|
The Jesus Anomaly
Did Buddhism influence early Christianity?Long before the word 'missionary' came to be synonymous with Christianity, Buddhist monks were travelling across Asia, spreading their master's teachings along the Silk Route from Khotan in the east to Antioch in the west. Indeed, many scholars hold that the religious traditions of the Silk Route regions, including the Levant, were significantly influenced by the Buddha's philosophy of compassion, his vision of Dhamma, the eternal law that sustains the cosmos and manifests itself among humans as the moral law. Against this historical backdrop. some scholars have posed an interesting question: Were the teachings of Jesus the Nazarene a continuation, in Palestine, of the philosophy that Siddhartha Gautama had taught beside the Ganga 500 years earlier? In their book The Original Jesus (Element Books, Shaftesbury, 1995), Elmar R Gruber, an eminent psychologist, and Holger Kersten, a specialist in religious history and author of the best-selling Jesus Lived in India, offer compelling evidence of extensive Buddhist influence on the life and teachings of Jesus. Arguing that 2,000 years of Church history have hidden the real historical Jesus, the authors promise to peel away the varnish and uncover him. Very little is known about Jesus' early years -in those years, Gruber and Kersten claim, Jesus was brought up by the Therapeutae, teachers of the Buddhist Theravada school then living in the Bible lands. The Therapeutae had been sent by the Mauryan emperor Ashoka on an embassy to Ptolemy II, king of Egypt, in 250 BC. On arriving in Alexandria, Egypt's Hellenistic capital and a flourishing intellectual centre, the Therapeutae established themselves as a community. In his tract 'De Vita Contemplativa', Philo Judaeus, a contemporary of Jesus, described the Therapeutae as recluses devoted to poverty, celibacy, good deeds and compassion: such a religious brotherhood had no precedent in the Jewish world. The eminent linguist Zacharias P. Thundy observes that the word 'Therapeutae' is itself of Buddhist origin, being a Hellenisation of the Pali 'Theravada'. Clearly, these Alexandrian Buddhists practised the Buddha's precept that his bhikshus should minister both to soul and body: Buddhist thought does not divorce physical balance from the quest for enlightenment. Gruber and Kersten suggest that Jesus's spiritual development, begun under the Therapeutae, was continued by the Essenes. The Dutch researcher Ernest de Bunsen theorised that Buddhist ideas were introduced to the Essenes by Jews living abroad, and that they later influenced the shaping of Christian dogma. The word 'Essene' may derive from the Aramaic 'Yssyn', healer: like the Therapeutae, the Essenes believed that holy conduct and the powers of healing belonged together. Close, striking parallels exist between the early Buddhist texts and what Bible scholars term the 'Q' material -the sayings of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. 'Q' is shorthand for Quelle, the German for 'source': Matthew and Luke are believed to nave taken this material from the oldest corpus of Jesus' aphorisms in circulation among his followers. The Buddha's most celebrated dictum is: "Hostility is never conquered by hostility in this world; hostility is conquered by love. That is the eternal law." Again, he says: "Surmount hatred by not hating, surmount evil with good; surmount greed through generosity, surmount lies with truth; speak what is true, do not succumb to anger, give when you are asked." Compare this with Jesus's advice in the New Testament: "... love your enemies, do good and without expecting anything in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of God." Again, Jesus's aphorism about how one ignores the beam in one's own eye while carping about the mote in another's is in concord with the Buddha's observation, in the Dhammapada, that "the faults of others are more easily seen than one's own, but seeing one's own failings is difficult. The failings of others are winnowed like chaff in the wind, but one conceals one's own faults, like a cheating gambler." Jesus's call to his disciples to break all ties expressed in such injunctions as "Leave the dead to bury their dead" and "No one who puts his hand to the plough and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God" accords with the Buddha's prescription to the bhikshus: "Those who aspire are ever striving; they do not stay in one place. Like swans leaving a lake, they move from house to house. The only source of refuge for those who do not accumulate possessions and are careful about what they cat is unconditional freedom, knowing as they do the void of transience. Their way is difficult to follow like that of birds in the sky." Jesus's statement, "He who wishes to follow me must know himself and bear my yoke," has a parallel in the Dhammapada: "When a mendicant, though still young, yokes himself to the Buddha's teachings, the world is illuminated like the moon freed of clouds." Gruber and Kersten assert that the Church emphasised the duty of self-denial so as to consolidate its position of power by depriving the mass of believers of spiritual responsibility. The authors feel that such a Church, founded on power, had no use for those who took personal responsibility for their spiritual advancement. By contrast, Jesus had valued the acceptance of self-knowledge as a means to promote responsibility for one's own life, actions and thinking. Like the Buddha, Jesus opposed the priests and theologians who barred the way to true self-knowledge, to maintain their influence: "The Pharisees and the Scribes took the keys of knowledge and they hid them. Neither did they enter, nor did they allow those who wished to enter. But you become prudent as serpents, and innocent as doves." Gerber and Kersten have made a valiant effort to prove that the historical Jesus lived the life of a Buddhist and taught Buddhist ideals to his disciples; their work follows in the footsteps of the Oxford New Testament scholar' Barnett Hillman Streeter, who established as early as the 1930s that the ,moral teaching of the Buddha has 4 remarkable resemblance to the Sermon on the Mount." And although it has not produced sufficient proof to clinch the issue, The Original Jesus may stimulate people towards fresh exploration. Whatever the Pauline theologians may contend, the possible Buddhist influence on early Christianity can no longer he denied. Title: Did Buddhism influence early Christianity? www.jesusisbuddha.com
Jesus and Buddha as Brothers
"Thich Nhat Hanh is a holy man, for he is humble and devout. His ideas for peace would build a monument to ecumenism, to world brotherhood, to humanity." -? Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in nominating Thich Nhat Hanh for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1967
Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh: The dialogue between Buddhism and Christianity has not gone very far, in my opinion, because we have not been able to set up a solid ground for such dialogue. This is a reflection of the present situation. Buddhists believe in reincarnation, the possibility for human beings to live several lives. In Buddhist circles, we do not use the work incarnation very much: we use the word rebirth. After you die, you can be reborn and can have another life. In Christianity, your life is unique, your only chance for salvation. If you spoil it, then you will never get salvation. You have only one life. Buddhism teaches that there is non-self, anatta. Christianity clearly teaches that a Christian is a personalist. Not only are you a person, self, but God is a person, and He has a self. The Buddhist teaching of emptiness and no substance sounds like the teaching of no being. Christianity speaks of being, of existence. The teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of the philosophy of being, la philisophie de l'etre, the confirmation that the world is. There is compassion and loving-kindness in Buddhism, which many Christians believe to be different from the charity and love in Christianity. Charity has two aspects: your love directed to God, and your love directed to humankind. You have to learn how to love your enemy. Our Christian friends have a tendency to remind us that the motivation of love is different for Christians and Buddhists. There are theologians who say that Buddhists practice compassion just because they want liberation; that Buddhists don't really care about the suffering of people and other living beings; that they are only motivated by the desire to be liberated. In Christianity, your love is grounded in God. You love God, and because God said that you must love your neighbor, so you love your neighbor. Your love of your neighbor springs from the ground of your love of God. Many people, especially in Christian circles, say that there are things in common between Christianity and Buddhism. But many find that the philosophical foundations of Christianity and Buddhism are quite different. Buddhism teaches rebirth, many lives. Christianity teaches that only this one life is available to you. Buddhism teaches that there is no self, but in Christianity there is a real self. Buddhism teaches emptiness, no substance, while Christianity confirms the fact of existence. If the philosophical ground is so different, the practice of compassion and loving kindness in Buddhism and of charity and love in Christianity is different. All that seems to be a very superficial way of seeing. If we have time and if we practice our own tradition well enough and deeply enough, we will see that these issues are not real. First of all, there are many forms of Buddhism, many ways of understanding Buddhism. If you have one hundred people practicing Buddhism, you may have one hundred forms of Buddhism. The same is true in Christianity. If there are one hundred thousand people practicing Christianity, there may be one hundred thousand ways of understanding Christianity. In Plum Village, where many people from different religious backgrounds come to practice, it is not difficult to see that sometimes a Buddhist recognizes a Christian as being more Buddhist than another Buddhist. I see a Buddhist, but the way he understands Buddhism is quite different from the way I do. However, when I look at a Christian, I see that the way he understands Christianity and practices love and charity is closer to the way I practice them than this man who is called a Buddhist. The same thing is true in Christianity. From time to time, you feel that you are very far away from your Christian brother. You feel that the brother who practices in the Buddhist tradition is much closer to you as a Christian. So Buddhism is not Buddhism and Christianity is not Christianity. There are many forms of Buddhism and many ways of understanding Buddhism. There are many ways of understanding Christianity. Therefore, let us forget the idea that Christianity must be like this, and that Buddhism can only be like that.
from:
"Going Home: Jesus and Buddha as Brothers"
by Thich Nhat Hanh, Riverhead Books,
by Jim Beverley It's one thing to think about a Christian response to Buddhism in the classroom; it's quite another to actually talk about the gospel face to face with His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Buddhism's chief ambassador in our world. I interviewed him last summer at his headquarters in Dharamsala, India, and I thought of this nugget of wisdom from the great theologian Karl Barth as I formed my approach: "Only one thing is really decisive for the distinction of truth and error � Jesus Christ."
His Holiness, born as Lhamo Thondup in northeastern Tibet on July 6, 1935, was chosen as the 14th Dalai Lama (a title meaning "Ocean of Wisdom") at age two. He was enthroned as Tibet's spiritual head at age five and forced into political leadership when Chairman Mao Tse Tung's armies raided Tibet in 1950. Exiled since 1959, the Dalai Lama has become the champion for a free Tibet, even as he spreads the dharma (teaching) of the Buddha to the nations. Since the interview I have spent a lot of time considering what kind of Christian witness could reach the Dalai Lama. First, I believe the gospel must become incarnate in the prayers and actions of a Church that cares deeply about the brutalization of Tibet at the hands of Communist China. In the name of Jesus, we can pray for the political freedom of Tibetans. In the name of Jesus, some Christians can offer financial aid to the Tibetan Government in Exile. In the name of Jesus, other believers can write letters of protest to the Chinese government about the oppression of Tibetans. Second, the gospel must be defended intelligently to His Holiness since he, like most Buddhists, places great weight on being rational. The Dalai Lama believes that Buddhism is the best philosophy to explain reality. The supremacy of Christian faith over Buddhism is best illustrated, then, by a positive defense of the gospel's historical credibility, philosophical integrity and spiritual authenticity. The Dalai Lama respects debate. In our interview, he was completely at ease when I argued for the truth and supremacy of Jesus, even laughing as he recognized, at one level, the power of the logic. This, of course, brings us back to Barth's remark. "Only one thing is really decisive for the distinction of truth and error - Jesus Christ." On this matter, the Dalai Lama himself said one time that he is not worthy to be compared with Jesus. He wrote in one of his books that Jesus is "a fully enlightened being." Given that affirmation, I said to him that if Jesus is fully enlightened then He must have taught the truth about His identity as Son of God, and as Lord and Saviour. "Otherwise, He wouldn't be that enlightened, would He?" The Dalai Lama's answer astonished me a year ago, and it still does. He said that Jesus was allowed to teach things that were not true because the people were not ready for the highest truths. He made it clear that he does not regard Jesus as a liar in any sense since He was teaching for a good cause. Although the Dalai Lama's reply to my point (one borrowed from C. S. Lewis) is consistent with Buddhism, it is utterly inconsistent with any ordinary claim that Jesus is a "fully enlightened person." The whole matter shows the unseen forces at work in truth telling. Sharing the gospel is not just about reason or debate. It is ultimately about spiritual blindness and the need for illumination by the Spirit of God to the truth of Jesus as the light of God. That light is for the Dalai Lama. For me. For all.
Way of PeaceThe John Main Seminar 2000Love Your EnemyIn the morning, His Holiness the Dalai Lama arrived promptly and took up his task of commenting on a passage from the Gospel according to Matthew with a few brief prefatory remarks. Throughout the John Main Seminar 2000 he stressed that his aim was not to make Buddhists of the Christians in the audience, but to offer a Buddhist monk's perspective on the Gospel passages
My main concern is this: how can I help or serve the Christian practitioner? The last thing I wish to do is to plant seeds of doubt and skepticism in their minds. As mentioned earlier, it is my full conviction that the variety of religious traditions today is valuable and relevant. According to my own experience, all of the world's major religious traditions provide a common language and message upon which we can build a genuine understanding. In general, I am in favor of people continuing to follow the religion of their own culture and inheritance. Of course, individuals have every right to change if they find that a new religion is more effective or suitable for their spiritual needs. But, generally speaking, it is better to experience the value of one's own religious tradition. Here is an example of the sort of difficulties that may arise in changing one's religion. In one Tibetan family in the 1960s, the father of the family passed away, and the mother later came to see me. She told me that as far as this life is concerned she was Christian, but for the next life there was no alternative for her but Buddhism. How complicated! If you are Christian, it is better to develop spiritually within your religion and be a genuine, good Christian. If you are a Buddhist, be a genuine Buddhist. Not something half-and-half! This may cause only confusion in your mind. Before commenting on the text, I would like to discuss meditation. The Tibetan term for meditation is gom, which connotes the development of a constant familiarity with a particular practice or object. The process of "familiarization" is key because the enhancement or development of mind follows with the growth of familiarity with the chosen object. Consequently, it is only through constant application of the meditative techniques and training of the mind that one can expect to attain inner transformation or discipline within the mind. In the Tibetan tradition there are, generally speaking, two principal types of meditation. One employs a certain degree of analysis and reasoning, and is known as contemplative or analytical meditation. The other is more absorptive and focusing, and is called single-pointed or placement meditation. Let us take the example of meditating on love and compassion in the Christian context. In an analytical aspect of that meditation, we would be thinking along specific lines, such as the following: to truly love God one must demonstrate that love through the action of loving fellow human beings in a genuine way, loving one's neighbor. One might also reflect upon the life and example of Jesus Christ himself, how he conducted his life, how he worked for the benefit of other sentient beings, and how his actions illustrated a compassionate way of life. This type of thought process is the analytical aspect of meditation on compassion. One might meditate in a similar manner on patience and tolerance. These reflections will enable you to develop a deep conviction in the importance and value of compassion and tolerance. Once you arrive at that certain point where you feel totally convinced of the preciousness of and need for compassion and tolerance, you will experience a sense of being touched, a sense of being transformed from within. At this point, you should place your mind single-pointedly in that conviction, without applying any further analysis. Your mind should rather remain single-pointedly in equipoise; this is the absorptive or placement aspect of meditation on compassion. Thus, both types of meditation are applied in one meditation session. Why are we able, through the application of such meditative techniques, not only to develop but to enhance compassion? This is because compassion is a type of emotion that possesses the potential for development. Generally speaking, we can point to two types of emotion. One is more instinctual and is not based on reason. The other type of emotion--such as compassion or tolerance--is not so instinctual but instead has a sound base or grounding in reason and experience. When you clearly see the various logical grounds for their development and you develop conviction in these benefits, then these emotions will be enhanced. What we see here is a joining of intellect and heart. Compassion represents the emotion, or heart, and the application of analytic meditation applies the intellect. So, when you have arrived at that meditative state where compassion is enhanced, you see a special merging of intellect and heart. If you examine the nature of these meditative states, you will also see that there are different elements within these states. For example, you might be engaged in the analytic process of thinking that we are all creations of the same Creator, and therefore, that we are all truly brothers and sisters. In this case, you are focusing your mind on a particular object. That is, your analytic subjectivity is focusing on the idea or concept that you are analyzing. However, once you have arrived at a state of single-pointedness--when you experience that inner transformation, that compassion within you--there is no longer a meditating mind and a meditated object. Instead, your mind is generated in the form of compassion. These are a few preliminary comments on meditation. Now I will read from the Gospel:
The practice of tolerance and patience which is being advocated in these passages is extremely similar to the practice of tolerance and patience which is advocated in Buddhism in general. And this is particularly true in Mahayana Buddhism in the context of the bodhisattva ideals in which the individual who faces certain harms is encouraged to respond in a nonviolent and compassionate way. In fact, one could almost say that these passages could be introduced into a Buddhist text, and they would not even be recognized as traditional Christian scriptures. Matthew 5:43-48 You have heard that they were told, "Love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But what I tell you is this: Love your enemies and pray for your persecutors; only so can you be children of your heavenly Father, who causes the sun to rise on good and bad alike, and sends rain on the innocent and the wicked. If you love only those who love you, what reward can you expect? Even the tax-collectors do as much as that. If you greet only your brothers, what is there extraordinary about that? Even the heathens do as much. There must be no limit to your goodness, as your heavenly Father's goodness knows no bounds. This reminds me of a passage in a Mahayana Buddhist text known as the Compendium of Practices in which Shantideva asks, "If you do not practice compassion toward your enemy then toward whom can you practice it?" The implication is that even animals show love, compassion, and a feeling of empathy toward their own loved ones. As we claim to be practitioners of spirituality and a spiritual path, we should be able to do better than the animals. These Gospel passages also remind me of reflections in another Mahayana text called "Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life", in which Shantideva states that it is very important to develop the right attitude toward your enemy. If you can cultivate the right attitude, your enemies are your best spiritual teachers because their presence provides you with the opportunity to enhance and develop tolerance, patience, and understanding. By developing greater tolerance and patience, it will be easier for you to develop your capacity for compassion and, through that, altruism. So even for the practice of your own spiritual path, the presence of an enemy is crucial. The analogy drawn in the Gospel as to how "the sun makes no discrimination where it shines" is very significant. The sun shines for all and makes no discrimination. This is a wonderful metaphor for compassion. It gives you the sense of its impartiality and all-embracing nature. As I read these passages, I feel that the Gospel especially emphasizes the practice of tolerance and feelings of impartiality toward all creatures. In my opinion, in order to develop one's capacity for tolerance toward all beings, and particularly toward an enemy, it is important as a precondition to have a feeling of equanimity toward all. If someone tells you that you should not be hostile toward your enemy or that you should love your enemy, that statement alone is not going to move you to change. It is quite natural for all of us to feel hostility toward those who harm us, and to feel attachment toward our loved ones. It is a natural human feeling, so we must have effective techniques to help us make that transition from these inherently biased feelings toward a state of greater equanimity. There are specific techniques for developing this sense of equanimity toward all sentient creatures. For instance, in the Buddhist context, one can refer to the concept of rebirth to assist in the practice of generating equanimity. As we are discussing the cultivation of equanimity in the context of Christian practice, however, perhaps it is possible to invoke the idea of Creation and that all creatures are equal in that they are all creations of the same God. On the basis of this belief, one can develop a sense of equanimity. Just before our morning's session, I had a brief discussion with Father Laurence. He made the point that in Christian theology there is the belief that all human beings are created in the image of God--we all share a common divine nature. I find this quite similar to the idea of buddha-nature in Buddhism. On the basis of this belief that all human beings share the same divine nature, we have a very strong ground, a very powerful reason, to believe that it is possible for each of us to develop a genuine sense of equanimity toward all beings.
The crucial point is how you utilize this basic equanimity. It is important to concentrate on the negativities of anger and hatred, which are the principal obstacles to enhancing one's capacity for compassion and tolerance. You should also reflect upon the merits and virtues of enhancing tolerance and patience. This can be done in the Christian context without having to resort to any belief in rebirth. For example, when reflecting upon the merits and virtues of tolerance and patience, you can think along the following lines: God created you as an individual and gave you the freedom to act in a way that is compatible and in accordance with the Creator's wishes--to act in an ethical way, in a moral way, and to live a life of an ethically disciplined, responsible individual. By feeling and practicing tolerance and patience toward fellow creatures, you are fulfilling that wish: you are pleasing your Creator. That is, in a way, the best gift, the best offering that you can make to the divine Creator. There is an idea in Buddhism of something called offering of practice (drupai chopa): of all the offerings you can make to someone that you revere--such as material offerings, singing songs of praise, or other gifts--the best offering you can make is to live a life according to the principles of that being. In the Christian context, by living life in an ethically disciplined way, based on tolerance and patience, you are, in a way, making a wonderful gift to your Creator. This is in some sense much more effective than having only prayer as your main practice. If you pray but then do not live according to that prayer, it is not of much benefit. One of the great yogis of Tibetan Buddhism, Milarepa, states in one of his songs of spiritual experience, "As far as offerings of material gifts are concerned, I am destitute; I have nothing to offer. What I have to offer in abundance is the gift of my spiritual practice." We can see that, generally, the person who has a tremendous reserve of patience and tolerance has a certain degree of tranquillity and calmness in his or her life. Such a person is not only happy and more emotionally grounded, but also seems to be physically healthier and to experience less illness. The person possesses a strong will, has a good appetite, and can sleep with a clear conscience. These are all benefits of tolerance and patience that we can see in our own daily lives. One of my fundamental convictions is that basic human nature is more disposed toward compassion and affection. Basic human nature is gentle, not aggressive or violent. This goes hand in hand with Father Laurence's statement that all human beings share the same divine nature. I would also argue that when we examine the relationship between mind, or consciousness, and body, we see that wholesome attitudes, emotions, and states of mind, like compassion, tolerance, and forgiveness, are strongly connected with physical health and well-being. They enhance physical well-being, whereas negative or unwholesome attitudes and emotions--anger, hatred, disturbed states of mind--undermine physical health. I would argue that this correspondence shows that our basic human nature is closer to the wholesome attitudes and emotions. After you have reflected upon the virtues of tolerance and patience and feel convinced of the need to develop and enhance them within you, you should then look at different types and levels of patience and tolerance. For example, in the Buddhist texts three types of tolerance and patience are described. The first is the state of resolute indifference--one is able to bear pain or suffering and not be overwhelmed by them. That is the first level. In the second state, one is not only able to bear such sufferings, but is also, if necessary, prepared and even willing to take upon oneself the hardships, pain, and suffering that are involved in the spiritual path. This involves a voluntary acceptance of hardships for a higher purpose. The third is a type of patience and tolerance arising from a sound conviction about the nature of reality. In the context of Christian practice this kind of patience would be based on a firm faith and belief in the mysteries of the Creation. Although the distinctions between these three levels of tolerance are found in Buddhist texts, they are also applicable in the Christian context. This is especially true of the second type of tolerance and patience--deliberately taking upon yourself the hardships and pains that are involved in your spiritual path.
from: "The Good Heart. A Buddhist Perspective on the Teachings of Jesus" by His Holiness the Dalai Lama,
Is Jesus a Buddhist ?by Dr. Tin Htut web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/jesus.htm
The following issues may support the view that Jesus is a Buddhist: 1. Jesus had expounded his doctrine of patience, non-violence and
compassion which was seemingly an opposite view to that of the God
according to the Old Testament. Jesus preached and asked his followers to turn
the other cheek when somebody slapped you, whist an eye for an eye and a tooth
for a tooth in the Mosaic Law clearly denoted retaliation and vengeance which
were regarded as justice. 2. In the Revelation of St John, a Christian scripture written down in Greek
in the Eastern Mediterranean (v. 1) it refers to a book closely sealed with
seven seals. St John weeps bitterly (v. 4) because he sees no one worthy to
open the book and to break its seals. This can be done by the Lamb alone,
slaughtered in sacrifice (v. 9). There is a similar book in Mahayana Buddhism,
The Perfection of Wisdom sealed with seven seals, written in Sanskrit in South
India. The book has 8000 lines and in chapters 30 and 31 it describes in detail
how Everweeping Bodhisattva slaughtered himself in sacrifice, and how he
thereby became worthy of the Perfection of Wisdom. This parallel is remarkable
not only for the similarities of the religious logic, but also for the fact
that both have seven seals. (1) 3. A parable from the Gospels, the teachings or revelations of
Christ, (Matthew 13, 1-23; Mark 4, 1-20; Luke 8, 4-15) has a similarity to that
of the Buddha’s teachings. “People hear my words: a farmer goes to
sow his fields. The birds come and eat the seeds. Other seed falls on the path.
And behold, some seed falls on the rock where there is no earth, and withers
away. Some falls under the thorns and cannot grow. The seed that falls on good
earth, however, sprouts and brings forth fruit. The farmer is Jesus and the
seeds are his words of wisdom. The seeds which are eaten by the birds means
people who do not understand the words. The seeds that falls onto the rocks are
the words of wisdom that go in one ear and come out of the other. The seeds
that land under the thorns means those who hear and see, but do not act
accordingly. The seeds which land on the good earth means those that hear the
words of wisdom and act accordingly. (2) 4. Jesus life-history between the ages of 13-30 is missing. It is
explained that Jesus was attending to his father’s livelihood during that
period which seemed to be unlikely. Jesus was a wise and an active child and
was given a high place in a temple before that missing-period. Why did he have
to be in a low profile at the most active period of one’s lifetime ? 5. An account of Jesus’ expedition to Tibet and his subsequent
practice of Samatha meditation was described by scholars. He was supposed to
have obtained supernatural powers (Jhana and Abhina) and went back to
Palestine to teach his skills. (3, 4)
Is Jesus a Bodhisatta ?The following propositions may support the view of Jesus as Bodhisattava (Sanskrit). 1. Theoretically, everyone can become a Bodhisatta if enough effort and determination is present. A bodhisatta does not necessarily have to be a Buddhist in his previous life before his final life as a buddha. 2. Jesus’ commitment to sacrifice his own life in order to save others was a hard evidence for being a bodhisatta. 3. His doctrine may be compatible to that of a bodhisatta and his prediction of his second coming to this world to save people clearly supports the view of a bodhisatta since buddhas have to be humans.
Is Jesus and Metteyya, the next would-be buddha the
same person ? There are reasons to believe this supposition of Jesus as Maitreya
(Sanskrit), viz. 1. The second coming of Jesus and the appearance of Metteyya before this
world ends is a strong coincidence. 2. Jesus is believed to be in Heaven at present and Metteyya is also in
Tushita heaven awaiting for his final life as a buddha. 3. Jesus has a determination to become a saviour which may be of an equal
calibre to that of a bodhisatta. 4. The practice of meditation of the next would-be buddha and that of Jesus
is extra-ordinarily similar; Metta Bhavana which in essence is loving kindness
and compassion to all sentient beings. The Null Hypothesis or to disprove the hypothesis of Jesus
being the next Bodhisatta In research we usually analyse data to disprove that there is a difference
or the hypothesis is untrue. It is called Null hypothesis, like in the law that
a person is not guilty until and unless proved to be guilty. In this context we shall try to prove the Null hypothesis that Jesus and
Metteyya are not the same person. If we can find any evidence of Metteyya being
predicted as a would-be buddha, was already in Tushita awaiting for his final
life as a buddha, and it was proclaimed during the lifetime of Gottama Buddha,
then it will serve as a Null hypothesis to our investigation. Jesus was born
approximately 500 years after Gottama Buddha and if the former hypothesis that
Metteyya was already in Heaven during the time of Gottama Buddha this will
nullify the theory.
In search for the evidenceThere is an account in the Buddhist texts of an young novice who came forward to accept a spare robe of the two that were offered to the Buddha. The audience was taken aback by the brave behaviour of the novice when the rest of the order of the monks that were present did not come forward. The Buddha told the audience that he was the would-be Metteyya who would become the next buddha one day. This account comes from the scriptures which are direct words of Gottama Buddha and can be taken for granted as authentic. This evidence will support the view that Mettaya was not already in Tushita at the time of the Buddha. However, it will not support the theory nor will it nullify completely the Null hypothesis that we have put forward. We will need to make further enquiries. 1. When is it known to us that Metteyya is in Tushita ? 2. Who gave that statement and how authentic is it ? 3. How reliable was that person who gave the statement ? So far, we have not disproved the hypothesis that Jesus and Metteyya are the same. There is a possibility that Jesus is the Metteyya, but there are still sequential questions that we need to resolve. It is traditional for a would-be buddha to come from Tushita which is the last abode for Bodhissatas. But, we do not know from which source did the statement that Metteyya was presently awaiting in Tushita come from. We will need to do further research and will require scholars that can explore the original Pali texts as well as scholars that have wide knowledge about Mahaya Buddhism. The Mahayanists are regarded to be more nearer to Christianity as the two faiths have similarities and developed more or less during the same era and from the locality that had contacts between the two religions. We will leave this as an open discussion and would like to invite scholars to join us in the quest.
REFERENCES1) BUDDHISM: THE MAHAYANA by Edward Conze. The Hutchinson Encyclopedia of living Faiths, Ed. R.C. Zaehner. Helicon Pub, Oxford OX1 2EP. 2) Jesus’ Tomb in Srinagar by Holger Kersten 1986. GPO Box 961, D-7800 Freiburg, W. Germany. 3) The untold teachings of the Christ by Prof. Goldricke 1925. (Quoted from the Questions and Answers of Buddhism, by Ashin Ariya Dhamma, a Burmese translation) 4) Jesus’ two journeys to India and his demise as Yuz Asaf in Kashmir in the Ikmal-ud-Din by Shaik Al-Sa’id-us-Sadiq. A.D. 962 ca. Translated into German by Max Muller in 1882.
And what do you think?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thejesusanomaly
|
Jesus and Buddha, perhaps the two most pivotal figures in the history of humankind, each left behind a legacy of teachings and practices that have shaped the lives of billions of people over the course of two millennia. If they were to meet on the road today, what would each think of the other's spiritual views and practices?
Thich Nhat Hanh has been part of a decades-long dialogue between the two greatest living contemplative traditions, and brings to Christianity an appreciation of its beauty that could only be conveyed by an outsider.
In a lucid, meditative prose, he explores the crossroads of compassion and holiness at which the two traditions meet, and reawakens our understanding of both. "On the altar in my hermitage," he says, "are images of Buddha and Jesus, and... I touch both of them as my spiritual ancestors." A rare combination of mystic, scholar, and activist, Vietnamese monk Thich Nhat Hanh is one of the most beloved Buddhist teachers in the West. 
However, we should not see equanimity as an end in itself. Nor should we feel that we are striving for a total state of apathy in which we have no feelings or fluctuating emotions toward either our enemies or our loved ones and friends. That is not what we are seeking to achieve. What we aspire to achieve is, first of all, to set the foundation, to have a kind of clear field where we can then plant other thoughts. Equanimity is this even ground that we are first laying out. On the basis of this, we should then reflect on the merits of tolerance, patience, love, and compassion toward all. We should also contemplate the disadvantages and the negativities of self-centered thinking, fluctuating emotions toward friends and enemies, and the negativities of having biased feelings toward other beings. 
