Druids meditate. Also, sitting crosslegged is not the only form of meditation, but it's what pops into most people's minds.

Only if you use a mala to count repetitions of a particular sutra.
"Hail Avalokiteshvara, full of Grace ..."

I use mine as a meditation timer, so I can have some sense of how long I've been sitting without constantly thinking about it. As far as symbolism is concerned, my malas symbolize beads on a string.

There have been ascetics many, many years before either Buddha or Jesus. I don't think either of them could rightly take credit for the idea.

Yes, Jesus as the only begotten Son of God from a virgin mother, I think that's new.

Tiiiiinnnnnnnggg!

 

The Bible teaches that it is appointed for men to die ONCE and then the judgment. The Bible clealy points out that you will not keep coming back life after life.

Jesus did not preach that if you are good you go to heaven and if you are bad you go to Hell. Jesus taught that everyone is bad, and the only way to heaven was not by works, but by people accepting Him as their Lord and Saviour. Works only show that you are a sincere believer in Christ, yet the works cannot save you. This is just the oppsite of what Buddha taught.

Sorry, I edited instead of quoted this. It's now restored... - Skip

 

Good point, perhaps "permanent" was a poor choice of words on my part, since one of the foundations of Buddhism is impermanence of all things. Once attaining Nirvana, there is no more rebirth. As far as I understand, that's the only "non-ending" (wink) condition. Being reborn as an animal or again as a human, for instance, is not endless ... but it may happen over and over for what is, to us humans, a very long time before a better rebirth comes along.

That's just my meager understanding, I'm far from being a Buddhist scholar and I may have it all wrong.

 

The only permanent thing is nothing. And seeing that nothing lasts forever, that is what everything will become.

 

Gaston-

Thanks for the answer an reiteration. Your humility shines brightly, my friend.

Posthumous -

Thanks also for the answer.....

"The only permanent thing is nothing. And seeing that nothing last forever, that is what everything will become."

I do have another honest question. Do all buddhists believe that we shall all end up as "nothing"?

 

You should probably ask a Buddhist.

 

I'll give you an honest answer - I don't know. I suppose it would depend on which Buddhist you asked, and how well he or she comprehended the teaching. What you are asking is a question that has been debated for 2,500 years.

Here's a copy of the Heart Sutra:
http://www.drba.org/dharma/heartsutra.asp

It's not a PDF or a download, it's a very short sutra that should all fit on the screen at once. What it contains, though, would fill many, many heads and hearts.

 

Are you sure it wasn't Hindu teachings he brought west? Seems more likely, as Buddhism doesn't have a god, whilst the Hindus have millions of them.

 

Reincarnation ... re - incarnation ... re - incarnate ...

While "incarnate" means taking on a bodily form, it doesn't necessairly mean to take on a human form. Any form one incarnates into, if that one being incarnated is continually doing so continuously then they are being incarnated over and over ... thus re - incarnated. It depends on the intrepretation trying to argue reincarnation versus rebirth, or reincarnation versus cyclic-existence.

To say such and such a being was incarnated as an animal (human, ghost, hell-being, god-being, or whatever realm of existence one chooses to use) is the same thing as saying such and such a being was born as an animal (...), and likewise to say such and such a person was reincarnated as an animal is likewise the same as saying such and such a person was reborn as an animal.

Cyclic existence only refers to the concept of a being going through a cycle of continual birth and death, whether it be in the realm of gods, realm of devas, realm of ghosts, realm of asuras, realm of humans, realm of animals, realms of hell-beings ... etc. In the same aspect, rebirth and reincarnation also refers to the same concept. Only difference is the attachments one feels to the words they use to describe an event, or series of events, or the mental image one is trying to arise in the minds of the one they are conveying the understanding to.

Arguing "reincarnation", "rebirth", or even "cyclic-existence" is a rather trivial argument since they all mean the same thing.

On the other hand ... Spirit and Self do not mean the same thing. Soul and Self do not mean the same thing. Spirit and Soul are common discriptions of an underlying cause or motivating factor to what drives the human existence and that it is eternal. Self on the other hand, in Buddhist concept, is the individual who grasps at concepts of existence, or existing based on contact between the six senses and their associated objects and the feelings they perpetuate based on this contact. So in essence there is no similarities between Spirit and Self, or Soul and Self.

There is, however, a similarity between "I", "me", "my", "mine", "self", and "Ego". All those similarities are the same thing ... grasping at concepts of existence or existing based on relationships of contact with sense-object.

Part of the Second Noble Truth is "... the Six Base Senses gives rise to Contact. Contact gives rise to Feelings. Feelings gives rise to Craving. Craving gives rise to Clinging. Clinging gives rise to Existence (or Becoming). Becoming gives rise to Birth. Birth gives rise to Death." The Second Noble Truth is the origin of suffering ... the origin of a self, or the concept of self.

HTML:

HTML:

HTML:

 

Hindus say differently. The soul = the self. Not the ego, which is constructed thing, but the spark of the divine within is seen as the self. (atman or jivatman).

Generally this highlights a problem I've often come across - people use the same terms to define different things - so 'self' means one thing to a Buddhist another to a Hindu and something again to a post-modernist or even a freudian.

I wonder how much conflict has come in the world due to this? Quite a lot I'd say.

 

Thanks guys for the answers -

I wonder what would be an estimated percentage of buddhists who believe that we will all eventually end up as "NOTHING".

Think about it though - all the countless rebirths(which lead to lives that definitely experience suffering, no matter how "unattached" one may become)... all leading up to that great time of the future of "NOTHINGNESS"..... Quite pointless in a way.