Jesus and Eastern Influence?

[VitalOne]

Hi M*W, I just want to clarify that I don´t believe that Jesus was a Buddhist, but that Jesus was a Buddha himself, and Buddha was a Christ.

I´m with VitalOne on this one, the reason why there are similarities, is because they spoke about the same truth.

I agree, people don't realize that being a Buddha or a perfected being, an ishvara, etc...has nothing to do with Buddhism, Hinduism, or any religion..it's just a nature achieved...

If different people from different time periods, different cultures, religions, etc... discover the absolute truth, the way reality really is, true knowledge of all, the actual truth, the true nature of reality, etc...and explain this truth to mankind of course there will be innumerable similarities in their sayings...

 

[grover]

Hi M*W, I just want to clarify that I don´t believe that Jesus was a Buddhist, but that Jesus was a Buddha himself, and Buddha was a Christ.

I´m with VitalOne on this one, the reason why there are similarities, is because they spoke about the same truth.

concurred

 

[Benauld]

One point of interest here is the Jewish exile to Egypt. This pertains largely to the notion of the salvation myth, which may be the actual eastern import. Essentially, with Egypt being a trade center, it is more than likely that the empire saw traders from the east. These traders would likely have imported some of their folklore and mythology, including tales of the Maitreya, the "future Buddha" of the world...Wikipedia asserts the origin of the word to come from a Sanskrit or Pali word derived from the noun "mitra". (We should also note the Persian "Mithra", whose record extends at least as far back as 1400 BCE; the word, like the Sanskrit and Pali, includes a definition pertaining to "friend".)
...
The Egyptian exile of the Jews, then, may well provide two foundation stones for eastern influence on the Jesus myth:

(1) The myth of a savior--e.g. Jesus--could well have originated with the Maitreya.
(2) Prior contact with the east might have compelled Jesus' travels to those lands.​

Very interesting tiassa, thanks! It's certainly an alluring idea that the existing culture may have been "predisposed" to accept a saviour, as it were... imagine the effect of a local returning from many years of travel full of wonderful new ideas, that he has even been able to fit into an existing religious framework.

It must have been like, somebody going to a distant planet and bringing back superior knowledge to that of the human race, would be today!

If different people from different time periods, different cultures, religions, etc... discover the absolute truth, the way reality really is, true knowledge of all, the actual truth, the true nature of reality, etc...and explain this truth to mankind of course there will be innumerable similarities in their sayings...

I don't concur I'm afraid. It is more likely that a single idea has been transplanted from one geographical region to another over time. This negates the need for seemingly unlikely, multiple and independant, occurrances of the same concept.

Given the propensity of mankind for plagiarism, do we accept that which we already know about human nature, or do we accept the creation of a common source, concerning some hypothetical, indefinable, "absolute truth" (about which we know nothing) as being more reliable?

Ockham's Razor, would suggest to me, that the former is more accurate.

 

[grover]

I don't concur I'm afraid. It is more likely that a single idea has been transplanted from one geographical region to another over time.

The term "single idea" wasn't used. The term was "innumerable similarities."

This negates the need for seemingly unlikely, multiple and independant, occurrances of the same concept.

Again, what is under discussion is not a single concept.

Given the propensity of mankind for plagiarism, do we accept that which we already know about human nature,

I do not accept this as a given.

or do we accept the creation of a common source, concerning some hypothetical, indefinable, "absolute truth" (about which we know nothing) as being more reliable?

There are many instances in history of people arriving at the same truth. I do not know of any instance of a people of one religion being virally infected with a concept from another religion without bloodshed. Besides, if this were the case there would be actual credible scholarship showing its occurence. I'm not aware of any scholarship that says that Jews or Christians were influenced by Buddhism during the inception of these religions, which suggests that there must be another reason for the similarities. Either way what you are suggesting boils down to the same thing: there are innumerable similarities between the teachings of CHrist and the teachings of Buddha. This could mean either that Chist and Buddha arrived at these independently, or that Christ was somehow influenced by Buddhist thought and accepted them as true. In the final analysis the real signifigance of this is that the differences between the religions are vastly overestimated.

 

[Benauld]

The term "single idea" wasn't used. The term was "innumerable similarities."...Again, what is under discussion is not a single concept.

You quibble over semantics...I was saying that, those "innumerable similarities" arise from the "single idea" (or "concept", have it your own way) of Tao, and have migrated (geographically speaking) over time.

I do not accept this as a given.

Suit yourself. Although there are many who would call that naive.

I do not know of any instance of a people of one religion being virally infected with a concept from another religion without bloodshed.

That doesn't say much for mankind. However, maybe this is the first, and Jesus was just a good publicist?

Besides, if this were the case there would be actual credible scholarship showing its occurence. I'm not aware of any scholarship that says that Jews or Christians were influenced by Buddhism during the inception of these religions...

Again, that's kind of my point. What happened in those "missing years" during the life of Jesus?

Either way what you are suggesting boils down to the same thing: there are innumerable similarities between the teachings of CHrist and the teachings of Buddha. This could mean either that Chist and Buddha arrived at these independently, or that Christ was somehow influenced by Buddhist thought and accepted them as true. In the final analysis the real signifigance of this is that the differences between the religions are vastly overestimated.

Yes I acknowledge the similarities, obviously. However, it doesn't "boil down to the same thing" at all. Arriving at the same conclusion independently would be a convincing argument that a "Universal Truth" actually exists. If it was simply transplanted from one region to another however, well, that's just copying! That "Universal Truth" doesn't start to look so Universal does it?

 

[grover]

Yes I acknowledge the similarities, obviously. However, it doesn't "boil down to the same thing" at all. Arriving at the same conclusion independently would be a convincing argument that a "Universal Truth" actually exists.

Yes, you're right. But there is no evidence that Jesus had ever read Buddhism. There is no evidence that Judaism was influenced by Buddhism. There is certainly no evidence in the other direction either that Buddha had been influenced by Judaism. The simple fact is that these systems of belief appear to have developed independently and the similarities are striking. There is not one drop of evidence that Jesus was studying Buddhist or Taoist texts or ever even heard of them.

If it was simply transplanted from one region to another however, well, that's just copying! That "Universal Truth" doesn't start to look so Universal does it?

You're right. But the simple fact is that there is no evidence that Jesus was exposed to Eastern religions.

 

[VitalOne]

I don't concur I'm afraid. It is more likely that a single idea has been transplanted from one geographical region to another over time. This negates the need for seemingly unlikely, multiple and independant, occurrances of the same concept.

Given the propensity of mankind for plagiarism, do we accept that which we already know about human nature, or do we accept the creation of a common source, concerning some hypothetical, indefinable, "absolute truth" (about which we know nothing) as being more reliable?

Ockham's Razor, would suggest to me, that the former is more accurate.

How is it more likely that it has been transplanted from one geographical region to the next? You're saying that Krishna, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Jesus, etc...all copied each other... now that's what you call unlikely...

How about the fact that Mayans, Indians, and other astronomers all calculated very similar astronomical values....would you say that they were talking about the samethings or that they copied each other and that it was plagarism (the foolish notion)?

 

[one_raven]

My comment about Jesus travelling east in the silk road and converting was a bit tongue in cheek, but I do believe that Jesus was greatly influenced by Eastern philosophy.
Yes, the Silk Road was open, and there was an excahnge of ideas.
There was a statue in Alexandria, dating back to Jesus' time, of a monk burning himself alive in protest.
This is direct and concrete evidence that there was open communication and influence between the middle east and the far east in Jesus' time (certainly enough to immortalize a foreigner in statue in Alexandria - one of the great seats of knowledge, power and commerce at the time and a gateway for teh Silk Road).

His philosophy was extraordinarily similar (some nearly word-for-word quotes) to the Dhamma.
The Dhamma was obviously known in the region where he grew up.
He was sorely disillusioned with the religion he was raised in.

Bhuddist influence seems to be a more than reasonable explanation to me.

 

[one_raven]

You're right. But the simple fact is that there is no evidence that Jesus was exposed to Eastern religions.

I disagree.

 

[grover]

My comment about Jesus travelling east in the silk road and converting was a bit tongue in cheek, but I do believe that Jesus was greatly influenced by Eastern philosophy.

There is no evidence of this.

His philosophy was extraordinarily similar (some nearly word-for-word quotes) to the Dhamma.

I'm aware of this fact.

The Dhamma was obviously known in the region where he grew up.

No, this is news to me that Christ read the Dhamma or that there were Buddhists proselytizing in this region. There is no evidence whatsoever that Buddhists influenced Christ.

He was sorely disillusioned with the religion he was raised in.

Yes, because they were hypocrites. His disillusionment does not mean that he went running to Buddhists. Even at 14 CHrist was famous for his knowledge of the Old Testament. Are we really to believe that CHrist had time to learn the OT and Buddhist doctrine? That his tribe was allowing someone to study with a Buddhist? Even when there is no historical record of their being Buddhists in this area? It's preposterous.

Bhuddist influence seems to be a more than reasonable explanation to me.

No, there is no historical evidence of this. Furthermore, it doesn't even seem plausible if one stops to consider what this would actually entail. You don't think Christ's study of an eastern religion would have come up at the trial? Bottom line: there is no evidence whatsoever that Christ ever heard of, read, or studied Buddhism or any other Eastern religion. If you disagree then show some actual credible evidence that shows that this is even plausible.

 

[Benauld]

How about the fact that Mayans, Indians, and other astronomers all calculated very similar astronomical values....would you say that they were talking about the samethings or that they copied each other and that it was plagarism (the foolish notion)?

Lol! Your analogy is delightfully inept .

Are you seriously comparing two different groups of peoples that have separately drawn the same, or similar, conlusions through observing that which is physically manifest, (i.e. the stars), that can be measured, plotted, mapped, compared, and even predicted, AGAINST two or more different groups of peoples, having separately produced the same, or similar, concepts concerning some intangible, abstract, unobservable "Truth" of existence? It's like comparing chalk and meta-cheese!

Bottom line: there is no evidence whatsoever that Christ ever heard of, read, or studied Buddhism or any other Eastern religion. If you disagree then show some actual credible evidence that shows that this is even plausible.

That's why it is called an inference. From the known facts, one could either deduce this, OR invent a further, more complicated explanation involving some hypothetical "third party". Ockham's Razor still stands, therefore I still advocate the view that the former is more reliable.

 

[grover]

That's why it is called an inference. From the known facts

What exactly are these known facts? You seem to be claiming that Jesus was directly influenced by reading buddhist texts or contacts with Buddhists despite the fact that there is not a drop of evidence for this.

one could either deduce this, OR invent a further, more complicated explanation involving some hypothetical "third party".

Yes, you are inventing. You are making a claim for which there is no evidence. Who would these Buddhists be that Jesus ran into? There was no internet back then. There wasn't just a Buddhist monastery where Jesus hung out. There wasn't a Buddhist bookstore on the corner. There is no evidence for this whatsoever. Tell me exactly how and when it is Jesus Jesus came into contact with these Buddhist ideas. Let's just suppose he did come into contact with Buddhist ideas, and was impressed enough by them that he adopted them, why wouldn't he then refer to himself as a Buddhist? Instead, he never mentions any contact, and there is not historical evidence which makes this seem like a possibility. The idea holds no water to even a moments of serious reflection.

Ockham's Razor still stands, therefore I still advocate the view that the former is more reliable.

I am sick and tired of people invoking Occam's Razor as if just mentioning it it somehow magically validates their opinion. Do you even know what Occam's Razor means? It doesn't mean that you can just make any claim without evidence. If Jesus were talking with Buddhists there would have been evidence. If there were any Buddhists in that area there would have been evidence. The simple fact is that there is no evidence whatsoever that Jesus had any contact with Buddhists, read buddhist texts, that there were even any buddhists in the area, or that he ever even heard of Buddhism. There is no evidence for it at all and one has to make all sorts of assumptions and speculative leaps that are directly opposed to the principle of Occam's razor.

 

[one_raven]

What exactly are these known facts? You seem to be claiming that Jesus was directly influenced by reading buddhist texts or contacts with Buddhists despite the fact that there is not a drop of evidence for this.

Did you really completely miss that, or chose to ignore it?
They traded with Indians and Chinese.
Do you understand the implications of that?

The Silk Road WAS open.
There were Chinese and Indian Spices in Rome at the time.
There was a statue of a Buddhist monk who burned himself to death in Alexandria.
Check the history - historians do not doubt that there was communication and exchange of goods and ideas between the Middle East and the Far East in Jesus' time.

I can't say for certain if Jesus knew Buddhists - hell, I can't say for certain that Jesus even existed - what I CAN say for certain is that people in the time and place where Jesus lived were aware of Buddhism.

Let's just suppose he did come into contact with Buddhist ideas, and was impressed enough by them that he adopted them, why wouldn't he then refer to himself as a Buddhist?

Because he wasn't a Buddhist.
I didn't say he was - I said it seems to me he was INFLUENCED by them.

Instead, he never mentions any contact, and there is not historical evidence which makes this seem like a possibility. The idea holds no water to even a moments of serious reflection.

Historical evidence of what?
That Buddhists were there at that place and time? Yes there is - plenty of it.

That Jesus was influenced by them? His words.

If there were any Buddhists in that area there would have been evidence.

There is, because they were.
Have you researched thsi at all? I highly doubt it, because if you did, you would be aware of that it has been established and isn't even questioned by historians.
Why, then, are you so adamant about rejecting this?
You seem to have some vested interest. What is it?

 

[BenTheMan]

Jesus (Gospel of Thomas [18]):"Have you discovered, then, the beginning, that you look for the end? For where the beginning is, there will the end be."

Tao Te Ching (14):"Approach it and there is no beginning;
follow it and there is no end."

A few quotes here and there doesn't really prove anything. Jesus' parables were pretty cryptic (just like the old testament prophecies), so the fact that the meanings seem to line up (in English, I might add, and not in their native tounges) doesn't really mean much, I think.

But nontheless, the Buddhists hold a certain saint, Issa, in very high esteem. There is a book published in the 20's (I think) called "The secret life of Jesus" or some such, wherein it is claimed that Jesus IS Issa.

 

[one_raven]

Alexander's conquests in the east, 200 years before Jesus' time, opened the Silk Road and wide communication with the far east.
There was a large Buddhist community (Therapeutae) in Egypt before Jesus' time.
Periplus of the Erythraean Sea is solid evidence of the open trade routes and cultural influences between India and Egypt.

 

[one_raven]

Benauld,

Sorry it took me so long to get here.

 

[VitalOne]

Lol! Your analogy is delightfully inept .

Are you seriously comparing two different groups of peoples that have separately drawn the same, or similar, conlusions through observing that which is physically manifest, (i.e. the stars), that can be measured, plotted, mapped, compared, and even predicted, AGAINST two or more different groups of peoples, having separately produced the same, or similar, concepts concerning some intangible, abstract, unobservable "Truth" of existence? It's like comparing chalk and meta-cheese!

Yeah, I'm comparing them to show you how different people and groups can arrive at the same truth....don't you get it? The only difference is that one truth is verifiable currently, and another is not...but the actual point, which is that different people can arrive at the same truth is made obvious...

 

[Benauld]

What exactly are these known facts?

By "known facts" I was refering to the very "many similarities" that exist between the two cultures, which is the very subject of this discussion. Facts which you earlier had no objection to.

Yes, you are inventing. You are making a claim for which there is no evidence.

Which is the larger invention, that somebody uses his feet to walk 10000 miles in total, along a well known, well defined route, with accompanying infrastructure, OR the concoction of some pie-in-the-sky, supernatural, preternatural, "Universal Truth"?

I am sick and tired of people invoking Occam's Razor as if just mentioning it it somehow magically validates their opinion. Do you even know what Occam's Razor means? If Jesus were talking with Buddhists there would have been evidence. If there were any Buddhists in that area there would have been evidence. The simple fact is that there is no evidence whatsoever that Jesus had any contact with Buddhists, read buddhist texts, that there were even any buddhists in the area, or that he ever even heard of Buddhism. There is no evidence for it at all and one has to make all sorts of assumptions and speculative leaps that are directly opposed to the principle of Occam's razor.

Yes. I certainly do. In as few a words as possible it equates to: The simpler of two competing theories is more likely to be the correct one. Are you sick of it because it detracts from your position?

I would say that there is even less evidence for the "Universal Truth" model. Besides which, your argument is irrelevant as, I'm in no way saying that Buddhists had to have existed "in that area". By the logic you invoke, one would already need to know of the existence of the Umbongo Tribe of Venezuela in order to go and discover them! What I'm saying is, Jesus may well have travelled during the part of his lifetime - some 15 odd years - that is not disclosed in the bible. Is that as fantastic a suggestion as the "Universal Truth" scenario?

Benauld,

Sorry it took me so long to get here.

Hey, as long as you're enjoying the discourse... I'm glad you have some input too. Do you know of anywhere that I can find more information concerning the burning monk you mentioned?

 

[Benauld]

Yeah, I'm comparing them to show you how different people and groups can arrive at the same truth....don't you get it? The only difference is that one truth is verifiable currently, and another is not...but the actual point, which is that different people can arrive at the same truth is made obvious...

It's not a valid comparison! I could just as easily say American and Australian aboriginals both had contact with extra-terrestrials from the planet Venus, it's just not verifiable yet. It's a pointless argument.

 

[grover]

By "known facts" I was refering to the very "many similarities" that exist between the two cultures, which is the very subject of this discussion. Facts which you earlier had no objection to.

No, I still have no objections. We both agree there are similarities. What we are trying to figure out is the reason.

Which is the larger invention, that somebody uses his feet to walk 10000 miles in total, along a well known, well defined route, with accompanying infrastructure, OR the concoction of some pie-in-the-sky, supernatural, preternatural, "Universal Truth"?

You seem to be taking the fact that this trade route as existing as proof that there was a high degree of cultural exchange going on, including Buddhist holy men that Jesus was learning at the feet of.

Yes. I certainly do. In as few a words as possible it equates to: The simpler of two competing theories is more likely to be the correct one. Are you sick of it because it detracts from your position?

Your missing a big part of it - the preface to that part is more or less "all things being equal." That means two theories that account for the same phenomenon the simpler is better. It doesn't meant simple is always true, or that people are allowed to stop supplying empirical evidence.

I would say that there is even less evidence for the "Universal Truth" model. Besides which, your argument is irrelevant as, I'm in no way saying that Buddhists had to have existed "in that area". By the logic you invoke, one would already need to know of the existence of the Umbongo Tribe of Venezuela in order to go and discover them! What I'm saying is, Jesus may well have travelled during the part of his lifetime - some 15 odd years - that is not disclosed in the bible. Is that as fantastic a suggestion as the "Universal Truth" scenario?

What you are engaged is essentially wild speculation. If Jesus was so influenced bu Buddhism why isn't he just one of the oldest known Western Buddhists? Second, if Jesus was exposed to Buddhism one can also assume exposed to meditation since the direct insight gained by meditation is essential to Buddhism? In other words, if Jesus was engaged in Buddhist meditation it suggests he came upon the same truths as Buddhists - which still fits the "Universal Truth" model. People often use the argument that since all the religions are different that suggests they are not true. So the opposite argument must be true - if all the religions are not different it suggests a "Universal Truth."

Hey, as long as you're enjoying the discourse... I'm glad you have some input too. Do you know of anywhere that I can find more information concerning the burning monk you mentioned?

I'd like to know too? Also, why was he burning? It sounds to me a little like a warning not to practice buddhism.