Jesus... learned from a Buddhist monk?

[Tenshi no Ai]

I'm sure people are going "wha...?" when they see this title, but it's an interesting tidbit I heard today, according to someone who knows someone who studies Buddhism and its history. But ummm.... anyone even HEARD of this before? Somethign also about how it had "historic correctness" since it happened during one of his travels, or something. Oh, and since He became "enlightened" from this Buddhist monk He was learning under, was the reason He was able to walk on water (since Buddha was recorded to have done so many many years back). It's actual very odd on this one site I found how Buddhas' teaching and Jesus' as well as their lives were very similar, although Buddha was before His time (so I can definitely see that as an argument among non-believers). Teachings both... very different, but at the same time with some of the similarities, just common sense, really. But anyways...

Still, the idea of Jesus learning and becoming enlightened by BUDDHA'S teaching is just... something else. Like... wow what a concept... Because well, obviously that just wouldn't work^^ So seriously, anyone even heard of something like this before?

[bigsleepj]

I wouldn't pay attention to it. There are several theories like this doing the rounds. Mostly this is conjecture, speculation or fancies of the people proposing it.

[Radical Dreamer]

I've never heard that before, no, and I'm going to say that I don't believe it's true. XD Lots of religions will have little tidbits of truths from our own, but in the end, they're always twisted in one or several ways, and hearing a story like that from someone who was studying Buddhist history doesn't exactly scream "truth" to me. XD

[Yeshua-Knight]

i haven't heard that one before, but it's kinda funny

especially when you think about how the majority of what Jesus said was originally from the book of deuteronomy which was written by moses

[Ingemar]

Um, yeah. Unless this source can cite references, it is highly dubious.

[EricTheFred]

It's been a while since the first time I heard this, but when I was in High School, a book came out basically claiming this. I've seen it mentioned a couple times on History Channel shows. Apparently it pops up again every twenty or thirty years. As I recall, the general analysis of the real theologians is, it's based on some very weak circumstantial evidence and nothing else.

The important thing to understand is, most claims about Jesus from non-believers focus on his teachings, thoroughly missing the point that the most important part of Jesus' ministry wasn't his teachings, but his preparation of the Apostles to understand his crucifixion, so they could then spread that understanding to the world. The rest of his teachings were, by and large, simply restatements and clarifications of what was already there in the Old Testament. Even if we allow the non-believer's assertion that he had to have learned what he taught from someone else, he didn't have to go to India or Tibet to learn wisdom that the Jews had been accumulating for at least 14 centuries as a literate people.

The fact of the matter is, we can legitimately ask if Buddha and others didn't get some of their knowledge from the older civilizations of the Middle East, including that of the Jews. Middle Eastern and North African civilization predates Indian civilization.

[Mave]

This is as new to me as the claims that Jesus got married and had a kid.

No, seriously, coming from a culture that is heavily Muslim and Buddist, this is my first time hearing this. But I will also add that my non-believing friends are Buddhists only by name but their lifestyles, values and personalities are molded by atheism/agnostism. Even so, I have never heard of this from my very few hardcore Buddhist friends.

Perhaps there is a movement to unite Christian and Buddhism by connecting the sayings of Jesus Christ and Gautama Buddha (fair enough, I do think that there are some similarities). But if you look closer at the rest of the teachings, Christianity and Buddhism are quite different. The whole nirvana concept was enough to convince of the difference.

That's not to say that I'm not willing to hear this one out but it would be nice if whoever gave you this information provided some sources. OK, let's just say..... if (big 'IF') Jesus really did learn from a Buddhism monk, I don't think He totally agreed with the monk later on 'coz He moved on to His own thing in the end. I mean, dying on the Cross isn't exactly the best way to escape suffering or to achieve nirvana. But who knows......

....someone might interpret that as a part of a new Buddhist teaching that says that "the only way to achieve nirvana is to die for someone else" or "the only way to escape suffering is to experience the worst suffering ever known to mankind." Heh, that would be interesting.

[ChristianKitsune]

There are many people who claim that christianity Copies from other religions. But in reality, many of them copy from us.

It is very interesting the lies that people like to spread. I hate to give Satan credit for this, but he is the father of lies. *shrugs*

I really wouldn't take much stock into this. What are you going to believe? Some site that doesn't cite it's sources? Or a book that has been around for a very very long time, and is written by our Creator?

I vote for the book. ^^ Don't worry.

[AsianBlossom]

Ditto. What I wanna say has already been said.

[Mithrandir]

That's not to say that I'm not willing to hear this one out but it would be nice if whoever gave you this information provided some sources. OK, let's just say..... if (big 'IF') Jesus really did learn from a Buddhism monk, I don't think He totally agreed with the monk later on 'coz He moved on to His own thing in the end.

I can cite a source for you: one of my professors at a Christian university during a lecture on world religions.

I'm going to have to tread very carefully here, since I'm wanting to make three points:
1. Let's net devolve too much in to the realm of debate.
2. The phrase "do not do to others anything you don't want done to you" *IS* from Buddhism, and it *IS* older than Jesus' teaching; it was *VERY* well known at the time.
3. Your final sentence above is one of the more important ones in this thread.
4. Is Jesus allowed to quote truth?

Point four might need a little clarification, but it's more for clarity's sake than for anything else.

Jesus was speaking primarily to uneducated people - he had to use phrases and turns of speech that they could understand. While he certainly could have invented every phrase he ever used, it stands to reason that he could have used snippets that people would understand. After all, a large portion of what Jesus said was in allegorical format. Considering the nature of point 1 above, I'm afraid I have to stop here. Feel free to PM me if you would like more information.

I'd like to end with this extreme example: Even a fool can say something wise every now and again. Should you throw it out just because a fool said it? My point is not that other religions are foolish; it's that there are grains of truth everywhere in life. Some are just harder to find.

[Technomancer]

I'm sure people are going "wha...?" when they see this title, but it's an interesting tidbit I heard today, according to someone who knows someone who studies Buddhism and its history. But ummm.... anyone even HEARD of this before? Somethign also about how it had "historic correctness" since it happened during one of his travels, or something.

I would be interested in the relevant sources. I'm familiar with the content of a fair bit of the NT apocrypha, and aside from Jesus' Egyptian sojourn I don't recall any stories of his travelling. It is at least plausible though that he could have come into contact with Buddhist teaching, as there is documented evidence of Buddhist monks reaching Roman Syria (albeit in the case that I'm aware of, sometime after the life of Christ). However, in spite of the plausibility of this, there would seem to be no good evidence to support a claim of direct contact.

[c-girl]

>^-^< I've heard of the theory. Where the theory came from was from the part of the bible where Jesus just kind of disappears for 30 years or so. I heard he went to India and studied there. There are other things people have said about Jesus actually getting married, bringing up the possibility of children. I haven't studied about the theories too much, but a lot of other people have put a lot of thought and energy into the ideas so I think it's worth looking at.

I've heard of another theory, that brings up the possibility of Adam having a wife before Eve named Lilith. Anyone else heard of her around here?

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Perhaps there is a movement to unite Christian and Buddhism by connecting the sayings of Jesus Christ and Gautama Buddha (fair enough, I do think that there are some similarities). But if you look closer at the rest of the teachings, Christianity and Buddhism are quite different. The whole nirvana concept was enough to convince of the difference.

There exists many "ChristaBuddhists" in our world. Infact, I used to know one. She always said that since the teachings were so similar, they could be complimentary and not contradict each other. To her, it was like "Buddhism with a Christian God." It didn't make too much sense to me, as that's no different than being simply a Christian. Why add Buddhism to the whole concept?

I dunno, maybe meditating in a Lotus position or calling herself "Buddhist" seemed cool to her at the time (Note that the Lotus position usually refers to Zen Buddhism, as opposed to Siddhartha Guatuma's original style of Buddhism, I believe).

[Tenshi no Ai]

There exists many "ChristaBuddhists" in our world. Infact, I used to know one. She always said that since the teachings were so similar, they could be complimentary and not contradict each other. To her, it was like "Buddhism with a Christian God."

I know someone like that too, in fact he logs on here every now and then. It is an interesting idea, but I agree that when you really look closely, there are probably more differences than similarities.

While on the difference/similarity thing, is it just more, or is Buddhism more about the self? What happens and effects you and so forth? Like, I know it appears to be an idea full of love and compassion towards others, but at the same time unlike our "avoid things that hinder you from God" it's "avoid things that hinder you from meditation". I believe and do a different form of meditation, the Christian way which involves God and keeping open to what He has to say. But... I don't know. It just seems like if you sit there and leave your mind open, the words will come, and how can that truly help the world? Just something is... off about it...

...time to make another prayer request too regarding this all :/

[Mr. Rogers]

Jesus lived in Israel...how did he come across a Buddhist monk....?

[Technomancer]

I've heard of another theory, that brings up the possibility of Adam having a wife before Eve named Lilith. Anyone else heard of her around here?

The story appears in the Babylonian Talmud from what I recall. It is believed to have derived in part from Mesopotamian legends regarding a malevolent female desert spirit by the name of lilitu.

[EricTheFred]

Lilith is a solution that pre-Christian Jewish theologians concocted to the problem of the 'double creation' of woman. If one reads Genesis with an absolutely literal chronology, then God created two women. One was at the same time as Adam, and the other, Eve, later, from his rib (Chapters 1 and 2 respectively.) They lifted the story of Lilith from Mesopotamian mythology because it fit into the theory fairly well.

I'm not sure if current Jewish theology accepts the Lilith account. I know it has drifted into and out of Christian theology over the centuries.

[Mave]

While on the difference/similarity thing, is it just more, or is Buddhism more about the self? What happens and effects you and so forth? Like, I know it appears to be an idea full of love and compassion towards others, but at the same time unlike our "avoid things that hinder you from God" it's "avoid things that hinder you from meditation". I believe and do a different form of meditation, the Christian way which involves God and keeping open to what He has to say. But... I don't know. It just seems like if you sit there and leave your mind open, the words will come, and how can that truly help the world?

Eh before we go into that, I think we may need to research on the different Buddhism sects first before we start generalizing Buddhism, which IMO doesn't do it justice. If I'm not mistaken, their beliefs diverge in some significant way. Don't quote me on this (my books that relevant to this topic are stuck in another country): There are two groups, Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism. The former doesn't believe in the existence of God while Theravada believes in some form of divine entity. I forgot which one regards Buddha as God. There are some other differences, which I can't recall. Can anyone else here help?

My understanding is more of Mahayana Buddhism but I suspect that both sects probably still believe in the karma cycle and the only way to achieve nirvana is through enlightenment. I've always thought that it's interesting that the only way to stop suffering to is to stop existing, which is the whole goal of Buddhism <---- Or at least, that's the impression I got, which I sometimes see as an spiritual form of suicide. Well, ok...at least, I know for sure that there is no concept of an eternal life because life as we know it sucks.

Honestly, I don't know Buddhism in depth so I apologize if I've made any mistakes in my observations or interpretations (<--- disclaimer disclaimer!). It would be important to clarify the details before making further comparisons to Christianity.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

I forgot which one regards Buddha as God.

That would be the Mahayana sect of Buddhism, which is predominant in China, Japan, Vietnam, Korea, etc.

[Tenshi no Ai]

Eh before we go into that, I think we may need to research on the different Buddhism sects first before we start generalizing Buddhism, which IMO doesn't do it justice.

Yeah, it's true that there are different groups (such as pretty much any belief) which believe in pretty separate things. Although I'm getting to know what the main concept is, I try and not be arrogant/ignorant about things, so sometimes I make a quick questioning on what I read on/observed.

Interesting with that end suffering through existence, but I think it's more on ending REexistance in their version of the repetitive circle of life within a being. Always curious to how people came about with that^^ Although I have heard of people that say "my relative died around this time and my pet was born around them and acts like them. It MUST be them reborn!"

[JasonPratt]

Caution: long (but hopefully eirenic) post approaching. {g} If you don't know what eirenic means (in this case it means I'm going to discuss distinctions but not in a BLEEP THOSE BUDDHISTS kind of way {s}), or if your eyes are already glazing over, take that as a sign and move along--it isn't going to get any better. {lol!}

CK, I totally love your new avatar there, btw. {g}

Tenshi, I realize this is probably connected with your boyfriend in some fashion, so there are elements involved in discussing this which require some finesse. {s} You're welcome to PM me with more details if you like.

If I recall correctly, I've read that the theory was most seriously recently proposed by the two guys who wrote _Holy Blood, Holy Grail_: which, at the risk of damnation by association, ought to give you some idea right there about how much weight to give it. {wry g} It would be more credible for Jesus to have learned some portions of Greek stoicism (which significantly resembles classical Buddhism in many ways without necessarily having had to borrow from it) from His Jewish contemporary Philo and/or from contemporary Essenes (who were very far from trying to marry Greek stoicism with Judaism.)

The parallels between early Christians and classical Buddhism are actually much stronger (and I mean that relatively {g}) when comparing the desert monks of the 3rd c. onward to the oldest traditions of Guatama. But those people aren't living like Jesus lived; the similarities are probably stonger simply from them being ascetics like Guatama, especially insofar as (like him) they renounced high positions in society.

The notion that Buddha and Christ are fairly similar to one another (and since Buddha came first then the borrowing would naturally be from him), has been around at least a hundred years; indeed, it has been around longer than that, because Matteo Ricci, a Jesuit missionary to China, wrote a Christian apologetic dialogue for Chinese noblemen favorably comparing Confuscianism with Christianity over against Buddhism. (Buddhist scholars note he didn't get Buddhism altogether right even in regard to the form it had taken by that time in China; but then part of the problem in making comparisons is that Buddhism tends to take on significantly different flavors depending on where it goes. In modern China, it's very atheistic. In Japan it has elements borrowing from Christianity dating back to Portuguese and Dutch missionaries of the Middle Ages!)

Chesterton once wrote this, in regard to early 20th century attempts at sceptical comparative religion:

"Students of popular science, like Mr. Blatchford [a rival of Chesterton], are always insisting that Christianity and Buddhism are very much alike, especially Buddhism. [{g!}] This is generally believed, and I believed it myself until I read a book giving the reasons for it. [{g!}] The reasons were of two kinds: resemblances that meant nothing because they were common to all humanity, and resemblances which were not resemblances at all. [...]

"Thus, as a case of the first class, he said that both Christ and Buddha were called by the divine voice coming out of the sky--as if you would expect the divine voice to come out of the coal-cellar! Or, again, it was gravely urged that these two Eastern teachers, by a singular coincidence, both had to do with the washing of feet. You might as well say that it was a remarkable coincidence that they both had feet to wash! And the other class of similarities were those which simply were not similar. Thus this reconciler of the two religions draws earnest attention to the fact that at certain religious feasts the robe of the Lama is rent in pieces out of respect, and the remnants highly valued. But this is the reverse of a resemblance, for the garments of Christ were not rent in pieces out of respect, but out of derision; and the remnants were not highly valued except for what they would fetch in the rag shops. [To which could be added that the one piece of clothing highly valued enough to gamble for, was not rent in pieces at all!] It is rather like alluding to the obvious connection between the two ceremonies of the sword: when it taps a man's shoulder, and when it cuts off his head! It is not at all similar for the man.

"These scraps of puerile pedantry would indeed matter little if it were not also true that the alleged philosophical resemblances are also of these two kinds, either proving too much or not proving anything. That Buddhism approves of mercy or of self-restraint is not to say that it is specially like Christianity; it is only to say that it is not utterly unlike all human existence. Buddhists disapprove in theory of cruelty or excess because all sane human beings disapprove in theory of cruelty or excess. But to say that Buddhism and Christianity give the same philosophy of these things is simply false." [_Orthodoxy_, chp 8.]


To give my own example of the utter distinction between philosophies here, let us consider the walking on the water. It is claimed that Jesus was able to do this because He had learned _so_ well the lessons of the Buddha. But if that is the case, then the lessons of the Buddha have been so greatly obscured that we would have to say not one accurate representation of them still exists in the world! For if there is one common thread among Buddhisms presented as reaching back to the Gautama, it is that the material world is an illusion from which we ought to free ourselves in order to end our suffering. If Buddha walks on the water, it is because, like in _The Matrix_, he has achieved the enlightenment that 'there is no spoon'.

But Jesus' walking on the water, is supposed to be amazing because the water _is_ real, and so is Jesus and His body. It is a cooperation of the real supernatural and the real _but dependent_ natural. In an earlier episode, when Jesus exorcises a demon out of a tornado threatening to swamp their boat out on the lake (which is contextually what is happening, especially in the Greek, btw), the doctrinal emphasis is on Jesus being the master of nature and the spirits, having arrived in secret ("Who is this man whom even the wind and the wave obey?!") and the master in view is the Master related in the Psalms of Judaism, the Lord of even the Sea Who creates and quietens storms. (It should also be noted that there is an underlying Jewish notion about any large body of water being 'the swirling depths', i.e. 'the abyss' where rebel spirits are imprisoned and from which they occasionally emerge...)

And again, as others noted earlier above, the whole point to Jesus' story is that God became real flesh in order to really suffer in order to help _us_. And it wasn't to help us cease to exist as persons, recovering us into a merely singular Independent Fact (which may not even itself be sentient or active or real in Buddhist terms); but to help us recover from rebellion against God so that we as real persons may cooperate better with Him and with each other as real persons.

It is all the philosophical difference in the world, if I may put it a bit crudely, between pleasing one's self (let us say)--and marriage. I mean on God's part.

(As also noted elsewhere, the extinction of suffering by the extinction of desire through renunciation of the material world, is a common goal among strands of Buddhism; so sex isn't normally something to be redeemed from corruption and wrong practice, but something to be denied and extinguished as soon as possible because it connects a person too strongly to the world of matter and desire; thus to suffering.)

The Jesus of the Gospels is in favor (analogically speaking) of rescuing His rebelling bride and marrying her so that she and He can live happily ever after together; which is also what YHWH in the OT is always trying to do. This is not what the Buddha Gautama is analogically in favor of, though, reportedly.

Consequently then, if Jesus really did learn enough of accurate Buddhist doctrine to be able to walk on water, then either the Gospel texts or the Buddhists texts are wildly inaccurate about what Jesus or Guatama was really teaching. And from a text-crit standpoint, I think we'd have to say that the probabilities lie with the Buddhists being wrong, because the textual provenance of their documents, while not bad for ancient docs, are very few and late compared to the textual provenance of the Gospels: geological traceable early copies of numerous magnitude, which can be confidently dated back in their earliest form to disciples of Jesus Himself.

So. There are some technical answers for you. {s} Another would be that Buddhism is very eglatarian, ideally, about authority; but Jesus claimed all authority in heaven and earth for Himself. Again, either He wildly misunderstood and misused a 'Buddhist' teaching, in which case it makes no sense that He would be able to walk on water like 'the Buddha'; or else someone's disciples have wildly misrepresented what one or the other Teacher was saying--and once again purely on a text-crit level we'd be better off betting in favor of the canonical Gospels.

As it happens, the Jesus == Buddhist disciple case would look a whole lot better if we went to many of the Gnostic and/or docetic apocryphals; but this wouldn't exactly be a point in favor of the theory. {wry g}

One good (and entertaining and well-written) source for beginning an informal look into Christianity/Buddhism comparisons, who can point you along to other sources, would be _Jesus and the Religions of Man_ by my friend David Marshall, who has spent much of his life working in Southeast Asia (especially China) as a student of comparative religion and an evangelist.

JRP

[Tenshi no Ai]

Very interesting stuff there. One interesting thing I find is like some Christians, some people who say they are Buddhists like to pick and chose in which teachings they wish to follow. Kindness and compassion and ending of worry etc etc they will go for, but not many for example will, say, chose to be chaste which I believe is one issue on the 8 fold path. Although these people still believe that it's possible to be enlightened, and they more make it seem that 'enlightenment' is not so much the idea of ending suffering and having a chance to go to Nirvana (in fact many still think when you die you die, sadly v_v) but just clarity: a clear understanding of what the world is about. So, it's just interesting that they themselves have different ideas on things, depending on how they view the world (and I guess it does have to do with the theism/atheism split).

As a Christian I believe we have our own form of an ultimate understanding: the first part that comes when we become Christians. For me it felt like something just... made sense and clicked. The second part doesn't come until after death, because no one truly understands purpose, how/why things are in a complete and perfect understanding until then.

Once again, very interesting things. Glad I can bring up topics like this that can be discussed civilly, and get myself thinking on all different things in the process^^

[mitsuki lover]

Usually when you read such claims you can be certain that the person making them
is a New Ager.New Agers are always make claims such as these all the time,it's a way of denying Christ's diety.
So you really shouldn't take it seriously.

[K. Ayato]

That's kinda harsh, making a conclusion like that.

[JasonPratt]

Less harshly {s}, it can be a way of 'spreading the deity around', so to speak (along with a redefinition of what deity means and entails.) It can be intrinsically easier to believe that a good man might claim to be 'god' in some fashion that all of us can be 'god', than to believe that a good man might claim to be 'God' in some ultimate fashion which involves him being permanently over us.

Now that I think of it, this may be why modern radical revisionists love the Gnostic gospels so much; even though Jesus is in many ways maximalized out over and above (and against) Nature, even moreso than in the canonicals, their point is that anyone _could_ in theory (and in practice!) do the same thing. And if one happens not to believe in the mythological language, well that's okay because since anyone can do 'it' whatever 'it' is, then if 'it' is some merely natural feeling of wellness (or whatever) then that's great, too.

So, this is probably what the revisionists mean when they say that the apocryphals are open to everyone, even though they are of course utterly drenched in mysteries and secret passcodes and were originally intended only for an elite few. {insert irony here as appropriate}{g} They're open to everyone, because Jesus' status, no matter how exalted, is open to everyone. I can see that that would be a big Mormon theological draw, too.

The same thing would be a factor with Buddhism, then.

[Ouroboros]

Finally an issue where I can have a bit of a say and not be totally crazy… (I’m the weird Christian-Buddhist that Tenshi mentioned.)

To start off personally I don’t think it matters if Christ learned from a Buddhist monk or not. The Truth is the Truth. I don’t think it’s at all farfetched to believe that either way the teachings of both came ultimately from the original source of everything which is of course God. Surely there are people outside of the Middle East that God must have said something to. After all He did create the universe…

Now on the differences, and why I don’t identify as just Christian…
For starters I think that the Buddhist meditation techniques are far better at letting God in and much clearer than any that I’ve heard of before. People often assume that Christian prayer and Buddhist meditation are very different but for me they’re very much the same. You empty yourself of conscious thought to let God into your heart; that’s how I see it.
The other most commonly perceived difference between the two is that Buddhism focuses more on the self and Christianity focuses more on God. This of course depends on which form of Christianity you’re going by and which form of Buddhism obviously but that seems to be the general consensus. I think that does also stem though from the cultural and religious environments they both lived in, and while I believe Christ became enlightened like Buddha there is one major difference. Buddha achieved enlightenment, where as Christ was naturally that way which is why Buddha didn’t die on the cross. Christ’s communication with God was more spiritual and innate whereas Buddha’s was more as a man communicating with God. Put the two together and you appeal to two aspects of the human psyche; the logical and the spiritual.
You’re probably wondering still why I add the Buddhist bit to the Christian if I see them as practically the same teaching wise but see Christ as the messiah and Buddha as a great teacher. That’s pretty simple; I don’t want to mislead anyone about my beliefs and lifestyle. Also I see Buddhism as more of a lifestyle or philosophy than a faith where as I see Christianity as being the relationship you have with God. I follow both as closely as I possibly can now (though I haven’t been as diligent in the past… ^_^u) and don’t drink or smoke anymore. I’m trying to stay chaste now, in the past there were transgressions I will admit the first time I had no choice, however that doesn’t excuse the others. I try to avoid buying things I don’t need and pray/meditate often. I can’t say I’m a model Christian or a model Buddhist but I’m striving for that now, to be the best person I can be.
After all, I trust that in the end it’s all in His hands. As He is the fairest judge in existence, and the only one with that right; all I can do now is try to be a little closer, and avoid messing up as much as I can.

…Now I’m going to add that I could be a little biased here because I am half Thai, half-German-Swiss so I ended up being exposed to both Theravada Buddhist teachings and Christian Mennonite ones. So I may be trying to balance both in my own psyche to acknowledge my heritage…

Either way, I hope I didn’t offend anyone by stating my view (…sumanai if I did).
I just thought it was an interesting topic and wanted to contribute. I think I’ll go back to lurking now…

[Mithrandir]

I think in the interest of keeping things marginally civil, I'll go ahead and say that's a great place to wrap up the discussion.