Subject: The two Viewpoints of this Manifested World

[Guest guest]

> There is a *significant* difference between Buddha

> bein g a Hindu and Jesus a Jew.

>

> Buddha never really associated himself as savior of

> men. Jesus on the other hand claimed being the Son of

> God, etc.

 

no, three out of four commentators in the new testament claimed this,

but the fourth suggested he was a "son of man" - we have no reliable

record of the actual words of jesus, just a translation many times

removed from its original source, if you count the king james bible as

being authoritative

 

further, one of the major schism of the church occurred early on as the

result of this issue, the nestorians choosing to believe in the eastern

church doctrine that jesus was simply a man like any other, but in whom

the godhead dwelt (in this respect, the godhead is like the tao, or the

Self) - of course, this became heresy to the holy roman empire, which

had a lot invested in enshrining jesus as divinity, jesus as god

 

my point is that lord buddha, despite the fact that his teachings are

almost entirely absent in modern India, most certainly was a hindu, and

his teaching drew upon the teachings of the vedas and upanishads, but

distilled from them the petty ritualism and self-limiting beliefs that

had become common practice

 

as a side point, in achieving the state of nirvana, lord buddha claimed

that he had achieved a goal beyond that of any hindu diety, including

lord brahma, the creator - the claims are analogous with those made by

jesus and his followers (but demonstrably not the same)

 

> the buddhist principle of "at the end is nothing" is

> very different from the hindu emphasis on the Self.

> Jesus' principles/life came and continued in judaism

> spawning much strife during and since his being.

>

 

this is getting off topic, but if you probe deeper into buddhist

studies, you will see that the buddhist doctrine of "not self" (anatta)

says nothing on the subject of a divine, transcendent Self (purusa),

and refers only to that to which we cling to that is transitory and

impermanent (e.g. the body, feelings, perceptions, mental formations,

and consciousness)

 

you can read it here:

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn-22-059-nt0.html

 

""Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows

disenchanted with the body, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted

with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with

consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through

dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the

knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy

life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this

world.'"

 

there is a great deal of misunderstanding on this issue, mostly as the

result of the abhidhamma pitaka, which arrived in the scene much later

- its a highly confusing and abstract text that takes the utter beauty

and simplicity of the buddha's teaching and turns it into something

indigestible

Caldecott

todd

www.toddcaldecott.com