Following on from a post made by one raven in a thread a couple of months back, (which was subsequently closed):

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=66804

Originally Posted by One RavenOriginally Posted by EmptyForceOfChi
jesus would convert to buddhism.

peace.

He did.
He left home the age of 12 and travelled East on the Silk Road to meet the mystics he had heard about (like the monk who burned himself to death in Alexandria) and sometime between 12 and 30 he converted to Buddhism and at 30 came back to spread the Dhamma westward.

I'd like to ask one raven whether this was just bull, or whether he has any info to elaborate upon his comment? Sorry my sarcasm detection might be a little poor with regards to the above, so if it is just piss taking ignore this whole post.

Anyway, the reason I ask is that having given a cursory glance at the, supposedly heretical, Gospel of Thomas I am struck by the style of thought which it implies on behalf of Jesus. It seems to me to be very similar to the messages of the Tao Te Ching, for example.

Obviously, the words and phrases used (and even style of writing) are very different, but if I'd been immersed in a foreign culture and wanted to spread the word about a concept I had learned there, it would need adapting for the "home crowd", so to speak.

A quick example of the sort of thing I mean:

Jesus (Gospel of Thomas [17]):"I shall give you what no eye has seen and what no ear has heard and what no hand has touched and what has never occurred to the human mind."

Tao Te Ching(14):"Look, and it can't be seen.
Listen, and it can't be heard.
Reach, and it can't be grasped."

This sort of thing intruiges me, can anybody suggest any further reading on the subject?

From what I have read, there was no connection between Buddhism and Jesus until many years after his death when a disciple founded a church in India.

Jesus (Gospel of Thomas [18]):"Have you discovered, then, the beginning, that you look for the end? For where the beginning is, there will the end be."

Tao Te Ching (14):"Approach it and there is no beginning;
follow it and there is no end."

Curioser and curioser...

From what I have read, there was no connection between Buddhism and Jesus until many years after his death when a disciple founded a church in India.
*************
M*W: Interesting. Wisdom_Seeker adamantly stated that there was a tremendous amount of legitimate connections between Jesus and Buddhism. As I recall, Buddhism started in China about 5,000 years before it got to India (or did that occur the other way around?). I've read about christianity in India, but it was christianity and not Buddhism. It makes no sense to me, but neither does christianity.

There's more similarities with Krishna than with Gautama Buddha by far, the reason there's so much similarity in the sayings is because they're talking about the same truth, so regardless of the connection the truth sounds the same...

*************
M*W: Interesting. Wisdom_Seeker adamantly stated that there was a tremendous amount of legitimate connections between Jesus and Buddhism. As I recall, Buddhism started in China about 5,000 years before it got to India (or did that occur the other way around?). I've read about christianity in India, but it was christianity and not Buddhism. It makes no sense to me, but neither does christianity.

Actually, Buddhism started in Northern India.

Actually, Buddhism started in Northern India.
*************
M*W: Okay, it's been a while since I learned this. That's why I forgot. Makes sense. Actually, I studied Ayurvedic medicine.

It was actually the comments about the Silk Road and mystics that interested me the most. Buddhism being secondary. The Silk Road has been in use for many Millennia, certainly before the time of Jesus. In addition the Tao Te Ching, which is obviously Taoist not Buddhist, is believed to have first been transcribed during the 6th Century BC.

I can see what VitalOne means about "the truth sound the same...", nontheless, it would be interesting to fill in the dots and see the connection! :)

I know that these phrases are merely segments, and often are not taken in their original context, but their similarities amuse me. This time from a less controvertial source:

[I]Jesus (Luke [4:23]):"Physician, heal thyself."

Tao Te Ching (71):"The Master is his own physician."

It makes me wonder what was omitted from the biblical account of Jesus between the ages of 12 and 30...

Benauld,

Yes, I heard of that and my mother has a book about it. It's in Portuguese, though... :shrug:

Anyways... my question to you is: how long do you think it would take to do the trip? (I would say at least a couple of years- so 4 years in total?)

Also, in the Bible, it says Jesus spent all that time in the desert? Well, maybe someone saw him going to the desert but he went through the desert?

Who knows? :shrug:

The Silk Road is about 5000 miles long. So, assuming he got hold of a horse at some point, average travelling speed somewhere in the region of 15 - 20 miles/day... so, about a year each way, assuming no lengthly stop-overs etc.

*****EDIT*****
On the other hand, if he did walk, average walking speed being around 4 miles per hour, it would have taken approximately three and a half years each way.
*****EDIT*****

Also, in the Bible, it says Jesus spent all that time in the desert? Well, maybe someone saw him going to the desert but he went through the desert?

Who knows? :shrug:
*************
M*W: That whole physical area is desert, but still this doesn't have a literal meaning. Going to, through, or being in the desert, is a metaphor for being lost, wandering about, contemplating, trying to figure things out, etc..

Astro-theologically speaking, being in the 'desert' refers to a wandering star, meteor, or some other 'heavenly' body or bodies that move away from it's natural orbit.

Gospel of Thomas: 41. Jesus said, "Whoever has something in hand will be given more, and whoever has nothing will be deprived of even the little they have."

Zen koan: Master Basho said, "If you have a stick, I will give you one.
If you do not have a stick I will take it away."

That whole physical area is desert, but still this doesn't have a literal meaning. Going to, through, or being in the desert, is a metaphor for being lost, wandering about, contemplating, trying to figure things out, etc..

I understand what you are saying. However, if there is even the slightest possibility that it has a dual meaning and refers to both a metaphorical and a real desert, I would suppose that the Silk Road would have been actively managed nontheless, with trading posts, watering holes etc. If there is any possibilty that Jesus may have actually physically crossed a desert and come into contact with Taoist or other Eastern doctorines, I'd call that pretty astounding.

Astro-theologically speaking, being in the 'desert' refers to a wandering star, meteor, or some other 'heavenly' body or bodies that move away from it's natural orbit.

How so?

*************
M*W: Interesting. Wisdom_Seeker adamantly stated that there was a tremendous amount of legitimate connections between Jesus and Buddhism. As I recall, Buddhism started in China about 5,000 years before it got to India (or did that occur the other way around?). I've read about christianity in India, but it was christianity and not Buddhism. It makes no sense to me, but neither does christianity.

Hi M*W, I just want to clarify that I don´t believe that Jesus was a Buddhist, but that Jesus was a Buddha himself, and Buddha was a Christ.

I´m with VitalOne on this one, the reason why there are similarities, is because they spoke about the same truth.

One point of interest here is the Jewish exile to Egypt. This pertains largely to the notion of the salvation myth, which may be the actual eastern import. Essentially, with Egypt being a trade center, it is more than likely that the empire saw traders from the east. These traders would likely have imported some of their folklore and mythology, including tales of the Maitreya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maitreya), the "future Buddha" of the world. According to the quasi-Christian website AllAboutReligion.org (http://www.allaboutreligion.org/maitreya.htm), the concept of the Maitreya are stolen from the Bible and twisted out of context. Wikipedia asserts the origin of the word to come from a Sanskrit or Pali word derived from the noun "mitra". (We should also note the Persian "Mithra", whose record extends at least as far back as 1400 BCE; the word, like the Sanskrit and Pali, includes a definition pertaining to "friend".)

I will look back through my references, specifically Armstrong's A History of God; it is my impression that All About Religion has it wrong, and attemtps to flip history in order to enhance the standing of the Bible. However, this point is certainly up for argument for now.

The Egyptian exile of the Jews, then, may well provide two foundation stones for eastern influence on the Jesus myth:

(1) The myth of a savior--e.g. Jesus--could well have originated with the Maitreya.
(2) Prior contact with the east might have compelled Jesus' travels to those lands.

Hi M*W, I just want to clarify that I don´t believe that Jesus was a Buddhist, but that Jesus was a Buddha himself, and Buddha was a Christ.

I´m with VitalOne on this one, the reason why there are similarities, is because they spoke about the same truth.
*************
M*W: I'm not challenging this. Like I've said, I don't have enough knowledge about Buddha or Krishna to make anykind of assumptions. The Myth of Christianity is my chosen field of study.

Hi M*W, I just want to clarify that I don´t believe that Jesus was a Buddhist, but that Jesus was a Buddha himself, and Buddha was a Christ.

I´m with VitalOne on this one, the reason why there are similarities, is because they spoke about the same truth.

Exactly.

*************
M*W: That whole physical area is desert, but still this doesn't have a literal meaning. Going to, through, or being in the desert, is a metaphor for being lost, wandering about, contemplating, trying to figure things out, etc..
I'm aware of that. It could be literal and metaphorical, though.

Hi M*W, I just want to clarify that I don´t believe that Jesus was a Buddhist, but that Jesus was a Buddha himself, and Buddha was a Christ.

I´m with VitalOne on this one, the reason why there are similarities, is because they spoke about the same truth.
Yup!

Hi M*W, I just want to clarify that I don´t believe that Jesus was a Buddhist, but that Jesus was a Buddha himself, and Buddha was a Christ.

I´m with VitalOne on this one, the reason why there are similarities, is because they spoke about the same truth.

I agree, people don't realize that being a Buddha or a perfected being, an ishvara, etc...has nothing to do with Buddhism, Hinduism, or any religion..it's just a nature achieved...

If different people from different time periods, different cultures, religions, etc... discover the absolute truth, the way reality really is, true knowledge of all, the actual truth, the true nature of reality, etc...and explain this truth to mankind of course there will be innumerable similarities in their sayings...

Hi M*W, I just want to clarify that I don´t believe that Jesus was a Buddhist, but that Jesus was a Buddha himself, and Buddha was a Christ.

I´m with VitalOne on this one, the reason why there are similarities, is because they spoke about the same truth.

concurred

One point of interest here is the Jewish exile to Egypt. This pertains largely to the notion of the salvation myth, which may be the actual eastern import. Essentially, with Egypt being a trade center, it is more than likely that the empire saw traders from the east. These traders would likely have imported some of their folklore and mythology, including tales of the Maitreya, the "future Buddha" of the world...Wikipedia asserts the origin of the word to come from a Sanskrit or Pali word derived from the noun "mitra". (We should also note the Persian "Mithra", whose record extends at least as far back as 1400 BCE; the word, like the Sanskrit and Pali, includes a definition pertaining to "friend".)
...
The Egyptian exile of the Jews, then, may well provide two foundation stones for eastern influence on the Jesus myth:

(1) The myth of a savior--e.g. Jesus--could well have originated with the Maitreya.
(2) Prior contact with the east might have compelled Jesus' travels to those lands.
Very interesting tiassa, thanks! It's certainly an alluring idea that the existing culture may have been "predisposed" to accept a saviour, as it were... imagine the effect of a local returning from many years of travel full of wonderful new ideas, that he has even been able to fit into an existing religious framework.

It must have been like, somebody going to a distant planet and bringing back superior knowledge to that of the human race, would be today!

If different people from different time periods, different cultures, religions, etc... discover the absolute truth, the way reality really is, true knowledge of all, the actual truth, the true nature of reality, etc...and explain this truth to mankind of course there will be innumerable similarities in their sayings...
I don't concur I'm afraid. It is more likely that a single idea has been transplanted from one geographical region to another over time. This negates the need for seemingly unlikely, multiple and independant, occurrances of the same concept.

Given the propensity of mankind for plagiarism, do we accept that which we already know about human nature, or do we accept the creation of a common source, concerning some hypothetical, indefinable, "absolute truth" (about which we know nothing) as being more reliable?

Ockham's Razor, would suggest to me, that the former is more accurate.

I don't concur I'm afraid. It is more likely that a single idea has been transplanted from one geographical region to another over time.
The term "single idea" wasn't used. The term was "innumerable similarities."

This negates the need for seemingly unlikely, multiple and independant, occurrances of the same concept.
Again, what is under discussion is not a single concept.

Given the propensity of mankind for plagiarism, do we accept that which we already know about human nature,
I do not accept this as a given.

or do we accept the creation of a common source, concerning some hypothetical, indefinable, "absolute truth" (about which we know nothing) as being more reliable?
There are many instances in history of people arriving at the same truth. I do not know of any instance of a people of one religion being virally infected with a concept from another religion without bloodshed. Besides, if this were the case there would be actual credible scholarship showing its occurence. I'm not aware of any scholarship that says that Jews or Christians were influenced by Buddhism during the inception of these religions, which suggests that there must be another reason for the similarities. Either way what you are suggesting boils down to the same thing: there are innumerable similarities between the teachings of CHrist and the teachings of Buddha. This could mean either that Chist and Buddha arrived at these independently, or that Christ was somehow influenced by Buddhist thought and accepted them as true. In the final analysis the real signifigance of this is that the differences between the religions are vastly overestimated.

The term "single idea" wasn't used. The term was "innumerable similarities."...Again, what is under discussion is not a single concept.
You quibble over semantics...I was saying that, those "innumerable similarities" arise from the "single idea" (or "concept", have it your own way) of Tao, and have migrated (geographically speaking) over time.

I do not accept this as a given.
Suit yourself. Although there are many who would call that naive.

I do not know of any instance of a people of one religion being virally infected with a concept from another religion without bloodshed.
That doesn't say much for mankind. However, maybe this is the first, and Jesus was just a good publicist?

Besides, if this were the case there would be actual credible scholarship showing its occurence. I'm not aware of any scholarship that says that Jews or Christians were influenced by Buddhism during the inception of these religions...
Again, that's kind of my point. What happened in those "missing years" during the life of Jesus?

Either way what you are suggesting boils down to the same thing: there are innumerable similarities between the teachings of CHrist and the teachings of Buddha. This could mean either that Chist and Buddha arrived at these independently, or that Christ was somehow influenced by Buddhist thought and accepted them as true. In the final analysis the real signifigance of this is that the differences between the religions are vastly overestimated.
Yes I acknowledge the similarities, obviously. However, it doesn't "boil down to the same thing" at all. Arriving at the same conclusion independently would be a convincing argument that a "Universal Truth" actually exists. If it was simply transplanted from one region to another however, well, that's just copying! That "Universal Truth" doesn't start to look so Universal does it?

Yes I acknowledge the similarities, obviously. However, it doesn't "boil down to the same thing" at all. Arriving at the same conclusion independently would be a convincing argument that a "Universal Truth" actually exists.
Yes, you're right. But there is no evidence that Jesus had ever read Buddhism. There is no evidence that Judaism was influenced by Buddhism. There is certainly no evidence in the other direction either that Buddha had been influenced by Judaism. The simple fact is that these systems of belief appear to have developed independently and the similarities are striking. There is not one drop of evidence that Jesus was studying Buddhist or Taoist texts or ever even heard of them.


If it was simply transplanted from one region to another however, well, that's just copying! That "Universal Truth" doesn't start to look so Universal does it?
You're right. But the simple fact is that there is no evidence that Jesus was exposed to Eastern religions.

I don't concur I'm afraid. It is more likely that a single idea has been transplanted from one geographical region to another over time. This negates the need for seemingly unlikely, multiple and independant, occurrances of the same concept.

Given the propensity of mankind for plagiarism, do we accept that which we already know about human nature, or do we accept the creation of a common source, concerning some hypothetical, indefinable, "absolute truth" (about which we know nothing) as being more reliable?

Ockham's Razor, would suggest to me, that the former is more accurate.

How is it more likely that it has been transplanted from one geographical region to the next? You're saying that Krishna, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Jesus, etc...all copied each other... now that's what you call unlikely...

How about the fact that Mayans, Indians, and other astronomers all calculated very similar astronomical values....would you say that they were talking about the samethings or that they copied each other and that it was plagarism (the foolish notion)?

My comment about Jesus travelling east in the silk road and converting was a bit tongue in cheek, but I do believe that Jesus was greatly influenced by Eastern philosophy.
Yes, the Silk Road was open, and there was an excahnge of ideas.
There was a statue in Alexandria, dating back to Jesus' time, of a monk burning himself alive in protest.
This is direct and concrete evidence that there was open communication and influence between the middle east and the far east in Jesus' time (certainly enough to immortalize a foreigner in statue in Alexandria - one of the great seats of knowledge, power and commerce at the time and a gateway for teh Silk Road).

His philosophy was extraordinarily similar (some nearly word-for-word quotes) to the Dhamma.
The Dhamma was obviously known in the region where he grew up.
He was sorely disillusioned with the religion he was raised in.

Bhuddist influence seems to be a more than reasonable explanation to me.

You're right. But the simple fact is that there is no evidence that Jesus was exposed to Eastern religions.

I disagree.

My comment about Jesus travelling east in the silk road and converting was a bit tongue in cheek, but I do believe that Jesus was greatly influenced by Eastern philosophy.
There is no evidence of this.


His philosophy was extraordinarily similar (some nearly word-for-word quotes) to the Dhamma.
I'm aware of this fact.

The Dhamma was obviously known in the region where he grew up.
No, this is news to me that Christ read the Dhamma or that there were Buddhists proselytizing in this region. There is no evidence whatsoever that Buddhists influenced Christ.

He was sorely disillusioned with the religion he was raised in.
Yes, because they were hypocrites. His disillusionment does not mean that he went running to Buddhists. Even at 14 CHrist was famous for his knowledge of the Old Testament. Are we really to believe that CHrist had time to learn the OT and Buddhist doctrine? That his tribe was allowing someone to study with a Buddhist? Even when there is no historical record of their being Buddhists in this area? It's preposterous.

Bhuddist influence seems to be a more than reasonable explanation to me.
No, there is no historical evidence of this. Furthermore, it doesn't even seem plausible if one stops to consider what this would actually entail. You don't think Christ's study of an eastern religion would have come up at the trial? Bottom line: there is no evidence whatsoever that Christ ever heard of, read, or studied Buddhism or any other Eastern religion. If you disagree then show some actual credible evidence that shows that this is even plausible.

How about the fact that Mayans, Indians, and other astronomers all calculated very similar astronomical values....would you say that they were talking about the samethings or that they copied each other and that it was plagarism (the foolish notion)?
Lol! Your analogy is delightfully inept :p .

Are you seriously comparing two different groups of peoples that have separately drawn the same, or similar, conlusions through observing that which is physically manifest, (i.e. the stars), that can be measured, plotted, mapped, compared, and even predicted, AGAINST two or more different groups of peoples, having separately produced the same, or similar, concepts concerning some intangible, abstract, unobservable "Truth" of existence? It's like comparing chalk and meta-cheese!

Bottom line: there is no evidence whatsoever that Christ ever heard of, read, or studied Buddhism or any other Eastern religion. If you disagree then show some actual credible evidence that shows that this is even plausible.
That's why it is called an inference. From the known facts, one could either deduce this, OR invent a further, more complicated explanation involving some hypothetical "third party". Ockham's Razor still stands, therefore I still advocate the view that the former is more reliable.

That's why it is called an inference. From the known facts
What exactly are these known facts? You seem to be claiming that Jesus was directly influenced by reading buddhist texts or contacts with Buddhists despite the fact that there is not a drop of evidence for this.

one could either deduce this, OR invent a further, more complicated explanation involving some hypothetical "third party".
Yes, you are inventing. You are making a claim for which there is no evidence. Who would these Buddhists be that Jesus ran into? There was no internet back then. There wasn't just a Buddhist monastery where Jesus hung out. There wasn't a Buddhist bookstore on the corner. There is no evidence for this whatsoever. Tell me exactly how and when it is Jesus Jesus came into contact with these Buddhist ideas. Let's just suppose he did come into contact with Buddhist ideas, and was impressed enough by them that he adopted them, why wouldn't he then refer to himself as a Buddhist? Instead, he never mentions any contact, and there is not historical evidence which makes this seem like a possibility. The idea holds no water to even a moments of serious reflection.

Ockham's Razor still stands, therefore I still advocate the view that the former is more reliable.

I am sick and tired of people invoking Occam's Razor as if just mentioning it it somehow magically validates their opinion. Do you even know what Occam's Razor means? It doesn't mean that you can just make any claim without evidence. If Jesus were talking with Buddhists there would have been evidence. If there were any Buddhists in that area there would have been evidence. The simple fact is that there is no evidence whatsoever that Jesus had any contact with Buddhists, read buddhist texts, that there were even any buddhists in the area, or that he ever even heard of Buddhism. There is no evidence for it at all and one has to make all sorts of assumptions and speculative leaps that are directly opposed to the principle of Occam's razor.

What exactly are these known facts? You seem to be claiming that Jesus was directly influenced by reading buddhist texts or contacts with Buddhists despite the fact that there is not a drop of evidence for this.
Did you really completely miss that, or chose to ignore it?
They traded with Indians and Chinese.
Do you understand the implications of that?

The Silk Road WAS open.
There were Chinese and Indian Spices in Rome at the time.
There was a statue of a Buddhist monk who burned himself to death in Alexandria.
Check the history - historians do not doubt that there was communication and exchange of goods and ideas between the Middle East and the Far East in Jesus' time.

I can't say for certain if Jesus knew Buddhists - hell, I can't say for certain that Jesus even existed - what I CAN say for certain is that people in the time and place where Jesus lived were aware of Buddhism.

Let's just suppose he did come into contact with Buddhist ideas, and was impressed enough by them that he adopted them, why wouldn't he then refer to himself as a Buddhist?
Because he wasn't a Buddhist.
I didn't say he was - I said it seems to me he was INFLUENCED by them.

Instead, he never mentions any contact, and there is not historical evidence which makes this seem like a possibility. The idea holds no water to even a moments of serious reflection.
Historical evidence of what?
That Buddhists were there at that place and time? Yes there is - plenty of it.

That Jesus was influenced by them? His words.

If there were any Buddhists in that area there would have been evidence.
There is, because they were.
Have you researched thsi at all? I highly doubt it, because if you did, you would be aware of that it has been established and isn't even questioned by historians.
Why, then, are you so adamant about rejecting this?
You seem to have some vested interest. What is it?

Jesus (Gospel of Thomas [18]):"Have you discovered, then, the beginning, that you look for the end? For where the beginning is, there will the end be."

Tao Te Ching (14):"Approach it and there is no beginning;
follow it and there is no end."

A few quotes here and there doesn't really prove anything. Jesus' parables were pretty cryptic (just like the old testament prophecies), so the fact that the meanings seem to line up (in English, I might add, and not in their native tounges) doesn't really mean much, I think.

But nontheless, the Buddhists hold a certain saint, Issa, in very high esteem. There is a book published in the 20's (I think) called "The secret life of Jesus" or some such, wherein it is claimed that Jesus IS Issa.

Alexander's conquests in the east, 200 years before Jesus' time, opened the Silk Road and wide communication with the far east.
There was a large Buddhist community (Therapeutae) in Egypt before Jesus' time.
Periplus of the Erythraean Sea is solid evidence of the open trade routes and cultural influences between India and Egypt.

Benauld,

Sorry it took me so long to get here.

Lol! Your analogy is delightfully inept :p .

Are you seriously comparing two different groups of peoples that have separately drawn the same, or similar, conlusions through observing that which is physically manifest, (i.e. the stars), that can be measured, plotted, mapped, compared, and even predicted, AGAINST two or more different groups of peoples, having separately produced the same, or similar, concepts concerning some intangible, abstract, unobservable "Truth" of existence? It's like comparing chalk and meta-cheese!
Yeah, I'm comparing them to show you how different people and groups can arrive at the same truth....don't you get it? The only difference is that one truth is verifiable currently, and another is not...but the actual point, which is that different people can arrive at the same truth is made obvious...

What exactly are these known facts?
By "known facts" I was refering to the very "many similarities" that exist between the two cultures, which is the very subject of this discussion. Facts which you earlier had no objection to.

Yes, you are inventing. You are making a claim for which there is no evidence.
Which is the larger invention, that somebody uses his feet to walk 10000 miles in total, along a well known, well defined route, with accompanying infrastructure, OR the concoction of some pie-in-the-sky, supernatural, preternatural, "Universal Truth"?


I am sick and tired of people invoking Occam's Razor as if just mentioning it it somehow magically validates their opinion. Do you even know what Occam's Razor means? If Jesus were talking with Buddhists there would have been evidence. If there were any Buddhists in that area there would have been evidence. The simple fact is that there is no evidence whatsoever that Jesus had any contact with Buddhists, read buddhist texts, that there were even any buddhists in the area, or that he ever even heard of Buddhism. There is no evidence for it at all and one has to make all sorts of assumptions and speculative leaps that are directly opposed to the principle of Occam's razor.
Yes. I certainly do. In as few a words as possible it equates to: The simpler of two competing theories is more likely to be the correct one. Are you sick of it because it detracts from your position?

I would say that there is even less evidence for the "Universal Truth" model. Besides which, your argument is irrelevant as, I'm in no way saying that Buddhists had to have existed "in that area". By the logic you invoke, one would already need to know of the existence of the Umbongo Tribe of Venezuela in order to go and discover them! What I'm saying is, Jesus may well have travelled during the part of his lifetime - some 15 odd years - that is not disclosed in the bible. Is that as fantastic a suggestion as the "Universal Truth" scenario?

Benauld,

Sorry it took me so long to get here.
Hey, as long as you're enjoying the discourse... :D I'm glad you have some input too. Do you know of anywhere that I can find more information concerning the burning monk you mentioned?

Yeah, I'm comparing them to show you how different people and groups can arrive at the same truth....don't you get it? The only difference is that one truth is verifiable currently, and another is not...but the actual point, which is that different people can arrive at the same truth is made obvious...

It's not a valid comparison! I could just as easily say American and Australian aboriginals both had contact with extra-terrestrials from the planet Venus, it's just not verifiable yet. It's a pointless argument.

By "known facts" I was refering to the very "many similarities" that exist between the two cultures, which is the very subject of this discussion. Facts which you earlier had no objection to.
No, I still have no objections. We both agree there are similarities. What we are trying to figure out is the reason.


Which is the larger invention, that somebody uses his feet to walk 10000 miles in total, along a well known, well defined route, with accompanying infrastructure, OR the concoction of some pie-in-the-sky, supernatural, preternatural, "Universal Truth"?
You seem to be taking the fact that this trade route as existing as proof that there was a high degree of cultural exchange going on, including Buddhist holy men that Jesus was learning at the feet of.

Yes. I certainly do. In as few a words as possible it equates to: The simpler of two competing theories is more likely to be the correct one. Are you sick of it because it detracts from your position?
Your missing a big part of it - the preface to that part is more or less "all things being equal." That means two theories that account for the same phenomenon the simpler is better. It doesn't meant simple is always true, or that people are allowed to stop supplying empirical evidence.


I would say that there is even less evidence for the "Universal Truth" model. Besides which, your argument is irrelevant as, I'm in no way saying that Buddhists had to have existed "in that area". By the logic you invoke, one would already need to know of the existence of the Umbongo Tribe of Venezuela in order to go and discover them! What I'm saying is, Jesus may well have travelled during the part of his lifetime - some 15 odd years - that is not disclosed in the bible. Is that as fantastic a suggestion as the "Universal Truth" scenario?
What you are engaged is essentially wild speculation. If Jesus was so influenced bu Buddhism why isn't he just one of the oldest known Western Buddhists? Second, if Jesus was exposed to Buddhism one can also assume exposed to meditation since the direct insight gained by meditation is essential to Buddhism? In other words, if Jesus was engaged in Buddhist meditation it suggests he came upon the same truths as Buddhists - which still fits the "Universal Truth" model. People often use the argument that since all the religions are different that suggests they are not true. So the opposite argument must be true - if all the religions are not different it suggests a "Universal Truth."


Hey, as long as you're enjoying the discourse... :D I'm glad you have some input too. Do you know of anywhere that I can find more information concerning the burning monk you mentioned?
I'd like to know too? Also, why was he burning? It sounds to me a little like a warning not to practice buddhism.

It's not a valid comparison! I could just as easily say American and Australian aboriginals both had contact with extra-terrestrials from the planet Venus, it's just not verifiable yet. It's a pointless argument.

Nothing you said made the comparison invalid.....not even to the slightest, most remote extent...

The point was people can discover the same truths, and thus what they say will naturally be very very similar...

Did you really completely miss that, or chose to ignore it?
They traded with Indians and Chinese.
Do you understand the implications of that?
No, I get that the silk road was open. I don't think that necessarily means Jesus was exposed to Buddhism.

The Silk Road WAS open.
There were Chinese and Indian Spices in Rome at the time.
There was a statue of a Buddhist monk who burned himself to death in Alexandria.
Check the history - historians do not doubt that there was communication and exchange of goods and ideas between the Middle East and the Far East in Jesus' time.
I don't doubt it either. That doesn't mean that Jesus was exposed to these ideas. Think about modern America there has neer been so much information about other cultures available to people, right at their fingertips no less. Do you think that means the average CHristian in Kansas knows anything about Buddhism. Think about how much less this would have been back then.


I can't say for certain if Jesus knew Buddhists - hell, I can't say for certain that Jesus even existed - what I CAN say for certain is that people in the time and place where Jesus lived were aware of Buddhism.
Okay, but there's a massive jump from saying that to saying that Jesus was heavil influenced by Buddhism and there is not one drop of actual evidence that this was the case.


Because he wasn't a Buddhist.
I didn't say he was - I said it seems to me he was INFLUENCED by them.
DO you think the type of prayer Jesus was engaged would more accurately called meditation as we use these terms today? If Jesus was meditating what makes you think he couldn't have attained enlightenment?


Historical evidence of what?
That Buddhists were there at that place and time? Yes there is - plenty of it.

Okay

That Jesus was influenced by them? His words.
How come he never once mentioned how wise these Buddhists were then? Not a single mention anywhere. I don't see why religious practice wouldn't produce the same insights. All Buddhists really claim is that by living a moral life and meditating one gains certain insights. If Jesus was living a moral life and meditating why wouldn't he attain the same insights?


There is, because they were.
Have you researched thsi at all? I highly doubt it, because if you did, you would be aware of that it has been established and isn't even questioned by historians.
I'm not questioning that there may have been Buddhists in the Mideast at this time. What I am questioning is to what extent Jesus was exposed to it, especially in light of the fact that there is not a single reference anywhere that this actually occured


Why, then, are you so adamant about rejecting this?
Because there is no actual evidence that Jesus was influenced by Buddhists. You make it sound like Buddhists were a strong cultural force in the region. Second of all, if one boils Buddhism down to this all it essentially says is: if you live a moral life and meditate you will attain certain insights into the nature of reality. To the extent that Jesus was engaged in a moral life and meditating why would expect that he didn't attain these insights?

You seem to have some vested interest. What is it?
I just don't believe there is evidence that it occured. Why is there no mention anywhere? Including a historical record of someone at the time noting the similarities between Buddhism and Christ's teachings. As far as I know the similarities were never mentioned until sometime in the twentieth Century.

Nothing you said made the comparison invalid.....not even to the slightest, most remote extent...

The point was people can discover the same truths, and thus what they say will naturally be very very similar...

I'm growing a little tired of repeating myself, so I'll reiterate my sentiments for one final time: I have no objection to two separate cultures deriving the same interpretation from observable evidence. However, to postulate that two separate cultures could pull the same notion out of their arses, based upon nothing more than goats entrails and burnt chicken bones is beyound the bounds of credulity.

I'm growing a little tired of repeating myself, so I'll reiterate my sentiments for one final time: I have no objection to two separate cultures deriving the same interpretation from observable evidence. However, to postulate that two separate cultures could pull the same notion out of their arses, based upon nothing more than goats entrails and burnt chicken bones is beyound the bounds of credulity.

Why can't two separate cultures derive the same truth from unobservable evidence?

Because how would they know that what they had arrived at, was the correct concept of what "The Truth" is? As you said yourself "The Truth" is unverifiable. You are suggesting that two or more separate cultures, without influence upon one another, happened by coincidence to have arrived at the same view...

If Jesus was meditating what makes you think he couldn't have attained enlightenment?

When did I say Jesus didn't attain enlightenment?
I do think he was enlightened.

Okay, I did some research and it looks like it is more likely than I had previously thought that Jesus was actually directly influenced by Buddhism.
1) I still think it is possible that he developed his teachings independent of any buddhist influence.
2) Isn't it entirely possible that different cultures developed meditation? Different cultures developed sport, art, marriage etc. How do we know that spiritual practices did not develop independently as well. I think we agree that meditation is what makes a stable enlightenment state possible, and direct experience of enlightenment is at the base of Christianity/ Buddhism so I don't see it as impossible or even unlikey that this mode of perceiving the world developed independently. Especially when one considers that enlightenment experiences can happen spontaneously or from psychedelics. In fact, if one looks at shamanistic views of the universe that definitely had no contact with either Buddhsim or CHristianity they too have many similarities with Bud/Chri so it seems apparent that this belief system does develop independently.
3) Its interesting that the sect theraputae may have derived from theraveda. Seems to me that the word "therapy" could be etymologically derived from theravada.

Because how would they know that what they had arrived at, was the correct concept of what "The Truth" is?
Because if one meditates and observes the mind one gains certain insights into the nature of mind and reality.

As you said yourself "The Truth" is unverifiable. You are suggesting that two or more separate cultures, without influence upon one another, happened by coincidence to have arrived at the same view...

In so far as these truths are derived from observing the mind it wouldn't be a coincidence at all. At any rate, no matter how you cut it there are not competing "universal truths." All religions seem to agree on what this truth is...how do you account for that?

Because if one meditates and observes the mind one gains certain insights into the nature of mind and reality.
This seems very hazy to me at best. However, I still think you are missing my point. Suppose that I personally was to meditate and gain "insights into the nature of mind and reality". How would I judge that these insights bear any relation to my physical existence, when I have no means of testing or verifying them? Furthermore, how would I then know that they were the same insights that Joe Blogg's next door was experiencing, considering that there was no interaction between us?

All religions seem to agree on what this truth is...how do you account for that?
That all religions are either derived in some way from one another, or from a common source.

This seems very hazy to me at best. However, I still think you are missing my point. Suppose that I personally was to meditate and gain "insights into the nature of mind and reality". How would I judge that these insights bear any relation to my physical existence, when I have no means of testing or verifying them?

What do you mean? You seem to be saying that there is no way of having knowledge of mind or self.

Furthermore, how would I then know that they were the same insights that Joe Blogg's next door was experiencing, considering that there was no interaction between us?
Its similar to if years later a third party read your account and Joes account and saw that they were the same.


That all religions are either derived in some way from one another
Yes they are all derived from the common source of enlightend minds.



or from a common source.
The common conception is that there are many different religions which are all very different from each other. This misconception is used as evidence that there isn't a universal truth. The fact that it is a misconception is an argument in favor of universal truth.

What do you mean? You seem to be saying that there is no way of having knowledge of mind or self.
I'm sorry this all seems far too "New Agey" for me. :p If you define what you mean when you use the words "mind" and "self", and how you see them as relating to a hypothetical "Universal Truth", then I would be happy to explain.

Its similar to if years later a third party read your account and Joes account and saw that they were the same.
And what, statistically, would be the probability of our two accounts matching?

The common conception is that there are many different religions which are all very different from each other. This misconception is used as evidence that there isn't a universal truth. The fact that it is a misconception is an argument in favor of universal truth.
How Universal is this "Universal Truth", if it's global occurrence is all derived from one, historical, "Master Religion"?

What do you mean? You seem to be saying that there is no way of having knowledge of mind or self.
What I am saying is that we have no way of knowing whether that knowledge bears any relation to a "Universal Truth".

What I am saying is that we have no way of knowing whether that knowledge bears any relation to a "Universal Truth".
I can definitely see where grover is coming from with this.

Reason.

Aside from the specific details that stem from cultural beliefs and Siddhartha's Vedic upbringing, all of the Dhamma could very well be realized by anyone with a solid grasp on reason and compassion.

There is nothing all that spectaular about what Siddhartha taught (again, aside from the more specific cultural beliefs - which differ from Jesu's teachings, anyway).

As I said, I DO believe that Jesus was influenced by Buddhism, but I also believe that what's at the very core of Buddhsim can be discovered through reason alone.

I'm sorry this all seems far too "New Agey" for me. :p If you define what you mean when you use the words "mind" and "self", and how you see them as relating to a hypothetical "Universal Truth", then I would be happy to explain.
The terms mind and self are new agey? Basically what I mean by these terms is subjective experience.


And what, statistically, would be the probability of our two accounts matching?
I don't know, astronomically small unless what they're accounts were some kind of objective truth.


How Universal is this "Universal Truth", if it's global occurrence is all derived from one, historical, "Master Religion"?
Many atheists use the argument that all religions are supposedly different as an argument in favor of them all being wrong. If the religions are all in agreement then the oppsite is true - that is an argument that they are all reflections of some kind of universal truth. Furthermore, even if Buddhism is this "master religion"(which there is no actual hard evidence for) then you still have to take into account the fact that Buddhism is a religion which is based on experience. Which is to say, there is no "blind faith" in buddhism. Everything which a buddhist claims to believe is based upon a direct personal insight. In other words, if all religions are really founded upon Buddhism then what we have is people observing the mind (meditation) and agreeing on what the nature of mind is, in other words agreement upon what the truth is based on observation. It doesn't matter if the Buddhism derived directly from Buddha(the name actually just means "awakened one") spread around the world or if different people at different times realized the same truths about mind and reality - all enlightenment(knowledge of true nature of mind) is buddhism - all religion is based upon elnlightenment experience and there is universal agreement upon the nature of this experience.

As I said, I DO believe that Jesus was influenced by Buddhism, but I also believe that what's at the very core of Buddhsim can be discovered through reason alone.
I have no disagreement with this statement as you use the term "reason", which means that whatever their discoveries are, they are based upon some measurable, observable aspect. What grover and VitalOne seem to advocate is a non-corporeal, philosophical "Truth".

Many atheists use the argument that all religions are supposedly different as an argument in favor of them all being wrong. If the religions are all in agreement then the oppsite is true - that is an argument that they are all reflections of some kind of universal truth
How can something be a "UNIVERSAL Truth" when it is derived from only one source?

I have no disagreement with this statement as you use the term "reason", which means that whatever their discoveries are, they are based upon some measurable, observable aspect. What grover and VitalOne seem to advocate is a non-corporeal, philosophical "Truth".
False. I am saying that Buddhism is as the science of mind, or the science of subjectivity. All of its truths are observable.


How can something be a "UNIVERSAL Truth" when it is derived from only one source?
If a scientist discovers an observable truth and tells it to other people it doesn't become less universally true just because it has one source. All the truths of buddhism can be verified by anyone. Blind faith is a bad thing in buddhism. Your not supposed to just accept what the Buddha said as true, the whole purpose is to veryify it oneself. The truths apply to all minds universally which is why it is universal truth.
Finally, whether or not Jesus was directly influenced by buddhism the simple fact is that these enlightenment experiences happen in all cultures and all times. So even if it could be proven beyond the shadow of doubt that Jesus was really a buddhist there would still be other cultures with the same systems of belief which had no contact with either christianity or buddhism.

I posted this in a different thread a little while back, and it seems pertinent to this discussion...

I'm not so sure.
Have you heard of Rupert Sheldrake?

While I disagree with Sheldrake's interpretation of "Morphogenic Fields" his research points to some sort of common consciousness or "pool of information" of some other mechanism of sharing information...

Excerpt from:
Memory And Morphogenetic Fields
by Robert Gilman
Originally published in IN CONTEXT #6, Summer 1984, Page 11 Copyright (c)1984, 1997 by Context Institute
http://twm.co.nz/shel_morfields.htm

In the meantime, the puzzles about memory have grown even stranger. This part of our story will take us to one of the most controversial frontiers of current science, although it actually starts back in 1920 when W. McDougall, a biologist at Harvard, began an experiment to see if animals (in this case white rats) could inherit learning. The procedure was to teach the rats a simple task (avoiding a lighted exit), record how fast they learned, breed another generation, teach them the same task, and see how their rate of learning compared with their elders. He carried the experiment through 34 generations and found that, indeed, each generation learned faster in flat contradiction to the usual Darwinian assumptions about heredity. Such a result naturally raised controversy, and similar experiments were run to prove or disprove the result. The last of these was done by W.E. Agar at Melbourne over a period of 20 years ending in 1954. Using the same general breed of rats, he found the same pattern of results that McDougall had but in addition he found that untrained rats used as a control group also learned faster in each new generation. (Curiously, he also found that his first generation of rats started at the same rate of learning as McDougall's last generation.) No one had a good explanation for why both trained and untrained should be learning faster, but since this result did not support the idea that learning was inherited, the biology community breathed a sigh of relief and considered the matter closed.

There it stayed until 1981 when another biologist, Rupert Sheldrake, proposed a radical new interpretation in his book, A New Science Of Life (Los Angeles: J.P. Tarcher, 1982). Sheldrake's larger concern was with what biologists have for years called "morphogenetic fields." Morphogenetic means "giving birth to form," and some biologists hypothesized that, in order to explain how plants and animals grow into the forms that they have, something more than just the usual rules of physics and chemistry was needed. They described this unknown something as a "morphogenetic field." Of course, other biologists thought this was all hogwash and were convinced that an appropriately detailed application of the rules of physics would explain all of biology. In recent decades most biologists held this second position, but Sheldrake may be changing all that.

What Sheldrake has done is threefold. He has linked the longstanding biological problems of form with similar problems in areas as diverse as crystal growth and psychology. He has proposed plausible rules for how morphogenetic fields might behave. And he has suggested how his theory could be tested and shown how existing experiments, like the McDougall-Agar series, support his theory.

--related info--
In 1920 William McDougall of Harvard began training rats to learn to escape from a water maze by choosing the correct exit. While the brightly lit exit would give them an electric shock, when they picked the dimly-lit exit, they got out undisturbed. McDougall found that the first generation of rats had to endure 165 shocks before getting the message. But by the 30th generation, only 20 transgressions were necessary to persuade the rats of the error in their way. (McDougall, 1938. British Journal of Psychology 28:321-345.)

McDougall assumed the rats were passing on acquired characteristics. Wishing to disprove this "Lamarckian" (and Darwinian) interpretation of the data, F. A. E. Crew replicated the experiment in Edinburgh. Right from the get-go, Crew's rats needed only 25 errors to learn their lesson, as if picking up where the Harvard rats had left off. (Crew, 1936. Journal of Genetics 33:61-101.)

In Melbourne, W. E. Agar found the same effect. His trials went on for over twenty years, and even when he tested control subjects that weren't descended from trained rats, they still showed improvement over the performance of previous generations. So it couldn't have been coming from their parents. (Agar, 1954. Journal of Experimental Biology 31:307-321.)
http://jeb.biologists.org/search.dtl

Acquired traits have often been observed to pass throughout a species with no known means of direct transfer from individual to individual. For instance, in England in the 20s a small bird known as the blue tit learned to open milk bottles at doorsteps. When one bird learned the trick, others in the area learned it by simple imitation. But the blue tit doesn't fly more than a few miles, and this habit spread to several widely disparate areas in England by 1935 and continued popping up in faraway places throughout the forties, including Scandinavia and Holland. The habit appeared independently at least 89 times in the British Isles, and the spread of the habit accelerated as time went on. (Fisher and Hinde, 1949. British Birds 42:347-357.) Milk bottles practically disappeared in Holland during the war, and by the time they returned all the birds that had been opening them before the war could not have survived to see their return. Yet the habit rapidly returned when the bottles were re-introduced in 1947.

Arden Mahlberg, a psychologist, carried out a test of the ability to learn Morse Code. He had one group of subjects learn actual Morse Code, while another had to learn a newly-invented code that closely resembled it. He found that subjects were able to learn the actual code far more rapidly than the alternative, and he interpreted this as evidence that the subjects
were resonating with the millions of people who had already learned Morse code. Each time he replicated the experiment, he found that the difference in learning time between Morse code and the new one progressively decreased. This might mean that the initial results were false. But the fact that the decrease was progressive suggests that the morphic resonance of the new code was becoming progressively stronger as more and more students learned it. (Mahlberg, 1987. Journal of Analytical Psychology 32:23-34.)

There've been a few experiments roughly along the lines you suggest. For instance, Gary Schwartz, a psychology professor at Yale, selected 48 words from the Hebrew Old Testament. He then scrambled these words to produce 48 more, none of which were real words in Hebrew. He asked test subjects to guess their meaning in English and then rate on a scale of 0 to 4 how confident they felt about whether they'd guessed the meaning correctly. The subjects reported feeling confident about their guesses 75% more often with the real Hebrew words than with the fakes.

Alan Pickering of Hatfield Polytechnic in England came up with a list of authentic Persian words and then created another list of fake words also written in Persian script. He would show each word to the test subjects for ten seconds, after which they would try to duplicate the word on paper. He found that his students were able to duplicate real Persian words more accurately than fake ones 75% of the time. He noted that the odds of achieving this result were 10,000 to 1. Like Schwartz, Pickering concluded that his results confirmed morphic resonance.

Guys, we can’t ignore the “Egyptian factor”. It is in the Bible that Jesus went to Egypt with his family at approximately age 2, and spent some years there until Herod the Great died. We don’t really know what happened between age 2 and age 30, but it seems very plausible that Jesus was influenced by the Therapeutae, which Greek word literally means “healers”, which was a Jewish community living close to Alexandria, right near the limits of the Roman Empire with Egypt.
It is known that near this are, the Therapeutae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutae) were unknowingly related to the Essenes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essenes), another highly ascetic Jewish sect devoted to God.
I don’t know if all this “soul-healing” originated from India or Egypt, but it is a fact that the esoteric teachings could have been related to any of those 2 sources. I personally think it was Egyptian knowledge slightly merged with Eastern influence.

It is know that for the Egyptians, Thot was the father of medicine, scripture, architecture, and all known esoteric teachings (some even say he built the pyramids). Its Greek translation “Hermes” and the translation to Greek of much of his attributed teachings implies the impact of this “God-man”.
It will never be known whether the teachings were of this man alone or a compilation of past knowledge attributed to solely one man. But it is known that this teachings were in Egypt by 4000 BC by fact, but is considered by most scholars to be dated from way before that time. Even the sphinx is a clue of the hidden knowledge of the Egyptians that was lost in antiquity.

Thot (Greek Hermes) is also referenced in many Egyptian & Greek sources to be the high priest of Atlantis and later the high priest of Egypt.
The Assyrians called Egypt “Muzr”, which means the divine source while the Hebrews called it “Mitzraim”, meaning the land of the birth place or origin since Egypt was the place of rebirth after Atlantis.

It was a known fact that the Egyptians believed in reincarnation, cause they even raised a temple dedicated to reincarnation. Not only reincarnation, but initiation and enlightment; the King of Egypt (Pharaoh) was only allowed to rule if he was an enlightened person, a conscient being; the Egyptians didn’t call it enlightment, but they revered the pharaoh as if he was God himself. The Heb-Seb festival celebrated at age 30 of every pharaoh, was the initiation of the pharaoh itself. Were the pharaoh became enlightened and “spoke to the Gods” for three days in order to get advice from God himself to the wise rule of Egypt. The pharaoh was placed in the coffin inside the pyramid of Keops for 3 straight days, without food or water. This was the ultimate test, 3 days is the stipulated time for a person that survives this conditions to attain enlightment or die, but the pharaoh was trained his whole life for this endeavor.

The knowledge was there, in India, Egypt, Greece and even with the ancient Mayans we can see hints of enlightened men; meaning all this hidden-knowledge had to come from an original source, or from different sources dedicated to the same truth. Atlantis maybe? We will never know, unless we remember past lives dated back to Atlantis, but even then, a few will believe...

http://home.swipnet.se/sonoloco9/stockhausen/S34egyptianR.jpg

Yes, it all comes from one source. That source is the enlightened mind. It doesn't matter whether one person developed a method for attaining enlightenment and then spread it around the world or if different groups developed these methods independently. The point is that the aim of all religion is enlightenment. The fact that this state of mind exists is undeniable and it is also undeniable that it is where religion comes from.

From what I have read, there was no connection between Buddhism and Jesus until many years after his death when a disciple founded a church in India.


there is this (http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/features/01-06/features186.htm)

a closer look at the prediction of Jesus found in the Bhavisya Purana strongly suggests foul play or interpolation on the part of Christian Missionaries in India during the late 18th century.

....

In 1784, the famous Indologist Sir William Jones wrote the following letter to Sir Warren Hastings, Governor General of India, confirming our suspicions.

"As to the general extension of our pure faith in Hindoostan there are at present many sad obstacles to it... We may assure ourselves, that Hindoos will never be converted by any mission from the church of Rome, or from any other church; and the only human mode, perhaps, of causing so great a revolution, will be to translate into Sanscrit... such chapters of the Prophets, particularly of ISAIAH, as are indisputably evangelical, together with one of the gospels, and a plain prefatory discourse, containing full evidence of the very distant ages, in which the predictions themselves, and the history of the Divine Person (Jesus) is predicted, were severally made public and then quietly to disperse the work among the well-educated natives." (Asiatic Researches Vol. 1. Published 1979, pages 234-235. First published 1788).

It may also be noted that throughout the Pratisarga-parva of the Bhavisya Purana we find the stories of Adam and Eve (Adhama and Havyavati), Noah (Nyuha), Moses (Musa), and other Biblical characters. These we also consider to be added by zealous Christians.

In conclusion, the Bhavisya Purana may well be a genuine Vedic scripture prophesying future events, but from the above analysis we can say with certainty that the Jesus episode of the Bhavisya Purana is not an authentic Vedic revelation.