Do You Think Jesus Really Ever Existed?

I don't think tranquility is the main goal of spiritual meaning. That's a big difference between Christianity and Buddhism as I understand it. Nor do I think either of those religions should be viewed as a way to relax after a busy day--curl up on the couch with the Gospel of Luke or the Taishō Tripiṭaka before turning in. Christianity entails struggle for social justice and active service to society's rejects and disadvantaged, sometimes at the cost of one's life or health. That can be quite upsetting at times. The idea of sniffing an odorous rose in the face of human suffering makes me want to puke. Christianity is also an effort to come to grips with the numinous, which, as Rudolph Otto suggests, involves a sense of , mysterium tremendum, combining awe and dread. Welcome to the real world. If we knew it all, life would be so much simpler, but we live in a world of uncertainty. We have to figure it out for ourselves, and suspending judgment until science gives us the answers doesn't seem realistic as a life strategy. We're being dishonest with ourselves if we think otherwise. I agree with Mill that it's better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. Faith is an educated bet on reality in a world of ambiguity. To deny uncertainty and the stress that goes with it is, as I see it, to live in bad faith or false consciousness.

 

hrmm that makes sense i suppose

 

like siddhartha

 

This is the crux of where you err in my opinion; it is exactly the case that the only viable life strategy is to suspend judgement until you get evidence. Otherwise the door swings wide open for nonsense and you have no way of filtering.

How is it dishonest to suspend judgement until you get real evidence? Isn't that the definition of being honest? Isn't "settling on an answer that makes me feel good" the ultimate metaphysical cop-out, the ultimate form of intellectual dishonesty?

Yet you opt to be the fool satisfied, by your own admission.

Faith is pretending to know something that you don't know.

 

A wide-open door is scary to the insecure . It's not for everyone . And some will have it
open with faith in divine protection , trusting also that wrongful action will not result from
bad nonsense .

Sensibility , relaxed , will not exclude good nonsense .

Your ' wide-open door ' is a strong and spiritual concept .

 

You're also pretending to know what you don't know. You don't know whether Jesus existed or didn't, but you have faith that he didn't exist.

You might as well stop following Buddhism and Taoism then also, until you get actual evidence that the Buddha existed for certain, as it is debated, along with Lao Tzu's existence.

The ultimate cop-out is saying that you NEED to have evidence of Jesus' existence but certainly you don't need that same evidence for the existence of Buddha, as "Buddhism doesn't require the Buddha's existence in order to be valid". Really? How is this so? Why aren't you suspending judgment until you find out that the author of the words is who is claimed to be the author? Why would you buy into something that's fraudulent, or not even based on the original author?

How are you being honest with yourself here?

And what aspects of Buddhism are so brilliant that you couldn't have figured out without Buddhism?


I know that you're going to make the argument that it doesn't matter who the author is, because Buddhism would still be Buddhism whether he existed or not, or whoever the author is. Well, first off, there's a shit ton of branches of Buddhism, which all eventually are supposed to stem from The Buddha's original teachings. But these branches are simply interpretations by other people of the original teachings. So what aspects did you specifically need Buddhism for? Because to me, living in the present moment, The Middle Way, looking within, and many other Buddhist concepts I don't need Buddhism specifically to see the obviousness of.

You can make the argument that the Buddha didn't create anything, he just discovered the natural laws of the Universe as it is. But every religion is based on revelations on the laws of the Universe as it is as well.

If we don't need Jesus to realize that the Universe is Love or to be nice to others, then why do we need Buddhism to know to live in the present moment or to have a balance of extremes?

 

And this next point is talking to anyone who is interested in Buddhism, not just Writer.

ALL of the different branches and sects of Buddhism, from Theravada to Mahayana to Zen to Tantric Buddhism (AKA Vajrayana Buddism) to Pure Land Buddhism (which are all very different mind you), are based upon and stemmed from the original teachings of The Buddha, and more importantly, his original teachings are based upon his Spiritual Awakening sitting under the Bodhi Tree which lead to his Enlightenment.

Why is this important? Because if you are interested in any of the various forms of Buddhism, this requires a FAITH and BELIEF in not only The Buddha's existence, but also in his Spiritual Awakening and Enlightenment.

So do people on this forum in fact actually believe in such a phenomena as a Spiritual Awakening, which many would call a Mystical Experience, that many others, including Zen and Tantric Buddhists, would link to the notion of a Kundalini Awakening as the physiological cause for such an event? (Zen doesn't even put emphasis in working very much with Kundalini but still at least acknowledges its existence)

Do people on here actually believe in Nirvikalpa Samadhi (what the Gnostics would call Gnosis), having and dwelling in the space of No-Self, and the concept of being Enlightened?

This is the bread and butter and ultimate aim of ALL of Buddhism.

Do people actually believe that The Buddha existed, and that he actually had an Awakening under the Bodhi Tree? If so, I guess you need to come forth with some concrete evidence.

And if you think Buddhism is about anything else then you're just dwelling in your own branch of interpretation of what Buddhism is. If you don't think he existed and/or don't think it matters, then you're just doing a false Buddhism.

 

A tranquil mind is the best adapted for solving problems. If the difference between Christianity and Buddhism is that Christians will get upset and lose control, then I will take Buddhism any day of the week. I guess Jesus did set an example of losing control when he tossed over the money charger's tables. That's probably been an inspiration for dullards with a sense of purpose to lose control for countless centuries. Who can count how many senseless fights have been catalyzed by morons who idolized Jesus? It's probably happening out there right now, at this very moment.

So come to think of it, you would have to be very selective in order to make the New Testament a book worthy of my attention. I don't think it sets a good example, or prepares people for "the real world." In the real world people tend to always think they are justified, and for people to then try to follow Christ's example, as though they can be as just as a Christ, is highly misleading and harmful. As far as it can serve as an operating manual for humanity, the New Testament is bunk. It doesn't fill me with awe or dread. Well, maybe dread, because I dread a world in which this phony "spirituality" proliferates. A world with millions of stupid assholes who think they act with the authority of God.

I was joking when I said it should be like sniffing an odorous rose. I almost laughed out loud at the idea that Jesus' crucifixion should be like sniffing an odorous rose. But the fact is that we wouldn't begrudge the poor or suffering the chance to sniff at an odorous rose, and neither should they we. We need to live by the example we set, peaceful, harmonious, tranquil. We can't make a practice of becoming enraged at the social justices of the world, because this rage turns blindly in every direction, throwing stones that hit glass houses.

It's so simplistic to just say we live in a world of uncertainty. There are at least different degrees of uncertainty, as I've said before. I am not the same degree of uncertain that George Washington existed that you are that Jesus existed. To follow your advice and categorize everything but my own consciousness as being uncertain and everything else being on the same playing field because it's not that certain is certainly absurd.

 

I believe it's possible that someone could have attained an "enlightened" state, but I doubt that it's important. What is a roach next to an ant? Just a bigger bug. I think we're making all kinds of wild assumptions about the importance of humanity and completely blowing these ordinary people's lives out of proportion. i don't think it's completely amazing that there is a guy who is wiser than fools. He may be wise in comparison to fools, but how amazing is he in comparison to God or mother nature, even conceptually?

The way you speak of the Buddha, I don't believe that the Buddha you have faith in actually existed. So I guess I don't believe the Buddha existed without proof. There's no reason for me to. To say I need to believe in someone without proof is to give them a power I don't think anyone warrants. Like Jesus, it simply doesn't matter if the Buddha existed or not. It would be nice to imagine that a guy with mystical powers existed, because then maybe I could have mystical powers too, but more likely than not everybody throughout history has pretty much been regular people. Pants on one leg at a time, wiping their butts after they take a shit, etc. I doubt anything too amazing is going on.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/06/religious-children-less-altruistic-secular-kids-study

Religion's got it all backwards.

 

Maybe we need a 'did Buddha exist' thread. But again, it would probably be every bit as inconclusive as this one.

 

No, faith is making an educated bet on the basis of available credible evidence. The filter comes from critical analysis, and should always be on. Science is the gold standard of knowledge, but there are many areas that aren't susceptible to rigorous methods and evidentiary standards. Ancient history is one of them. Many important decisions today need to be made on the basis of far less than scientific proof or even courtroom proof: building highways, setting exposure levels to hazardous substances, making arrests, etc. The standards for these are "substantial evidence" (enough evidence to convince a reasonable person even though other reasonable persons might be unconvinced.

I recently attended a debate on the fossil evidence for evolution in which the "Scientific Creationist", a biologist from a local Christan college, was (ironically) taking a hard-line view of the fossil evidence for transitional species. We have no missing links, he said.. We have fossil apes that walk upright and humans who seem remarkably apelike, but this, he said. just shows "microevolution" within species, not evolution from one species to another. Ardipothecus and Australopithecus were just subspecies of apes, while Homo erectus and Neandertahls were subspecies of humans. Identification of "transitional species" requires inference, which is a matter of judgment involving a degree of inference. I and most scientists would be willing to make those inferences and connect the dots. I'm willing to make the inference that the species are transitional and that Archaeopteryx is not just species of reptile that had wings or a funny looking bird.

Last night, we were treated to another Republican debate in which the candidates laid out their policies, which in one case included rounding up and deporting 11 million people, in another case abolishing the IRS, in a third case getting to 4% economic growth, in another destroying ISIS, etc It would be nice to have scientific proof concerning the merits or demerits of these proposals. The fact checkers help, but are often still a matter of subjective judgment. But we don't and we won't, so we can go fishing on election day because there's no scientific proof who's right, or we can take the leap of faith and decide which candidate on balance is offering the most sensible plan (you might want to watch the Democrat debates for that one). Much of ancient history relies on records that do not lend themselves to definitive scientific proof and rely on interpretation and reasonable inference. We've mentioned doubts about Socrates. One of our best sources for him is Plato. But Plato's oldest surviving manuscript dates to 895 A.D.--over 122 years after Plato is thought to have died. We know Aristotle's Nichomachaen Ethics mainly from his son's lecture notes. How cautious do we want to be? Do we want to take the position that only royalty existed in ancient times because they're pretty well-documented. Or are we willing to rely on reasonable inference?

 

Can't help slipping into theistic language from time to time it seems

 

I would agree with you. Was just trying to make a point that if you need proof for one, then you need proof for the other. The Buddha I'm talking about isn't some crazy version of him either. It's a fact that his Awakening under the Bodhi Tree is basically the foundation for all of the teachings. This was his "Burning Bush" moment or equivalent to Moses' revelations. The revelations just happen to take an external form in the Western mythology more often. But even with Siddartha, the story is well known that many different external dark spirits "tried" The Buddha while meditating under the Bodhi Tree (specifically the children of Mara), prior to his Awakening.

 

If you think I said everything is equally uncertain, you misunderstood what I said. Yes, the existence of George is far better documented than the existence of Jesus, As I said (post 233):"I agree that the evidence for George Washington's existence is impressive--beyond a reasonable doubt (which is not the same as certainty). He has the advantage of being a famous general and head of government, and being active after the printing press was invented. I'd put Caesar Augustus and Cleopatra in the same category, because we have biographies, multiple attestations from respectable sources, and coins with their pictures on them. Alas, poor Jesus, Socrates, and Buddha don't have the same level of evidence to support their existence. So it becomes a matter of judgment based on the evidence available. I share the judgment of most historians that these figures existed. You deep talking about convincing you, and 'proof'." You must have missed that one.

 

I agree 100%.

If you'd like, you're welcome to start a thread "Did the Buddha exist?" or "How to separate the supernatural and natural events within Buddhism and Taoism?" for example.

I for one don't believe these tales of spirits and such, they are at best metaphorical, though of course many practitioners may consider them literally true.

I make no claims for the validity of these stories and encourage healthy and unflinching skepticism towards any claim.

You are doing well by questioning these things in this way, but you are doing it for a petty reason, that is, to one up me. If you turned this faculty you're developing inwards and looked at some of what you've been espousing here, you might find it less than solid.

My understanding of buddhism is that the buddha was not divine, never claimed to be divine, in fact explicitely claimed to not be divine and discouraged worship of his person. In buddhist mythology there are gods above the realm of mortals, and even those gods may achieve enlightenment, so buddha's role in these imaginings was really as a disrupter of order. The concept of nirvana is not a happy place where grandma is waiting for you, but your removal as a person from the cycle of life and death.

It's not. It's utter poppycock from what I can tell. Completely fabricated and bearing all the hallmarks of a fictional religion taken seriously. Were you under the impression that I worship and believe in eastern religions while denigrating western religions and only applying reason there? If so you are quite mistaken and wasting your time in this direction.

Titles do not a divinity claim make. He is given many honorary titles in respect, but the vast majority of traditions in buddhism do not consider him a god. Considering that every person can become enlightened in the buddhist sense, it is plainly a completely mortal phenomenon. There are some traditions in which even some noble animals are considered wise enough to potentially achieve enlightenment, such as tigers and elephants.

I am not beholden to the convoluted mess that is the DSM, nor are we in a formal clinical setting with a patient doctor relationship, so when I say that something is insane, I mean it quiet plainly, and without need of editorialship from mental health academia. In my opinion the state of western mental health science is more akin to alchemy than chemistry, and if you were anywhere near in touch with the happenings of that system you wouldn't hold it up as an exemplar of rational thought. We are still under the shadow of the blunderings and meanderings of Freud for example.

Yes, you've got me now, I'm actually Scrooge McDuck, out to take away everyone's pension, belief in Jesus Christ, and mommy. Give me a break dude, plenty of "low status" people have been monumentally important in shaping history. The question here is whether jesus is even a person IN history, or if "his influence" has really been the influence of the Legend of Jesus.

Which is an important point if, like several billion people on earth, you believe Jesus was a person and only through the person of Jesus can your soul survive.

Not that they are completely crazy, it's all a matter of degrees and scales. Certainly the beliefs are untenable and are a species of cognitive illness in my opinion. A leftover of our evolution in which natural selection favored those humans who were outrageous pattern seers.

Buddhism was the first and last "religion" to be empirically based. It teaches that no matter what your religion, upbringing, sex, class, etc, your mind operates a certain way, a way that you can perceive yourself if you apply attention to it. Buddhism at its core is really misclassified as a religion, and is more akin to the first real branch of Psychology to ever exist.

It is a system of empirically analyzing your life and asking questions regarding the relationship between motive, effort, and result.

It's not. I don't believe in Boddhisatvas. I consider them the equivalent of Angels in buddhism. Do you think that I just devour and accept all eastern claims without any critical thought? I have never once claimed any of these statements you are accusing me of, so you are reading a little of yourself into all this. I examine EVERYTHING critically and if it fails criteria for belief then I don't believe it.

 

What's your source? Rhetorical question

No, that's living where you live. I don't need to worry myself with the theological disputes between obscure buddhist sects in Laos because it doesn't affect me at all. The theological disputes in western religions however, do affect me, my government, my politics, my safety, my food selection at grocery stores, my gas prices, my social milieu (as a canadian), etc, etc.

I care about what westerners pay attention to because I am a westerner living in the west. That's not bias, that's strategically devoting finite attention to appropriate directions.

Translation: "I guess you're just too SCARED to not need evidence for your huge metaphysical claims, ya big baby! Us big boys just know when something FEELS good and that's good enough for us. Maybe one day you'll be as cool as us cool kids and be able to just believe and know things without any evidence because like, whatever, it feels right or something."

Can't help missing clever puns from time to time it seems, or thinking an informal use of common parlance is indicative of deep theological insecurity. Hopefully this was just an offhand remark but China's like of this post makes me think at least he is under the impression this was a witty barb towards me, and his use of rhetoric is in bad need of elevation.

We don't. Remember, if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.

My favorite analogy is to buddhism as a boat; once you have crossed the river to where you'd like to be, you leave your boat and continue on foot. Just leave it behind.

If you can come up with all the teachings of buddhism all on your very own then you are a very lucky person and you of all people certainly have no need of buddhism.

I'd like to un-confuse you about something. So much of this is because I described myself as a buddhist in the past, but i'd like to take that back. I was mistaken.

Mr.Writer is NOT "a buddhist".

Ok? Now we can not be burdened by this direction.

I don't know anything about a bodhi tree or about demons attacking someone or about spiritual enlightenment. All I know is that someone wrote some pretty clever stuff down that is attributed to someone who may or may not have existed, and it's mostly a philosophical system of self-inquiry, which works. That's all that matters to me. Like I said, maybe Buddha's maid actually wrote everything. If so, hats off to her! Doesn't matter to me, I'm not a historian or a worshipper of men.

 

so buddha's role in these imaginings was really as a disrupter of order.

Exactly the same as Jesus Christ.

The concept of nirvana is not a happy place where grandma is waiting for you, but your removal as a person from the cycle of life and death.

"The seeker should keep seeking until he finds, and when he finds, he will be disturbed, and then he will reign over all".

"I say, for the Kingdom is neither here nor there, for the Kingdom is within you"

"When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]."

"If you come to understand these words, you will not taste death"

-Jesus Christ

Buddhism was the first and last "religion" to be empirically based. It teaches that no matter what your religion, upbringing, sex, class, etc, your mind operates a certain way, a way that you can perceive yourself if you apply attention to it. Buddhism at its core is really misclassified as a religion, and is more akin to the first real branch of Psychology to ever exist. It is a system of empirically analyzing your life and asking questions regarding the relationship between motive, effort, and result

Actually, Hermeticism meets all of these requirements and beyond, and Hermeticism came first.


It's not. I don't believe in Boddhisatvas. I consider them the equivalent of Angels in buddhism. Do you think that I just devour and accept all eastern claims without any critical thought? I have never once claimed any of these statements you are accusing me of, so you are reading a little of yourself into all this. I examine EVERYTHING critically and if it fails criteria for belief then I don't believe it.

a Bodhisattva isn't an Angel. It's more akin to a Saint. You could also argue that once Enlightenment is achieved, that rather than just dwelling in a cave (like Lao Tzu) or Monastery for the rest of your life, you instead put yourself into the world. This is what Jesus did, and can also be considered a Bodhisattva.

 

What's your source? Rhetorical question

It's common knowledge and sense that there are far many more seekers than finders

No, that's living where you live. I don't need to worry myself with the theological disputes between obscure buddhist sects in Laos because it doesn't affect me at all. The theological disputes in western religions however, do affect me, my government, my politics, my safety, my food selection at grocery stores, my gas prices, my social milieu (as a canadian), etc, etc.
I care about what westerners pay attention to because I am a westerner living in the west. That's not bias, that's strategically devoting finite attention to appropriate directions.


Having this "it doesn't affect me at all" attitude is the root of all the dysfunction on this planet. Just because you can't experience the other side of the earth, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and isn't directly interconnected with every facet of Western life.

We don't. Remember, if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.

My favorite analogy is to buddhism as a boat; once you have crossed the river to where you'd like to be, you leave your boat and continue on foot. Just leave it behind.

If you can come up with all the teachings of buddhism all on your very own then you are a very lucky person and you of all people certainly have no need of buddhism.

I'd like to un-confuse you about something. So much of this is because I described myself as a buddhist in the past, but i'd like to take that back. I was mistaken.

Mr.Writer is NOT "a buddhist".


Ok? Now we can not be burdened by this direction.

You're really going to go from "Sophisticated Buddhist" to "not a Buddhist at all" in the snap of a finger to save face?

I don't know anything about a bodhi tree or about demons attacking someone or about spiritual enlightenment. All I know is that someone wrote some pretty clever stuff down that is attributed to someone who may or may not have existed, and it's mostly a philosophical system of self-inquiry, which works. That's all that matters to me. Like I said, maybe Buddha's maid actually wrote everything. If so, hats off to her! Doesn't matter to me, I'm not a historian or a worshipper of men.

If you don't know this story then you don't know Buddhism, and clearly don't know much about the root of Buddha's realizations and revelations. So tell me, do you believe in Spiritual Awakening and Enlightenment, or not? When you say Buddhism "works", in what way does it work?