Buddha rebuked a Demiurge god, who thought he was, The One True God.

originally posted by: Logarock
This supposition is about the most uniformed thing one could find on ATS. Have seen it before. Its ridiculous. Not the result of comparison.

Actually not. Jesus and Buddha aren't your typical priest character explaining their philosophy by regurgitating what the texts they learned are saying.

They are people who really tried by themselves to APPLY what was taught in spiritual texts. To put them INTO PRACTICE.

As such, they belong to a long mystical/ascetic tradition of people who don't care about religious dogmas and theology, and care more about the personal and internal experience of the divine reality.

And if you compare all mystical traditions from the east and the west, they are extremely similar.

Once again, Jesus and Buddha were not priest, they were not telling people to sing to god and to attend sermons.

They were telling people to find the divine truth in them, and then to act in the world according to that divine truth.


What religions have become and what original mystical traditions are meaning are two separate things. One is an exoteric cultural interpretation of texts, while the second is the applied practice of the esoteric truth within the same texts.


If you really want to compare the teachings of Buddhas and Jesus, you have to do it right (not by comparing religious interpretation of their teachings).

a reply to: JUhrman


Actually I have looked into it. Good ol Buddha boy isn't even in the ball park.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: JUhrman


Actually I have looked into it. Good ol Buddha boy isn't even in the ball park.

You talk about the link? I wasn't replying to that. I haven't even read it it's basically a blog post with not much info in it.

I'm replying to your claim that it's ridiculous to say there are similitudes between what Jesus and Buddha taught. It's your opinion but you provide absolutely no explanation about why it would be ridiculous.

It's actually not ridiculous at all and I explained why above.

Now if you want to develop your ideas further I'm looking forward to read them.


edit: Can you please show us examples of teachings from Jesus and Buddha which are fundamentally different and contradicting ?

a reply to: JUhrman


Well for one thing Buddha may have rebuked someone, the Almighty god whatever, but Jesus certainly didn't. In fact quite the opposite.

And Jesus came from without and entered into humanity unlike Buddha boy who was apparently looking for ways to get out of it.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: JUhrman


Well for one thing Buddha may have rebuked someone, the Almighty god whatever, but Jesus certainly didn't. In fact quite the opposite.

And Jesus came from without and entered into humanity unlike Buddha boy who was apparently looking for ways to get out of it.

Your understanding of the subject seems to be lacking.

In the OP, it is clearly explained that all Buddha did was to unmask a lower spirit masquerading as a deity, while reminding the true divine is above these petty considerations like "worship me". Something Jesus would do too.

And then about the origin of Jesus, it has nothing to do with his teachings, and honestly, it's more from the domain of the story. I don't remember Jesus ever saying "I'm born from a virgin, I am literally the biological result of divine intervention".

Like many people you confuse literal interpretation and spiritual teachings. Saying "I'm not from this world"; "My Father is the Allmighty who governs all things" are pretty much things any mystic could say, Buddha included. We are all the children of the divine. It's just some forget it, and others try to remind it to the rest of us.

And Buddha wasn't trying to get out of humanity, he was trying to get the best out of his passage on earth, something that most consider as nothing but suffering.


I'm not surprised you believe they brought different messages, it's confusing when you are stuck at a superficial level reading this. If you truly want to know what unites the message of Christ and Buddha, I invite you to read the writings of both Christian mystics and Buddhist mystics. Only then you will be able to understand where your interpretation of their respective messages went wrong.



I clearly asked examples of contradiction in their teaching. All you seem to be able to show me is differences in their story. It's actually very normal that they have different stories, they are different people.

Now if you can show me how their teaching differs, I'm still open to it.

Ok so anything we see is but a reflection of ourself, or we create our own god so to say by our own belief and desires very similar to how Buddha saw Mara as a reflection of himself:

Wierd Science The Creation Of Lisa
Gary talks Wyatt into using his computer to simulate a woman goddess.


Gary and Wyatt's computer hacking results in a gorgeous, flesh-and-blood goddess of a woman.

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
very similar to how Buddha saw Mara as a reflection of himself:

That's not what is said at all? Buddha saw Mara for what it what, a lower being full of low desires, passions and attachments.

originally posted by: JUhrman

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

very similar to how Buddha saw Mara as a reflection of himself:

That's not what is said at all? Buddha saw Mara for what it what, a lower being full of low desires, passions and attachments.

I guess the scriptures may be seen differently for different people, however what Buddha taught was this truth that all is one. Meaning you are your enemy, and if theres any evil in the world your that too, your also good, your also god. You are all these things as they are reflections of the one truth of oneness.

Time for a Buddhist lesson:
Buddism teaches nondualism, also called non-duality, which refers to the nonduality of absolute and relative (advaya) in the Mahayana Buddhist tradition, the non-difference of Ātman and Brahman in the Advaita Vedanta tradition, and "nondual consciousness", the non-duality of subject and object.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

I thought you were talking about the OP.

Yes Buddhism is nondual. Buddha being one with Brahman, it is greater than Mara which was only a subset of Brahman. Only a part of it which was still deluded.

Mara wasn't a reflection of Buddha. Mara was a reflection of a part of Buddha, which is very different and the reason why Buddha was able to identify Mara for what it was.

When the Buddha declared his freedom from rebirth, which Mara was trying to bind him to with related threats, the Buddha, being the one of truly great and high power, was also inviting Mara, or anyone else, to refute him, which is impossible, because his realisation and teachings are truly supreme in greatness and power.

so anything we see is but a reflection of ourself

This, in the best zen tradition, is both true and not true. If interpreted correctly it's true. If you don't provide context it's not really true.

"You" are not a reflection of myself. The way I see you is. Pretty different.

Likewise we don't "create" our own gods. They exist and the way we see them is a reflection of ourselves. Again, pretty different.


I agree it's a complex subject full of semiotic traps

originally posted by: JUhrman
a reply to: FormOfTheLord



I thought you were talking about the OP.



Yes Buddhism is nondual. Buddha being one with Brahman, it is greater than Mara which was only a subset of Brahman. Only a part of it which was still deluded.



Mara wasn't a reflection of Buddha. Mara was a reflection of a part of Buddha, which is very different and the reason why Buddha was able to identify Mara for what it was.

When the Buddha declared his freedom from rebirth, which Mara was trying to bind him to with related threats, the Buddha, being the one of truly great and high power, was also inviting Mara, or anyone else, to refute him, which is impossible, because his realisation and teachings are truly supreme in greatness and power.

so anything we see is but a reflection of ourself

This, in the best zen tradition, is both true and not true. If interpreted correctly it's true. If you don't provide context it's not really true.



"You" are not a reflection of myself. The way I see you is. Pretty different.



Likewise we don't "create" our own gods. They exist and the way we see them is a reflection of ourselves. Again, pretty different.





I agree it's a complex subject full of semiotic traps

LOL what exactly does non duality mean to you? If god and you are one then all else is a play on words. To say I created this image of a hot goddess is the exact same as saying I have manifested another form of myself, or if there is no I then there is no hot goddess there is only oneness.

To say you cannot create an image of god is incorrect for god lives in all images for in god is non duality.

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
LOL what exactly does non duality mean to you? If god and you are one then all else is a play on words. To say I created this image of a hot goddess is the exact same as saying I have manifested another form of myself, or if there is no I then there is no hot goddess there is only oneness.

To say you cannot create an image of god is incorrect for god lives in all images for in god is non duality.

I never said I cannot create an image of god. I said I cannot create a god. I think we agree on most points and we are simply lost in misunderstanding.

God is non dual. I, like even the best mystic masters, can only approach true non dual thinking and being from time to time, in very rare occasions.

We know the theory that all is non-dual, but the practice is different, we all live in the illusion most of the time.

I am one with god, but I'm not god, and god isn't me.



Everything is oneness and yet even Buddha, Jesus, all the monks the saints and the mystics cannot be that oneness outside of the very experience of it that happens occasionally.

I agree we create the image of the things we see. I disagree we create the things we see. I know the distinction is very thin. The image depends on the perception, it's relative to us. The essence of things is absolute, it's not relative to us.


I'm pretty sure we actually believe the same thing

originally posted by: JUhrman

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

LOL what exactly does non duality mean to you? If god and you are one then all else is a play on words. To say I created this image of a hot goddess is the exact same as saying I have manifested another form of myself, or if there is no I then there is no hot goddess there is only oneness.



To say you cannot create an image of god is incorrect for god lives in all images for in god is non duality.

I never said I cannot create an image of god. I said I cannot create a god. I think we agree on most points and we are simply lost in misunderstanding.



God is non dual. I, like even the best mystic masters, can only approach true non dual thinking and being from time to time, in very rare occasions.



We know the theory that all is non-dual, but the practice is different, we all live in the illusion most of the time.



I am one with god, but I'm not god, and god isn't me.







Everything is oneness and yet even Buddha, Jesus, all the monks the saints and the mystics cannot be that oneness outside of the very experience of it that happens occasionally.



I agree we create the image of the things we see. I disagree we create the things we see. I know the distinction is very thin. The image depends on the perception, it's relative to us. The essence of things is absolute, it's not relative to us.





I'm pretty sure we actually believe the same thing

If you create an image of god its still god, and you are too, that is non duality all is one. Everything is god from the highest god to a clump of manure.

Example of when you dream you create everything then view it from your duality perspactive.

When you are awake your mind does the same thing just to see the world around you, you need to recreate it in your mind.

So if you are seeing any god you are creating it. Like a quantum computer goes through all calculations to get an individual answer.
Get it got it good.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

OK then. If I see someone I'm "creating" that person. He doesn't physically exist until I see him. It's all quantum-matrix-metaphysics, we are in the matrix nothing is real until I personally see it.

Honestly I know exactly what you are trying to explain but you have to admit it's very poorly worded, and you don't really make any effort in understanding what I was trying to say. I specifically made a distinction between "image" and "essence" and you seem to willingly ignore it. I also explained how I'm very familiar with the concept of nonduality and that god is everything. But whatever

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: FormOfTheLord


Consider it great enlightenment when you come to the realization that just about everything around you is not a projection from inside yourself somewhere.

Can you please elaborate on this? I think it's an interesting statement, however I am struggling to understand it completely.

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
I agree with your way of thinking and have come to similar ideas. A being that tries to create a power pyramid with itself on top is not worth admiration since it is ego driven and will not try to do good for all who exists. A being trying to create a symbiotic oneness that is good for all parts who join it and decide what to do by using logic to see how to do good for all parts is a being that is pure from ego corruption.

Your post puts both old testament and Paul teaching in perspective.

Namaste.

i see this whole symbiotic oneness as just being the top dog on steroids. you are no longer just the head of the house, you ARE the house. i seem to recall that being one of the popular cliches for story villains. see, the thing with unifying people is...it almost always turns out that a condition of unity is that the will of the uniter is the will of all. otherwise it isnt unity. be very careful of what unity brings.

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: Itisnowagain
Sure it’s already here its already been here and we had it at one time in primordial history.

Presence never goes anywhere - so sure, it is already here.
There is no 'we' that had presence or lost presence - there is just presence.

Presence is all there is yet there seems to be other than presence - there isn't.

originally posted by: dodol
a reply to: PapagiorgioCZ

maybe death without resurrection means: one ceases to identify with the limited (and changing) form and thoughts.
death and rebirth may still happen but only seen as animation/sensation (like when watching 4D shows in universal studio).

just like when you consciously play vid games, you know you are not the hero in the games, so if the hero dies, you know the real you always survive, you have nothing to lose.

peace

I love what you have written.
Have you seen this?

a reply to: dominicus

There is one problem with your premise. There are some teachings in Buddhism which without a doubt are good, but there are teachings that also can be viewed as causing harm. For example, under Buddhist doctrine you cannot harm any living being, even insects, because all life is sacred.

Meanwhile there is some truth in that teaching the fact is that not all forms of life have the respect that Buddhism wants people to have for other life forms. Insects, and most wild animals don't care if they will transmit to you, or to your child a deadly disease, or if they have to kill you for whatever reason.


So, under Buddhist doctrine if you see a mosquito or some other insect on your skin, or on your child, you should allow that insect to bite you, and to bite your child, and if that insects transmits a deadly disease to you, or your child, then the answer to that is that it must have been karma, that in your past life you must have been an evil person and in this life it is your destiny to suffer, or for your child to suffer.

Likewise, according to Buddhist teachings(and Hinduism as well) karma is there for a reason, so if you are born in a poor family then it is because of karma, and you shouldn't try to make a better life for you or your family. This is why to this day in many parts of the world in which Hinduism and Buddhism is taught there is so much poverty, and suffering. You are taught that you were born to suffer, and you shouldn't try to make a better life for yourself or your family.

There are some exceptions, but to be an exception you must be part of some of the higher caste and you must ask permission. For example in Hinduism, which also has karma as a doctrine, if you were born in the caste of the "undesirables" there is no way for you to attune in this life and you should accept that you and your family will live and die being poor. If you are part of a higher caste, but lower than the caste that can become leaders you must request permission from the higher caste if you want to attend college.

So tell me, how are such teachings in Buddhism, and Hinduism about karma which state that if you were born to suffer then you must suffer, any better?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So tell me, how are such teachings in Buddhism, and Hinduism about karma which state that if you were born to suffer then you must suffer, any better?

if karma exists, then it does not depend on hinduism or buddhism, it is then a universal trait. Look around you, all over the world people are broken up into classes, either culturally, or financially, its just part of the system.

in hindsium/buddhism, it doesn't matter what class you're born to, as anyone can reach Enlightenment. If you're letting a teaching about not harming a bug, even if its harming you, prevent you from studying what Enlightenment is, then you've missed the point.

By the way, I still kill mosquitos if they land on me

a reply to: dominicus

Oh and btw, in case you didn't know Mara in Buddhist belief is Satan, it isn't God, or Elohim. Mara is the deceiver. His ten fold army includes "aversion, cowardice, cravings, doubt, hunger, hypocrisy, lust, thirst, torpor, and stupidity.

You are trying to change who Mara is in Buddhist belief, and you are trying to make him the Elohim, or God in western culture and this is not true.