Jesus was a Buddhist

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

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.

Interesting, but how would you have Buddhism long before Siddhartha Gautama? Isn't Buddhism based on his teachings? Is there another enlightened teacher before his time? Would appreciate some cites here.

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Dondi

Interesting, but how would you have Buddhism long before Siddhartha Gautama? Isn't Buddhism based on his teachings? Is there another enlightened teacher before his time? Would appreciate some cites here.

Namaste Dondi,

thank you for the post.

Buddha Shakyamuni was not the first Buddha to arise in this world system during this fortunate eon nor will he be the last.

Buddhadharma is based on the Dharma rather than any being; recall the word "Buddha" is a title and not a proper name.

Asanga, the historian mentioned, dates the arising of Buddha Shakyamuni to the earlier time frame as for citations i'm afraid that i have never found a copy of Asangas history of Buddhadharma on the web to cite from i have only had a chance to read it one other time and even then i was not able to complete the text as it became rather baroque in some areas dealing with the initial 18 schools of Buddhadharma of which we have one still extant, Theraveda.

metta,

~v

[AndrewX]

Vaj and Dondi,

This is why it's so frustrating, when Theosophists speak sometimes of the cycles of Buddha and Bodhisattvas. We get a hard time for supposedly inventing certain doctrines, yet we also get yelled at (usually by these same people) for simply co-opting the teachings of the `real' world religions.

Ha! WHICH is it!?! Make up your mind!

There have been five Buddhas in the current world cycle (manvantara), with Kashyapa preceding Shakyamuni, and Dipankara earlier than that. Buddhas prior to the third of these did not incarnate into dense physical matter, as Humanity itself (prior to 18 million years ago) was an etheric, even an astral entity.

Exoteric Buddhism will recognize five Dhyani Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, as well as their manushis, or human incarnations. And as Vaj can almost certainly tell us, Siddharta Gautama, the MUNI (Sage) from the SHAKYA clan ... was the incarnation of one specific Dhyani.

Only the five Buddhas (each of whom might be spoken of in a threefold manner - with Dhyani Buddha, Dhyani Bodhisattva and manushi buddha) which correspond to the Theosophical Root Races three through seven ... are enumerated in exoteric religion.

Yet esoteric teachings acknowledge all Seven, just as the esoteric portions of every other world religion. And yes, both Kashyapa, as well as Dipankara, are historical, just as was Shakyamuni. So, too, were the 1st and 2nd Root Race Buddhas (and Bodhisattvas), yet why ask us to produced PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, when we have TOLD YOU PLAINLY that there were NO PHYSICAL BODIES for those Buddhas, for Humanity, or even for civilization itself (inasmuch as there was any) ... during this time?

What is demanded, is something which we say, has never existed to begin with. Demanding `proof,' at this point, in the form of empirical evidence, makes us begin to wonder ... Can our diehard skeptics, who so pride themselves around here on their philosophical skills and various academic credentials ... READ?

Apparently not.

Btw, I gave SEVEN REASONS why Jesus might very well have needed to travel Eastward, and have yet to have seen even one of them refuted. The prior influence of the Buddhistic Essenes is something that no one has rightly addressed, either. Instead, all we see is, `Gee, he didn't recite the Four Noble Truths,' and such things as we can probably safely say are accurate.

Hmm, I didn't realize that religion was such a SHALLOW enterprise that all I had to do was a little lip service in order to BE a X, Y or Z. Hmm, so - if today I feel like reciting from the Koran, am I a Muslim? And when I prefer the Paternoster tomorrow, am I suddenly a Christian? Then, next week, I think I'll say a few Persian Gathas ... and become a Zoroastrian!

How convenient, when we equate followers of an entire philosophy, and way of life, with alliterative utterings and vain repetitions. I had always thought there a bit more to being a Buddhist. And that's why I say, for Christ to have gone around, preaching the Gospel of Brotherly Love and Forgiveness, sounds about as BUDDHIST ... as I thought it was possible to get.

Silly me for THINKING.

[Francis king]

so, thats what all the noise was... it was andrewX thinking for himself! congrats, andrew..

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by AndrewX

What is demanded, is something which we say, has never existed to begin with. Demanding `proof,' at this point, in the form of empirical evidence, makes us begin to wonder ...

well, at least you're honest about it. however, i think you might have trouble reconciling this line of argument with your insistence that all this is documented and evidenced. i mean, i ask you: "18m years ago humanity was etheric", forsooth. this is the point at which mrs bb starts going "woo-woo!"

hehehe.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[AndrewX]

Tell me something bananabrain, when God decides to write, which language does He write in?

Originally Posted by Francis

so, thats what all the noise was... it was andrewX thinking for himself!

Try it sometime, Francis. You'd be surprised the amazing opinions, and conclusions you can come up with on your own ... when you aren't busy toeing someone else's party line!

Or shall we simply continue to Theosphy-bash because it's in vogue, and will win you points with the pompous pontificators?

[earl]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste Dondi,

thank you for the post.

Buddha Shakyamuni was not the first Buddha to arise in this world system during this fortunate eon nor will he be the last.

Buddhadharma is based on the Dharma rather than any being; recall the word "Buddha" is a title and not a proper name.

Asanga, the historian mentioned, dates the arising of Buddha Shakyamuni to the earlier time frame as for citations i'm afraid that i have never found a copy of Asangas history of Buddhadharma on the web to cite from i have only had a chance to read it one other time and even then i was not able to complete the text as it became rather baroque in some areas dealing with the initial 18 schools of Buddhadharma of which we have one still extant, Theraveda.

metta,

~v

V, you piqued my curiosity about earlier origins and found this intriguing passing comment about Atisha pegging it at 2100 BCE:
Origins

have a good one, earl

[Bruce Michael]

Originally Posted by AndrewX

EITHER Bruce Michael, OR NICK, will be able to say more, I suspect, and elaborate upon WHY this `Presence and direct influence of the Master' is necessary, both in terms of vibration, for reasons of protection (having to do with Kundalini Yoga/awakening, as well as meditation) ... and for several, equally valid but related reasons.

Hello Br.Andrew,
The reason why we need the physical presence of the Masters in this world is because they bear the future form of the bodies we all will have one day. They quicken those around them. However, mostly when you meet a Master you only realise after the event.

“It is impossible to penetrate into any domain of the spiritual world without a link having first been made with what has already been fathomed by the Elder Brothers of humanity.”

-Steiner

Kind Regards,
Br.Bruce

[AndrewX]

Thank you, Br. Bruce. I agree, on both counts. I think They also serve a purpose, along similar lines, for all disciples who are currently incarnate within all the various spheres (physical, astral, mental and higher).

I know the Manu, and the 1st Ray line (Master M., or whoever holds the 1st Ray Chohan office is called `the Finger of God') are especially concerned with the forms which Humanity incarnates within - on every level from mental downwards.

Also, all of the forms, or types of bodies of the 7 `Cultural Epochs' (Root Races) already exist upon our planet ... and have since the very first epoch. Isn't this so?

~Andrew

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Tell me something bananabrain, when God decides to write, which language does He write in?

i would have thought that depends on who was being addressed. wouldn't you? we have a principle: "the Torah speaks in the language of humanity", which also means that things are explained in a manner which we can relate to, not how they are perceived by G!D, which would be incomprehensibly beyond us.

Try it sometime, Francis. You'd be surprised the amazing opinions, and conclusions you can come up with on your own ... when you aren't busy toeing someone else's party line!

it's amazing how your own independent thought appears to do the toeing of its own accord, though, ain't it?

Or shall we simply continue to Theosphy-bash because it's in vogue, and will win you points with the pompous pontificators?

i'm not theosophy-bashing at all. i'm simply pointing out when it gets things wrong about judaism. and i hardly think that someone who can't answer a question without 1000 words of cut-and-paste (to say nothing of the ponderous over-formatting) is in any position to describe anyone else as a "pompous pontificator". but let's not let this get personal again, shall we?

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Francis king]

dondi... not all buddhists believe that buddhism was occuring before Siddhartha... ur exactly right- buddhism is based on his teachings... so then, where is the buddhism without the Buddha?

he was born, a man, and died at around 81, we are told... ergo, he was a man. Not a god. Sure, he was enlightened, but why does that have to be something metaphysical? why not, instead, metaphorical..?

all this... "spiritual stuff", the lineages of avatars remaining through countless incarnations... buddha speaking with gods and goddesses, etc, etc... it sounds suspect to me. It doesn't teach us anything about those things which make buddhism buddhism. Not in my opinion. In fact, I would go so far to say as these "supernatural" elements of buddhism, the airy fairy god-like bodhisattva creatures, the avatars,the rinky dink heavens and hells, etc, etc, are what survives as remnants of other traditions which buddhism incorporated, and is the only reason buddhism appears so different in so many different places.

none of this is buddhism, not really... although, man, how fascinating...

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i'm simply pointing out when it gets things wrong about judaism.

I didn't realize that there was a brick wall, an iron gate, an invisible fence or in any other way a boundary when it came to interpreting religious or spiritual texts (regarding Judaism or otherwise).

How is one to know when one has reached that boundary? Will you step up for us (as you have done on numerous occasions before), and remind us that - all of the sudden, our speculations are meaningless - since, hey, ho, we have DARED to talk about something that YOU have always understood from another point of view?

Hmmm ...

Well, I don't doubt that you will. I think I'll keep my own understanding, thank you. It may not be popular, `in vogue,' or in line with what your Rabbis want to tell me ... but you know what, it suits me just fine.

Sure, you can point out, "That's not what WE believe, it's not what OUR scriptures tell us ..." -- but then, I want to hear you tell me that there's only ONE Eloha, rather than a whole HOST of Them. Stuff like that. Argue to me that there isn't, in fact, a Heavenly Hierarchy of them ... and don't get P.O.'d when I roll my eyes and stick to my own interpretations.

I don't think jesus did too hot with the Sanhedrin 2100 years ago, did he. Not only did he stir them up a bit, and inconvenience them with another way to see things (err, massive understatement), he went so far as to challenge their very authority -- though he did so not vainly, nor arbitrarily, nor for ANY other reason than to fulfil both his Dharma (God's Purposes) and The Law (again, God's Purposes). But, as we know, this DID NOT SUIT the Sanhedrin.

Please don't get upset ... I just see things differently. I don't blame you, and I understand, you MUST tell me, "This is not how we see things. It's not even what's WRITTEN, etc." That's okay. I know. I just find that there are greater Authorities ... than WHAT IS WRITTEN in your holy books, or even what YOUR RABBIS SAY.

And you can condemn and judge me for that, you can spit on me ... and if you get close enough, you can even STONE me, if it makes you feel any better. I might duck and run at that point, because I'm not keen on getting my head bashed in. But on an open, or SUPPOSEDLY open, comparative religion forum (Interfaith would be great, woudn't it) ... I'll continue to express my own opinions and understanding, however UNPOPULAR these may continue to be.

If I agree with the party line on some issue, then sure I'll toe it. I tend to question before I take up a Cause, and I like to make sure it seems to be the Right Cause, or that it's one of the many Right Causes in this world ... but sure, I do fall in, and I assure you - nowhere near fast enough, or well enough, at times.

[Francis king]

oh, and while we're here... with regard to "nobody ever finds out about buddhism without a teacher", we have, colletively, forgotten about "solitary realizers", havent' we...?

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Francis king

all this... "spiritual stuff", the lineages of avatars remaining through countless incarnations... buddha speaking with gods and goddesses, etc, etc... it sounds suspect to me. It doesn't teach us anything about those things which make buddhism buddhism. Not in my opinion. In fact, I would go so far to say as these "supernatural" elements of buddhism, the airy fairy god-like bodhisattva creatures, the avatars,the rinky dink heavens and hells, etc, etc, are what survives as remnants of other traditions which buddhism incorporated, and is the only reason buddhism appears so different in so many different places.

none of this is buddhism, not really...

You're not one of them agnostic buddhists are you, Francis?

s.

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by earl

V, you piqued my curiosity about earlier origins and found this intriguing passing comment about Atisha pegging it at 2100 BCE:
Origins

have a good one, earl

Namaste Earl,

i do enjoy the Khandro site, i find the presentation of information quite appealing.

metta,

~v