|
Nessus posted:Nah, mu. That would make me want to first start with as uncontroversial a summary of Jesus as possible. Jesus of Nazareth is the central character in the canonical Greek scriptures read by Catholics. In these stories, Jesus is a Palestinian Jew who lived about two thousand years ago. Throughout his life, Jesus is at the center of astonishing signs and acts of healing. He ministered to people. His sermons can be summarized by his consistent message that to be in harmony with all things and all people for all time, a person should choose to act in and believe in compassion, especially for those who are marginalized or vulnerable. He instructed followers to be merciful to wrong-doers. Even his closest disciples did not always understand him, but he was frequently popularly received. As he ministered, Jesus became increasingly identified as the Son of God. Although he committed no crime, Jesus was arrested by the authorities and sentenced to death. An audience watched him die by crucifixion, and then he was buried. Astonishing events continued to happen after his death, such as the disappearance of his body and the sighting of angels. His disciples begin to see him appearing and disappearing. In one of their sightings, Jesus tells them that his life and death have triggered events that will literally change life. He instructed his followers to spread the messages he spoke of in his life. They did so. That's as agnostic a summary as I can make that suggests no intention for the reader to accept the historicity of the written story. To speak personally, to the best of my knowledge, I have never performed a recognizable Buddhist ritual. That's to say that I'm not a Buddhist, but I try to understand a plausible Buddhist perspective. Again, without suggesting worship or even historic credulity in Jesus, I imagine a Buddhist attitude towards the Jesus story would be deep respect for his audacious claims. He lived as if he was a block against bad karma passing through him and towards another. He took wrongdoing against him without responding with any kind of hurt back towards anyone or anything. He carried this message to his execution. It is plausible that the story of his life and message have ended cycles of suffering, and may continue to do so for the foreseeable future. How's that?
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 10:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 08:56 |
|
|
Senju Kannon posted:seminaries are just really bad at teaching people about religions other than christianity unless you specifically do theology of religions, and even then you gotta be really, really fuckin good at it to not come out the other side with some hosed up ideas about like islam or hinduism or buddhism or somethin He did speculate that the concept of monasteries came out of Buddhism, though, which seems plausible to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 10:55
|
|
|
Caufman posted:That would make me want to first start with as uncontroversial a summary of Jesus as possible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 11:05
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Well I would think that he is familiar with the outline of this story, as he is a priest of the Catholic faith, which is historically noted for at least a lukewarm positive attitude towards Jimmy C. I think the latter stuff would be more what he was looking for, although he may have also been wondering if Buddhism specifically denies Jesus existing, etc. My loose understanding is that it would be irrelevant to the actual through-line of seeking liberation in Buddhism, even if it may be a fun historical conversation. I'm sorry. I included the first part to set the basis of what any person, Catholic or not, Buddhist or not, could agree on about the Jesus stories. edit: I talk about this more in the Christianity thread, but I'll say it in short here: I don't think anyone, a Buddhist, a Christian, an Agnostic, or an Atheist, has to accept or deny the existence of Jesus to have deep respect for the character of Jesus in the canonical stories. If Jesus was regarded as Gandalf, they'd both be deeply admired today. The difference being that since the Jesus story has been passed on, people proclaim the have had their lives changed, their suffering mending, and a surety towards a final liberation, an eternal existence. That is to say that I, a Christian, have not found anything to disagree with between what continues to be said about the life of Siddhartha Gautama and the life of Jesus. Caufman fucked around with this message at 11:16 on Aug 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 11:06
|
|
|
"Buddhism" doesn't have anything to say about Jesus because "Buddhism" predates the birth of Jesus by about 500 years. The Buddha didn't have anything to say about a guy who wouldn't be born or do his thing for nearly five centuries after the Buddha's own passing into parinirvana. So "Buddhism" has nothing to say about Jesus. "Buddhists" are not one thing with one lockstep. It's an impossible question. Whether or not someone is Buddhist is determined by the outward ritual of taking Refuge, and the inner qualities of following the Buddha's teachings. There are three major schools of Buddhism, the Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana traditions, which practice Buddhism very differently and even take different approaches to core Buddhist teachings. If you asked this priest, "what is the Christian view on Buddha," how could he respond for all Christians? He could probably respond for Catholics, but even then it's a bit of a silly thing to ask the view of a whole bunch of different people about something not addressed in canon. He would almost certainly give an answer like this one I'm giving, because Jesus did not teach canonically about Buddhism - so at best you have the view of his own seminary or his own views which he might generalize at some peril if he believes himself to be exemplary of "Christians." I can say that the first missionary efforts to Tibet did not occur until the early 1900s or possibly late 1800s. So, there is absolutely no canonical view on Jesus to take for Tibetan Buddhists. There's no scripture, there's no philosophy that says "oh yeah, Jesus tho, here's our take." So there are only individual viewpoints that cannot be generalized across the whole religion. So in order to answer him, you have to first explain that. You can't give Buddhist's opinion on Jesus because the teachings of Buddha occurred 500 years before Jesus. Buddhists themselves have many varied views. Some say he was a really good man and teacher. Some say he was a bodhisattva. Some say he actually traveled to India and studied Buddhism himself, and so was a Buddhist. I don't know of anyone who negatively regards Jesus or Christians generally, as the religious promotes lovingkindness and compassion. But the idea that anyone can save you other than yourself is anathema to Buddha's teachings, so I doubt many people accept the whole salvation bit. Maybe some do! Again, it's nothing addressed in scriptures, so it's a bit of a troublesome question. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 12:14 on Aug 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 12:12
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:"Buddhism" doesn't have anything to say about Jesus because "Buddhism" predates the birth of Jesus by about 500 years. The Buddha didn't have anything to say about a guy who wouldn't be born or do his thing for nearly five centuries after the Buddha's own passing into parinirvana. It is true that Siddhartha lived before Jesus was born. But if his wisdom is at least somewhat transferable to his adherents, then we can at least make plausible guesses as to how Siddhartha would have reacted to a story like the Jesus story. quote:So in order to answer him, you have to first explain that. You can't give Buddhist's opinion on Jesus because the teachings of Buddha occurred 500 years before Jesus. Buddhists themselves have many varied views. Some say he was a really good man and teacher. Some say he was a bodhisattva. Some say he actually traveled to India and studied Buddhism himself, and so was a Buddhist. I don't know of anyone who negatively regards Jesus or Christians generally, as the religious promotes lovingkindness and compassion. But the idea that anyone can save you other than yourself is anathema to Buddha's teachings, so I doubt many people accept the whole salvation bit. Maybe some do! Again, it's nothing addressed in scriptures, so it's a bit of a troublesome question. Effectively, though, a Christian and a Buddhist practice the same things (though from two separate traditions) to attain final and everlasting liberation from bondage: holiness and compassion. And this common wisdom is available to anyone who genuinely seeks ultimate meaning, whether they were born an Indian prince or a Palestinian Jew and all other variations of things with Buddha-nature.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 13:07
|
|
|
You should suggest he contact Fr. Robert Kennedy, S.J.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 13:43
|
|
|
Annual Prophet posted:You should suggest he contact Fr. Robert Kennedy, S.J. I would, except I haven't read him myself. My father in law, a Catholic deacon, recommends him heavily. I myself haven't gotten around to it, because I spend most of my reading time on shitposts. edit: Oops, you're not talking to me 
Caufman fucked around with this message at 13:55 on Aug 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 13:53
|
|
|
Annual Prophet posted:You should suggest he contact Fr. Robert Kennedy, S.J. or aloysius pieris, also sj
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
If the priest is sincere is wanting a frame of reference, it would probably also be helpful for him to acquaint himself with the contemplative tradition (modern and past) within Christianity, which would include things like (as a few quick examples among a much, much broader number of possibilities), The Cloud of Unknowing, The Dark Night of the Soul, some of the works of Merton, Fr. Thomas Keating, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
i'd argue that constantly trying to compare everything you learn about another religion to something in christianity at the start of interreligious dialogue amounts to shooting yourself in the foot. you're far more likely to misinterpret why things are done if you constantly go back to your own religious faith. better to try to understand buddhism on buddhisms many terms than apply it to christianity. once you have a firm foundation THEN you can begin to look for similarities
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
Senju Kannon posted:i'd argue that constantly trying to compare everything you learn about another religion to something in christianity at the start of interreligious dialogue amounts to shooting yourself in the foot. you're far more likely to misinterpret why things are done if you constantly go back to your own religious faith. better to try to understand buddhism on buddhisms many terms than apply it to christianity. once you have a firm foundation THEN you can begin to look for similarities For clarity, I did not suggest, and do not suggest, a constant comparison of everything to Christianity in inter-religious dialogue. There is merit to the concern you've expressed (and it points to a much broader discussion about comparisons and syncretism that is beyond the scope of this thread), but in the case of a priest I'd be less concerned than you about the kind of misunderstanding you're alluding to (they're generally fairly sophisticated interlocutors) in the context of materials that may be helpful, for a Christian who is a priest, in gaining a frame of reference for a tradition that, broadly speaking, may be more praxis oriented (another can of worms). I would also add that, in relating "A" to "B" it may be helpful to bear in mind what "A" really is in the fuller sense, and while a priest may have had some exposure, it may not be top of mind (the contemplative traditions exist, but the practice and awareness are narrower, including for priests, than the more general liturgical practice).
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
all i can say is, having taken classes with catholic seminarians, you're giving them more credit than i'd give, especially if they're not jesuit
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
Senju Kannon posted:all i can say is, having taken classes with catholic seminarians, you're giving them more credit than i'd give, especially if they're not jesuit I would kind of disagree that Buddhism and Christianity are working towards exactly the same ends in the specific sense of their internal realities and perspectives, although the broad message of 'be a good person' is there, and I guess you can certainly draw analogies between things like faith in the Primal Vow and some forms of Protestant 'pray to Jesus and be saved, probably; nothing else necessary' Part of why I have talked to this guy is general faith development, I also had to sort of half-assedly explain the concepts of karma and suffering to him since I think his idea was that it was something like "that small child with cancer did something to earn that cancer."
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
considering how common sick person blaming akin to the friends of job is among christians of all stripes those are some pretty heavy stones to throw in s glass house
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
Nessus posted:
To be fair, that sort of interpretation is somewhat common in (some?) Buddhist countries. In my experience, Buddhists here generally are pro-Jesus and use some Christian terminology in their preaching. Buddhists in countries where Christianity isn't a common religion probably don't do that though. Buddhists in general probably view Jesus the same way that Christians view the founders of other religions. I.e. in the best scenario they see them as bringing up some truths in a non optimal fashion, and in the worst case as teaching false views and leading people away from the truth. I don't think the Buddha would have seen Jesus as enlightened or agreed that they have a common goal. The extant teachings of Jesus and the Buddha barely have any overlap, and the Buddha is recorded as strongly arguing against some contemporary teachers whose lessons were much closer to his own. There's certainly some overlap in the religions, but their cores are very different. I don't think Christianity got the idea of monasteries from Buddhism fwiw, but I'd like to see if anybody has some sources one way or the other.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
pidan posted:There's certainly some overlap in the religions, but their cores are very different. I don't think Christianity got the idea of monasteries from Buddhism fwiw, but I'd like to see if anybody has some sources one way or the other. I'd like to hear more about what you see as the very different cores. I approach a person with the understanding that everyone is a person first, before they are a Christian or a Buddhist or any other moral or spiritual identity. That's to suggest that the fundamental nature of people has been common across the millennia of human history, even as the characteristics (inherited and spontaneous) change all the time. And, to paraphrase Marcus Aurelius, the shared fundamental nature of all people is our common faculties to access both reason and holiness. That is why I observe that people of very different experiences, even across history, can and will come to similar conclusions about suffering: that its ultimate defeat comes through living with holiness and compassion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
Could you please explain what holiness means to you?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
Take the plunge! Okay! posted:Could you please explain what holiness means to you? Certainly, I will do my best. As I use the term holiness (and I'm not attached to using that particular word), I mean the shared ability by any person to have a rapport with and even approach harmony with all things between and including an Alpha and an Omega. In the context of the Jesus and Siddhartha stories, both teachers had something to say about the practice of holiness they saw in their lives. For Jesus, the baffle between ultimate holiness and his contemporary holy men and women was their preoccupation with lawyering morality and their attachment to worldly power. For Siddhartha (and I am much less familiar with his stories), he had to encounter holy men and women who were too focused on the ascetics of holiness, which left them unable to see the perfection of the middle way. Both teachers had lessons which are still popularly accessible and important to people today, who no longer live in either Indian principalities or Roman-occupied Palestine. Briefly, the common themes of holiness that I can identify as being important to both Jesus of Nazareth and Siddhartha Gautama is the practice of personal examination and resistance towards fleeting temptations and attachments.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
Caufman posted:I'd like to hear more about what you see as the very different cores. I mean, both Buddhism and Christianity have developed into very diverse religions, to the point that there are probably some forms of Buddhism that are more similar to some forms of Christianity than to other forms of Buddhism and vice versa. So it's dangerous to speak about the "core" of either religion. But when you look at the quotes from the founder of each religion, they focus on different things. For one thing, Jesus has a lot of opinions on social life, things like marriage and status, relation to authority and care for the poor. He also puts a lot of emphasis on encouraging people to swear allegiance to God and Jesus, since this is the only way to salvation. The Buddha on the other hand mostly talks about the noble truths and the eightfold path that leads to the cessation of suffering. So basically - the Buddha taught a certain metaphysics, and a path of discipline that makes sense in this metaphysical context (and to some degree also outside it), while Jesus mostly talked about how to live your life and how to gain access to an otherworldly reward, where the "how to live your life" bits can also be appealing without the option of ending up at an eternal wedding feast.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 07:35
|
|
|
Have any of you built a stupa?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
POOL IS CLOSED posted:Have any of you built a stupa? I haven't but I've done repair work on them and know people who have built stupas. If you have questions about it I can forward them along.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
pidan posted:I mean, both Buddhism and Christianity have developed into very diverse religions, to the point that there are probably some forms of Buddhism that are more similar to some forms of Christianity than to other forms of Buddhism and vice versa. So it's dangerous to speak about the "core" of either religion. True enough, though I don't think anyone is in danger in this thread. There is no physical core of a religion, only a metaphoric one that is defined differently by each believer. To answer big questions of spirituality, I find it easier to convey what I mean by using examples of a hypothetical but plausible Christian or Buddhist, which I define as a person who has, on some level, chosen to observe the stories of Jesus or Siddhartha. quote:But when you look at the quotes from the founder of each religion, they focus on different things. For one thing, Jesus has a lot of opinions on social life, things like marriage and status, relation to authority and care for the poor. He also puts a lot of emphasis on encouraging people to swear allegiance to God and Jesus, since this is the only way to salvation. The Buddha on the other hand mostly talks about the noble truths and the eightfold path that leads to the cessation of suffering. Definitely both teachers had very different lessons. They lived in different places with different things going on. They inherited different stories and traditions and were asked different questions. The characteristics of their teachings are very different, but I'm postulating that the fundamental nature of their messages are harmoniously compatible and even challenge one another to be clearer. Put differently, I wonder if Jesus of Nazareth were born 2,500 years ago as a prince of India or if Siddhartha were born 2,000 years ago as an unknown Palestinian Jew, would they have lived radically differently from our pairing? That's an unanswerable hypothetical, but I'm suggesting it's not a useless one to ask. Caufman fucked around with this message at 07:10 on Aug 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2017 07:05
|
|
|
Caufman posted:Put differently, I wonder if Jesus of Nazareth were born 2,500 years ago as a prince of India or if Siddhartha were born 2,000 years ago as an unknown Palestinian Jew, would they have lived radically differently from our pairing? That's an unanswerable hypothetical, but I'm suggesting it's not a useless one to ask. I think they have broadly similar moral messages, but most religions have similar broad moral perspectives, with the differences being in nuance, emphasis, and the reasoning behind them. If I was going purely on doctrinal clarity in the original texts and subsequent interpretations, Christianity does pretty poorly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2017 08:32
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I feel like this is comparing apples and pineapples because these are drastically different backgrounds and the conditions in either case would fundamentally alter the individual's situation. Exactly like comparing apples to pineapples: they are both fruit that grow in biomes suited for them. quote:Also, had Jesus lived to 80 and given huge swaths of teaching in those years, Christianity would no doubt be quite different than what we know today. I suggest that the reason most religions broadly share the same moral perspective is because they are at their nature the same, like the apple and the pineapple as fruits. In fact, the differences we see between the two fruits is a result of a tiny fraction of both their DNAs. Under the hood where the vital actions happen, life on Earth is very similar. Baha'is seem to have the strongest textual focus on the unity of religion. Even though my main contact with Baha'i is through my college roommate and buddy, this idea astounds me. It doesn't have to be important to any other Christian or anyone else, but I am deeply affected by the notion that when people, lay or educator, focus their spirituality on questions of how people ought to live to achieve the highest possible state, their bottom-line answer is compassion and holiness. It's just where I would begin any comparison of people of spirit. Caufman fucked around with this message at 09:37 on Aug 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2017 09:31
|
|
|
What does "holiness" mean here? (I'll give you compassion.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 09:38
|
|
|
Nessus posted:What does "holiness" mean here? (I'll give you compassion.) This was my answer from before: Caufman posted:Certainly, I will do my best.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 09:48
|
|
|
I want to double check that I am not wrong on something here. I love studying cult/"new religion" material because it usually is interesting stuff, and I am right now watching stuff from the New Religion group "Happy Science". They made a movie called Rebirth of Buddha. Now correct me if I am wrong, but the whole point of the Buddha is that he taught us how to escape the cycle of life, death and rebirth, to escape suffering. Now I also know that there is supposedly going to be a new buddha, Maitreya. Is there any buddhist sect that believes Maitreya will be the same guy as Gautama Buddha? Cause apparently according to Happy Science Buddha gets reincarnated fairly frequently.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
none that i know of, that's kinda the point of nirvana
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
Senju Kannon posted:none that i know of, that's kinda the point of nirvana That's what I thought, apparently according to the guy, buddha should be reincarnating any time now, unless he is also implying that he is Buddha. Edit: Apparently he is making that proclamation. El Cantare is the Supreme Buddha apparently.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
Senior Scarybagels posted:That's what I thought, apparently according to the guy, buddha should be reincarnating any time now, unless he is also implying that he is Buddha.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I think Maitreya would have the same kind of consciousness as Shakyamuni but would presumably not be identical due to that. Wasn't there a sutra where the Buddha named some other Buddhas in 'inaccessibly distant realms'? Yeah Happiness Science claims that Buddha rebirths every so often...I think every 400 years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
Buddha Shakyamuni and Buddha Maitreya are both Nirmanakaya manifestations of the Dharmakaya or Primordial Buddha which is Samantabhadra or Vajradhara depending on which school you follow. At the ultimate level there is no differentiation of selves and all Buddhas and sentient beings are primordially self-aware Dharmadhatu. But Nirmanakaya manifestations of Buddhas have physical bodies for the purposes of performing their Buddha activities in ways comprehensible to sentient beings. "400 years" is a...bit rapid for the timescales usually being discussed. Shakyamuni Buddha was the Fourth Buddha of the Bhadrakalpa (Fortunate Kalpa). A Kalpa lasts not less than 160 Million Years. Each Kalpa has 1000 Buddhas. So assuming regular appearances of Buddhas (a Buddha appears whenever the Dharma is completely lost from Earth) we're looking at Buddha Maitreya in about another 158000 years. Of course, it doesn't work quite so mathematically like that, but Buddhas do not come very regularly. We are very fortunate to know the name of Shakyamuni Buddha Gautama and to know his teaching, and it's not great to focus on other Buddhas that are not for us presently. That said, Maitreya has transmitted a lot of very profound and good teachings, perhaps most notably the Uttaratantra Shastra, or "Sublime Continuum" which describes how all beings have Buddha natures. We know I think 28 names of Buddhas, mostly from Buddha Gautama's stories about his previous incarnations through the aeons, as he usually names them in terms of what he was doing during the time of other Buddhas. Every 400 years would mean we're ... uh...well past Maitreya at this point? Unless he's late? Anyhow that isn't in keeping with the Buddhist orthodoxy generally, though it's not entirely uncommon for people to claim to be Maitreya Buddha.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:I haven't but I've done repair work on them and know people who have built stupas. If you have questions about it I can forward them along. Thank you, by the way. I'll probably have some questions for you soonish.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Buddha Shakyamuni and Buddha Maitreya are both Nirmanakaya manifestations of the Dharmakaya or Primordial Buddha which is Samantabhadra or Vajradhara depending on which school you follow. At the ultimate level there is no differentiation of selves and all Buddhas and sentient beings are primordially self-aware Dharmadhatu. But Nirmanakaya manifestations of Buddhas have physical bodies for the purposes of performing their Buddha activities in ways comprehensible to sentient beings. "400 years" is a...bit rapid for the timescales usually being discussed. Well Ryuho Okawa, the leader of happy science, isn't claiming to be Maitreya buddha, he is claiming to be El Cantare, who has been previously: Buddha, Hermes, Jesus, Moses, Mohammad, probably a hindu figure. However he claims that he is the "Universal Buddha" the guy that will shine light of the golden laws upon the world. I just find this cult interesting not really because its message, but really because they somehow are popular enough in Japan to afford to spend a lot of money on making 7 anime feature length films including one entitled "Rebirth of Buddha"
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
man, and i only know of two shinran shonin anime movies. jodo shinshu gotta step it up if they want to be taken seriously as the largest religion in japan. can't rest on their laurels like that
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
Senior Scarybagels posted:Well Ryuho Okawa, the leader of happy science, isn't claiming to be Maitreya buddha, he is claiming to be El Cantare, who has been previously: Buddha, Hermes, Jesus, Moses, Mohammad, probably a hindu figure. However he claims that he is the "Universal Buddha" the guy that will shine light of the golden laws upon the world. I just find this cult interesting not really because its message, but really because they somehow are popular enough in Japan to afford to spend a lot of money on making 7 anime feature length films including one entitled "Rebirth of Buddha" Gotcha. Revisiting your original question, you're correct. Historical Gautama Buddha does not re-emanate in this kalpa because to do so would kind of undermine the demonstration of the teaching. He took Mahaparinirvana (Dharmakaya form with no rebirth) because if he were to come back, people could accuse him of fraud, saying "see, Buddha's path to liberation does not free one for eternity, look how he's come back." Sometimes enlightened beings do that. For example Milarepa does not have a recurring emanation because the message of his life story is "even a horrible fuckup can attain perfect enlightenment through diligent practice and commitment" and if he were to take a rebirth, people might think "see, even a great saint like Milarepa could not come back." So, your understanding is correct. Any one given Buddha will not come back once they have been "The Buddha" for a time. Once a Buddha does his Buddha thing if he takes emanations it is only in the Sambhogakaya form for the purpose of teaching future generations of Bodhisattvas who will become Buddhas themselves eventually. Even then, there's some discussion about how that works (Uttaratantra harbors some discussion of whether the appearances of Buddhas to Bodhisattvas are a single continuing manifestation, or a series of distinct illusory appearances with only the appearance of continuity, for example). Anyone claiming to be a Rebirth of Gautama Buddha has fundamentally misconceived the life story of the Buddha.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Gotcha. Revisiting your original question, you're correct. Historical Gautama Buddha does not re-emanate in this kalpa because to do so would kind of undermine the demonstration of the teaching. He took Mahaparinirvana (Dharmakaya form with no rebirth) because if he were to come back, people could accuse him of fraud, saying "see, Buddha's path to liberation does not free one for eternity, look how he's come back." To be fair, he also claims Hermes is a previous life of Buddha too so I don't know if he had a strong grasp of the story in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
Senior Scarybagels posted:To be fair, he also claims Hermes is a previous life of Buddha too so I don't know if he had a strong grasp of the story in the first place. Didn't he, though? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 08:56 |
|
|
Senior Scarybagels posted:To be fair, he also claims Hermes is a previous life of Buddha too so I don't know if he had a strong grasp of the story in the first place. Or don't want to. I read about how the Hare Krishnas claim that Shakyamuni was a manifestation of Krishna in order to trick atheists into worshiping God. I was like, "man, rude."
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 12:12
|
|