Nothing you said made the comparison invalid.....not even to the slightest, most remote extent...
The point was people can discover the same truths, and thus what they say will naturally be very very similar...
Jesus and Eastern Influence?
- Thread starter Benauld
- Start date
Nothing you said made the comparison invalid.....not even to the slightest, most remote extent...
The point was people can discover the same truths, and thus what they say will naturally be very very similar...
No, I get that the silk road was open. I don't think that necessarily means Jesus was exposed to Buddhism.
I don't doubt it either. That doesn't mean that Jesus was exposed to these ideas. Think about modern America there has neer been so much information about other cultures available to people, right at their fingertips no less. Do you think that means the average CHristian in Kansas knows anything about Buddhism. Think about how much less this would have been back then.
Okay, but there's a massive jump from saying that to saying that Jesus was heavil influenced by Buddhism and there is not one drop of actual evidence that this was the case.
DO you think the type of prayer Jesus was engaged would more accurately called meditation as we use these terms today? If Jesus was meditating what makes you think he couldn't have attained enlightenment?
Okay
How come he never once mentioned how wise these Buddhists were then? Not a single mention anywhere. I don't see why religious practice wouldn't produce the same insights. All Buddhists really claim is that by living a moral life and meditating one gains certain insights. If Jesus was living a moral life and meditating why wouldn't he attain the same insights?
I'm not questioning that there may have been Buddhists in the Mideast at this time. What I am questioning is to what extent Jesus was exposed to it, especially in light of the fact that there is not a single reference anywhere that this actually occured
Because there is no actual evidence that Jesus was influenced by Buddhists. You make it sound like Buddhists were a strong cultural force in the region. Second of all, if one boils Buddhism down to this all it essentially says is: if you live a moral life and meditate you will attain certain insights into the nature of reality. To the extent that Jesus was engaged in a moral life and meditating why would expect that he didn't attain these insights?
I just don't believe there is evidence that it occured. Why is there no mention anywhere? Including a historical record of someone at the time noting the similarities between Buddhism and Christ's teachings. As far as I know the similarities were never mentioned until sometime in the twentieth Century.
I'm growing a little tired of repeating myself, so I'll reiterate my sentiments for one final time: I have no objection to two separate cultures deriving the same interpretation from observable evidence. However, to postulate that two separate cultures could pull the same notion out of their arses, based upon nothing more than goats entrails and burnt chicken bones is beyound the bounds of credulity.
Why can't two separate cultures derive the same truth from unobservable evidence?
Because how would they know that what they had arrived at, was the correct concept of what "The Truth" is? As you said yourself "The Truth" is unverifiable. You are suggesting that two or more separate cultures, without influence upon one another, happened by coincidence to have arrived at the same view...
Last edited:
Okay, I did some research and it looks like it is more likely than I had previously thought that Jesus was actually directly influenced by Buddhism.
1) I still think it is possible that he developed his teachings independent of any buddhist influence.
2) Isn't it entirely possible that different cultures developed meditation? Different cultures developed sport, art, marriage etc. How do we know that spiritual practices did not develop independently as well. I think we agree that meditation is what makes a stable enlightenment state possible, and direct experience of enlightenment is at the base of Christianity/ Buddhism so I don't see it as impossible or even unlikey that this mode of perceiving the world developed independently. Especially when one considers that enlightenment experiences can happen spontaneously or from psychedelics. In fact, if one looks at shamanistic views of the universe that definitely had no contact with either Buddhsim or CHristianity they too have many similarities with Bud/Chri so it seems apparent that this belief system does develop independently.
3) Its interesting that the sect theraputae may have derived from theraveda. Seems to me that the word "therapy" could be etymologically derived from theravada.
1) I still think it is possible that he developed his teachings independent of any buddhist influence.
2) Isn't it entirely possible that different cultures developed meditation? Different cultures developed sport, art, marriage etc. How do we know that spiritual practices did not develop independently as well. I think we agree that meditation is what makes a stable enlightenment state possible, and direct experience of enlightenment is at the base of Christianity/ Buddhism so I don't see it as impossible or even unlikey that this mode of perceiving the world developed independently. Especially when one considers that enlightenment experiences can happen spontaneously or from psychedelics. In fact, if one looks at shamanistic views of the universe that definitely had no contact with either Buddhsim or CHristianity they too have many similarities with Bud/Chri so it seems apparent that this belief system does develop independently.
3) Its interesting that the sect theraputae may have derived from theraveda. Seems to me that the word "therapy" could be etymologically derived from theravada.
Last edited:
Because if one meditates and observes the mind one gains certain insights into the nature of mind and reality.
In so far as these truths are derived from observing the mind it wouldn't be a coincidence at all. At any rate, no matter how you cut it there are not competing "universal truths." All religions seem to agree on what this truth is...how do you account for that?
This seems very hazy to me at best. However, I still think you are missing my point. Suppose that I personally was to meditate and gain "insights into the nature of mind and reality". How would I judge that these insights bear any relation to my physical existence, when I have no means of testing or verifying them? Furthermore, how would I then know that they were the same insights that Joe Blogg's next door was experiencing, considering that there was no interaction between us?
That all religions are either derived in some way from one another, or from a common source.
What do you mean? You seem to be saying that there is no way of having knowledge of mind or self.
Its similar to if years later a third party read your account and Joes account and saw that they were the same.
Yes they are all derived from the common source of enlightend minds.
The common conception is that there are many different religions which are all very different from each other. This misconception is used as evidence that there isn't a universal truth. The fact that it is a misconception is an argument in favor of universal truth.
I'm sorry this all seems far too "New Agey" for me.
If you define what you mean when you use the words "mind" and "self", and how you see them as relating to a hypothetical "Universal Truth", then I would be happy to explain.And what, statistically, would be the probability of our two accounts matching?
How Universal is this "Universal Truth", if it's global occurrence is all derived from one, historical, "Master Religion"?
Last edited:
What I am saying is that we have no way of knowing whether that knowledge bears any relation to a "Universal Truth".
I can definitely see where grover is coming from with this.
Reason.
Aside from the specific details that stem from cultural beliefs and Siddhartha's Vedic upbringing, all of the Dhamma could very well be realized by anyone with a solid grasp on reason and compassion.
There is nothing all that spectaular about what Siddhartha taught (again, aside from the more specific cultural beliefs - which differ from Jesu's teachings, anyway).
As I said, I DO believe that Jesus was influenced by Buddhism, but I also believe that what's at the very core of Buddhsim can be discovered through reason alone.
The terms mind and self are new agey? Basically what I mean by these terms is subjective experience.I'm sorry this all seems far too "New Agey" for me.
I don't know, astronomically small unless what they're accounts were some kind of objective truth.
Many atheists use the argument that all religions are supposedly different as an argument in favor of them all being wrong. If the religions are all in agreement then the oppsite is true - that is an argument that they are all reflections of some kind of universal truth. Furthermore, even if Buddhism is this "master religion"(which there is no actual hard evidence for) then you still have to take into account the fact that Buddhism is a religion which is based on experience. Which is to say, there is no "blind faith" in buddhism. Everything which a buddhist claims to believe is based upon a direct personal insight. In other words, if all religions are really founded upon Buddhism then what we have is people observing the mind (meditation) and agreeing on what the nature of mind is, in other words agreement upon what the truth is based on observation. It doesn't matter if the Buddhism derived directly from Buddha(the name actually just means "awakened one") spread around the world or if different people at different times realized the same truths about mind and reality - all enlightenment(knowledge of true nature of mind) is buddhism - all religion is based upon elnlightenment experience and there is universal agreement upon the nature of this experience.
I have no disagreement with this statement as you use the term "reason", which means that whatever their discoveries are, they are based upon some measurable, observable aspect. What grover and VitalOne seem to advocate is a non-corporeal, philosophical "Truth".
How can something be a "UNIVERSAL Truth" when it is derived from only one source?
False. I am saying that Buddhism is as the science of mind, or the science of subjectivity. All of its truths are observable.
If a scientist discovers an observable truth and tells it to other people it doesn't become less universally true just because it has one source. All the truths of buddhism can be verified by anyone. Blind faith is a bad thing in buddhism. Your not supposed to just accept what the Buddha said as true, the whole purpose is to veryify it oneself. The truths apply to all minds universally which is why it is universal truth.
Finally, whether or not Jesus was directly influenced by buddhism the simple fact is that these enlightenment experiences happen in all cultures and all times. So even if it could be proven beyond the shadow of doubt that Jesus was really a buddhist there would still be other cultures with the same systems of belief which had no contact with either christianity or buddhism.
I posted this in a different thread a little while back, and it seems pertinent to this discussion...
Guys, we can’t ignore the “Egyptian factor”. It is in the Bible that Jesus went to Egypt with his family at approximately age 2, and spent some years there until Herod the Great died. We don’t really know what happened between age 2 and age 30, but it seems very plausible that Jesus was influenced by the Therapeutae, which Greek word literally means “healers”, which was a Jewish community living close to Alexandria, right near the limits of the Roman Empire with Egypt.
It is known that near this are, the Therapeutae were unknowingly related to the Essenes, another highly ascetic Jewish sect devoted to God.
I don’t know if all this “soul-healing” originated from India or Egypt, but it is a fact that the esoteric teachings could have been related to any of those 2 sources. I personally think it was Egyptian knowledge slightly merged with Eastern influence.
It is know that for the Egyptians, Thot was the father of medicine, scripture, architecture, and all known esoteric teachings (some even say he built the pyramids). Its Greek translation “Hermes” and the translation to Greek of much of his attributed teachings implies the impact of this “God-man”.
It will never be known whether the teachings were of this man alone or a compilation of past knowledge attributed to solely one man. But it is known that this teachings were in Egypt by 4000 BC by fact, but is considered by most scholars to be dated from way before that time. Even the sphinx is a clue of the hidden knowledge of the Egyptians that was lost in antiquity.
Thot (Greek Hermes) is also referenced in many Egyptian & Greek sources to be the high priest of Atlantis and later the high priest of Egypt.
The Assyrians called Egypt “Muzr”, which means the divine source while the Hebrews called it “Mitzraim”, meaning the land of the birth place or origin since Egypt was the place of rebirth after Atlantis.
It was a known fact that the Egyptians believed in reincarnation, cause they even raised a temple dedicated to reincarnation. Not only reincarnation, but initiation and enlightment; the King of Egypt (Pharaoh) was only allowed to rule if he was an enlightened person, a conscient being; the Egyptians didn’t call it enlightment, but they revered the pharaoh as if he was God himself. The Heb-Seb festival celebrated at age 30 of every pharaoh, was the initiation of the pharaoh itself. Were the pharaoh became enlightened and “spoke to the Gods” for three days in order to get advice from God himself to the wise rule of Egypt. The pharaoh was placed in the coffin inside the pyramid of Keops for 3 straight days, without food or water. This was the ultimate test, 3 days is the stipulated time for a person that survives this conditions to attain enlightment or die, but the pharaoh was trained his whole life for this endeavor.
The knowledge was there, in India, Egypt, Greece and even with the ancient Mayans we can see hints of enlightened men; meaning all this hidden-knowledge had to come from an original source, or from different sources dedicated to the same truth. Atlantis maybe? We will never know, unless we remember past lives dated back to Atlantis, but even then, a few will believe...
It is known that near this are, the Therapeutae were unknowingly related to the Essenes, another highly ascetic Jewish sect devoted to God.
I don’t know if all this “soul-healing” originated from India or Egypt, but it is a fact that the esoteric teachings could have been related to any of those 2 sources. I personally think it was Egyptian knowledge slightly merged with Eastern influence.
It is know that for the Egyptians, Thot was the father of medicine, scripture, architecture, and all known esoteric teachings (some even say he built the pyramids). Its Greek translation “Hermes” and the translation to Greek of much of his attributed teachings implies the impact of this “God-man”.
It will never be known whether the teachings were of this man alone or a compilation of past knowledge attributed to solely one man. But it is known that this teachings were in Egypt by 4000 BC by fact, but is considered by most scholars to be dated from way before that time. Even the sphinx is a clue of the hidden knowledge of the Egyptians that was lost in antiquity.
Thot (Greek Hermes) is also referenced in many Egyptian & Greek sources to be the high priest of Atlantis and later the high priest of Egypt.
The Assyrians called Egypt “Muzr”, which means the divine source while the Hebrews called it “Mitzraim”, meaning the land of the birth place or origin since Egypt was the place of rebirth after Atlantis.
It was a known fact that the Egyptians believed in reincarnation, cause they even raised a temple dedicated to reincarnation. Not only reincarnation, but initiation and enlightment; the King of Egypt (Pharaoh) was only allowed to rule if he was an enlightened person, a conscient being; the Egyptians didn’t call it enlightment, but they revered the pharaoh as if he was God himself. The Heb-Seb festival celebrated at age 30 of every pharaoh, was the initiation of the pharaoh itself. Were the pharaoh became enlightened and “spoke to the Gods” for three days in order to get advice from God himself to the wise rule of Egypt. The pharaoh was placed in the coffin inside the pyramid of Keops for 3 straight days, without food or water. This was the ultimate test, 3 days is the stipulated time for a person that survives this conditions to attain enlightment or die, but the pharaoh was trained his whole life for this endeavor.
The knowledge was there, in India, Egypt, Greece and even with the ancient Mayans we can see hints of enlightened men; meaning all this hidden-knowledge had to come from an original source, or from different sources dedicated to the same truth. Atlantis maybe? We will never know, unless we remember past lives dated back to Atlantis, but even then, a few will believe...
Yes, it all comes from one source. That source is the enlightened mind. It doesn't matter whether one person developed a method for attaining enlightenment and then spread it around the world or if different groups developed these methods independently. The point is that the aim of all religion is enlightenment. The fact that this state of mind exists is undeniable and it is also undeniable that it is where religion comes from.