Jesus was a Buddhist

[AndrewX]

Even one, simple footnote (!), from vol. 1, p. 115 of The SD, should show PERFECT reason, Thomas, why we both look to the EAST, rather than the WEST, for our Greatest Wisdom ...

... and also, why your `academic' standards, and rigeur, though these may be adequate for yourself, just do not quite MEASURE UP (sic) - to the ones we prefer.

Let us talk, since you wish to be Academic, about the GREAT PYRAMID of Egypt, perhaps starting with - that figure in front of it, The SPHINX.

You set the ball rolling, any thread you like - preferably a new one. Let us see where that may take us.


Here, your footnote. This really is becoming a bit embarrassing.

We are told by a Kabalist, who in a work not yet published contrasts the Kabala and Zohar with Aryan Esotericism, that "The Hebrew clear, short, terse and exact modes far and beyond measure surpass the toddling word-talk of the Hindus -- just as by parallelisms the Psalmist says, 'My mouth speaks with my tongue, I know not thy numbers' (lxxi., 15). . . . The Hindu Glyph shows by its insufficiency in the large admixture of adventitious sides the same borrowed plumage that the Greeks (the lying Greeks) had, and that Masonry has: which in the rough monosyllabic (and apparent) poverty of the Hebrew, shows the latter to have come down from a far more remote antiquity than any of these, and to have been the source (!?), or nearer the old original source than any of them." This is entirely erroneous. Our learned brother and correspondent judges apparently the Hindu religious systems by their Shastras and Puranas, probably the latter, and in their modern translation moreover, which is disfigured out of all recognition, by the Orientalists. It is to their philosophical systems that one has to turn, to their esoteric teaching, if he would make a point of comparison. No doubt the symbology of the Pentateuch and even of the New Testament, comes from the same source. But surely the Pyramid of Cheops, whose measurements are all found repeated by Professor Piazzi Smythe in Solomon's alleged and mythical temple, is not of a later date than the Mosaic books? Hence, if there is any such great identity as claimed, it must be due to servile copying on the part of the Jews, not on that of the Egyptians. The Jewish glyphs -- and even their language, the Hebrew -- are not original. They are borrowed from the Egyptians, from whom Moses got his Wisdom; from the Coptic, the probable kinsman, if not parent, of the old Phoenician and from the Hyksos, their (alleged) ancestors, as Josephus shows in his "Against Apion,"I., 25. Aye; but who are the Hyksos shepherds? And who the Egyptians? History knows nothing of the question, and speculates and theorizes out of the depths of the respective consciousnesses of her historians. (See Isis Unveiled,vol. II., p. 430-438.) "Khamism, or old Coptic," says Bunsen, "is from Western Asia, and contains some germ of the Semitic, thus bearing witness to the primitive cognate unity of the Aryan and Semitic races"; and he places the great events in Egypt 9,000 years B.C. The fact is that in archaic Esotericism and Aryan thought we find a grand philosophy, whereas in the Hebrew records we find only the most surprising ingenuity in inventing apotheoses for phallic worship and sexual theogony.

Here we treat, not of opinion, and speculation, but clear, DOCUMENTED historical FACT. Shall we proceed, in usual, repartee style, to say that no pyramid was ever built, what we are seeing is simply an illusion, and those `nice close tight measurements' don't really exist, after all?
If you tug at a ball of string ...

[Bruce Michael]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

in the Torah?

"you shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of egypt." - exodus 22:21

"you shall not oppress a stranger; you yourselves know how a stranger feels, for you also were strangers in the land of egypt." - exodus 23:9

"the stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you; and you shall love the stranger as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of egypt; I Am HaShem your G!D" - leviticus 19:34

depending on who you ask, this is 500-700 years earlier; not that i'm dissing the buddha of course. and i am sure that other people than us figured it out, too.

b'shalom

bananabrain

Dear Banana,
When was it written down? Exodus was still being reworked in the fifth Century BC. wasn't it?
I'm sure you'd find similar lines in the teachings of Zarathustra.

Hillel had some fine teachings too- but that was later.

But where is the compassion for all beings? Where is the exhortation of non violence?

Jesus still had to remind his Jewish listeners with the parable of the Good Samaritan.

Best Wishes,
Br.Bruce

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas, you said,

"I do believe I am on record here as saying we cannot command another what to do, say or think."

--> Let's take a look: Thomas is quoted here:

"Stop looking at the tree ... Genesis is not about the tree, its about humanity."

post #87, in this thread:

http://www.comparative-religion.com/...at-7510-6.html

--> You said Theosophists see no reason to make a distinction between what is fact and fiction.

"I didn't say that, I said a Theosophist told me that — big difference..."

--> Let's take a look: Thomas is quoted here:

"...the Theosophist sees no reason to make a distinction between what is fact, and what is speculation (I might in some cases say fiction) ..."

post #10, in this thread:

http://www.comparative-religion.com/...hist-8323.html

Next,

"You excommunicate people who disagree with you. --> No we don't. As far as I know, even you are not excommunicate!"

--> Has the Catholic church stopped doing excommunications? I thought I read about one, about six months ago.


The "sun-stopping" story:

"I do believe you are referring to Josue Chapter 10."

--> Yes, that is it. (I was having trouble finding it.) Let's take a look.

12 Then Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel:
“Sun, stand still over Gibeon;
And Moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.”

13 So the sun stood still,
And the moon stopped,
Till the people had revenge


Upon their enemies.

"Let's pretend a Catholic Bishop suddenly denounced the idea that sun stopped in the sky. What would happen? --> We would ask on what grounds he might make such a statement."

--> Because he thinks it would be breaking natural law.

Do you think the sun stopped in the sky, like the Bible says?


Next,

"Theosophists would vote with their feet, stop going to that person's lectures, and he or she would end up without a job. --> Really? That's very presumptious, isn't it? Supposing the lecturer had discovered something profound? Supposing he was trying to engage his audience by challenging their assumptions?"

--> Your question is a good one, and worth considering. A Theosophical lecturer, no matter how high and mightly, has the right to question any Theosophical teaching. Any lecturer who took the opposite view for the sake of argument would be applauded. However, in my example, the lecturer says reincarnation is bunk. He or she would be free to say it, and the rest of us would be free to think he or she was spouting a nutty idea.


You have pointed out the correct Theosophical teaching of no-dogma: You have the right to believe what you will, I have the right to think it is nutty, I do not have the right to tell you it is nutty (unless you ask me). This is the very foundation of religious freedom.

"Theosophy explains why Christianity came up with such an idea, not that it is a Theosophical teaching. --> ...tell me, what sources do they reference to make the point, I'd be interested, purely from an academic point of view."

--> Theosophy has a source. It is a poem called the Stanzas of Dzyan.

[I, Brian]

Okay, things seem to be getting a little heated at the moment, so let's try and pull this thread back from a Catholiscism vs Theosophy argument and see if we can return to the original point of discussion:

Originally Posted by SalamanderRC

I feel that The essenes were very much influenced by Buddhist missionaries sent out by King Ashoka to spread the Dharma. I also believe that Jesus was influence by the Awakened One while living in Egypt. There was supposably a Buddhist community in that country at about the time Jesus was there. This preludes the thoery that Jesus traveled to India and studied there and on returning to Israel, was baptised by John and then enlightened while meditating for 40 days in th desert.

[Nick the Pilot]

Brian,

Good idea. I have started a new thread.


http://www.comparative-religion.com/...tml#post129286

[China Cat Sunflower]

Here's a good resource: The Galileo Affair

Chris

[Neemai]

Was Jesus a Buddhist? Well, I've put some thought into this and come to the following conclusion:

If Jesus was a Buddhist he would have -
a) followed the teachings of Buddha;
b) denounced the existance of any external saviour (i.e. God)
c) chanted "Om mani padme hum", or similar
d) wore red robes and shaved his head (probably)
e) taught the four noble truths
f) promoted meditation as a means to still the mind

Now, as Jesus
a) never mentions Buddha
b) gave as his primary commandment that we should Love God with all our heart
c) never recorded as chanting "Om mani padme hum" or similar
d) wore white robes, and had long hair and a beard (probably)
e) doesn't mention the four noble truths
f) not recorded as promoting any mediation form especially

I think it's safe to say that he wasn't a Buddhist. I hope that clears things up.


Om Gouranga Namah!

... Neemai

[AndrewX]

I am still waiting for the addressing of any one of my Seven points ...

[Francis king]

ooh, well said neemai...!

hare krsna hare krsna krsna krsna hare hare hare rama hare rama rama rama hare hare!

[Bruce Michael]

Originally Posted by Francis king

As for a brotherhood... brotherhood my ass (can I say ass on CR?)... "they haven't been very effective becuase of what they're up against..."

That's "arse" unless your talking about your donkey.
Do you understand the concept of idealism?

Originally Posted by Francis king

Let's mention Maitreya again, shall we? Maitreya is the new Krisnamurti and Benjamin Creme and his pals are going to introduce him to the world as the new messiah! Wowzer!

There is areal one there among the forgeries.

Originally Posted by Francis king

Theosophy is a made up religion created by a fat smelly chain smoking Russian bird who is still playing u all for fools even beyond the grave...

She never called it a religion.

"Occultism strips itself entirely of the personal element. Systems of philosophy arise directly out of the personal in man; occultism arises out of the impersonal and is on this account capable of general comprehension. And when it is a question of expressing occultism in terms of theosophy, the endeavour is always made to speak to every human heart and every human soul, and in large measure this can be done....

-Steiner

Originally Posted by Francis king

The secret masters didn't exist... have u not discovered that yet?

What are your qualifications for saying so?

It was, for example, a repudiation of the fundamental principle of occultists all the world over, when a theosophy made its appearance among certain societies in Central Europe, calling itself a "Christian" theosophy. As a matter of fact, you can just as little have a Christian theosophy as a Buddhist theosophy or a Zoroastrian."

"The relation theosophy has to assume to religion is that of an expounder of its truths. For theosophy is in a position to understand the truths of religion....."

-Steiner

-Br.Bruce

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by AndrewX

We are told by a Kabalist, who in a work not yet published contrasts the Kabala and Zohar with Aryan Esotericism

which kabbalist? what was his name? how curious (and, dare i say, convenient) that this work has not yet been published.

The fact is that in archaic Esotericism and Aryan thought we find a grand philosophy, whereas in the Hebrew records we find only the most surprising ingenuity in inventing apotheoses for phallic worship and sexual theogony.

you don't find this, well, er, kind of dismissive? kind of contemptuous? "servile copying"? "not original"? "monosyllabic and apparent poverty of the hebrew"? and you wonder why people don't smack their foreheads and cry "of *course*!!! you're right! why didn't anyone point this out before??" surely it's utterly amazing that the Torah managed to be studied for 3000 years without anyone noticing this!

frankly, if you think this counts as "clear, documented historical fact" i don't think you understand the meaning of that phrase. and i think you already know what my opinion of your approach to all four - clarity, documentation, history and facts - is.

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

When was it written down? Exodus was still being reworked in the fifth Century BC. wasn't it?

even if you accept that (which i don't) how would you actually be able to work out how old it was with any degree of certainty? and the fact that something's in zoroaster doesn't mean he came up with it first and we nicked it. it doesn't take a genius to work out what the universal moral laws are likely to be, after all. there's a "golden rule" in every culture. what's your point exactly?

But where is the compassion for all beings?

do you mean humans? if so, the word for "stranger" (ger) in this context means someone not jewish; in other words, everyone else. if you actually mean "all beings", look at genesis 1:28, where the original hebrew does not in fact have the oppressive meaning of "subdue", but something closer to stewardship, including responsibility.

Where is the exhortation of non violence?

i don't think you mentioned non-violence in the original question. as you know, we're not pacifists - but the passage from isaiah about swords, ploughshares, vines and fig trees ought to pass muster in this respect. that too is older than buddha.

and with reference to the good samaritan, if you understand the halakhic concept of the met mitzvah, the story makes absolute sense within its jewish concept. jesus is criticising the priest and the levite for not knowing the Law and consequently following the correct procedure, whilst a samaritan *of all people* (the samaritans being generally considered at that time Not Our Kind Of People and a bunch of traitorous heretics) still found it within himself to do what ought to have been done according to the correct procedure.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i think you already know what my opinion

Yep.

[bob x]

When was it written down? Exodus was still being reworked in the fifth Century BC. wasn't it?
even if you accept that (which i don't) how would you actually be able to work out how old it was with any degree of certainty?

I am, as bananabrain can testify, a thoroughgoing scoffer of the notion that the Torah came down from heaven at Mt. Sinai and has not changed by one letter ever since, but-- Exodus still being reworked in the 5th century BCE? In my humble opinion, that is utter rot and nonsense.

[bananabrain]

ta, bob, we may not agree on Torah me'sinai, but you certainly know the difference between well-documented evidence and assertion masquerading as such.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

interesting thread.

there are several salient arguments to be made and, seemingly, they have already been made.

Jesus did not teach the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path which form the foundation of every Buddhist praxis lineage and philosophical tradition.

however... it is a western idea that Buddhism arose around 500 B.C.E. the famous Buddhist historian Asanga (i know, you've not heard of him ) actually cites the arising of the Buddhadharma some 2000 years earlier than the standard date which would place it well prior to the arising of the Judaic system.

not that this has anything to do with whether or not Jesus was a Buddhist that i can tell.

oh.. Neemai.. they could be saffron robes as well

metta,

~v