Even so, the Buddha didn’t care about the only Reality. What he cared about was the problem of suffering and its solution. God or Tao is just pretty much irrelevant for this problem, just as He is irrelevant for a Syrian refugee trying to escape the war to a safe haven. As I see it, the problem of God, One True Reality, etc. and the Buddhadhamma are ‘skew lines’ of thoughts.
1 Like
I’d make the case that it is difficult to find parallels with the supposed teachings of a historical Jesus, and that of the Buddha’s Dhamma. I don’t mean to be offensive, but the evidence for the existence of Jesus is sketchy, and at least one Christian scholar, ( who I admire), Bishop John Shelby Spong, has rejected much of the theistic Jesus story and may go so far as to question the existence of an actual Jesus. Even the writers of the gospels, hundreds of years after the supposed life of Jesus, cannot agree on the facts of this supposed historical Rabbi’s life and teachings.
Thankfully, we have the forensics done on the life of the Buddha, and can refer to Prof. Gombrich and especially Vens. Sujato and Brahmali ( “Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts”) that make the case for the historical Buddha, his life and teachings, and give us a bedrock foundation upon which to cultivate our practice. We have these very original, nuanced, countercultural, and pragmatic teachings that are founded in a proven historical period and arise from the wisdom of a very unique man, passed on through the contemporaneous oral tradition of his disciples. We can, to a reasonable degree of forensic certainty, have confidence in the historicity of the Buddha, his monks and nuns who carried his teachings forward, and his recorded Dhamma.
I’m not adding this comment to be unpleasant, but only to make the case that we do a disservice, I feel, to solid spiritual inquiry, when we compare the teachings of a Jesus to that of the Buddha. It’s a useful inquiry in the West, for sure, and I don’t fault it. Again, my apologies for this rough comment. Where I live, having this discussion might bring me only a punch in the nose, but I feel that with the Dhamma there is a fountain of wisdom that could bring better lives to any (including believers in a supposed Jesus and the faith based promise of perfect salvation through singular devotion to him) that choose to inquire into it. In the West, I feel, less should be done to diplomatically compare Jesus and the Buddha, and perhaps more done to suggest that when the evidence is reviewed, reasonable people on a spiritual path might be advised to consider the Buddha and the Dhamma and perhaps, as Bishop Spong has done, reject the authenticity of the Jesus story and gravitate toward a more rational path.
1 Like
I don’t intend to doubt Bishop Spong’s integrity and don’t claim to have any thorough knowledge on the subject, but I heard multiple times from multiple people (including atheists) that the overwhelming majority of specialists in the Bible studies agree Jesus was a historical figure. In how far he is portrayed accurately in the Gospels is a different problem, of course 
This little observation doesn’t change much if anything in the substance of your comment that is a helpful contribution to the discussion, but I felt it has to be done
1 Like
This is a choice quote:
Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil and he himself tempts no one [per AN 3.61]. But each person is tempted when he is lured [upadana] and enticed [nandi] by his own desire [tanha]. Then desire when it has conceived [bhava] gives birth [jati] to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death [marana dukkha]. James 1.13
On seeing a form with the eye, he is passionate (sàrajjati) for it if it is pleasing; he is angry
(byàpajjati) with it if it is displeasing. He lives with attention to body (kàya-sati) unestablished, with a limited mind, and he does not understand realistically (yàthabhåtaü nappajànàti) the deliverance of mind (cetovimutti) and deliverance by wisdom (pannà vimutti) wherein those evil unwholesome states (dhammas) cease without remainder. Engaged as he is in favouring and opposing, whatever feeling he feels - whether pleasant or painful or neither-pleasant-nor-painful - he delights (abhinandati) in that feeling, welcomes it, and remains holding on to it. As he does so, delight (nandi) arises in him. Now, delight in feelings (vedanàsu nandi) is clinging (upàdàna). Becoming is conditioned by his clinging; becoming conditions birth; birth conditions ageing-&-death; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair come to be. Thus is the arising of this entire mass of suffering. MN 38
Thanks, Vstakan. I’m not familiar enough with the historicity studies of Jesus, so I appreciate your comment. I certainly don’t have a strong bias on this issue; if there was a historical Rabbi named Jesus, I’d be happy for that fact. I do some work in Thailand and interact with some very strong Christian groups there, and enjoy this interaction. Like we all agree, there is no religious monopoly on human suffering, and I applaud the vigor and success ( Hill Tribe water delivery projects, food security, medical care in war zones such as Free Burma Rangers, whom I’ve met with) that Christian organizations have had in Thailand.
1 Like
when you have some spare time and interest
2 Likes
Is this true? I’ve read several of Spong’s books, and while he does have a skeptical bent, i can’t recall him seriously doubting the existence of Jesus. But perhaps his position has evolved. He did, however, reject the commonly accepted text-critical thesis of the “synoptic” gospels, and emphasized that Paul’s letters are our earliest source for Jesus.
1 Like
Bhante, it was many years ago, but I seem to recall an interview where he seemed to dismiss the idea of the deified Jesus and suggested that it was the Christian message of peace and love that formed the foundation of his practice, and not the alleged historical Jesus. I’ll try and find the interview…
Minutes later… I did find a Q&A from his website that addresses who the historical Jesus ( or Joshua) may have been:
There are, however, two Joshua-Jesus figures, not just one, in the Hebrew Scriptures. The first is the well-known successor to Moses to whom you are referring. This Joshua was supposedly the author of the book that bears his name and the military leader for the Hebrew people during the conquest of Canaan. He is probably best known as the one who led the battle of Jericho when the walls came tumbling down. The second Joshua was a high priest, who is referred to in I Zechariah (Chapters 1-8) and who has an experience in which his tattered clothes are replaced with resplendent new vestments, a story that is in the background of the account of Jesus’ transfiguration. This Joshua is also mentioned in Haggai (1:1).
There is no doubt that early followers of Jesus saw prototypes of Jesus in both of these Joshuas.
http://johnshelbyspong.com/2016/08/18/charting-a-new-reformation-part-xxxi-the-ninth-thesis-ethics-continued/
I don’t want to swim into too deep of water re: Bishop Spong’s current views on Jesus-Joshua. I need to study this further, and will back off from my earlier suggestion if it does not ring true. Perhaps I should have said he questions whether the Jesus known to Christians ever existed, and whether Jesus-Joshua is an amalgam of two or more people, who was married and does not fully resemble the depictions in the New Testament.
Thanks for that, it sounds much more likely.
One of the problems with the whole “Jesus didn’t exist” idea is that it’s just so crude. It just reacts against the “Jesus is everything!” people to say “Jesus is nothing!” But doing so, it offers nothing to help explain the very real historical situation. Anyway, Spong is much more subtle than that, so i couldn’t see him buying into such a simplistic view.
God, of course, is different. He really doesn’t exist!
2 Likes
abstention from violence in reaction to violence and broadly non-vindictiveness
You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’
But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Mt 5.38-9
If anyone should give you a blow with his hand, with a clod, with a stick, or with a knife, you should abandon any desires and any thoughts based on the household life. And herein you should train thus: ‘My mind will be unaffected, and I shall utter no evil words; I shall abide compassionate for his welfare, with a mind of loving-kindness, without inner hate.’
…
"Bhikkhus, even if bandits were to sever you savagely limb by limb with a two-handled saw, he who gave rise to a mind of hate towards them would not be carrying out my teaching. Herein, bhikkhus, you should train thus: ‘Our minds will remain unaffected, and we shall utter no evil words; we shall abide compassionate for their welfare, with a mind of loving-kindness, without inner hate. We shall abide pervading them with a mind imbued with loving-kindness; and starting with them, we shall abide pervading the all-encompassing world with a mind imbued with loving-kindness, abundant, exalted, immeasurable, without hostility and without ill will.’
Kakacupama sutta (MN 21)
4 Likes
So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
Matthew 7.12
What is undesirable and disagreeable to me is undesirable and disagreeable to others, too. How can I inflict upon another what is undesirable and disagreeable to me?
SN 55.7
2 Likes