Ashoka and the West
David
know this newsgroup may not be the right place for this but I always
enjoy "what ifs". Ashoka and Ptolemy II of Egypt were contemporaries.
The latter founded the great library at Alexandria. Think how the West
would have changed (and I believe for the better) if Buddhist sutras
could have been translated into Greek. (Brought to Alexandria via one of
Ashoka's embassies and translated at the great library.) If Buddhism
could have "caught on" and spread in the West beginning in the third
century b.c.e. . Imagine Marcus Aurelius a Buddhist ruler!
mu...@aol.com
> The great Indian ruler Ashoka sent Buddhist embassies to the West. I
> know this newsgroup may not be the right place for this but I always
> enjoy "what ifs". Ashoka and Ptolemy II of Egypt were contemporaries.
> The latter founded the great library at Alexandria. Think how the West
> would have changed (and I believe for the better) if Buddhist sutras
> could have been translated into Greek.
Some years ago I read that the great library at Alexandria, later burned
by a fanatical Christian woman, did contain a number of Buddhist texts.
I have no idea whether they had been translated into Greek.
Frankly, I don't think the introduction of Buddhist ideas into the
Hellenistic world would have made much difference to the evolution of
Western thought or behaviour. The Hellenistic world was filled with
thinkers who had ideas and practices very much like the Buddha's. They
were pretty well ignored, just as the Buddha was pretty well ignored in
Asia. (The beginning of the destruction of Buddhism in India was its
being turned into a state religion by the bloodthirsty conquistador
Ashoka. Dharma cannot survive religion for long.)
Thirteen years ago I attended a Buddhist conference at which many Asian
Buddhists met with American Buddhists. One of the Asian monks there said
he was very excited about Buddhism coming to America. He said "We Asians
have almost completely destroyed Buddhism by smothering it under Asian
folk superstitions. Perhaps Americans will keep Buddhism pure." I said I
hoped he was right, but then I felt obliged to assure him that we
Americans will also destroy Buddhism by smothering it in our own folk
superstitions. Just give us time.
Give the average human being a diamond, and he'll find a way to cover it
with mud. Fortunately, there are always a few rare individuals in every
culture who, given a lump of mud, can manage to find a diamond in it.
Mubul
Kirt Undercoffer
mentioned that the Yung-ming temple in Loyang was
a headquarters for foreign monks. Some of the monks
were from Syria. This was before 534 CE.
Kirt
David wrote:
>
> The great Indian ruler Ashoka sent Buddhist embassies to the West. I
> know this newsgroup may not be the right place for this but I always
> enjoy "what ifs". Ashoka and Ptolemy II of Egypt were contemporaries.
> The latter founded the great library at Alexandria. Think how the West
> would have changed (and I believe for the better) if Buddhist sutras
> could have been translated into Greek...
ki...@worldnet.att.net
in 516 CE and burned down in 534 CE.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
> The great Indian ruler Ashoka sent Buddhist embassies to the West. I
> know this newsgroup may not be the right place for this but I always
> enjoy "what ifs". Ashoka and Ptolemy II of Egypt were contemporaries.
> The latter founded the great library at Alexandria. Think how the West
> would have changed (and I believe for the better) if Buddhist sutras
> could have been translated into Greek...
The Great Greek ruler Alexander, star pupil of Aristotle, went to the
East, but died young before he was able to conquer the rest of the world.
Think how the East would have changed (and I believe for the better) if
the Greek wisdom of Plato and Aristotle and the pre-Socratics could have
been translated into Sanskrit...
--Dharmakaya Trollpa
piet...@my-dejanews.com
i bet you would love this book!
The Original Jesus :
The Buddhist Sources of Christianity
(it is a bit polemical, but collects a lot of good reference info)
it may in fact be that Buddhist missionaries did in fact have a
tremendous impact on the West!
it is interesting that it is absolutely non-controversial
that there were in fact Buddhist missionaries in Alexandria
at the time of Jesus.
put that together with the legends of Jesus travelling to
Egypt as a youth (in Matthew), and the absence of childhood
information about him, with the probability that his biological
father was a Roman soldier (who might have travelled around),
and it makes for an interesting speculation! (for which i have
been repeatedly flamed already, so no one need bother :)
a key hypothesis of the book is that Jesus' teaching of
'you must hate your mother and father' (Luke 6:27) is *completely*
foreign to Judaism yet is practically a literal quote of a Buddhist doctrine.
the authors make this point in contradiction to the many cynics who love to
claim that Jesus' teachings are completely derivative from Judaism.
anyway, i have an excerpt from the book at:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/1756/gruberbk.txt
from: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1852306289/qid=922833712
The Original Jesus :
The Buddhist Sources of Christianity
by Holger Kersten (Contributor), Elmar R. Gruber
Our Price: $29.95
hardcover - 274 pages (March 1995)
element; ISBN: 1852306289 ;
Amazon.com Sales Rank: 519,280
Number of Reviews: 3
In article <23267-370...@newsd-152.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
Ami...@webtv.net (David) wrote:
> The great Indian ruler Ashoka sent Buddhist embassies to the West. I
> know this newsgroup may not be the right place for this but I always
> enjoy "what ifs". Ashoka and Ptolemy II of Egypt were contemporaries.
> The latter founded the great library at Alexandria. Think how the West
> would have changed (and I believe for the better) if Buddhist sutras
> could have been translated into Greek. (Brought to Alexandria via one of
> Ashoka's embassies and translated at the great library.) If Buddhism
> could have "caught on" and spread in the West beginning in the third
> century b.c.e. . Imagine Marcus Aurelius a Buddhist ruler!
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
William K.
of the New Testament, early Christianity, or Judaism in the time of Jesus
supports the fanciful speculations about Jesus' alleged dependence on India
for his ideas?
William
Henry Chia (Ngawang Geleg)
Kirt Undercoffer wrote:
>
> In "The Zen Teaching of Bodhidharma" by Red Pine, it's
> mentioned that the Yung-ming temple in Loyang was
> a headquarters for foreign monks. Some of the monks
> were from Syria. This was before 534 CE.
>
> Kirt
I have overheard a conversation where in ancient Greece, there was a
group Sangha members who practice a corrupted version of Buddhadharma. I
do not know how true it is. Anyone can provide any references for this
case too???
--
Yours in Dharma,
Henry Chia
(Ngawang Geleg)
email: ge...@pacific.net.sg
URL: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/4886/index.htm
<-: Ngawang Geleg's Buddhist Home Page :->
Valdiss Koodeen
Remember David - "things by themselves are of no meaning" and "it's PEOPLE what
gives a meaning to the things".
Thus - Newsgroup can be right and wrong place to look for answers - depending on
which people you are dealing with and how you deal with them. Things (and thus
also the NG) are the tools, no more no less. And by the way, YOU are creating
them.
Regards,
Valdiss Koodeen
David <Ami...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:23267-370...@newsd-152.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
piet...@my-dejanews.com mindlessly babbled:
> hi Dave,
> i bet you would love this book!
> ...
> it is interesting that it is absolutely non-controversial
> that there were in fact Buddhist missionaries in Alexandria
> at the time of Jesus....put that together with the legends of
> Jesus travelling to Egypt as a youth (in Matthew), and the
> absence of childhood information about him
Fool! Must you grasp at every single New-Age cockamamey story?
The absense about childhood information has to do with the story
of Jesus's birth being added later, to fill out the story. No one
knows anything about where he was really born. It's like a movie
where you show a scene with Mary and Joseph and the Virgin Birth
metaphor and then you see a subtitle "Thirty years later" and you
go into the main part of the film. This Jesus travelling to Egypt
or India nonsense has no basis in fact whatsoever.
Once again, you are reading connections into things, Peachie-Pie,
and seeing your own imposed pattern on everything you look at, and
then turning around and crying "synchonicity!!!" or "perennial!!!"
> a key hypothesis of the book is that Jesus' teaching of
> 'you must hate your mother and father' (Luke 6:27) is *completely*
> foreign to Judaism yet is practically a literal quote of a Buddhist
Peachie, if you take little translated snips, you can find literal
quotes from the Bible in just about any rich source like the entire
collection of Buddhist sutras. That says nothing. Pure poppycock.
> and it makes for an interesting speculation! (for which i have
> been repeatedly flamed already, so no one need bother :)
Not nearly enough, apparantly. Not very interesting at all.
Been reading "Chariots of the Gods" again? Or more La Di Da?
And William comments:
Yeah: what do you have to say about that, Peach-Pit?
--Dharmakaya Trollpa
David Yeung
piet...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> a key hypothesis of the book is that Jesus' teaching of
> 'you must hate your mother and father' (Luke 6:27) is *completely*
This sounds very un-Buddhist to me. Can you provide a reference?
The Buddha taught detachment from the family, and then only for
monks/nuns... I'm not aware of his having preached "hatred" against
one's family!!!
> foreign to Judaism yet is practically a literal quote of a Buddhist doctrine.
> the authors make this point in contradiction to the many cynics who love to
> claim that Jesus' teachings are completely derivative from Judaism.
Well... Judaism absorbed many things from many cultures.
--
David Yeung
mu...@aol.com
> Sigh! Is there any significance in the fact that NOT ONE competent scholar
> of the New Testament, early Christianity, or Judaism in the time of Jesus
> supports the fanciful speculations about Jesus' alleged dependence on India
> for his ideas?
When it comes to a conflict between what people want to believe and what
it is reasonable to believe, reason rarely wins over wish.
Let the children play historian, William. Let them have their yogic
Jesus, their Buddhist Roman emperor, their peaceful Asian religion that
has never spilled a drop of blood in the name of truth and has never
condoned the subjugation of one man by another. (We need not speak of
the shameful subjugation of women here, for that would rudely spoil
their fun.)
Let the children also play scientist. Let them dream of sentient photons
and wise and compassionate quarks and mystically unified fields and a
Theory of Everything that just happens to be exactly the same as
Dependent Origination.
Yogic Christs and perfectly just and Utopian religions. Fantasies? Yes,
of course. Harmful? Only if you have an objection to Samsara. And on the
whole I'd much rather have people running around imagining that Jesus
went to India than running around imagining that the holocaust was a
hoax.
Mubul
"Civilisation is the pretence that things are better than they really
are."
--Jean Vanier in _Becoming Human_.
Jigme Dorje
William K. wrote in message ...
>Sigh! Is there any significance in the fact that NOT ONE competent scholar
>of the New Testament, early Christianity, or Judaism in the time of Jesus
>supports the fanciful speculations about Jesus' alleged dependence on India
>for his ideas?
>
cities were a crossroads of culture during a time of religious upheaval
quite similar to today's "New Age". However, the religious currents Jesus
and the early Christians (both Jewish and non) were steeped in that became
subsumed into what became known as "Christianity" included such faiths as
gnosticism, zoroastism and the cult of Dianesius rather than Hinduism or
Buddhism. It is impossible to prove a cross-influence one way or the other
between Christianity and Buddhism.
William K.
Jigme Dorje wrote in message ...
Actually, Jigme, it was a rhetorical question. I'm one of those scholars to
whom I refered, and I was making the point you ended up making ... there is
no need to posit some kind of influence from India when there was quite
enough in the cultural environment of Yeshua of Nazareth and his early
followers to explain what ends up in the New Testament and other early
Christian writings.
William
piet...@my-dejanews.com
ye...@cyberdude.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> piet...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > a key hypothesis of the book is that Jesus' teaching of
> > 'you must hate your mother and father' (Luke 6:27) is *completely*
>
> This sounds very un-Buddhist to me. Can you provide a reference?
hi, sorry, i got the wrong bible reference, it's not Luke 6:27 but
Luke 14:26. oops. clarified by Matthew 10:37 'he who loves mother and
father more than me is not worthy of me'
un-Buddhist? un-Confucian maybe, but abandoning home, leaving
your parents, wife and newborn son etc. etc. - its a solid tradition.
i think the word 'hate' in this context is not exactly what we conceive
of as 'hate', i take it to mean cutting off all ties and making the
Way a priority over social obligations. as in Matthew 10:37.
my reference bible has a note to this effect on Luke 14:26.
would be interesting to research the original Greek word
translated as 'hate' here.
anyway, i already cited the reference: 'The Original Jesus'
by Gruber and Kersten. They give all the Buddhist and Christian
scriptural citations for these claims. That is the one virtue of the
book imho, since its polemical nature does tend to detract from their
argument. i dont have it in front of me else i would copy their
citations.
> The Buddha taught detachment from the family, and then only for
> monks/nuns... I'm not aware of his having preached "hatred" against
> one's family!!!
yes, it's probably something closer to Matthew 10:37.
i dont remember the exact Buddhist parallel quote the authors used.
i will try to remember and look it up.
> > foreign to Judaism yet is practically a literal quote of a Buddhist
doctrine.
> > the authors make this point in contradiction to the many cynics who love to
> > claim that Jesus' teachings are completely derivative from Judaism.
>
> Well... Judaism absorbed many things from many cultures.
yep, but the point is a good one that this specific teaching
is not found in the Talmud. No one yet has pointed out to me
a Jewish parallel teaching. ergo, Jesus's teachings are not
entirely derivative and non-innovative, imho.
piet...@my-dejanews.com
"William K." <Will...@netcom.ca> wrote:
> Sigh! Is there any significance in the fact that NOT ONE competent scholar
> of the New Testament, early Christianity, or Judaism in the time of Jesus
> supports the fanciful speculations about Jesus' alleged dependence on India
> for his ideas?
sigh, you are saying that Gruber and Kersten are incompetent?
or not scholars?
of course, 'competent scholars' usually are employed at universities
and must avoid controversy so as to not offend the tenure committees.
of course, 'not one competent scholar' is a subjective assessment.
anyway, any references you have would be appreciated.
anyway, you would agree, i presume, that it is not controversial
that Buddhist missionaries were in residence in Alexandria at the
time of Jesus? Plus there is the legend of his traveling to Egypt
as a youth. Neither of these are controversial. Lots of
culture clashing was happening in those days.
Together they make the hypothesis at least not total speculation imho.
piet...@my-dejanews.com
dharm...@my-dejanews.com ejaculated:
> piet...@my-dejanews.com mindlessly attempted to contribute a
> minor point to an interesting discussion:
>
> > hi Dave,
> > i bet you would love this book!
> > ...
> > it is interesting that it is absolutely non-controversial
> > that there were in fact Buddhist missionaries in Alexandria
> > at the time of Jesus....put that together with the legends of
> > Jesus travelling to Egypt as a youth (in Matthew), and the
> > absence of childhood information about him
>
> Fool! Must you grasp at every single New-Age cockamamey story?
thank you for your thoughtful response.
unfortunately it is not clear to me what sources you are citing
to deny that Buddhist missionaries were in Egypt circa 0CE?
dialog with you would be slightly more enjoyable than the average
root canal if you would have something besides the emotions of
greed/anger/ignorance behind your ripostes, and if your would spend
perhaps 10 seconds or so thinking about what you just read before
replying, and trying to restate it to yourself in your own way,
so that you might approximate an attitude of actually listening to
what someone is saying, and being charitable for the inevitable
ambiguities of language and world-view differences. but i forget,
i am talking to a professional troll ...
cheers
piet...@my-dejanews.com
>
> It is impossible to prove a cross-influence one way or the other
> between Christianity and Buddhism.
have you read the book 'The Original Jesus'?
'impossible to prove' is practically true of everything in history,
'reasonable circumstantial evidence' however is another story.
i am always amused how this subject touches so many nerves,
and yet provides so little real discussion based on references.
JulianLZB87
dharm...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7ds5kl$rcm$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> i bet you would love this book!
>> ...
>> it is interesting that it is absolutely non-controversial
>> that there were in fact Buddhist missionaries in Alexandria
>> at the time of Jesus....put that together with the legends of
>> Jesus travelling to Egypt as a youth (in Matthew), and the
>> absence of childhood information about him
>
>Fool! Must you grasp at every single New-Age cockamamey story?
>
>of Jesus's birth being added later, to fill out the story. No one
>knows anything about where he was really born. It's like a movie
>where you show a scene with Mary and Joseph and the Virgin Birth
>metaphor and then you see a subtitle "Thirty years later" and you
>go into the main part of the film. This Jesus travelling to Egypt
>or India nonsense has no basis in fact whatsoever.
>
The assertion that Jesus did not travel to Egypt, India or even
Glastonbury for that matter, has no basis in fact whatsoever either.
piet...@my-dejanews.com
"William K." <Will...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>
> Actually, Jigme, it was a rhetorical question. I'm one of those scholars to
> whom I refered, and I was making the point you ended up making
finally!
ok, now you can tell me how Luke 14:26 derives from Judaism and/or
the Talmud? I have been waiting for 2 years for someone to help
me with this question.
much tia
>... there is
> no need to posit some kind of influence from India when there was quite
> enough in the cultural environment of Yeshua of Nazareth and his early
> followers to explain what ends up in the New Testament and other early
> Christian writings.
of course of course,
Gruber and Kersten's thesis is that Luke 14:26 is a counterexample.
has this been explained?
it sounds even weirder to me if we are going to grant influence
from everywhere *except* India now?
the psychological resistance this subject provokes makes me think
that there is still quite the element of 'wounded christians'
comprising western buddhism.
'wounded christians' were a big
part of the adoption of buddhism early in the century,
but it continues, especially in academia it seems.
Jigme Dorje
William K. wrote in message ...
of the New Testament, early Christianity, or Judaism in the time of Jesus
supports the fanciful speculations about Jesus' alleged dependence on India
for his ideas?
Jigme>William, yes there is significance. Ancient Jeruselum and its nearby
cities were a crossroads of culture during a time of religious upheaval
quite similar to today's "New Age". However, the religious currents Jesus
and the early Christians (both Jewish and non) were steeped in that became
subsumed into what became known as "Christianity" included such faiths as
gnosticism, zoroastism and the cult of Dianesius rather than Hinduism or
Buddhism. It is impossible to prove a cross-influence one way or the other
between Christianity and Buddhism.
William>Actually, Jigme, it was a rhetorical question. I'm one of those
scholars to whom I refered, and I was making the point you ended up making
... there is no need to posit some kind of influence from India when there
was quite enough in the cultural environment of Yeshua of Nazareth and his
early
followers to explain what ends up in the New Testament and other early
Christian writings.
Jigme>William, I'm aware of that but as an enthusiast of such scolasticism,
I like to lend support for those who speak out against such speculative
assertions that further no one's cause. You are one of the more credible
posters here and I enjoy your posts, by the way. What is your specific area
of research?
Jigme Dorje
what it is reasonable to believe, reason rarely wins over wish.
Let the children play historian, William. Let them have their yogic Jesus,
their Buddhist Roman emperor, their peaceful Asian religion that has never
spilled a drop of blood in the name of truth and has never
condoned the subjugation of one man by another....Let the children also play
scientist. Let them dream of sentient photons and wise and compassionate
quarks and mystically unified fields and a Theory of Everything that just
happens to be exactly the same as Dependent Origination.
Jigme>All in the name of bursting bubbles...
Randy J
JulianLZB87 wrote in message <_EsM2.44848
into the main part of the film. This Jesus travelling to Egypt
>>or India nonsense has no basis in fact whatsoever.
>>
>
>The assertion that Jesus did not travel to Egypt, India or even
>Glastonbury for that matter, has no basis in fact whatsoever either.
and what evidence is there that such a person
as Jesus even lived? the gospels certainly
aren't historical documents.
rj
JulianLZB87
Randy J wrote in message <7dtmsu$10tq$1...@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu>...
I agree. It does make it difficult to categorically state that Jesus
didn't do a particular thing.
JulianLZB87
piet...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7dto37$762$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <37021BEF...@aol.com>,
> mu...@aol.com wrote:
>> "William K." wrote:
>>
>> > Sigh! Is there any significance in the fact that NOT ONE competent
scholar
>> > of the New Testament, early Christianity, or Judaism in the time of
Jesus
>> > supports the fanciful speculations about Jesus' alleged dependence on
India
>> > for his ideas?
>>
>> it is reasonable to believe, reason rarely wins over wish.
>>
>> Let the children play historian, William.
>
>jeez, the professional newsgroup moderators are back, i guess.
>if it bothers you, dont read the thread.
>
But if he didn't participate, and advertise, the Amazon number might
freefall.
I'm looking forward to the Tang Tome being available, and others like
Jaquie Stones next one on Original Enlightenment, when the Amazon thing
will provide interesting data.
Randy J
piet...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7dto9n$7h9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>"Jigme Dorje" <R.S.@cwixmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> It is impossible to prove a cross-influence one way or the other
>> between Christianity and Buddhism.
>
>'impossible to prove' is practically true of everything in history,
>'reasonable circumstantial evidence' however is another story.
>
>i am always amused how this subject touches so many nerves,
>and yet provides so little real discussion based on references.
ok, here's some discussion of your book
based on a reference: a few months ago on this
ng, another person was going on about the
fabuylous revelations in this book by saying
that the book mentions a sect in Egypt called
the Therapeutics or some such thing, and how
this showed the connection to Theravada Buddhism.
Well, unfortunately, therapuein is a Greek verb
meaning 'to heal', which is the source of said sect's
name, and has nothing whatever to do with Theravada,
a Pali word meaning 'teaching of the elders'.
And John La Grou, somewhat of a Christian
scholar who lurks here, said the book contained
only speculation based on the flimsiest of
circumstatial evidence such as the misappropriation
i illustrated above.
cheers--rj
JulianLZB87
piet...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7dto9n$7h9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>"Jigme Dorje" <R.S.@cwixmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> It is impossible to prove a cross-influence one way or the other
>> between Christianity and Buddhism.
>
>have you read the book 'The Original Jesus'?
>'impossible to prove' is practically true of everything in history,
>'reasonable circumstantial evidence' however is another story.
>
My favourite so far has been King Jesus by Robert Graves.
Mubul
>> Let the children play historian, William.
piet...@my-dejanews.com responded:
>jeez, the professional newsgroup moderators are back, i guess.
>if it bothers you, dont read the thread.
It does not bother me in the least, Peacherina. I LOVE play. My whole life
is dedicated to playing. Let the playing continue! Just don't begrudge
others when they join you and play in their own ways. There are no rules
here, no boundaries at all.
"We're all mad here."
Mu
William K.
Jigme Dorje wrote:
>Jigme>William, I'm aware of that but as an enthusiast of such scolasticism,
>I like to lend support for those who speak out against such speculative
>assertions that further no one's cause. You are one of the more credible
>posters here and I enjoy your posts, by the way. What is your specific
area
>of research?
Ah! I should have realized that was your point. Thanks for the supportive
contribution.
My specialization is Second Temple Judaism (ca. 400 BCE - 70 CE), although
my research ranges over everything from the Jewish Bible (which was largely
a product of the Second Temple Period) through early Christianity and the
emergence of rabbinic Judaism. I have an M.A. in early Christian literature
and am in the midst of painful labour giving birth to a Ph.D. dissertation
on sacrificial ritual in ancient Judaism. Yawn!!!
William
William K.
piet...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>ok, now you can tell me how Luke 14:26 derives from Judaism and/or
>the Talmud? I have been waiting for 2 years for someone to help
>me with this question.
Why should what Jesus is quoted as having said need to be derived from
Judaism? One of the major scholarly criteria for identifying sayings of
Jesus as "authentic" is their difference in tone from what others were
saying. The conclusion is then drawn that the saying could not have been
borrowed from the wider culture and must have come from the mouth of Jesus.
In other words, why assume that Jesus couldn't have broken with his own
cultural heritage all on his own?
This having been said, one can trace how Jewish texts use similar language
to refer to priorities of reverence and concern. See, for example, Malachi
1:2-3, Paul's interpretation of this text in Romans 9, and Genesis 29:31, 33
and Deuteronomy 21:16-17 -- these later texts show that the words "love" and
"hate" indicate preference as opposed to absolute feelings. Jesus' words
have never struck me as radically "un-Judaic". They simply don't reflect a
particular version of Judaism.... on this, see my comments below.
The Luke reference you give has a parallel in Matthew 10:37-38 (best
consulted in context), and the standard scholarly view is that these two
versions of the statement reflect use by the authors of Luke and Matthew of
a document of collected sayings of Jesus, generally called "Q" (German,
Quelle, "Source"). This collection was probably composed in Aramaic and the
sayings then translated into Greek. Either that, or the two writers had
different versions of the collection. So, from the Gospel, to the source of
the saying, we are already two stages away from Jesus. Add the period when
Jesus' words were transmitted orally, and we are another stage away. My
point is that we don't even know if Jesus said this. Whatever the case, our
primary obligation is to try to make sense of the quote in its own context
before we go off looking for some foreign source. I don't know very much
about Hellenistic philosophical movements, but a strong trend these days is
to look for influence from popular philosophy, especially Cynicism, on
Jesus. Is it improbable to suggest that Cynics might have said such things?
Finally, I'd stress that a single isolated saying, that MIGHT reflect
Buddhist teaching (but DOES IT??) is hardly proof that Jesus himself was
influenced by Buddhism. It may simply be the case that a free-floating
saying got attributed to Jesus by some of his followers. They probably
wouldn't have known the original source. We know that there were such
free-floating sayings, since things Jesus is quoted as saying in the New
Testament, end up being attributed to later rabbis in the Mishna (compiled,
ca. 200 CE). We don't know whether the Mishna got them from Christians, or
whether the Christians and the rabbinic Jews drew on a common body of oral
tradition.
By the way, the Talmud is largely irrelevant for judging the nature of
Judaism in the time of Jesus. It was compiled in the 4th century CE, and
reflects the developed rabbinic Judaism of a much later period. The Judaism
of the time of Jesus was a much more complex creature, and had strong
aesthetic tendencies and movements, and I don't see the parent-hating quote
as in the least incompatible with that kind of Judaism. Talmudic Judaism is
not "Judaism". It is just one form of Judaism... the one that happened to
win a long historical contest against rival movements. Christianity, in its
own way, is the other great surviving tradition of Second Temple Judaism.
It carries on traditions and practices from early Judaism that were
abandoned by rabbinic Judaism.
For a couple of examples of studies of early Christianity and early Judaism
from the point of view of Chrsitianity's place in the diverse world of early
Judaism, I recommend Daniel Boyarin's two books, _Carnal Israel_ and _A
Radical Jew_, especially the latter. You might all wish to look at
commentaries on Luke (especially Fitzmeyer's volume in the Anchor Bible) to
see what mainstream scholarship says about the quote.
William
William K.
piet...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>the psychological resistance this subject provokes makes me think
>that there is still quite the element of 'wounded christians'
>comprising western buddhism.
>
>'wounded christians' were a big
>part of the adoption of buddhism early in the century,
>but it continues, especially in academia it seems.
I'm not sure what you are suggesting here. What is this 'psychological
resistance'? The reality is that there are many very radical scholars of
the Jesus tradition, who subject every word attributed to Jesus to close
scrutiny. They are quite interested in finding out sources for sayings
attributed to Jesus. The problem for your claims is that none of these
competent scholars have seen any need to going hunting for Indian influences
on Jesus.
As well, as I indicated in another post, there is no reason to see an
isolated quote that MAY (but DOES IT??) derive from Buddhism as proof that
JESUS was influenced by Buddhism. We have to look at the over-all evidence
of what he seems to have said, and MOST of what is accepted as having come
from the mouth fo Jesus is decidely Judaic or pan-Hellenistic in character,
depending on which of two dominant streams of thought one accepts. To get a
Jesus who speaks a primarily Buddhist message, one needs to select an odd
mix of things, using criteria that go against the consensus of competent
scholarship. In other words, one has to START with an assumption that Jesus
was influenced by Buddhism and then select sayings on that basis. It seems
better to assume that he was influenced by his immediate environment, in
which it is possible that a stray saying or two of Shakyamuni was
circulating, but in which Buddhism was hardly a serious influence.
William
William K.
piet...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>i am always amused how this subject touches so many nerves,
>and yet provides so little real discussion based on references.
I'm not a Christian. I'm a Buddhist. The only nerve this touches is the
nerve that is sensitive to scholarly rigour and methodological seriousness.
I have a good nose for BS, and this book has a pretty strong odor.
I regret that I don't have the time to read the book you are citing. If I
took the time to read every non-scholarly speculative work, I'd never have
time to read the serious work by people who have devoted their lives to
gaining the necessary specialized skills that allow them to study and
evaluate the historical evidence. However, if you wish to cite passages
from this work, with their attendant references, I will make a bit of time
to explore this issue with you.
How about we start with the discussion of Luke 14:26 and the evidence your
source uses to argue that it is un-Judaic and necessarily Buddhistic... i.e.
what are the Jewish sources cited and what are the Buddhist sources?
Thanks!
William
William K.
piet...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>sigh, you are saying that Gruber and Kersten are incompetent?
>or not scholars?
Both. I'd want to know what languages they read, where they studied ancient
Judaism, early Christianity, Greco-Roman religion and philosophy,
Buddhology, etc. I'd like to know if they have Ph.Ds, reflecting the fact
that they have written a serious, scholarly monograph that passed muster
with those who are able to judge its merits. This is the way things work in
the real world of real academic research. If you prefer to accept whatever
any Tom, Dick, or Harry asserts, based on whatever evidence he decides to
offer, then there is little I can do about that. Of course, you might also
decide that anyone who wants to can practice brain surgery ... heaven forbid
that we should judge anyone's qualifications!
>of course, 'competent scholars' usually are employed at universities
>and must avoid controversy so as to not offend the tenure >committees.
Actually, being controversial in-and-of itself is not a liability when it
comes to getting tenure. Indeed, a certain amount of controversy can be
quite helpful in advancing a career. Besides, after someone has tenure, he
is quite free to say just about anything he wants about his topic of
specialization. I know this from first-hand experience. My teacher is a
'disciple' of the famour Morton Smith, late of Columbia, who made a career
of writing extreme things about early Christianity. His most famour work
was "Jesus the Magician", in which he attempted to argue that Jesus was a
magical healer in the tradition of others in his world.
>of course, 'not one competent scholar' is a subjective assessment.
>anyway, any references you have would be appreciated.
Everything is subjective to some extent. My point is that when one looks at
the lists of scholars who are able to work with the evidence relevant to a
reconstruction of the life-and-teachings of Jesus one cannot find ONE who
claims that Buddhism is a probable significant influence on Jesus. I don't
have to list everyone who doesn't idnetify Buddhism as a source. YOU should
indicate some name of those who do. I'd be curious to see who they are. I
do recall a post where someone posted a name that was familiar in connection
with some references to possible Buddhist influences on early Christianity.
I'll have ot have another look.
>anyway, you would agree, i presume, that it is not controversial
>that Buddhist missionaries were in residence in Alexandria at the
>time of Jesus?
Hum? What is the evidence for this? I think I would say it is
controversial.
> Plus there is the legend of his traveling to Egypt
>as a youth. Neither of these are controversial.
Actually, the Egypt stuff IS controversial. Just check the context. It is
in ONE Gospel (Matthew), and is part of the infancy narrative, which is a
late creation. Matthew's version of the birth of Jesus differs in
significant respects from the other late story found in Luke. Mark, the
oldest Gospel in the New Testament, contains no infancy story at all.
John's Gospel, probably later than Matthew and Luke, shows no interest in
Jesus' infancy. In Matthew, the story about the journey to Egypt is
associated with a biblical prophecy which Matthew applies to Jesus. Most
critical scholars doubt Jesus ever spent time in Egypt. They maintain that
the Egypt story was composed to fit the prophecy. Additionally, just
because Jesus was in Egypt, we are not bound to believe that he would have
met or been influenced by Buddhist missionaries. Matthew says that Jesus'
parents returned with him to Nazareth after the death of Herod the Great.
According to the standard chronology, Jesus would have been, at most, two
years old when his parents took him out of Egypt. Are you saying he learned
dharma from those Indian monks when he was under the age of two?
> Lots of
>culture clashing was happening in those days.
>Together they make the hypothesis at least not total speculation >imho.
There are degrees of speculation. This particular thesis is highly
speculative because there is so little solid evidence upon which to base any
conclusions. It COULD be true, but we don't generally take scholarly
postions on what MIGHT be true, but on what the weight of the evidence
suggests. The weight of the evidence suggests that Jesus was not primarily
influenced by Buddhist teachers, but by the dominant Jewish and Hellenistic
thought of his time. As a scholar of the time of Jesus, I have seen nothing
in his teachings that can be said to be utterly out-of-place, and require
appeal to a distant civilization.
William
William K.
piet...@my-dejanews.com wrote
>yep, but the point is a good one that this specific teaching
>is not found in the Talmud. No one yet has pointed out to me
>a Jewish parallel teaching. ergo, Jesus's teachings are not
>entirely derivative and non-innovative, imho.
As I noted elsewhere, the Talmud is largely irrelevant for judging what
Judaism taught int he time of Jesus. Citing the Talmud for the Judaism of
the time of Jesus is like using a modern chemistry book to determine what
alchemists did in the 14th century. Jesus lived ca. 4 BCE to 30 CE. The
Talmud was compiled between 200 and 500 CE. By my count, that puts a 200 to
400 year gap between Jesus and the Talmud. A lot happened in Judaism in
those 200-400 years.
William
mu...@aol.com
> of course, 'competent scholars' usually are employed at universities
> and must avoid controversy so as to not offend the tenure committees.
Could you tell us approximately how many tenure committees you have been
on? I have been on five so far, and what has always struck me is how
much people on tenure committees tend to LOVE controversial scholars,
for they are the ones who are advancing knowledge and doing what
scholars are supposed to do. A professor who has always played it safe
is damned unlikely to get published in the first place, but if she has,
and if her work has got nothing but "nice" reviews, most people will
conclude that she is too boring to be worthy of tenure. The same goes
with promotion through the ranks. The same, incidentally, also goes for
getting the advanced degrees that qualify one for academic service in
the first place. (It is common knowledge that you are much more likely
to get into graduate school if you have a mixture of good grades and bad
grades that average out to, say, B+ than if you have straight A's.
People have learned that straight A students are usually pretty boring
and conservative, whereas people who are intellectually alive have the
good sense to realise that some courses are so full of crap that it is a
waste of time to get anything higher than a C in them.)
Being innovative and controversial, however, is not ALL that tenure
review committees love. They also love scholarly rigour. They love
evidence, and they love arguments that are both convincing AND that lead
to interesting new conclusions that others had not seen before. A lot of
the stuff that gets into print is innovative; only a fraction of what is
innovative is well argued and based on compelling evidence.
I have no informed opinions on the hypothesis that Indian ideas were
part of the mix of the Hellenistic world in which earlier Christianity
evolved, except that this is not at all a new idea. It has been around
for quite a long time. That's what people were teaching when I was an
undergraduate, thirty-odd years ago. But beyond that, I cannot comment
on the particulars of the hypothesis that has caught Pietzsche's fancy.
I simply want to say that one cannot assume that scholarly dismissal of
that hypothesis is due only to scholars being unwilling to entertain new
ideas. (If anything, I suspect they may be getting bored with an old
idea that persists in the popular press, despite a general lack of good
evidence and argumentation for it.)
One thing I would be interested in hearing is this: why does this
hypothesis appeal to people? What would change in their lives if it
could be established? What difference would it make if it were shown
definitively to be false?
I guess what I'm really asking is whether this issue is purely one of
historical curiosity, other whether people have an emotional investment
in the outcome. If the latter, what is the nature of that emotional
investment?
Just curious,
Mubul
William K.
piet...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>for some reason, this thread makes me wonder what
>the Vinaya has to say about spanking, and whether or not
>there is an epidemic of kinky spanking role-playing going
>on in the religion departments of our best universities.
>
>ahh, parents, if only you knew what your tender little
>progeny are being, ahem, exposed to in those ivy'ed halls :)
>
>http://x5.dejanews.com/[ST_rn=ap]/getdoc.xp?AN=398150523
For some reason, Pietzsche thought an appropriate response to my scholarly
refutation of his assertions was a Dejanews search that ... lo-and-behold
... turned up something I suspect he thinks will discredit or embarrass me.
Anyone who happens to figure out how to consult this reference will find a
message I posted a few months ago in connection with a hobby of mine. I
guess Pietzsche thinks it has some connection with my scholarly activity,
and implications for my credibility as an academic. Those who agree with
him may now begin ignoring what I post. The rest of you, who are probably a
bit more mature than the average nine-year-old, will continue to focus on
what I actually write.
William
P.S. Sigh!
piet...@my-dejanews.com
"William K." <Will...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>
> The problem for your claims is that none of these
> competent scholars have seen any need to going hunting for Indian influences
> on Jesus.
ok, but first, they are not *my* claims per se, i am only discussing
this particular book by Gruber and Kersten which no one else seems to
have heard of or read. ('The Original Jesus') I am just like everyone
else, in or out of academia, hoping to learn something new every day,
and trying to share with others and learn from others, as much as time
will permit anyway - without seeking to become too much of an idiot savant.
Granted, this is a popular, not a scholarly, book.
But it does cite many references that one can
follow up on. There is enough there, imho, to make a plausible, albeit
not airtight, case.
anyway, I guess you are saying either that Gruber and
Kersten are not scholars per se, or they are not competent?
Do you have any familiarity with their work or with them personally?
jeez, all i want to do is explore this with
some sympathetic souls who share a common interest in this topic ...
but, never mind ...
btw, I just read in Conze's book that the Christian halo/nimbus symbol was
borrowed from Buddhist/Hindu Gandharan art around 400AD. heh, talk
about Indian 'influence'! not to mention that Shakyamuni is an authentic
recognized Christian Saint (Jehosaphat from 'Bodhisatt') :)
> As well, as I indicated in another post, there is no reason to see an
> isolated quote that MAY (but DOES IT??) derive from Buddhism as proof that
> JESUS was influenced by Buddhism. We have to look at the over-all evidence
> of what he seems to have said,
yes, this is exactly what Gruber and Kersten do. This quote from Luke
is just one part of their argument that I happen to remember so i cited
it.
but they describe many other elements, mostly just demonstrating that
Alexandria *was* in fact home to Buddhist missionaries circa 0AD. btw,
are you disputing this part or not?
Could you clearly say if Buddhist Missionaries in Alexandria circa 0AD
is or is not controversial in your opinion? (just for the record, thanks).
anyway, their subsequent arguments around the etymology of 'Therapeutae'
clearly become more problematic. And is probably the weakest part of their
argument.
> and MOST of what is accepted as having come
> from the mouth of Jesus is decidely Judaic or pan-Hellenistic in character,
> depending on which of two dominant streams of thought one accepts. To get a
> Jesus who speaks a primarily Buddhist message, one needs to select an odd
> mix of things, using criteria that go against the consensus of competent
> scholarship. In other words, one has to START with an assumption that Jesus
> was influenced by Buddhism and then select sayings on that basis.
perhaps, or, it could as easily occur to someone when
they encounter the parallel stories, such as the prodigal son,
leaving family/home, etc etc, and the traditional legends of
Jesus' traveling to Egypt, and the Indian legends of St Thomas traveling
to India (perhaps Jesus told him stories he had heard as a youth?),
and the Tibetan Buddhist legends of Jesus living in Nepal
or wherever ...
it would be nice to confine this discussion to specific points in
Gruber and Kersten's book, perhaps you have access to a copy?
btw, do you have any opinions on Stephen Mitchell's 'The Gospel According
To Jesus'? he doesnt make the explicit Buddhist influence connection, IIRC,
but he does argue for the legend of Jesus's Roman father, Panthera.
piet...@my-dejanews.com
>>into the main part of the film. This Jesus travelling to Egypt
>>or India nonsense has no basis in fact whatsoever.
of course it is a legend in the bible. like other legends in the bible,
such as the virgin birth, the psychological motivation of the authors
is, ahem, clear - to explain away embarassing rumors that were public
knowledge at the time, but have since disappeared and all we are left
with is the pious priestly rationalization of their esteemed teacher.
'everyone knows he was illegitimate' morphs into 'he was conceived of
the holy ghost'
'everyone knows he studied with those nuts in Egypt as a child' morphs
into 'his family had to escape the persecution prophesied in the old
scriptures by fleeing to Egypt'
Stephen Mitchell's 'The Gospel According to Jesus' does an admirable
job of analyzing the story in this way, imho. the cover-up story is
pretty transparent in much of the NT. imho it does not detract from
the authenticity of the teachings or teacher, though.
"JulianLZB87" <julia...@clara.net> wrote:
> >>The assertion that Jesus did not travel to Egypt, India or even
> >>Glastonbury for that matter, has no basis in fact whatsoever either.
yep, DT so loves to positively assert the negative.
> >and what evidence is there that such a person
> >as Jesus even lived? the gospels certainly
> >aren't historical documents.
well, this has been beaten near to death for aeons, but
it seems to me to be pretty farfetched to imagine all this
as arising like an aesop fable. The Jesus Seminar is not
even too split on this question, taking the historicity of
Jesus as given, afaik.
In the case of Buddha, though, we do in fact have hard evidence
like the ashes. However the Shroud of Turin has been shown to be
a fake. But imho, the Gospel of Thomas discovery really reinforces
the historicity of Jesus.
piet...@my-dejanews.com
> piet...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > of course, 'competent scholars' usually are employed at universities
> > and must avoid controversy so as to not offend the tenure committees.
>
> Could you tell us approximately how many tenure committees you have been
> on?
none, thank god. and i will take your word for it on the desirability
of controversy in academia. my point being WilliamK asserted a kind of
tautology in claiming 'all competent scholars' have dismissed this without
telling us how Gruber and Kersten come to be excluded from the realm of
competent scholars. Saying that 'all those in our club think as we do',
does not convey much information.
> I have no informed opinions on the hypothesis that Indian ideas were
> part of the mix of the Hellenistic world in which earlier Christianity
> evolved, except that this is not at all a new idea. It has been around
> for quite a long time. That's what people were teaching when I was an
> undergraduate, thirty-odd years ago. But beyond that, I cannot comment
> on the particulars of the hypothesis that has caught Pietzsche's fancy.
> I simply want to say that one cannot assume that scholarly dismissal of
> that hypothesis is due only to scholars being unwilling to entertain new
> ideas. (If anything, I suspect they may be getting bored with an old
> idea that persists in the popular press, despite a general lack of good
> evidence and argumentation for it.)
>
> One thing I would be interested in hearing is this: why does this
> hypothesis appeal to people?
imho it has great explanatory power. explains a lot about Jesus's teachings,
his people's reactions to him when he was alive, and the later mythmaking
by his followers.
> What would change in their lives if it
> could be established? What difference would it make if it were shown
> definitively to be false?
personally, not much. I would still have just as much faith in,
and admire just as much, both Jesus and Buddha.
> I guess what I'm really asking is whether this issue is purely one of
> historical curiosity, other whether people have an emotional investment
> in the outcome. If the latter, what is the nature of that emotional
> investment?
from the reactions to this and previous threads, it seems to me the emotional
involvement is on the other side, wanting to keep Buddhism unsullied from any
association with Christianity, since many western Buddhists hope to find a
refuge from Christianity in Buddhism (IMHO of course).
I was just now interested to read in Conze's book how it is apparently clear
that Christianity got the halo symbol from Gandharan Buddhist/Hindu art.
Plus the known etymology of St. Jehosaphat from 'Bodhisattva' already makes
for a substantial amount of known cross-fertilization going on, imho.
> Just curious,
> Mubul
piet...@my-dejanews.com
"William K." <Will...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>
> piet...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >sigh, you are saying that Gruber and Kersten are incompetent?
> >or not scholars?
>
> Both. I'd want to know what languages they read, where they studied ancient
> Judaism, early Christianity, Greco-Roman religion and philosophy,
> Buddhology, etc. I'd like to know if they have Ph.Ds, reflecting the fact
> that they have written a serious, scholarly monograph that passed muster
> with those who are able to judge its merits.
ok, i will try to get this info for you from their book.
It is interesting to me though that you find no qualms in making this
conclusion knowing nothing about them.
of course, this is not a *scholarly book*, i keep repeating that,
it is a popular book. about on the level of 'Tao of Physics' or other
popularizations. the authors *are* polemical. which *does* detract from
their argument. yet, in my reading anyway, there was enough there to make
me change my mind about a theory i had pooh-poohed as preposterous and
irrelevant previously. Plus they summarize a lot of references, and have
a bibliography etc. which makes it valuable as a starting point anyway.
> This is the way things work in
> the real world of real academic research. If you prefer to accept whatever
> any Tom, Dick, or Harry asserts, based on whatever evidence he decides to
> offer, then there is little I can do about that.
come on, give me a break.
> I know this from first-hand experience. My teacher is a
> 'disciple' of the famour Morton Smith, late of Columbia, who made a career
> of writing extreme things about early Christianity. His most famour work
> was "Jesus the Magician", in which he attempted to argue that Jesus was a
> magical healer in the tradition of others in his world.
as in 'shaman'? interesting.
> Everything is subjective to some extent. My point is that when one looks at
> the lists of scholars who are able to work with the evidence relevant to a
> reconstruction of the life-and-teachings of Jesus one cannot find ONE who
> claims that Buddhism is a probable significant influence on Jesus.
really, where is this list?
are you saying they are just not saying anything on the subject?
or are you saying they are asserting the negative based on their study
of the issue? its not clear from the way you state this. if they are
asserting the negative, then there must be some publications putting
their assertions on the line, i would imagine?
> I don't have to list everyone who doesn't idnetify Buddhism as a source.
> YOU should indicate some name of those who do.
dang it, i did, there is this book, see? if someone would just go out and
get it and read it, maybe we could get some semblance of discussion going
here :)
> >anyway, you would agree, i presume, that it is not controversial
> >that Buddhist missionaries were in residence in Alexandria at the
> >time of Jesus?
>
> Hum? What is the evidence for this? I think I would say it is
> controversial.
the Asokan missions to Ptolemy.
> Are you saying he learned
> dharma from those Indian monks when he was under the age of two?
heh. come on, i do not take Matthew literally.
Matthew is the one who is always trying to cover up for Jesus and
convince everyone how Jewish he is etc. It is plausible to me that
there were rumors circulating at the time that Matthew was trying to
acknowledge and explain in another way. Just like the virgin birth.
There is no dispute, after all, that Jesus was illegitimate, just who
the father was. The embarassment of illegitimacy had to be explained
away, ergo the virgin birth. If Matthew morphed this rumor this way,
it is no stretch of my imagination, at least, to imagine what was morphed
into the flight into Egypt legend.
> There are degrees of speculation. This particular thesis is highly
> speculative because there is so little solid evidence upon which to base any
> conclusions.
agreed, i am only saying it is interesting, albeit speculative.
and cannot be dismissed, troll-like, out of hand.
> As a scholar of the time of Jesus, I have seen nothing
> in his teachings that can be said to be utterly out-of-place, and require
> appeal to a distant civilization.
you still havent shown where Luke 14:26 comes from, afaik :)
piet...@my-dejanews.com
ok, but you keep avoiding the issue, where else is Luke 14:26
found in the Jewish teachings of Jesus's time?
piet...@my-dejanews.com
>
> Let the children also play scientist. Let them dream of sentient photons
> and wise and compassionate quarks and mystically unified fields and a
> Theory of Everything that just happens to be exactly the same as
> Dependent Origination.
jeez, give me a break.
i dont recall ever saying anything remotely resembling the above.
but parody is a good defensive mechanism in the face of new ideas, i suppose.
it is just interesting to me that the Dharma reveals something about
Nature, as well as being a psychological program for well-being.
so if the Dharma is not completely irrelevant to an understanding of
Nature, why should it be surprising that there is some commonality?
> Yogic Christs and perfectly just and Utopian religions. Fantasies? Yes,
> of course.
yes, what you have described does sound like fantasies.
a lot of physics these days sounds like fantasies too. i admit it
takes some getting used to 11 dimensions, and a plethora of universes
chaotically splitting beyond all comprehension, let alone all matter in
the universe being compressed to a volume many times smaller than a proton,
let alone that the observable matter in the universe is perhaps the least
interesting aspect of what the universe is 'about', iyknwim.
> Harmful? Only if you have an objection to Samsara.
so what turns samsara? ignorance?
so you are saying that cross-disciplinary study by non-academics is
conducive to ignorance and the perpetuation of samsara?
interesting how the eightfold way admits of no accomodation of new knowledge.
but this resistance is quite understandable given the existing canon's size.
anyway, far be it from me to take the key away from any seeker
through whose door i have not myself entered. i would hope i never have to
stoop so low to justify my own limitations.
but, i have been a naughty boy again, i suppose, thinking for myself again,
committing the Buddhist sin of speculation ... which reminds me ...
i should check out that mailing list, perhaps someone there can give me
what i need :)
piet...@my-dejanews.com
"Randy J" <rje...@mail.uflib.ufl.edu> wrote:
>
> ok, here's some discussion of your book
> based on a reference: a few months ago on this
> ng, another person was going on about the
> fabuylous revelations in this book by saying
> that the book mentions a sect in Egypt called
> the Therapeutics or some such thing, and how
> this showed the connection to Theravada Buddhism.
>
> Well, unfortunately, therapuein is a Greek verb
> meaning 'to heal', which is the source of said sect's
> name, and has nothing whatever to do with Theravada,
> a Pali word meaning 'teaching of the elders'.
>
> And John La Grou, somewhat of a Christian
> scholar who lurks here, said the book contained
> only speculation based on the flimsiest of
> circumstatial evidence such as the misappropriation
> i illustrated above.
yes, this was me again. surprised? :)
for others, here is John La Grou's excellent post:
http://x14.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=414272491.1
the book does discuss this,
and has a reference for the etymology of Therapeutae.
evidently, the argument does not hinge on 'Therapeutae'
being derivative from 'Theravada', though the authors
do suggest this. It has been a while since i read it
though. the big missing link for me is that they dont
include the original source for Philo's 'De Vita Contemplativa',
when about 50% of their argument hinges on the lifestyle similarities
of the Therapeutae with the vinaya code of conduct for Buddhist monks.
John La Grou wrote:
>This particular group of therapeutrides spoken of by Philo is an
>austere, monastic group sounding more like a syncretism of Jewish,
>Essene, and (later) Desert Father quietism than Buddhism.
but this is one of the points of the book, that the code of conduct
described by Philo is more than just a little similar to a
buddhist monk's of the time. they describe how their lifestyle is
supposedly quite different than any Jewish ascetic would have,
though the similarity to the Essenes perhaps begs the question since
they may have been influenced as well by the asokan missionaries.
anyway, i would be happy to study this book along with you if
you are interested. there is much i have forgotten already.
thanks for your commment
piet...@my-dejanews.com
"William K." <Will...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>
> piet...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >i am always amused how this subject touches so many nerves,
> >and yet provides so little real discussion based on references.
>
> I'm not a Christian. I'm a Buddhist. The only nerve this touches is the
> nerve that is sensitive to scholarly rigour and methodological seriousness.
> I have a good nose for BS, and this book has a pretty strong odor.
>
> I regret that I don't have the time to read the book you are citing. If I
> took the time to read every non-scholarly speculative work, I'd never have
> time to read the serious work by people who have devoted their lives to
> gaining the necessary specialized skills that allow them to study and
> evaluate the historical evidence.
of course, of course, but this is assuming, without even having so much
as glanced at their work, that they do not satisfy this criterion.
> However, if you wish to cite passages
> from this work, with their attendant references, I will make a bit of time
> to explore this issue with you.
you are too kind :)
here is an excerpt from the book, mostly about the Asokan missionaries:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/1756/gruberbk.txt
(it might help to cut and paste this into notepad depending on if your
browser can do word-wrap or not, since there are no line breaks in it)
anyway, here is info about the authors from the book, clearly they are
not professional academic scholars:
>>>>>>>>>>>
Dr Elmar ft. Gruber holds a PhD in psychology. His main work is in the field
of consciousness research. A scientific adviser to German television and
radio, he is also the author of several books and has had over sixty articles
published in major scientific journals. He worked with Holger Kersten as
co-author of the controversial bestseller, 'The Jesus Conspiracy'.
Holger Kersten studied theology and pedagogics at Freiburg University,
Germany. An author specializing in religious history, his previous titles
include 'The Jesus Conspiracy' (with Elmar R. Gruber) and 'Jesus Lived in
India'. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
All the indications are that an Indian colony already existed in Memphis
during the age of Asoka. Whether it was originally a trading outpost or
whether it originated with Asoka's missionaries can no longer be determined.9
The clay statuette of the Indian woman has been dated at around 200 sC, just
a few decades after the start of Asoka's great missions.
from the book, page 177, about Missionaries in India:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ten years before these excavations a gravestone from the Ptolemaic period,
displaying Buddhist symbols, was discovered
at Dendera in Egypt. For Flinders Petrie that discovery constituted an
irrefutable indication of the influence of Buddhist missionaries in Egypt.[10]
We showed in Part I that Asoka's mission to the West profited from a cultural
boom in states influenced by Hellenism; we followed the sea and land routes,
and described the enormous increases in communications between Egypt and
India after Alexander the Great. Under Asoka's contemporary Ptolemy II
Philadelphos, Alexandria experienced its greatest blossoming. A great
diversity of intellectual camps and doctrines proliferated and developed -
through reciprocal stimulation and competition - their utmost potential. Dion
Chrysostomos (c. 40-112 AD) confirmed that Indians lived in Alexandria
immediately after the start of the new millenium in a speech where he
welcomed them among his audience. There is no reason to doubt that Indian
commuruties existed in Alexandria long before Dion Chrysostomos's time,
especially since they were found in Memphis, a less important town.
Chrysostomos wrote that Indian traders were despised by their
fellow-countrymen.(l2) That statement must be seen as indicating that the
Alexandrian Indians were Buddhists. In the eyes of Sunga Dynasty (c. 180-68
BC) brahmins they were heretics. In addition, brahmins themselves were
forbidden to cross the sea because that entailed the risk of attracting
ritual impurities and possibly losing caste membership. So it will not have
been particularly difficult for the Buddhist monks in Asoka's mission to have
established themselves in the existing Egyptian settlements of Indian
merchants. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> How about we start with the discussion of Luke 14:26 and the evidence your
> source uses to argue that it is un-Judaic and necessarily Buddhistic... i.e.
> what are the Jewish sources cited and what are the Buddhist sources?
ok, I will dig up the book again and look for this.
thanks for the reply!
William K.
while, but then I handed it over to someone else for a variety fo reasons,
some of them even connected to my Buddhist practice.
As for this ongoing discussion, or any further discussions with you ...
after your breach of netiquette, I don't think so ....
William
piet...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7dutsc$98q$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <qaxM2.18858$134.1...@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>,
> "William K." <Will...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>>
>> For some reason, Pietzsche thought an appropriate response to my
scholarly
>> refutation of his assertions was a Dejanews search that ...
>
>sorry, no one is safe with dejanews around!
>it seemed amusing at the time, but i probably should have resisted
>the temptation ...
>
>> i guess Pietzsche thinks it has some connection with my scholarly
activity,
>> and implications for my credibility as an academic.
>
>all things are connected ... even truer now on the Internet!
>
>however, i am even now signing up to the list and look forward to learning
>about a whole new field of practice! i hope it has as rich a tradition of
>lore, rituals, and enlightened masters as Buddhism! see you on the list!
>
>cheers
piet...@my-dejanews.com
"William K." <Will...@netcom.ca> wrote:
> Have fun on the list! But I'm not there. I set it up and ran it for a
> while, but then I handed it over to someone else for a variety fo reasons,
> some of them even connected to my Buddhist practice.
>
> As for this ongoing discussion, or any further discussions with you ...
> after your breach of netiquette, I don't think so ....
ok, fair enough, perhaps we can all learn from friend D.Troll who
recommends maintaining several anonymous aliases simultaneously,
and relegating each net-persona to a specific category of newsgroups,
e.g. DharmaTroll for talk.religion.buddhism, and SpankMeTroll for
alt.support.attn-deficit.
btw, no fair searching dejanews for posts including the words
"Pietzsche AND vaseline OR realdoll" ok?
:?)
check out my website: www.realdoll.com
(oops, you must be 80 or over though)
i only post this since i am assured that i am practically universally
kill-filed except for about 3 folks who for some reason suffer from
attention deficit just as much as i do ...
piet...@my-dejanews.com
> activity,
> >> and implications for my credibility as an academic.
sorry, that didnt even occur to me.
does it?
cheers
piet...@my-dejanews.com
but i nuked my childish post on dejanews.
here is some post nuking info from dejanews if you want to nuke
your original post which shows up on dejanews:
http://www.dejanews.com/help/faq.shtml#nuke
though it does only remove them from dejanews per se,
not other usenet servers ... anyway it's the only way i know
to nuke a post ...
apologies again, i hate it when i get troll-like :(
'against boredom, the gods themselves struggle in vain!'
-bhante fritz
Phra Dhammanando Bhikkhu
[snip]
> > As a scholar of the time of Jesus, I have seen nothing
> > in his teachings that can be said to be utterly out-of-place, and require
> > appeal to a distant civilization.
>
> you still havent shown where Luke 14:26 comes from, afaik :)
Try Deuteronomy 33:9.
(In praise of the Levites:)
"Who hath said to his father, and to his mother: I do not know you; and
to his brethren: I know you not; and their own children they have not
known. These have kept Thy word."
Micah 7:6:
"A men's enemies are they of his own household."
To get some idea of what Luke 14:26 meant to Christians see Aquinas'
Summa Theologica Second Part of the Second Part:
Question 26, Article 2: "Whether God ought to be loved more than our
neighbour?"
Question 44, Article 2: "Whether there should have been given two
precepts of charity?"
Question 101, Article: 4: "Whether the duties of piety towards one's
parents should be omitted for the sake of religion?"
Aquinas' treatment merely echoes that of the early Church fathers. I
think you will see from the interpretations that the early Christians
put upon this verse that there is actually very little similarity with
seemingly comparable utterances in early Buddhist texts.
--
Dhammanando Bhikkhu
piet...@my-dejanews.com
>
>
> My favourite so far has been King Jesus by Robert Graves.
i hadnt heard about this, but it does sound interesting.
i will look for it for sure.
i remember being impressed and surprised by Robert Graves introduction
to his 'The Greek Myths', IIRC he made no bones about citing mushroom
intoxication as the beginning of religion, eg the Vedic Soma. or maybe
i confusing another book of his?
anyway, i wonder if 'King Jesus' is along the lines of Kazantzakis'
'The Last Temptation of Christ'?
is Graves still alive? he sounds like another Joseph Campbell, and
we sure need all the Joseph Campbells we can get these days. when
Huston Smith and Robert Graves and William Thompson have all joined
Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung in the Great Mystery, we will be bereft
and adrift indeed.
King Jesus
by Robert Graves
Our Price: $12.80
Paperback - 424 pages (October 1981)
Noonday Pr; ISBN: 0374516642 ; Dimensions (in inches): 1.09 x
7.95 x 5.40
Amazon.com Sales Rank: 59,876
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0374516642/qid=923011792/sr=1-1/002-55357
52-4107421
mh...@binghamton.edu from new york , October 24, 1997 The most fascinating
Jesus novel out there Reading this book is a rewarding challenge. It's
weird, esoteric, and somehow simultaneously iconoclastic and reverent. As is
often the case with Graves, it's clear that he's done a lot of serious
research, and from there has gone off on his own curious tangents. (It looks
like he got some material from Robert Eisler's book from the '20s, "The
Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist"). Graves's methods drive some scholars
crazy, because they want a clear line drawn between the research and the
tangents. "King Jesus" is clearly more propaganda for Graves's "White
Goddess" theology, but as propaganda it's great fun. Indulge Graves early on
in the book--material that may seem pointless eventually does inform what
follows. With few exceptions, the book is sympathetic to Judaism, but the
exceptions should not be read as anti-Semitism; rather, the reader should
recognize that Graves is equally discriminatory towards all religions where
they don't gibe with his White Goddess-ism.
piet...@my-dejanews.com
> Sigh! Is there any significance in the fact that NOT ONE competent scholar
> of the New Testament, early Christianity, or Judaism in the time of Jesus
> supports the fanciful speculations about Jesus' alleged dependence on India
> for his ideas?
well, here's three more, just for the record ...
as Mubul said, this thesis goes back a ways, i just dug out my copy of
'The Original Jesus' and in rereading some of it, came across their mention
of two early pioneers in this area:
Flinders Petrie in 1898
and HL Mansel 'Gnostic Heresies' in 1875
evidently the rediscovery of Gnosticism and Buddhism by the west in
the late 1800's caused a few to be struck by the similarities, and
start to dig deeper ...
authors also cite 'Buddha and Christ' by Zacharias Thundy 1993
(evidently he is a linguist who analyzed the linguistic metamorphosis
of Theravada to Theraputta/Therapeutae - he cites two other Indian words
known to have come into Greek that morphed phonemes in the same way)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/9004097414/qid=923012974/sr=1-1/002-55357
52-4107421
Buddha and Christ : Nativity Stories and Indian Traditions
(Studies in the History of Religions,)
by Zacharias P. Thundy
Our Price: $100.50 (phew!!!!)
Hardcover (January 1993)
Brill Academic Publishers; ISBN: 9004097414
Amazon.com Sales Rank: 1,232,224 (understandable, eh? :)
Reviews Book Description The infancy narratives of the gospels of Matthew
and Luke appear as a magnificent mosaic of allusions not only to the Hebrew
Bible but also to Buddhist and Hindu religious traditions. Professor Thundy
argues that many details of the infancy gospels as well as the rest of the
gospels can be clarified by the Buddhist and Hindu scriptures. In this
sense, the gospels are Eastern religious texts. Buddha and Christ covers the
following topics in order: methodology of study, priority of Indian texts
vis-a-vis Christian gospels, parallels of the birth narratives of Buddha and
Jesus, uniqueness of Indian parallels, the Gnostic context of the Christian
gospels, and contacts between India and the West in antiquity. Multicultural
studies such as this encourage ecumenism and mutual understanding in
East-West dialogues as well as reinforcing the view that the gospels should
be taken seriously as Eastern religious texts.
The infancy narratives of the gospels of Matthew and Luke appear as a
magnificent mosaic of allusions not only to the Hebrew Bible but also to
Buddhist and Hindu religious traditions. Professor Thundy argues that many
details of the infancy gospels as well as the rest of the gospels can be
clarified by the Buddhist and Hindu scriptures. In this sense, the gospels
are Eastern religious texts. Buddha and Christ covers the following topics
in order: methodology of study, priority of Indian texts vis-a-vis Christian
gospels, parallels of the birth narratives of Buddha and Jesus, uniqueness
of Indian parallels, the Gnostic context of the Christian gospels, and
contacts between India and the West in antiquity. Multicultural studies such
as this encourage ecumenism and mutual understanding in East-West dialogues
as well as reinforcing the view that the gospels should be taken seriously
as Eastern religious texts.
David Yeung
>
> anyway, i already cited the reference: 'The Original Jesus'
> by Gruber and Kersten. They give all the Buddhist and Christian
> scriptural citations for these claims. That is the one virtue of the
> book imho, since its polemical nature does tend to detract from their
> argument. i dont have it in front of me else i would copy their
> citations.
I've read the book as well, and in my opinion they twist quotes way out
of context in order to "prove" their conclusion. I've also read "Jesus
Lived in India" also by one of the authors, "Two Masters, One Message"
by Roy C. Amore (whom they cite), and "A Search for the Historical
Jesus" by Prof. Fida Hassnain (whom they also cite).
My question to you is, have you actually checked those citations
yourself, with a good concordance, etc.? I read the book when I was
still a (half-)Christian, and looking up all the references was part of
what actually convinced me that Christianity and Buddhism were
different. It also convinced me that many people will distort reality
to see what they want to see, despite the evidence.
Roy C. Amore (incidentally, a Canadian) doesn't argue that Jesus was a
Buddhist, but that there are Buddhist influences in early Christianity.
(As far as my memory serves me, anyways.) I'm read some other work by
Amore (dealing with Buddhism) and I would say that he's a credible
scholar. What's is interesting is that Fida Hassnain (a Sufi Muslim)
uses the same quotations as Gruber and Kerstein, to prove his hypothesis
that Jesus was a Muslim! I think that Gruber, Kerstein, and Hassnain
all have very poor (mis)understandings of Buddhism, and are reading
heavily back into their quotes to "prove" what they already believe.
Gruber and Kerstein's description of the "Buddhist Trinity" of Amitabha,
Avalokiteshvara, and Shakyamuni is completely erroneous. So is
Hassnain's attempt to show that Buddhism is a corrupted version of
Islam.
Seems like you and I are the only two people here who's read the book.
I'd be willing to discuss it. (I'm in school and exams are coming up,
and newsgroups are my escape from studying! :) )
> > Well... Judaism absorbed many things from many cultures.
>
> yep, but the point is a good one that this specific teaching
> is not found in the Talmud.
It doesn't have to be. The Talmud wasn't part of the Jewish scriptures
at Jesus' time, as far as I know. (I seem to remember that the Jewish
scriptures weren't canonized until a council at Jaffna (?) sometime in
the first 2 centuries of the Christian era -- maybe Willim K. who seems
to be a scholar of Judaism can correct me on this?) The Talmud also
contains some very anti-Christian statements, since Judaism and
Christianity were then competing sects.
> No one yet has pointed out to me
> a Jewish parallel teaching.
Check Deuteronomy. I also saw a post where someone actually posted the
reference. If not, I am sure I can look it up. (Catholic schooling
hasn't lost its effect on me yet! :) )
> ergo, Jesus's teachings are not
> entirely derivative and non-innovative, imho.
Does one quote that can't be found in one's cultural background
automatically mean that a person's been heavily influenced by another
culture? I'm sure you can pick just about anybody who's famous and find
something that he/she said that can't be found in his/her cultural
background.
Take the Buddha. He said some things that are awfully
"Taoist" sounding, and which can't be found in the Vedas. Gosh, he must
have visited China as a child and learnt it at the knee of Lao-Tzu. I
don't mean to sound flippant, but with the amount of "speculation"
you're allowing you can back up just about any hypothesis.
--
David Yeung
David Yeung
piet...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> btw, I just read in Conze's book that the Christian halo/nimbus symbol was
> borrowed from Buddhist/Hindu Gandharan art around 400AD. heh, talk
> about Indian 'influence'! not to mention that Shakyamuni is an authentic
> recognized Christian Saint (Jehosaphat from 'Bodhisatt') :)
The Christian rosary also seems to be adapted from the Buddhist version,
but then the Buddhist rosary was a form of the necklaces which Hindu
brahmins wore. The Chinese Buddhist goddess of mercy Kwan-Yin and the
virgin Mary are both derived from ancient Mother Goddess worship,
probably of Isis or Diana. So, who's copying whom?
Before the advent of isolationist religions which drew clear boundaries
between themselves and "paganism", everyone pretty much borrowed from
everyone else. (Not that it stopped afterwards.) Judaism was
influenced by Persian and Babylonian religions (like it or not), which
were in turn influenced by Indian ideas (and vice versa). So if you're
making the claim that there are traces of Indian influence on Jewish
thinking at the time of Jesus, I'd agree with you. But then everyone
influenced everyone else. However, I consider the claim that "Jesus was
a Buddhist/was heavily influenced by Buddhism" to be untrue, simply
because most of what he taught is traceable to his immediate
surroundings. The Kingdom of God, a succession of anointed prophets, a
chosen people...? None of these are Buddhist ideas. You may find a
stray quote or two that can be made to sound Buddhistic, but then you
can probably do the same thing to just about anybody.
> but they describe many other elements, mostly just demonstrating that
> Alexandria *was* in fact home to Buddhist missionaries circa 0AD. btw,
> are you disputing this part or not?
There were Buddhist missionaries to Greece, as well as Buddhist colonies
in Egypt (possibly Alexandria) and Syria, at or before the time of Jesus
(or so I believe). I have also come across a reference to Buddhists in
Britain in one of Origen's writings (which greatly surprised me). The
Buddhist communities were likely to be comprised of Indian merchants and
immigrants, confined to what we would probably call "Little India".
Buddhism as a unit did not seem to have penetrated into the general
population. There were many Indian traders in those days.
That being said, it's possible that certain Buddhist ideas or practices
had an influence on the surrounding culture. That's just how cultures
work. Monasticism may or may not have been brought to the West by
Indians. But that doesn't constitute an acceptance of Buddhism on the
part of the population.
To illustrate with an example... some people like to twirl their
pens/pencils. As far as I know the practice was brought here (to
Canada) from Hong Kong. When I first noticed people doing it, they were
all recent immigrants from Hong Kong, where pen-twirling was then a
fad. At that time, the practice was exclusively considered a "Hong
Kong" thing, and it was assumed that anyone from Hong Kong could do it.
(I'm from Hong Kong and I've been asked if I can do it... yes, but I
learned it here.) A while later, other people had started doing it, but
it was still associated with HKers. Nowadays, the association has been
lost, and a seemingly random selection of the general population has
that skill. Does that constitute an acceptance of "Hong Kongness" on
the part of the public? Hardly. That's how ideas are passed from
culture to culture.
It's one thing to say that India has had an influence on
Western/Christian religious thinking (which it has), and another to say
that Jesus was (primarily) Buddhist (as evidence suggests otherwise).
> anyway, their subsequent arguments around the etymology of 'Therapeutae'
> clearly become more problematic. And is probably the weakest part of their
> argument.
It's not the only weak part of their argument.
> perhaps, or, it could as easily occur to someone when
> they encounter the parallel stories, such as the prodigal son,
The Buddhist version of the Prodigal Son (found in the Lotus Sutra) is
VERY different from the Christian one. What's happening here is that
people noticed a similar theme (son who doesn't accept/understand
father's love) and latched only onto the similarity while diminishing
the difference. Humans have a tendency to spot similarities even when
there are none (or the simliarities are marginal).
Furthermore:
- The Lotus wasn't composed until AFTER the existence of Christianity.
- In almost all cultures the supreme being (God or Buddha) is depicted
as a Heavenly Father whose love for his children are misunderstand and
often rejected. The psychological motivation behind this is obvious.
A much better example is the story of The Widow's Mite. The details of
the story are similar down to the widow's "two coins". However, this
doesn't suggest an acceptance of Buddhism/Indian ideas as much as
cultural borrowing, as I have demonstrated with the pen-twirling example
above. Assuming the story originated in India (it was attributed to the
Buddha), it's possible that Greek or Hebrews adapted the story to their
own background, perhaps adding it to their own oral tradition. Later,
when Christians chroniclers were looking for "wise stories" to attribute
to their founder, they wrote the story down as if Jesus had originated
it.
It's a much more likely hypothesis than the "Buddhist Jesus"
hypothesis. This cultural borrowing of parts of a culture in isolation
from the rest of it, has been demonstrated in numerous instances. For
example, similar stories to many of the Buddhist Jataka tales are found
in Aesop or similar Greek legends. Assuming again that the stories were
originally Indian/Buddhist, the Greeks seemed to have took them over
while disassociating them from the Buddha's previous lives (which the
Indian versions of the story claim to represent). Then again, it's
possible that the Greeks originated the stories and it was the Buddhist
Indians who had adapted them to the teachings of the Buddha. Or perhaps
animal legends are just an easy way for people of any culture to impart
morality to children, and the stories originated independently. (oops
-- bad buddhist pun alert!)
> leaving family/home, etc etc, and the traditional legends of
> Jesus' traveling to Egypt,
It was written to "fulfill" prophecy. I think it was something about
Rachel weeping for her children. There's a Jewish tradition called
"midrash"... anyways, I think William K. can explain this better.
> and the Indian legends of St Thomas traveling
> to India (perhaps Jesus told him stories he had heard as a youth?),
The Christian apostles went to all the countries which were known to
them. Yes, Thomas probably went to India, but then others of the
apostles went to France, Britain, etc. Perhaps Jesus has been to all
these places as well???
> and the Tibetan Buddhist legends of Jesus living in Nepal
> or wherever ...
And you mustn't discount the Muslim legends that Jesus visited (what is
now) Pakistan and died there. Not only that, but he taught a strict
monotheism which the Christians corrupted. In my opinion, these legends
are around because people are emotionally inclined to believe in them.
> it would be nice to confine this discussion to specific points in
> Gruber and Kersten's book, perhaps you have access to a copy?
Yes, I do.
--
David Yeung
Tang Huyen
David Yeung wrote: <<In my opinion, these legends are around because people are
emotionally inclined to believe in them.>>
Amen.
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
David Yeung wrote: <<Take the Buddha. He said some things that are awfully
"Taoist" sounding, and which can't be found in the Vedas. Gosh, he must
have visited China as a child and learnt it at the knee of Lao-Tzu. I don't
mean to sound flippant, but with the amount of "speculation" you're allowing
you can back up just about any hypothesis.>>
David,
There is influence from below (the empirical factors, guilt by association)
and there is influence from above (pure reason). In my research there are
just two main systems of pure reason in the recordrd history of Euro-Asian
thought, and there are strong followers of either system who populate the
upper reaches of thought everywhere, in every religion and philosophy.
Actually, all extant Daoist writings postdate the arrival of Buddhism in
China, so the delimitation of pre-Buddhist Daoism is not easy. The Buddha,
after his awakening, does a thorough review of all options accessible to the
human mind, chooses those that harmonize with his a posteriori discoveries,
and uses pure reason merely as a means of organizing that knowledge with
coherence. The speculative thinkers however use pure reason as their light
and simply apply it to whatever content they run into. Between them, the two
systems of pure reason explain most of the recordrd thought on the
Euro-Asian land-mass, or at least that part of thought there that aspires to
systematicity (the tautology is intentional).
The Buddha says that he owes nothing to his Indian milieu, has no teacher,
criticizes major Indian religions (Brahmanism, Jainism) and schools of
thought (eel-wrigglerism, materialism, etc.) mercilessly, across the board,
but many of his followers revert en masse to Brahmanism, Jainism, animism,
etc., and adopt Indian and Iranian gods and goddesses en masse. As he says,
his Law goes against the stream. How prophetic!
Tang Huyen
Jigme Dorje
competent scholar of the New Testament, early Christianity, or Judaism in
the time of Jesus supports the fanciful speculations about Jesus' alleged
dependence on India for his ideas?
pietzsche>well, here's three more, just for the record ...Flinders Petrie in
1898 and HL Mansel 'Gnostic Heresies' in 1875 evidently the rediscovery of
Gnosticism and Buddhism by the west in the late 1800's caused a few to be
struck by the similarities, and start to dig deeper ...
Jigme>Gnosticism was a system of belifs that posited an androgenous god
called Abraxas engaged in a battle for control of earth. While the influence
on the development of the figure of Satan in Christianity is apparant,
similarities to Buddhism are not.
pie>authors also cite 'Buddha and Christ' by Zacharias Thundy 1993
(evidently he is a linguist who analyzed the linguistic metamorphosis of
Theravada to Theraputta/Therapeutae - he cites two other Indian words known
to have come into Greek that morphed phonemes in the same way)
Buddha and Christ : Nativity Stories and Indian Traditions
(Studies in the History of Religions,)
by Zacharias P. Thundy
Our Price: $100.50 (phew!!!!)
Reviews Book Description - Professor Thundy argues that many details of the
infancy gospels as well as the rest of the gospels can be clarified by the
Buddhist and Hindu scriptures. In this sense, the gospels are Eastern
religious texts. Buddha and Christ covers the following topics in order:
methodology of study, priority of Indian texts vis-a-vis Christian gospels,
parallels of the birth narratives of Buddha and Jesus, uniqueness of Indian
parallels, the Gnostic context of the Christian gospels, and contacts
between India and the West in antiquity.
Jigme>What some people won't do for money, eh? Let me leave you with this
thought: not only was Jesus not Buddha, but he wasn't even Christian; he
wasn't even Christ until, I believe 625 AD when a conference of bishops
assembled by the Roman emperor so decreed him. Many of the more credible
biblical scholars represent him more strictly as a simple Judaic apolyptic
preacher, foreboding the conflagration of Jeruselum and the arising of a
just kingdom of god on earth in its place. It is amazing how people can
twist historical facts in the most fanciful ways to suit their needy,
hungry, grasping selves, isn't it?
mu...@aol.com
> > One thing I would be interested in hearing is this: why does this
> > hypothesis appeal to people?
>
> imho it has great explanatory power. explains a lot about Jesus's teachings,
> his people's reactions to him when he was alive, and the later mythmaking
> by his followers.
Although I am not at all a scholar of early Christianity, I have found
the most powerful tools for explaining the teaching and conduct of Jesus
to be a greater familiarity with the rabbinical Judaism of his day.
There is no need to go more than a few kilometres outside Jerusalem to
find a precedent for everything that Jesus taught. Precedents for what
various Christians taught about the significance of the life and death
of Jesus may be found in Mithraism and other things that were part of
the mix of the Hellenistic world.
> > I guess what I'm really asking is whether this issue is purely one of
> > historical curiosity, other whether people have an emotional investment
> > in the outcome. If the latter, what is the nature of that emotional
> > investment?
>
> from the reactions to this and previous threads, it seems to me the emotional
> involvement is on the other side, wanting to keep Buddhism unsullied from any
> association with Christianity, since many western Buddhists hope to find a
> refuge from Christianity in Buddhism (IMHO of course).
I have never see this, but I have not followed many threads on this
topic (since, frankly, it the topic has never interested me very much).
What I have seen elsewhere, however, is that Buddhists tend to be very
eager to show that everything of value ultimately comes from Buddhism.
So what I see here is an attempt to diminish the importance of
rabbinical Judaism as a factor in the teachings of Jesus and to
attribute everything of value in him to an Aryan source. (The Nazis were
very big on this kind of thing back in the 1930s.)
Another group of people who have done a great deal to keep alive the
Jesus-in-India hypothesis are Hindu fundamentalists. One of the ways of
coping emotionally with the humiliation of conquest by European
Christians has been to show that everything good about European
civilisation was in fact all borrowed from India. (The evil aspects of
European civilisation, of course, are always seen as being of purely
European origin.)
> I was just now interested to read in Conze's book how it is apparently clear
> that Christianity got the halo symbol from Gandharan Buddhist/Hindu art.
> Plus the known etymology of St. Jehosaphat from 'Bodhisattva' already makes
> for a substantial amount of known cross-fertilization going on, imho.
Of course. No one has disputed that. Alexander the Great's conquests
brought the ancient worlds together to an extent they had never before
been together. Greeks went to India, and Indians went to Egypt. So there
is no denying that there was a general cross-fertilisation. That is
precisely what makes it so difficult to say with any certainty that a
given idea came from a given time and place. The genesis, growth and
dissemination of ideas is all but impossible to trace with any kind of
certainty. It is most conjectural. So to latch on to one conjecture and
to reject others usually involves some kind of emotional, rather than
purely intellectual, investment.
Mubul
JulianLZB87
piet...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7e12dm$649$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> "JulianLZB87" <julia...@clara.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> My favourite so far has been King Jesus by Robert Graves.
>
>i hadnt heard about this, but it does sound interesting.
>i will look for it for sure.
>
>i remember being impressed and surprised by Robert Graves introduction
>to his 'The Greek Myths', IIRC he made no bones about citing mushroom
>intoxication as the beginning of religion, eg the Vedic Soma. or maybe
>i confusing another book of his?
Not know at this address.
>
>anyway, i wonder if 'King Jesus' is along the lines of Kazantzakis'
>'The Last Temptation of Christ'?
>
Not know at this address.
>is Graves still alive?
I think he died late last year or earlier this.
I think I read some obits. recently.
David Yeung
> David Yeung wrote: <<Take the Buddha. He said some things that are awfully
> "Taoist" sounding, and which can't be found in the Vedas. Gosh, he must
> have visited China as a child and learnt it at the knee of Lao-Tzu. I don't
> mean to sound flippant, but with the amount of "speculation" you're allowing
> you can back up just about any hypothesis.>>
>
Tang Huyen wrote:
> Actually, all extant Daoist writings postdate the arrival of Buddhism in
> China, so the delimitation of pre-Buddhist Daoism is not easy. >
Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. ;)
--
David Yeung
piet...@my-dejanews.com
> In my opinion, these legends are around because people are
> emotionally inclined to believe in them.>>
emotions cut both ways.
one can be emotionally inclined to disregard the evidence as well.
imho, it is not a question of belief per se, there is enough circumstantial
evidence documented in Gruber and Kersten's book, and if you havent read it
your opinions are just that.
i do have several quibbles with the book, one is that they use
the word 'obviously' at least once on every page.
really hurts their argument ...
'it's folk stories all the way down!'
-aitken roshi
piet...@my-dejanews.com
>
> Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. ;)
and never let ignorance of a book or author
prevent firm and unshakeable opinions about the author and the thesis!
that is what scholarship is all about, nez pa?
piet...@my-dejanews.com
"Jigme Dorje" <R.S.@cwixmail.com> wrote:
> It is amazing how people can
> twist historical facts in the most fanciful ways to suit their needy,
> hungry, grasping selves, isn't it?
which historical facts would those be?
and which people did you have in mind?
are you referring to the original authors of the bible and the suttas?
if so, i would have to agree with you here.
anyway, have you actually read any of the books in question?
e.g. Gruber and Kersten, or Thundy or Mansel?
isnt it amazing how people form hard and fast opinions on
texts they have never seen?
piet...@my-dejanews.com
mu...@aol.com wrote:
> There is no need to go more than a few kilometres outside Jerusalem to
> find a precedent for everything that Jesus taught.
but this is exactly the question, you are jumping to the conclusion.
i would agree with you if you just did not categorically state 'everything'.
among other things the authors are claiming that Luke14:26 is UNPRECEDENTED
in Jesus' culture. So here is a specific counter example,
and everyone blithely ignores it. And no one has yet refuted it.
Granted, much else in Jesus' teachings are
derivative, but the exceptions like Luke 14:26 stick out like sore thumbs.
Of course, this may also be innovation on Jesus' part, I do not
discount that. Prior to reading this book, I thought it a pretty irrelevant
question, and recognized that teachings are perennial in the Huxleyan sense
for probably more Jungian reasons than for dissemination reasons.
After reading this book, i had changed my mind on this particular opinion.
> > > I guess what I'm really asking is whether this issue is purely one of
> > > historical curiosity, other whether people have an emotional investment
> > > in the outcome. If the latter, what is the nature of that emotional
> > > investment?
and anyway, so what? this is a red herring. astronomers have incredible
emotional investment in looking at the stars.
> > from the reactions to this and previous threads, it seems to me the
emotional
> > involvement is on the other side, wanting to keep Buddhism unsullied from
any
> > association with Christianity, since many western Buddhists hope to find a
> > refuge from Christianity in Buddhism (IMHO of course).
>
> I have never seen this,
no kidding? jeez, am i making this up?
>
> Another group of people who have done a great deal to keep alive the
> Jesus-in-India hypothesis are Hindu fundamentalists.
interesting, do you have any references?
> there is no denying that there was a general cross-fertilisation.
yep, and i had forgotten about the legend of the Magi that goes along
with the legend of the flight into Egypt. It is interesting this comes
from Matthew, who was precisely the one most concerned with Jesus' 'image'
among his fellow Jews. So if there were any embarassing stories about
Jesus circulating at the time, it makes sense that Matthew would be
anxious to address them in one way or another.
Matthew was just doing ye olde spin doctoring.
> That is
> precisely what makes it so difficult to say with any certainty that a
> given idea came from a given time and place. The genesis, growth and
> dissemination of ideas is all but impossible to trace with any kind of
> certainty. It is most conjectural.
but not purely. there is some history there. motive and opportunity
have been established by Gruber and Kersten imho. But granted, it is not
an airtight case, merely plausible.
My only point, which so far seems not to have penetrated
to any degree whatsoever, is that this hypothesis evidently cannot be
dismissed out of hand, as so many here are wont to do based on zero
familiarity. Even the self-proclaimed scholar among us, dismissed the
authors knowing zilch about them. Gives one great confidence in their
scholarship.
fwiw, I have found one glaring error in the author's book,
they cite the habits of the Therapeutae community, one of them being
'singing', and as you have pointed out in a previous discussion,
in the Vinaya Buddhists are explicitly prohibited from singing.
The authors did not notice this.
However the other habits of the Therapeutae sound quite Buddhist,
e.g. posessing only two robes, begging for food etc.
piet...@my-dejanews.com
ye...@cyberdude.com wrote:
> piet...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > anyway, i already cited the reference: 'The Original Jesus'
> > by Gruber and Kersten. They give all the Buddhist and Christian
> > scriptural citations for these claims. That is the one virtue of the
> > book imho, since its polemical nature does tend to detract from their
> > argument. i dont have it in front of me else i would copy their
> > citations.
>
> I've read the book as well,
great! at last!
> and in my opinion they twist quotes way out
> of context in order to "prove" their conclusion. I've also read "Jesus
> Lived in India" also by one of the authors, "Two Masters, One Message"
> by Roy C. Amore (whom they cite), and "A Search for the Historical
> Jesus" by Prof. Fida Hassnain (whom they also cite).
great! I am not familiar with any of these others, and appreciate the
references.
> My question to you is, have you actually checked those citations
> yourself, with a good concordance, etc.?
gawd no, give me a break, i have never claimed to be a scholar. :)
i am just a householder layman reading as much as i can in my part time.
> I read the book when I was
> still a (half-)Christian, and looking up all the references was part of
> what actually convinced me that Christianity and Buddhism were
> different.
yes, i agree there are deep and irreconcilable differences as these
religions are being expressed today, as well as in their basic doctrines.
> It also convinced me that many people will distort reality
> to see what they want to see, despite the evidence.
ok, did they misquote anything? do you have an example?
i thought they had got their sources right, it was just the imputation
of parallelism, i.e. lining up Christian quotes next to Buddhist quotes,
that I didnt find too convincing either. But there were no quotes
I remember that appeared to be 'doctored'.
> Roy C. Amore (incidentally, a Canadian) doesn't argue that Jesus was a
> Buddhist, but that there are Buddhist influences in early Christianity.
ok, i wouldnt argue that Jesus was a Buddhist per se either, as I suppose
the authors Gruber and Kersten do, i guess. It seems to me they make the
case that he had studied as a child something that derived closely from
Buddhist teachings, and wove a few of these Buddhist verse memories
into his extemporaneous sermons, but it seems to me his real
spiritual awakening did in fact occur with John the Baptist,
thought it may have been primed by his 'Buddhist' training/exposure.
in that sense his spiritual lineage is truly more Jewish perhaps,
owing to being truly initiated by John the Baptist. Yet his early
Buddhist exposure remained in his memory and conditioned some of his
teachings. (my own conjectures, of course)
> (As far as my memory serves me, anyways.) I'm read some other work by
> Amore (dealing with Buddhism) and I would say that he's a credible
> scholar. What's is interesting is that Fida Hassnain (a Sufi Muslim)
> uses the same quotations as Gruber and Kerstein, to prove his hypothesis
> that Jesus was a Muslim!
hehe, no kidding!
talk about perennialism!
now, how does this make sense when Mohammed was some several hundred
years after Jesus? I wonder how they skirt around that?
> I think that Gruber, Kerstein, and Hassnain
> all have very poor (mis)understandings of Buddhism, and are reading
> heavily back into their quotes to "prove" what they already believe.
yes, they are definitely polemical.
i see the word 'obviously' used on every page almost.
they are really trying way too hard to convince the reader.
but they have done a good job in assembling all the 'evidence' imho.
> Gruber and Kerstein's description of the "Buddhist Trinity" of Amitabha,
> Avalokiteshvara, and Shakyamuni is completely erroneous.
i dont remember this part, i will look for it.
>
> > No one yet has pointed out to me
> > a Jewish parallel teaching (to Luke 14:26).
>
> Check Deuteronomy. I also saw a post where someone actually posted the
> reference. If not, I am sure I can look it up. (Catholic schooling
> hasn't lost its effect on me yet! :) )
ok, i will look, thanks!
> > ergo, Jesus's teachings are not
> > entirely derivative and non-innovative, imho.
>
> Does one quote that can't be found in one's cultural background
> automatically mean that a person's been heavily influenced by another
> culture? I'm sure you can pick just about anybody who's famous and find
> something that he/she said that can't be found in his/her cultural
> background.
yes, but i didnt want to cite all the specifics of the book,
i was just using this one quote as an example, which struck me
as a pretty good one.
> Take the Buddha. He said some things that are awfully
> "Taoist" sounding, and which can't be found in the Vedas. Gosh, he must
> have visited China as a child and learnt it at the knee of Lao-Tzu. I
> don't mean to sound flippant, but with the amount of "speculation"
> you're allowing you can back up just about any hypothesis.
i do allow for the Jungian/Huxleyan concept of perennial teachings
popping up spontaneously by themselves over and over, too.
it's just that i happened to be ~80% convinced by the authors, in spite
of their flaws, that there is something there in this particular case,
worth considering.
anyway, thanks for the reply, and good luck on exams!
cheers
piet...@my-dejanews.com
easy to criticize.
This is the author's list of the daily habits of the supposedly
Buddhist Therapeutae community, quoted from Philo (who of course did not
suppose these were any other but pious Jews)
Question - how many of these are consistent behaviors for Buddhists?
(the authors claim, i think, that they all are, but there is at least one
that i know is not)
I would guess that ~7/11 of the below traits are definitely Buddhist. But the
real question is, of those 7 or so, how many are definitely NOT Jewish?
(my own comments are in[] )
quote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Therapeutae were a religious brotherhood which had settled on the low
hills in the area south of Alexandria near Lake Mareotis. They led a
reclusive existence, completely devoted to their religious practices and
studies. It seems as if they were restricted to this region. Philo reported:
l. There were male and female Therapeutae.
[consistent with a lot of traditions, i would imagine, not only Buddhist]
2. They laid aside all worldly goods, leaving their houses, brothers,
children, wives, parents, relatives and friends.
[consistent with a lot of traditions, i would imagine, not only Buddhist,
but quite inconsistent with Jewish traditions, afaik]
3. They lived away from towns in gardens, villages and remote areas, where
they sought solitude - not because they hated humanity but so as to avoid
people of a different kind, not mixing with them.
[consistent with a lot of traditions, i would imagine, not only Buddhist]
4. Their houses were built in an extremely modest and penurious way,
concerned with only two necessities: protection from the sun's heat in the
summer and from cold air in the winter.
[consistent with a lot of traditions, i would imagine, not only Buddhist]
5. In their huts everyone had a small sacred space, known as Semneum or
Monasterium.
6. They prayed twice a day, morning and evening, at sunrise and sunset.
[consistent, IIRC]
7. They possessed old sacred writings on which they meditated a great deal.
(Philo assumed that this involved works ascribed to Enoch and Abraham, who
were viewed as prototypes of ascetics and hermits.) Their studies led them to
compose songs and hymns.
[aha! IIRC, the Vinaya prohibits singing! a clear contradiction? or perhaps
Philo heard chanting as singing?]
8. On the seventh day they met together, ranked in accordance with the length
of time they had spent in the community (rather than on the basis of their
age). They ate only bread and drank only water. The oldest member of the
order held a discourse. Men and women were separated by a high wall.
[very consistent, IIRC, but how different is this from known Jewish custom?
not sure.]
9. They only owned two robes, and constantly practised modesty.
[IIRC the Vinaya allows for three robes ???, but this might be a quibble,
as any specific restriction on # of robes at all is significant perhaps,
and is definitely in the Buddhist Vinaya]
10. They had no servants because for them all were equal from birth onwards.
At assemblies novices served those who had belonged to the order for a long
time.
[servants are quite common in the Old Testament]
11. They were vegetarians, believing that the highest degree of saintliness
could only be attained by rejecting all flesh.
[not sure if vegetarianism is unknown in Jewish culture?]
If it were not known that Philo was writing about the Therapeutae, one would
have to believe this was a description of the life led by Buddhist monks. All
the points presented are absolutely characteristic of Buddhist communities.
Or did Philo really encounter in the Therapeutae the heirs of Asoka's
missionaries?
[sounds like a script for a leonard nimoy ufo TV special, eh?]
[note also the author's polemical certitude: '*all* ... *absolutely*']
end quote>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
piet...@my-dejanews.com
ye...@cyberdude.com wrote:
>
> piet...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > btw, I just read in Conze's book that the Christian halo/nimbus symbol was
> > borrowed from Buddhist/Hindu Gandharan art around 400AD. heh, talk
> > about Indian 'influence'! not to mention that Shakyamuni is an authentic
> > recognized Christian Saint (Jehosaphat from 'Bodhisatt') :)
>
> The Christian rosary also seems to be adapted from the Buddhist version,
> but then the Buddhist rosary was a form of the necklaces which Hindu
> brahmins wore.
A Catholic posted here last year an interesting tidbit claiming that
the rosaries even have the same number (108) of beads! Though some
Catholic rosaries have 54 evidently. I have not yet counted a Catholic
rosary myself though. Coincidence? (twilight zone music here... :)
> But then everyone
> influenced everyone else. However, I consider the claim that "Jesus was
> a Buddhist/was heavily influenced by Buddhism" to be untrue, simply
> because most of what he taught is traceable to his immediate
> surroundings.
but this is the point of 'The Original Jesus' to demonstrate some
teachings such as Luke 14:26 which are NOT traceable.
>The Kingdom of God,
yes, BUT 'The Kingdom of God is within you' and 'I and my Father are One'?
I think not.
> a succession of anointed prophets, a
> chosen people...? None of these are Buddhist ideas.
granted, not to mention the whole 'Abba'/Father concept which clearly seems
to be a definite un-Buddhistic trait of Jesus. Not sure if
Gruber+Kersten talk about this.
> Britain in one of Origen's writings (which greatly surprised me). The
> Buddhist communities were likely to be comprised of Indian merchants and
> immigrants, confined to what we would probably call "Little India".
> Buddhism as a unit did not seem to have penetrated into the general
> population.
yes, Philo evidently described the community as quite insular.
> That being said, it's possible that certain Buddhist ideas or practices
> had an influence on the surrounding culture. That's just how cultures
> work. Monasticism may or may not have been brought to the West by
> Indians. But that doesn't constitute an acceptance of Buddhism on the
> part of the population.
agreed, the authors are not claiming this either iirc.
>
> It's one thing to say that India has had an influence on
> Western/Christian religious thinking (which it has),
i think their long (100page) chapter on 'India and the West' is one of
the best things about the book, lots of good background history on Asoka
and the trading going on those days.
> and another to say
> that Jesus was (primarily) Buddhist (as evidence suggests otherwise).
the authors do in fact claim he was primarily Buddhist, but i too would
disagree with them here, just based on my fallible intuition,
it seems likely to me he acquired a few Buddhist verses in memory,
perhaps some meditation practice, then went back home and wasnt fully
'awakened' until encountering John the Baptist.
> > perhaps, or, it could as easily occur to someone when
> > they encounter the parallel stories, such as the prodigal son,
>
> The Buddhist version of the Prodigal Son (found in the Lotus Sutra) is
> VERY different from the Christian one.
really? i just reread it the other day. and i would hardly say they are
'VERY' different. i for one am struck by the similarities not the
differences.
> Furthermore:
> - The Lotus wasn't composed until AFTER the existence of Christianity.
yes, i forget why the authors bring this up given the date discrepancies?
will have to check on this.
> - In almost all cultures the supreme being (God or Buddha) is depicted
> as a Heavenly Father whose love for his children are misunderstand and
> often rejected. The psychological motivation behind this is obvious.
actually, isnt this uniquely Mahayanist? Does a similar story exist
in the Pali canon?
> A much better example is the story of The Widow's Mite. The details of
> the story are similar down to the widow's "two coins". However, this
> doesn't suggest an acceptance of Buddhism/Indian ideas as much as
> cultural borrowing, as I have demonstrated with the pen-twirling example
> above. Assuming the story originated in India (it was attributed to the
> Buddha), it's possible that Greek or Hebrews adapted the story to their
> own background, perhaps adding it to their own oral tradition. Later,
> when Christians chroniclers were looking for "wise stories" to attribute
> to their founder, they wrote the story down as if Jesus had originated
> it.
is this story one the Jesus Seminar would say is not attributable to Jesus?
anyway, either way it is interesting that Buddhist influence is clear in
this example. Do Gruber+Kersten mention this one? I cant remember.
piet...@my-dejanews.com
>
> David Yeung wrote: <<In my opinion, these legends are around
> because people are emotionally inclined to believe in them.>>
> Tang Huyen
ok, so what emotionally based fabrications have we got so far? let me see:
1. Buddhist missionaries were very likely present in Egypt during Jesus's
time 2. Philo's lifestyle description of the Therapeutae lists perhaps 7
traits out of 11 that are definitely Buddhist 3. Christians definitely
borrowed halo imagery from India 4. Christians definitely borrowed rosary
from India, (they both have same # of beads) 5. Christians definitely made
Buddha a Christian saint with the name Jehosaphat 6. there definitely is a
temple still extant in India attributed to St. Thomas 7. at least two
parables have close analogues: Prodigal Son and Widow's Mite 8. Christian
legend of flight to Egypt and 'adoration' of the 'Magi' could easily be
morphed memories of Jesus's traveling to Egypt and encountering instruction
by 'wise teachers from the east'
ki...@worldnet.att.net
if memory serves.
Kirt
"Jigme Dorje" <R.S.@cwixmail.com> wrote:
> not only was Jesus not Buddha, but he wasn't even Christian; he
> wasn't even Christ until, I believe 625 AD when a conference of bishops
> assembled by the Roman emperor so decreed him.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Tang Huyen
have found the most powerful tools for explaining the teaching and conduct of Jesus
need to go more than a few kilometres outside Jerusalem to find a precedent for
the significance of the life and death of Jesus may be found in Mithraism and other
things that were part of the mix of the Hellenistic world.>>
[snip] <<Of course. No one has disputed that. Alexander the Great's conquests
brought the ancient worlds together to an extent they had never before been
together. Greeks went to India, and Indians went to Egypt. So there is no denying
that there was a general cross-fertilisation. That is precisely what makes it so
difficult to say with any certainty that a given idea came from a given time and
place. The genesis, growth and dissemination of ideas is all but impossible to
trace with any kind of certainty. It is most conjectural. So to latch on to one
conjecture and to reject others usually involves some kind of emotional, rather
than purely intellectual, investment.>>
Within a century of the Buddha, two Greek schools, Stoicism and Epicureanism, came
pretty close to many of his teachings. In India, Greece, Mesopotamia, China, people
reasoned in pure reason, whereas in ancient Israel, the myth-makers never came
anywhere close. Since Hegel, it has been accepted that Jewish mythology restricted
itself to the imagination and hardly lifted itself to the understanding, much less
reason. That is why all the major figures of theology of religion of the Book
turned their nose on Jewish mythology and turned instead to Greek reason for
intellectual redemption.
Even in the short and turbulent life of Christ, there was very probably some
influence of Cynicism, but it was diffuse and very hard to pinpoint, precisely
because Cynicism taught a hippie-like manner of living and not abstract doctrine.
If there had been any influence from India, whether Brahmanism or Buddhism or
anything else, it would have been at the level of bits at most, as Christ -- or his
redactors -- went along with Jewish mythology in being innocent of reason. And bits
wouldn't count -- they could have arisen from the heady mix of culture of the Near
East, where Stoicism (which was close to Buddhism in many ways) had definite
presence. Only a system of pure reason could have counted, but Jewish myth-makers
were precisely innocent of suchlike villainies.
The first Greek philosopher in whom some definite Indian influence could be
suspected was Plotinus, with his disciple Porphyry, as Porphyry told of Plotinus'
meeting with Indian sages probably in Iran (like Pyrrhon the Sceptic, Plotinus went
to the Middle East on a Greek military expedition, and both met Oriental sages),
and I have traced many striking parallels between Plotinus and Buddhism. Porphyry
showed many striking similarities with Brahmanism, and together teacher and
disciple were major theologians of the religions of the Book, up there with Plato
and Aristotle, though they themselves were anti-Christian pagans, as all major
figures of theology of religion of the Book turned to them for their highest God.
In front of them, any previous Indian influence, real or imagined, on the Near East
and Greece paled in significance.
Tang Huyen
David Yeung
> A Catholic posted here last year an interesting tidbit claiming that
> the rosaries even have the same number (108) of beads! Though some
> Catholic rosaries have 54 evidently. I have not yet counted a Catholic
> rosary myself though. Coincidence? (twilight zone music here... :)
I'm quite certain that the Catholic rosary was adapted from Buddhism.
The Muslims also have a rosary, but with 99 beads (for the 99 names of
God), which they adapted from the Christians. But what does this prove,
other than that certain cultural elements are passed from culture to
culture without necessarily acknowledging that borrowing has taken
place? The same is true of stories, parables, birth stories, etc.
> but this is the point of 'The Original Jesus' to demonstrate some
> teachings such as Luke 14:26 which are NOT traceable.
The passage IS traceable. The Biblical precedents were listed in
another post by Phra Dhammanando Bhikkhu. The idea that one must love
God (or the king) more than one's family and friends pops up whenever
the priests or royalty want to incite fierce loyalty, such as in times
of war or persecution. It isn't a new idea. It makes a lot of sense in
the context of early Christianity, since the early Christians were
converts from Judaism or Roman paganism. Many of these conversions were
likely to have been opposed by family. The leaders of the early
community needed to re-assure the believers that they were making the
right choice. Many of the statements found in earlier manuscripts
morphed under these conditions. For instance, "Those who are not
against me are with me" was changed into "Those who are not with me are
against me." (A subtle change of words, with a profound difference.)
The passage you cite can be entirely explained in terms of the
conditions under which the early Christian writings took shape.
> >The Kingdom of God,
> yes, BUT 'The Kingdom of God is within you' and 'I and my Father are One'?
> I think not.
Have you read anything by the contemporaries of Jesus (Jewish or
otherwise)? There were sects of Judaism which were heavily influenced
by paganism and Roman mystery religions. Those statements are directly
traceable to those surroundings. They aren't traceable to Buddhism.
> > Buddhist communities were likely to be comprised of Indian merchants and
> > immigrants, confined to what we would probably call "Little India".
> > Buddhism as a unit did not seem to have penetrated into the general
> > population.
>
> yes, Philo evidently described the community as quite insular.
He also said that they were Jewish. If they had been Indian, he'd have
called them Indian. It's possible that monasticism was appropriated by
Roman religion separate from Buddhism (or Hinduism for that matter).
Like the borrowing of the rosary, the borrowing of monasticism would not
have indicated an acceptance of Buddhism.
> > That being said, it's possible that certain Buddhist ideas or practices
> > had an influence on the surrounding culture. That's just how cultures
> > work. Monasticism may or may not have been brought to the West by
> > Indians. But that doesn't constitute an acceptance of Buddhism on the
> > part of the population.
>
> agreed, the authors are not claiming this either iirc.
They claim that the Essenes and Therapeutae were Buddhists, and that
Jesus trained under them.
> > It's one thing to say that India has had an influence on
> > Western/Christian religious thinking (which it has),
> i think their long (100page) chapter on 'India and the West' is one of
>
> the best things about the book, lots of good background history on Asoka
> and the trading going on those days.
But the leap they make from the facts to their theory defies logic.
> > and another to say
> > that Jesus was (primarily) Buddhist (as evidence suggests otherwise).
>
> the authors do in fact claim he was primarily Buddhist, but i too would
> disagree with them here, just based on my fallible intuition,
> it seems likely to me he acquired a few Buddhist verses in memory,
And this is where I disagree with you. There just isn't any evidence
that Buddhism survived intact as a tradition which Jesus came into
contact with. Bits and pieces of Buddhism, i.e. parables and birth
legends, may have been known to the early Christians, but these would
have been part of a common pagan background. If Jesus had learned
stories or parables which were originally Indian or Buddhist, they would
have already been adapted to Judaism or Roman paganism by the time he
came into contact with it.
It's possible that Judaism had already adapted some Indian ideas by the
time of Jesus. For instance, in more mystical forms of Judaism is found
the concept of 'gilgul' or reincarnation. In the Jewish version, God
had created a limited number of Jewish souls who were to be reborn until
judgment day. If the concept was borrowed from Indian sources, it was
fully assimilated into Judaism without any hint that it was ever Indian.
It's possible that Jesus learned Jewish ideas which were originally
Indian. If he did, they had already become "Jewish" ideas. All
cultures absorb elements of other cultures. What is more probable is
that his disciples, wishing to gather the words of their founder,
included a great deal of material that is foreign. If there are
similarities between Christian and Buddhist mythology, it is because
both religions assimilated a great deal of pagan elements. Both, for
instance, absorbed many elements of Mithraism.
> perhaps some meditation practice, then went back home and wasnt fully
What evidence is there that he ever learned meditation? In every
instance he is said to have "prayed", and clearly to a father-figure in
heaven.
> 'awakened' until encountering John the Baptist.
It isn't clear that the story of John recognizing Jesus as the Messiah
is even true. What seems to have happened is that the Christians, in
order to lend support to their beliefs, put the words on the mouth of
someone whom a lot of people respected. Later, stories grew up around
the tradition that John had recognized Jesus as the Messiah. This
happened in stages and is still discernible from the Bible. Isn't it
strange that in some passages John is certain that Jesus is the Messiah
(in one version of the baptism at the Jordan), while in other he doesn't
know? As time passed the story developed, and the different versions
were compiled together into the story we have today.
Another example of this is the forged Josephus documents. Josephus was
a Jew, and his name lent credibility to the Christian cause. The same
may be said of John the Baptist.
> > The Buddhist version of the Prodigal Son (found in the Lotus Sutra) is
> > VERY different from the Christian one.
>
> really? i just reread it the other day. and i would hardly say they are
> 'VERY' different. i for one am struck by the similarities not the
> differences.
The commonalities are universal themes which can arise quite
independently. The differences are not.
(I think "The Buddhist Tradition" by William Theodore de Bary discusses
this, but I can't seem to find the page in the book... hmmm, maybe I'm
remembering the wrong book.)
> > Furthermore:
> > - The Lotus wasn't composed until AFTER the existence of Christianity.
>
> yes, i forget why the authors bring this up given the date discrepancies?
> will have to check on this.
>
> > - In almost all cultures the supreme being (God or Buddha) is depicted
> > as a Heavenly Father whose love for his children are misunderstand and
> > often rejected. The psychological motivation behind this is obvious.
>
> actually, isnt this uniquely Mahayanist? Does a similar story exist
> in the Pali canon?
It is not uniquely Buddhist. The theme was certainly known in
Brahmanism, as well as in Roman and Iranian religions. The theme of the
prodigal son can very well develop independently in separate cultures.
Even if the father-figure image of the Buddha wasn't sanctioned by
Buddhist orthodoxy, that was most probably how the populace viewed him.
> > A much better example is the story of The Widow's Mite. The details of
> > the story are similar down to the widow's "two coins". However, this
> > doesn't suggest an acceptance of Buddhism/Indian ideas as much as
> > cultural borrowing, as I have demonstrated with the pen-twirling example
> > above. Assuming the story originated in India (it was attributed to the
> > Buddha), it's possible that Greek or Hebrews adapted the story to their
> > own background, perhaps adding it to their own oral tradition. Later,
> > when Christians chroniclers were looking for "wise stories" to attribute
> > to their founder, they wrote the story down as if Jesus had originated
> > it.
>
> is this story one the Jesus Seminar would say is not attributable to Jesus?
I don't know.
> anyway, either way it is interesting that Buddhist influence is clear in
> this example.
Yes, but again, the influence (if it existed) would have been indirect.
The compilers of the gospels would have had no idea that it was an
Indian story. Such stories pass by word-of-mouth through the trade
routes, and if it was indeed the prototype for the Christian version,
the Christians would not have seen it as a "Buddhist" source. This
lends no support to the hypothesis that Jesus was influenced by Buddhist
ideas.
> Do Gruber+Kersten mention this one? I cant remember.
Yes, they do.
...
(I'm answering another post here to save t.r.b readers who aren't
interested in the subject the trouble of skipping it. :) )
> and never let ignorance of a book or author
> prevent firm and unshakeable opinions about the author and the thesis!
As a matter of fact, my opinions about the thesis are neither firm nor
unshakeable. When I was a Christian interested in Buddhism, I used to
believe that there are Buddhist influences on early Christianity. In a
way I still believe that -- except now I consider the hypothesis of a
direct influence (i.e. Jesus having been a Buddhist) to be discounted by
the evidence. There are clearly Indian influences on the Bible and
early Christianity, but these influences are due to a process of
cultural osmosis rather than direct borrowing. During my study of
Buddhism (which continues even today) I read many books on the subject
of Buddhist influences on Christianity, including those by the authors
you mention. I started out believing that there was a direct influence,
and it was AFTER reading "Jesus Lived in India" and looking up its
citations, etc., that convinced me otherwise.
I do not have a problem with the facts listed about the
arrival of Buddhist missionaries, etc., as these events are documented
by, amongst other things, the Ashokan rock edicts. But it is a huge
leap to go from the available evidence to the conclusion which the
authors present.
The similarity of the Jesus and Buddha narratives are not surprising,
and don't need to be taken as indication that (i) Jesus was influenced
by Buddhism or (ii) the Christian evangelists pilfered Buddhist
writings. The concept of a saviour-god-descending-to-earth is one which
was quite popular in ancient India and in the Roman empire, and sources
for such stories were readily available. Many of these stories are
archetypal and it is possible that they even arose independently. For
example, the stories of Asita and Simeon, the old man who dies before
seeing the new-born babe become the Buddha or the Messiah, are cited by
the authors. However, the story of an old man passing the torch onto
the young is a common theme in many cultures, and there needn't be a
dependence. The same is true for Mother-worship cults. The similarity
of Maya to Mary can be explained not by borrowing but by the adaption of
the new religion to existing local cults. Similarly for the temptation
stories. In each case, the hero overcomes the temptation of the
adversary or evil one, whose role it is to detract the hero from
fulfilling his destiny.
Every single parallel between Buddhist and Christian stories can be
explained in terms of both groups borrowing from the prevailing "pagan"
culture which had virgin-born saviours and ascending/descending gods.
Even tales which are likely to be related, are unlikely to be direct
borrowing. The stories of walking on water, the multiplication of food,
the blind leading the blind, and the widow's mite are some examples.
They are probably free-floating stories which became attached to both
teachers. The same is true of the "preaching in the cradle" story,
which is found in the Qur'an and at least one apocryphal gospel (I
forget which, I think it was Infancy Thomas), but which isn't in the
canonical Bible.
The authors take quotes out of context to justify their position. The
Buddhist quotes are translated to appear similar to the Christian
"parallel". In fact, the Buddhist quotes given as "parallels" say quite
different things than what the authors wish them to say. One cannot
draw parallels to the "kingdom of God", "children of God", "God's will",
etc. -- all concepts found in the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem -- in
the Buddhist texts without contorting them beyond recognition. To
further draw out the "similarities", the authors use their own
translation of the Bible ("Jesus-Evangelium") which no one else uses.
For example, the authors compare the metaphor found in the Dhammapada of
a badly-thatched hut which could not keep out the rain, which symbolizes
the untrained mind, to Jesus' parable about the house built on rock,
which is not washed away by the rain. It is evident that the stories
are completely different. All the "parallels" offered by the authors
are of this nature. The Buddhist "Trinity", as explained, would not be
recognizable by most practising Buddhists. Besides which, similarities
between Buddhist and Christian trinities should not be surprising, since
both religions absorbed a great deal of Iranian religion. (Right, Tang?
:) )
--
David Yeung
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
piet...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
...
Wow Pietzsche! The truth is that Jesus was not influenced by
the Buddha, but rather by Elvis! Look at the similarity of
the sayings and life of Jesus and of Elvis for yourself and
tell me this isn't the most cosmic synchronicity of all time!
--Dharmakaya Trollpa
==========================================================
Jesus said: "Love thy neighbor." (Matthew 22:39)
Elvis said: "Don't be cruel." (RCA, 1956)
Jesus is the Lord's shepherd.
Elvis dated Cybill Shepherd.
Jesus was part of the Trinity.
Elvis' first band was a trio.
Jesus walked on water. (Matthew 14:25)
Elvis surfed. (Blue Hawaii, Paramount, 1965)
Jesus' entourage, the Apostles, had 12 members.
Elvis' entourage, the Memphis Mafia, had 12 members.
Jesus was resurrected.
Elvis had the famous 1968 "comeback" TV special.
Jesus said, "If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink." (John 7:37)
Elvis said, "Drinks on me!" (Jailhouse Rock, MGM, 1957)
Jesus fasted for 40 days and nights.
Elvis had irregular eating habits. (e.g. 5 banana splits for breakfast)
Jesus is a Capricorn. (December 25)
Elvis is a Capricorn. (January 8)
Matthew was one of Jesus' many biographers. (The Gospel According to Matthew)
Neil Matthews was one of Elvis' many biographers. (Elvis: A Golden Tribute)
"[Jesus] countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow."
(Matthew 28:3)
Elvis wore snow-white jumpsuits with lightning bolts.
Jesus lived in state of grace in a Near Eastern land.
Elvis lived in Graceland in a nearly eastern state.
Mary, an important woman in Jesus' life, had an Immaculate Conception.
Priscilla, an important woman in Elvis' life, went to Immaculate
Conception High School.
Jesus was first and foremost the Son of God.
Elvis first recorded with Sun Studios, which today are still considered
to be his foremost recordings.
Jesus was the lamb of God.
Elvis had mutton chop sideburns.
Jesus' Father is everywhere.
Elvis' father was a drifter, and moved around quite a bit.
Jesus was a carpenter.
Elvis' favorite high school class was wood shop.
Jesus wore a crown of thorns.
Elvis wore Royal Crown hair styler.
Jesus H. Christ has 12 letters.
Elvis Presley has 12 letters.
No one knows what the "H" in "Jesus H. Christ" stood for.
No one was really sure if Elvis' middle name was "Aron" or "Aaron".
Jesus is often depicted in pictures with a halo that looks like a gold plate.
Elvis' face is often depicted on a plate with gold trim and sold through TV.
Jesus said: "Man shall not live by bread alone."
Elvis liked his sandwiches with peanut butter and bananas.
Tang Huyen
David Yeung wrote: <<Besides which, similarities between Buddhist and Christian
trinities should not be surprising, since both religions absorbed a great deal of
Iranian religion. (Right, Tang?:) )>>
David,
Actually, that would come at a later stage, at least starting at about two
centuries after the Buddha.
It has been a well-kept secret, but Paul Mus, Barabudur. Esquisse d’une histoire
du Bouddhisme fondée sur la critique archéologique dex textes, Hanoi: École
Française d’Extrême-Orient, 1935, 2 vols., repr. New York: Arno Press, 1978 (in
one volume), Paris: Arma Artis, 1990 has enunciated a very penetrating thesis
(that even his own disciples, like Ruegg and Gomez have not dared to take up,
perhaps have not even understood), to the effect that Mesopotamia is the origin
of much of the world's civilization in general and of the world's religions and
philosophies in particular.
I do not know if you have read the book, but it undergirds and sustains much of
what I have to say (though I disagree much with it, especially with its author's
Eurocentric bias). The Mesopotamians fall into the category of genius (really and
truly): they are so brilliant that nobody understands them. Some German
philosophers are supposed to say about themselves that they are born a few
hundred years too early (scholars keep mentioning that, but I have never been
able to trace a direct source), but the Mesopotamians are in a much worse
predicament: they arise about ten millennia too early. They invent the swastika
and truckloads of other things and ideas. Jewish myth-makers borrow much from
them, without understanding much of anything, for instance, the story of Genesis
where Adam does not know good and evil.
One very probable source for the last member of the Christian trinity, namely the
Holy Spirit, is of course Stoicism, with its pneuma "breath", which however is
material! (Many Indo-European words meaning soul or spirit come back to breath).
But the Jewish diaspora in Alexandria has already absorbed it into the late parts
of the Old Testament, and from there it goes into Christianity and grows in
importance. Now somebody will jump in and say that since Buddhists cultivate
various doings with breath, like counting or being mindful of, Jews and
Christians must have borrowed it from them!
Tang Huyen
Jigme Dorje
emotionally inclined to believe in them.
Tang> Amen.
pie>ok, so what emotionally based fabrications have we got so far? let me
see:
1. Buddhist missionaries were very likely present in Egypt during Jesus's
time 2. Philo's lifestyle description of the Therapeutae lists perhaps 7
traits out of 11 that are definitely Buddhist 3. Christians definitely
borrowed halo imagery from India 4. Christians definitely borrowed rosary
from India, (they both have same # of beads) 5. Christians definitely made
Buddha a Christian saint with the name Jehosaphat 6. there definitely is a
temple still extant in India attributed to St. Thomas 7. at least two
parables have close analogues: Prodigal Son and Widow's Mite 8. Christian
legend of flight to Egypt and 'adoration' of the 'Magi' could easily be
morphed memories of Jesus's traveling to Egypt and encountering instruction
by 'wise teachers from the east'
Jigme>As Mubul has already pointed out, the rich cultural cross influences
of the time preclude us from proving the specific origins of a given idea
with any degree of certainty. I think he put a nice close to this issue in
writing that "The genesis, growth and dissemination of ideas is all but
impossible to trace with any kind of certainty. It is most conjectural. So
to latch on to one conjecture and to reject others usually involves some
kind of emotional, rather than purely intellectual, investment." Why
belabor the point?
David Yeung
I'm going to throw in a bunch of Biblical quotes here, so before I get
snagged for being off-topic, let me state that my purpose is to debunk
the (apparently common) myth that Jesus was influenced by Buddhist
ideas.
Phra Dhammanando Bhikkhu wrote:
> <piet...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> > you still havent shown where Luke 14:26 comes from, afaik :)
> Try Deuteronomy 33:9.
Another place to try is the verses immediately surrounding Luke 14:26
and Matt 10:37.
Luke 14:15 - a parable about how a rich man invited many people to
supper, but they made excuses, and so those who were not invited ended
up going instead.
Luke 14:25 - the passage about abandoning family which you cited.
Luke 14:28 - a parable about putting all your resources/efforts into one
place.
Luke 14:31 - a parable about considering which of two alternatives is
worth more in a decision.
Luke 14:34 - about salt losing its saltiness.
Matt 10:16 - going forth as sheep amongst wolves.
Matt 10:21 - brothers, parents, children will put each other to death.
Matt 10:26 - don't be afraid of those who kill the body but not the
soul.
Matt 10:32 - whoever confesses Jesus, he'll confess before his Father.
Matt 10:34 - Jesus didn't come to bring peace but a sword.
Matt 10:37 - the passage you cite about abandoning family.
Matt 10:40 - he that receives you receives me.
Comment:
If you the read Luke 14:26 and Matt 10:37 passages in context, it is
evident how they arose and what their purpose it. The early Christian
community were being persecuted, including by members of their own
family. Luke ch 14 and Matt ch 10 were written to give encouragement to
Christian converts that they were making the right choice (to leave
their family for the family of God, so to speak). The parables about
uninvited guests and the like were clearly directed at Jewish converts
(the Jews being the former "chosen people" and the Christians being the
new ones, in Christian belief). The "salt losing its saltiness" was a
warning to lapsed Christians (it's still being used to beat "lukewarm"
Christians with in sermons even today). The passages taken in context
are more or less telling Christians that in abandoning family for Jesus,
they are making the right choice. The passages which you cited are
smack dab in the middle of verses dealing with this theme. There is no
reason to believe that "abandoning family" here has anything to do with
monasticism or Buddhist ideas.
--
David Yeung
David Yeung
> > and in my opinion they twist quotes way out
> > of context in order to "prove" their conclusion. I've also read "Jesus
> > Lived in India" also by one of the authors, "Two Masters, One Message"
> > by Roy C. Amore (whom they cite), and "A Search for the Historical
> > Jesus" by Prof. Fida Hassnain (whom they also cite).
>
> great! I am not familiar with any of these others, and appreciate the
> references.
I went back to my bookshelf and scanned Amore and Hassnain. Amore's
book is quite scholarly. He outlines the evidence concerning Buddhist
influence on Christianity and weighs 3 hypotheses: (i) pre-Jesus
influence, (ii) influence through Jesus, and (iii) post-Jesus
influence. Hypothesis (iii) seems the most likely given the evidence
which he listed. In chapter 3, "The Question of Borrowing", Amore lists
some early researchers in that area and analyze their thinking, in
particularly pointing out their errors. (Early scholars made many
assumptions which later research proved were wrong, i.e. dates of
texts.) He cites examples where both Christianity and Buddhism were
influenced by common "pagan" elements, and also Zoroastrianism. He
seems to lean towards the conclusion that Christianity was influenced by
Buddhism.
His critique of option (ii) reads in part:
"The principle weakness of the argument that the influence came through
Jesus himself is that it does not explain the Buddhistic nature of the
stories told in Luke 2 about the birth and infancy of Jesus. Jesus
never mentions these events himself, and Luke and Matthew do not claim
to derive the infancy narratives from Jesus himself. This is to say, if
we accept the usual scholarly opinion that the infancy narratives are a
product of the early Christians and if we assume Buddhist influence upon
these infancy narratives, then at least <i>part of the Buddhist
influence is after Jesus</i>. This makes it tempting to see the whole
of the borrowing as an activity of the early Christian church. In
reaching out for additional information about the birth, infancy, and
teachings of their master, early Christians reached too far and
unknowingly incorporated into their records infancy narratives and
groups of sayings modeled as much after an Eastern master as after their
cherished Messiah." p 116 "Two Masters, One Message" Roy C. Amore
(italics are his).
Since Buddhist parallels are found not only in Jesus' teachings but in
the surrounding narrative, it is much more likely that the early
Christian compilers included a great deal of foreign material than that
Jesus himself ever taught anything Buddhist.
> > It also convinced me that many people will distort reality
> > to see what they want to see, despite the evidence.
>
> ok, did they misquote anything? do you have an example?
The Luke 14:26 quote is a pretty good example. (I don't remember that
they mentioned this, maybe because it didn't make much of an impresson
on me.) Looking at the surrounding context it is clear that it had
nothing to do with monasticism, and it's easily traceable to ideas which
were around at that time. Another one is the thatched roof rainy hut
from the Dhammapada. It has nothing in common with the house built on
rock which isn't washed away by rain. The metaphors aren't even the
same: the Buddhist one is about training the mind, and the Christian one
is about having firm faith in Jesus.
> i thought they had got their sources right, it was just the imputation
> of parallelism, i.e. lining up Christian quotes next to Buddhist quotes,
> that I didnt find too convincing either. But there were no quotes
> I remember that appeared to be 'doctored'.
They used their own translation of the Bible. The quotes are taken out
of context, and it's interesting to see the surrounding context of the
passages which they quote. There are factual similarities, such as the
walking on water, multiplying of food, etc. but these stories are to be
found in almost all god-incarnate type stories in the ancient world. In
that sense, Jesus and Buddha have as much in common with each other as
they do with Hercules or Apollo.
> ok, i wouldnt argue that Jesus was a Buddhist per se either, as I suppose
> the authors Gruber and Kersten do, i guess. It seems to me they make the
> case that he had studied as a child something that derived closely from
> Buddhist teachings,
It's possible that Jews had adapted Indian ideas (such as
re-incarnation), but the ideas would have been assimilated by the time
it reached Jesus. They would have been "Jewish" ideas by then. If
you're going to label these as "Buddhist" ideas, then they might as well
be "Mesopotamian" ideas or wherever the earliest strand of that idea can
be found.
> and wove a few of these Buddhist verse memories
> into his extemporaneous sermons,
Or, as Dr. Amore points out, what is more likely: that Jesus'
biographers included stories and parables which were originally Buddhist
(or which were originally "pagan" or Indian and which the Buddhists also
adapted).
> but it seems to me his real
> spiritual awakening did in fact occur with John the Baptist,
> thought it may have been primed by his 'Buddhist' training/exposure.
> in that sense his spiritual lineage is truly more Jewish perhaps,
> owing to being truly initiated by John the Baptist. Yet his early
> Buddhist exposure remained in his memory and conditioned some of his
> teachings. (my own conjectures, of course)
>
> > (As far as my memory serves me, anyways.) I'm read some other work by
> > Amore (dealing with Buddhism) and I would say that he's a credible
> > scholar. What's is interesting is that Fida Hassnain (a Sufi Muslim)
> > uses the same quotations as Gruber and Kerstein, to prove his hypothesis
> > that Jesus was a Muslim!
>
> hehe, no kidding!
> talk about perennialism!
> now, how does this make sense when Mohammed was some several hundred
> years after Jesus? I wonder how they skirt around that?
According to Islamic belief, Islam is the "original" religion.
Therefore, all religions were originally Islam (i.e. were originally
monotheistic and have a belief in prophets who bring God's message).
According to this belief, Muhammed does not reveal a new religion so
much as re-instate the original one. All Muslims (not just Hassnain)
consider Jesus to be a Muslim, and that un-Islamic sayings attributed to
him are corruptions by later Christians. In Hassnain's book, he uses
the same material that Kersten and Gruber use, except to "prove" a
different case. If you actually read the quotes which Kersten and
Gruber refer to in passing, as being records of Jesus' sayings and
activities in Tibet, etc. it is clear that they are fabrications. For
example, Hassnain stated that Tibetans worship three gods corresponding
to the Christian Trinity. He also stated that the Buddhist monks with
whom Jesus studied exhorted him to go and preach the word of God, etc.
But he isn't content to make Jesus into a Muslim. He tries to make the
Buddha into a Muslim! The Buddha was supposed to have prayed to "Eli"
in times of distress which the author takes to be a form of the word
"Allah". Hassnain also use sources which are clearly fradulent, such as
"channeled" materials! Kersten and Gruber must really be grasping at
straws to cite Hassnain as a source.
A historical problem with the whole "Jesus studied with Buddhist monks
in Tibet" thing is that Tibet and Nepal were not Buddhist countries at
that time. Buddhism did not enter these countries until well into the
6th or 7th centuries of the common era, as far as I know.
And if you go to the Indian newsgroups (for example
soc.culture.india(n?)), or web sites, the topic occasionally pops up
that Jesus learned everything he knew from Hindus. The view is defended
rather fanatically. Various people insist that he was either an
incarnation of Vishnu, or Hanuman, or a learned guru or rishi.
(Hassnain uses some of the Hindu material to show that Jesus was in
India.) I think Prof. Hayes hit the nail on the head when he said that
it's a cover-up for the shame of colonial defeat.
BTW there are also legends that Jesus visited various places in Persia,
and even in Britain! He must have been a busy guy! To bring this
thread back on topic, a similar process is found in Buddhism. Within a
few centuries of the Buddha's passing away, pilgrimage sites had popped
up all over India claiming "the Buddha did such-and-such here", "the
Buddha's robe/bowl/teeth are enshrined here", etc. Heck, the guy did
enough things to have lived a thousand years and left enough remains to
build a 10 metre statue of himself! I've also read that there's enought
wood from "the pieces of the true cross" to build a church. People want
to connect with celebrity and make up stories, and that's all it is.
> yes, they are definitely polemical.
> i see the word 'obviously' used on every page almost.
> they are really trying way too hard to convince the reader.
> but they have done a good job in assembling all the 'evidence' imho.
The same evidence is found in more scholarly works (i.e. Amore) but he
doesn't come to the same conclusion as they do. (Actually Amore just
lists the evidence, the various possible hypotheses, and allows the read
to come to a conclusion. So the idea that Jesus was influenced by
Buddhism is still a possibility, but it's a very weak case.) Gruber and
Kersten also include a whole lot of "non-scholarly" work such as that by
Hassnain.
> > > No one yet has pointed out to me
> > > a Jewish parallel teaching (to Luke 14:26).
I answered this in a separate post.
> i do allow for the Jungian/Huxleyan concept of perennial teachings
> popping up spontaneously by themselves over and over, too.
> it's just that i happened to be ~80% convinced by the authors, in spite
> of their flaws, that there is something there in this particular case,
> worth considering.
I'm convinced that the authors are reading their conclusion back into
the evidence, and selectively (mis)reading quotes. I think that Amore
makes a much better case than Gruber and Kersten.
> anyway, thanks for the reply, and good luck on exams!
Thanks. Luck isn't what I need though, heh. (I'll need a miracle. ;)
)
> cheers
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
--
David Yeung
David Yeung
Tang Huyen wrote:
>
> David Yeung wrote: <<Besides which, similarities between Buddhist and Christian
> trinities should not be surprising, since both religions absorbed a great deal of
> Iranian religion. (Right, Tang?:) )>>
>
> centuries after the Buddha.
How much does the "triple body" theory of the Buddha owe to Iranian (or
other foreign) elements?
> It has been a well-kept secret, but Paul Mus, Barabudur. Esquisse d’une histoire
> du Bouddhisme fondée sur la critique archéologique dex textes, Hanoi: École
> Française d’Extrême-Orient, 1935, 2 vols., repr. New York: Arno Press, 1978 (in
> one volume), Paris: Arma Artis, 1990 has enunciated a very penetrating thesis
> (that even his own disciples, like Ruegg and Gomez have not dared to take up,
> perhaps have not even understood), to the effect that Mesopotamia is the origin
> of much of the world's civilization in general and of the world's religions and
> philosophies in particular.
I've heard this theory before, so it can't be that well-kept a secret.
But I haven't read this book. I get suspicious whenever someone says
that everything originated with one
civilization/philosophy/religion/god, though, that he isn't really
secretly praising himself.
> I do not know if you have read the book, but it undergirds and sustains much of
> what I have to say (though I disagree much with it, especially with its author's
> Eurocentric bias). The Mesopotamians fall into the category of genius (really and
> truly): they are so brilliant that nobody understands them. Some German
> philosophers are supposed to say about themselves that they are born a few
> hundred years too early (scholars keep mentioning that, but I have never been
> able to trace a direct source), but the Mesopotamians are in a much worse
> predicament: they arise about ten millennia too early. They invent the swastika
> and truckloads of other things and ideas. Jewish myth-makers borrow much from
> them, without understanding much of anything, for instance, the story of Genesis
> where Adam does not know good and evil.
And how much do Buddhist myth-makers owe them?
> One very probable source for the last member of the Christian trinity, namely the
> Holy Spirit, is of course Stoicism, with its pneuma "breath", which however is
> material!
I thought the most probably source for the Christian Holy Spirit would
be Jewish "ruach" or breath. So you are saying that the Jews borrowed
this from the Stoics?
> (Many Indo-European words meaning soul or spirit come back to breath).
> But the Jewish diaspora in Alexandria has already absorbed it into the late parts
> of the Old Testament, and from there it goes into Christianity and grows in
> importance. Now somebody will jump in and say that since Buddhists cultivate
> various doings with breath, like counting or being mindful of, Jews and
> Christians must have borrowed it from them!
:)
> Tang Huyen
--
David Yeung
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
First, the Tang version:
1.All articles that coruscate with resplendence are not
truly auriferous.
2.Sorting on the part of mendicants must be interdicted.
3.Male cadavers are incapable of rendering any testimony.
4.Neophite's serendipity.
5.A revolving lithic conglomerate accumulates no congeries
of small, green, biophytic plant.
7.Members of an avian species of identical plumage tend to
congregate.
8.Pulchritude possesses solely cutaneous profundity.
9.Freedom from incrustations of crime is contiguous to rectitude.
10.It is fruitless to become lachrymose of precipitately
departed lacteal fluid.
12.Eschew the implement of correction and vitiate the scion.
13.The stylus is more potent than the rapier.
14.It is fruitless to attempt to indoctrinate a
superannuated canine with innovative maneuvers.
15.Surveillance should precede saltation.
16.Scintillate, scintillate, asteroid minim. (not a proverb)
17.The person presenting the ultimate cachinnation
possesses thereby the optimal cachinnation.
18.Exclusive dedication to necessitous chores without
interludes of hedonistic diversion renders Tang a
hebetudinous mentator.
19.Individuals who make their abodes in vitreous edifices
would be advised to refrain from catapulting petrious
projectiles.
20.Where there are visible vapors having their provenance in
ignited carbonaceous materials, there is conflagration.
English versions:
1.All that Glitters is not Gold.
2.Beggars cannot be choosers.
3.Dead men tell no tales.
4.Beginner's luck
5.A Rolling Stone gathers no Moss.
7.Birds of a feather flock together.
8.Beauty is only skin-deep.
9.Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
10.Don't cry over Spilt Milk.
12.Spare the Rod and Spoil the Child.
13.The Pen is Mightier than the Sword.
14.You cant teach an Old Dog new Tricks.
15.Look before you leap.
16.Twinkle twinkle little star
17.One who laughs the last, laughs the best.
18.All work and No Play makes Tang a Dull boy.
19.Those who live Glass Houses should cast no stones.
20.Where there is smoke, there will be fire.
--DharmaTroll
Tang Huyen
David Yeung wrote: <<And how much do Buddhist myth-makers owe them?>>
You'll have to read the book.
Tang : <<One very probable source for the last member of the Christian trinity, namely
the Holy Spirit, is of course Stoicism, with its pneuma "breath", which however is
material!>>
David: <<I thought the most probably source for the Christian Holy Spirit would be
Jewish "ruach" or breath. So you are saying that the Jews borrowed this from the
Stoics?>>
Jean-Joël Duhot, Épictète et la sagesse stoïcienne, Paris: Bayard, 1996, 185-236. By
the way, Duhot is a musician who holds the senior doctorate (Doctorat d'État) from the
Sorbonne and a researcher's job at the Centre National de Recherche Scientifique. He
has published books and articles on Stoicism. Over the years I have seen Catholic
theologians admit in print that the Holy Spirit comes from the Stoic pneuma.
Tang Huyen
Punnadhammo
> Jesus said: "Love thy neighbor." (Matthew 22:39)
> Elvis said: "Don't be cruel." (RCA, 1956)
<etc>
You missed one;
Jesus was stoned in Nazareth; Elvis was stoned wherever he went. ;)
--
Punnadhammo Bhikkhu
Arrow River Community Center
http://www.baynet.net/~arcc/home.html
Ben C Davis
>preacher, foreboding the conflagration of Jeruselum and the arising of a
>twist historical facts in the most fanciful ways to suit their needy,
>hungry, grasping selves, isn't it?
mumpsimus
"A long and firmly established error, esp. an incorrect form or usage
which one obstinately refuses to abandon."
Religion could not work without this word.
Think of a magician using a shroud instead of a hat. If the people
want to believe, then use it.
Ben 8)
"When a man is freed of religion, he has a better chance to live
a normal and wholesome life." Sigmund Freud
Henry Chia (Ngawang Geleg)
dharm...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> Hey Tang, here are some adages for you!
>
> First, the Tang version:
<sniped>
I don't understand the Tang version.
> English versions:
<sniped>
And for this one, I understand very well.
.... I prefer listen to Cocteau Twins stuffs then reading Tang's scores
of his muscial works.
--
Yours in Dharma,
Henry Chia
(Ngawang Geleg)
email: ge...@pacific.net.sg
URL: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/4886/index.htm
<-: Ngawang Geleg's Buddhist Home Page :->
piet...@my-dejanews.com
time right now to reply in detail, but just have some questions about Amore:
does he concur that Buddhist missionaries were probably in Alexandria circa
0AD? Does he discuss the Therapeutae community of Philo at all?
The theory of Jesus going to Nepal etc. I had always heard as occuring
*after* the crucifixion, not prior to his teaching career, e.g. his 3 hours
on the cross do not fully kill him, he recovers after 3 days, briefly
meets with his disciples, then flees, according to the Tibetan legend, to
Nepal and establishes himself as a teacher etc. Someone used to post about
this legend a while ago, but I myself have not studied it. It does make
for a plausible 'what really happened' interpretation to the extremely
implausible standard story of the resurrection.
> I went back to my bookshelf and scanned Amore and Hassnain. Amore's
> book is quite scholarly. He outlines the evidence concerning Buddhist
> influence on Christianity and weighs 3 hypotheses: (i) pre-Jesus
> influence, (ii) influence through Jesus, and (iii) post-Jesus
> influence. Hypothesis (iii) seems the most likely given the evidence
> which he listed. In chapter 3, "The Question of Borrowing", Amore lists
> some early researchers in that area and analyze their thinking, in
> particularly pointing out their errors. (Early scholars made many
> assumptions which later research proved were wrong, i.e. dates of
> texts.) He cites examples where both Christianity and Buddhism were
> influenced by common "pagan" elements, and also Zoroastrianism. He
> seems to lean towards the conclusion that Christianity was influenced by
> Buddhism.
this theory seems to me, at least on first impression, even more implausible,
since for Jesus, we have remnants of legends of his traveling to Egypt and
encountering Magi, yet how would the other Gospel compilers encounter
Buddhism? we dont have similar legends of them traveling to Egypt after
the crucifixion do we?
> His critique of option (ii) reads in part:
>
> "The principle weakness of the argument that the influence came through
> Jesus himself is that it does not explain the Buddhistic nature of the
> stories told in Luke 2 about the birth and infancy of Jesus.
hmm, i had not even thought that the parallelism in the infancy narratives
was that strong?
> Jesus
> never mentions these events himself, and Luke and Matthew do not claim
> to derive the infancy narratives from Jesus himself. This is to say, if
> we accept the usual scholarly opinion that the infancy narratives are a
> product of the early Christians and if we assume Buddhist influence upon
> these infancy narratives, then at least <i>part of the Buddhist
> influence is after Jesus</i>. This makes it tempting to see the whole
> of the borrowing as an activity of the early Christian church. In
> reaching out for additional information about the birth, infancy, and
> teachings of their master, early Christians reached too far and
> unknowingly incorporated into their records infancy narratives and
> groups of sayings modeled as much after an Eastern master as after their
> cherished Messiah." p 116 "Two Masters, One Message" Roy C. Amore
> (italics are his).
anyway, thanks for the quotes, i will try to read more carefully later.
btw, i did check my concordance on Luke 14:26 and
dont see a reference to Deuteronomy, but will keep looking ..
Jigme Dorje
itself conjectural - would characterize Jesus) ...preacher, foreboding the
conflagration of Jeruselum and the arising of a just kingdom of god on earth
in its place. It is amazing how people can twist historical facts in the
Ben C Davis >mumpsimus
"A long and firmly established error, esp. an incorrect form or usage which
one obstinately refuses to abandon."
Religion could not work without this word.
Think of a magician using a shroud instead of a hat. If the people want to
believe, then use it.
Ben 8)
"When a man is freed of religion, he has a better chance to live a normal
and wholesome life." Sigmund Freud
Jigme>A thoughtful comment on a throwaway line touching on the fragility of
truth. The facts cannot be known but they can be fabricated to suit dearly
held hypotheses. What can we Buddhists learn from this example?
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
piet...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> The theory of Jesus going to Nepal etc. I had always heard as occuring
> *after* the crucifixion, not prior to his teaching career, e.g. his 3 hours
> on the cross do not fully kill him, he recovers after 3 days, briefly
> meets with his disciples, then flees, according to the Tibetan legend, to
> Nepal and establishes himself as a teacher etc. Someone used to post about
> this legend a while ago, but I myself have not studied it. It does make
> for a plausible 'what really happened' interpretation
You fruitcake, that isn't plausible at all. The whole power of the Jesus
myth is in Jesus dying so that Christ could be realized. Rather than take
the story as a literal historical scientific journal account, and then make
up some ridiculous story to try to make it literally coherent, why not see
the story as a story and let the myth move you, Peachie-Pie?
Here you are, Mr. Perennialist, Mr. "all-is-One" who claims to be into
Perennialism in the sense of Aldous Huxley, and you are going to turn this
powerful myth into such ridiculous garbage? Why not look at Easter as a
metaphor for the perennial dying of the ego so that your cosmic mind stuff
can be realized? At least be consistent in your foolishness, Peach.
--Dharmakaya Trollpa
piet...@my-dejanews.com
ye...@cyberdude.com wrote:
>
> The passages which you cited are
> smack dab in the middle of verses dealing with this theme. There is no
> reason to believe that "abandoning family" here has anything to do with
> monasticism or Buddhist ideas.
ok, thanks for all the info, i have to process it with Phra Dhammanando's
contributions, and reread Gruber and Kersten on this.
The Deuteronomy citations are quite interesting. I did find a concordance
that cited Deuteronomy in reference to Luke 14:26, as well as the
verses Phra Dhammanando mentioned.
> reason to believe that "abandoning family" here has anything to do with
> monasticism or Buddhist ideas.
true enough, if these verses are from *after* Jesus, when the persecution was
happening and families were being split because of the faith, but if they are
in fact *due* to Jesus, prior to such persecutions, then it becomes another
question, imho.
The Deuteronomy quotes are quite interesting, calling on
the 'true believers' to literally kill those 'false prophets', even
if they are your own relatives, who pull
the innocents away from the faith. I could see how it might have been
applied to Jesus himself, as a perceived false prophet.
anyway, the original point being that *everything* in Jesus' teachings is
derivative from his culture, remains weakened, imho, by this counterexample
of Luke 14:26, since if due to Jesus himself, it is unprecedented, but if
due to his later apologists, it is evidence of a split within the
community.
and, imho, it remains consistent with the Buddhist injunctions that the 'true
believer' *must* abandon home and family as a standard of practice.
anyway this is all very interesting to me, and i thank you all for the
information! hope to get some time soon to try and make sense of it all.
cheers
piet...@my-dejanews.com
"Ben C Davis" <bda...@clarkston.com> wrote:
>
>
> "When a man is freed of religion, he has a better chance to live
> a normal and wholesome life." Sigmund Freud
and if he can free himself from the need to suck on burning leaves all
day long while fantasizing about his patient's childhood sexuality,
he might even lead a healthy life :)
piet...@my-dejanews.com
> He seems to lean towards the conclusion that Christianity was influenced by
> Buddhism.
i dont have access to Amore's work, and i am wondering if you could
comment on this question:
given that Amore is a 'competent scholar' who does assert Buddhist
influence on Christianity, would Amore even so concur
with the following scholarly assessment that came up early in this thread?:
>Sigh! Is there any significance in the fact that NOT ONE competent scholar
>of the New Testament, early Christianity, or Judaism in the time of Jesus
>supports the fanciful speculations about Jesus' alleged dependence on India
>for his ideas?
piet...@my-dejanews.com
Two Masters, One Message : The Lives and Teaching of Gautama
and Jesus
by Roy C. Amore
is listed as out-of print by amazon, but the author has posted a
note of his own about his book on the amazon page:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0687427517
<quoting> The author, Roy C. Amore am...@uwindsor.ca , November 6, 1998 This
book deals with common themes re Buddha and Christ I wrote this book to call
attention to the many similarities in the basic messages of the Buddha and
the Christ, without meaning to downplay the many areas of difference. The
book argues that the most striking similarities are between the teachings in
the Sermon on the Mount and the Dharmapada. There are many overlaps between
these two documents, but the question is, how to account for them. The
author reviews several ways to account for the similarities, but prefers the
idea that early Christian writings (or Jesus himeself) somehow was familiar
with parts of the Dhammapada and reworked that material for a Christian
context. This is an admitedly speculative suggestion, and readers are
invited to weigh the evidence for themseves. What do you think? <endquote>
other books by Roy Amore:
Developments in Buddhist Thought
by Roy C. Amore
Our Price: $9.25 + $0.85 special surcharge
Paperback (June 1979)
Prometheus books; ISBN: 0919812112
Lustful Maidens and Ascetic Kings : Buddhist and Hindu Stories of Life by
Roy C., Amore, Larry D. Shinn, Sharon Wallace (Illustrator) Our Price:
$12.00 Paperback - 198 pages (May 1981) Oxford Univ Press; ISBN: 0195028392
David Yeung
>
> i dont have access to Amore's work, and i am wondering if you could
> comment on this question:
>
> given that Amore is a 'competent scholar' who does assert Buddhist
> influence on Christianity, would Amore even so concur
Well... you'd have to ask him yourself.
> with the following scholarly assessment that came up early in this thread?:
>
> >Sigh! Is there any significance in the fact that NOT ONE competent scholar
> >of the New Testament, early Christianity, or Judaism in the time of Jesus
> >supports the fanciful speculations about Jesus' alleged dependence on India
> >for his ideas?
Amore is a professor of Buddhism, i.e. a Buddhologist and not a Biblical
scholar. Therefore he does not fall into the above category. I have
another book, edited by Amore, called "Developments in Buddhist Thought:
Canadian Contributions to Buddhist Studies". It's about the evolution
of Buddhist thought in Indian, Chinese, and Tibetan societies as it was
exposed to these cultures. That's the kind of thing he studies.
piet...@my-dejanews.com
apropos de rien, you may be amused to learn that i
just flunked the New Age IQ test:
imagine my embarassment :)
piet...@my-dejanews.com
ye...@cyberdude.com wrote:
>
> > with the following scholarly assessment that came up early in this thread?:
> >
> > >Sigh! Is there any significance in the fact that NOT ONE competent scholar
> > >of the New Testament, early Christianity, or Judaism in the time of Jesus
> > >supports the fanciful speculations about Jesus' alleged dependence on India
> > >for his ideas?
>
> Amore is a professor of Buddhism, i.e. a Buddhologist and not a Biblical
> scholar. Therefore he does not fall into the above category.
aha, catch 22! :)
anyway, i did in fact just now email him to see if he had any comments on
this thread, and what his opinions of Gruber and Kersten's arguments
were.
> I have
> another book, edited by Amore, called "Developments in Buddhist Thought:
> Canadian Contributions to Buddhist Studies". It's about the evolution
> of Buddhist thought in Indian, Chinese, and Tibetan societies as it was
> exposed to these cultures. That's the kind of thing he studies.
egads, perhaps he and Mubul have adjoining offices!
:)
piet...@my-dejanews.com
in the spirit of Stephen Mitchell's 'The Gospel According to Jesus',
some (ok, no one actually ...) might be interested in
(Episcopalian Bishop) Spong's book 'Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism'
which, among other things, makes the astonishing hypothesis that
St. Paul's misogyny and 'thorn in the flesh' and peculiar
attitudes might be explained if he was a homosexual.
heheheheh
yep, dont blame me, i didnt think this one up!
(fwiw, Spong's spin on this, is that Paul experienced liberation from the
Jewish approbation of homosexuality via his spiritual experience of Christ)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060675187
Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism : A Bishop Rethinks the
Meaning of Scripture
by John Shelby Spong
Our Price: $10.40
Paperback Reprint edition (June 1992)
Harper San Francisco; ISBN: 0060675187 ;
Customers who bought this book also bought:
Born of a Woman : A Bishop Rethinks the Birth of Jesus; John Shelby Spong
Living in Sin? : A Bishop Rethinks Human Sexuality; John Shelby Spong
Resurrection : Myth or Reality? : A Bishop's Search for the Origins of
Christianity; John Shelby Spong Liberating the Gospels : Reading the Bible
With Jewish Eyes : Freeing Jesus from 2,000 Years of Misunderstanding; John
Shelby Spong
Synopsis A television clergyman calls for a reclaiming of the Bible from
the narrow-minded literalism of fundamentalism that has been used to justify
slavery, ban textbooks, deny homosexuals their rights, subordinate women,
and justify war. Reprint. $25,000 ad/promo.
Synopsis Now in paperback, the provocative national bestseller that issues
a daring call for contemporary understanding of scripture. Outspoken and
controversial, Bishop Spong brilliantly reclaims the Bible from the
narrow-minded literalism that has been used to justify slavery, ban
textbooks, deny the rights of gays and lesbians, subordinate women, and
justify war and revenge.
From the Publisher A controversial author brilliantly reclaims the Bible
from the literal interpretation of fundamentalists.
Customer Comments
Average Customer Review: Number of Reviews: 16
BCBe...@msn.com from El Paso, TX , February 25, 1999 A very thought
provoking work As someone who has abandoned organized religion, this book
was a little ray of hope. This book looks into what Christianity is really
all about, and deconstructs the hate-filled bible twisting done (like the
crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and the holocaust) in the name of
God/Jesus. I have always felt that the bible was inconsistent if taken
literally, and sometimes felt that this disproved the bible as a whole.
Spong points out that because the bible contains flaws and outdated (read:
barbaric) thinking does not mean that great truths are not there for the
serious student.
froze...@netscape.net from Southern Indiana, USA , February 5, 1999
Definite eye-opener.. I myself am a Christian, and I found this book to be
quite an eye-opener. The first 50 or more pages is filled with a lot of
obvious literal conflicts within "the Word" itself, and I think that those
whom try to fight this or take stand on this book without a --LOT-- of
Biblical/Scholarly knowlege are on for quite a challenge. I do like his
message about getting the feeling (and not the word-for-word translation)
behind the Bible; this holds true for me. I had a difficult time at the
latter half of the book. I would strongly reccomend this book for seminary
students or priests, however for a common person like me, there is quite a
bit of Scholarly discussion this last half of the book which makes it a bit
sticky to follow. Definite eye opener. I think we should all keep open minds
about these controversial issues. Spong does a good job of this, I think.
--This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
piet...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> dharm...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > You fruitcake, that isn't plausible at all.
>
> apropos de rien, you may be amused to learn that i
> just flunked the New Age IQ test:
>
> http://www.iqtest.net/newage/
>
> imagine my embarassment :)
Actually, I did very well on the test, as I am familiar with
so many of the charlatans and have bashed them for so long!
I actually consider you to be a bright and interesting poster
and much like I am, if I had to guess who is closest around
here in personality. However, it's like in some ways you go
off the deep end in the UFO factor. You can easily reject
silliness with magnets or whatever, but then you want to talk
about awakened people glowing in the dark like fireflies.
It's your *not* being a New-Ager, but then going off on the
firefly stuff and the La-Di-Da stuff, praising a wigged-out
guru who babbles in New-Age cliches and then prances around
with his fly open, screwing any glazed-eyed gullible babes he
can get his hands on, including his disciples' wives.
Maybe you never took a sociology class and studied how all this
perennialism works: how you can take bits and pieces of different
religions and weave them together, and then turn around and claim
that you are on the peak of the mountain and that all the others
are converging on you from all sides, and then cite all the
connections you had made to form your view as proof of the
perennial nature of it!
It's a very common trap, and you get to pretend to be democratic
about all religions and not put them down, while you covertly
invalidated them and reinterpret them as tainted versions of your
own system. You seem to be a sucker for such faulty reasoning,
Peachie-Pie.
I don't mind so much if you literally believe in reincarnation,
because I can imagine it being a reasonable possibility, even
though I don't think it actually happens. But this glow in the
dark stuff is up there with magnet-therapy and reiki and remote
sensing and Scientology. It puzzles me that you get off on that.
What gives?
--Dharmakaya Trollpa
piet...@my-dejanews.com
but whether or not pneuma as a word was borrowed from the stoics,
pneuma as an experience (e.g. Pentecost) is trans-cultural/trans-linguistic,
arising all through history from shamans on down.
Even the Africans brought it with them to the Colonies,
and re-introduced the whites to the Holy Spirit as the Africans
adopted their captor's Christianity.
and Buddhism's 'prajna' also derives from 'breath' if i am not mistaken,
along with the Taoist's 'chi', and the Hindu's 'kundalini'.
it is *the* truly 'perennial' *experience* behind religions, imhe.
the inevitable flames are welcome :)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
piet...@my-dejanews.com
> Tang : <<One very probable source for the last member of the Christian
trinity, namely
> the Holy Spirit, is of course Stoicism, with its pneuma
> "breath", which however is material!>>
>
> David: <<I thought the most probably source for the Christian Holy
> Spirit would be Jewish "ruach" or breath. So you are
> saying that the Jews borrowed this from the Stoics?>>
seems OT 'ruach' apparently has different connotations from NT 'pneuma'.
i am not sure if OT has a concept similar to NT 'pneuma'?
Strong's Concordance info:
'pneuma' in NT, eg Jn15:26,14:26 :
http://www.khouse.org/cgi-bin.blb/strongs.pl?hr=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.khouse.org&stro
ngs=4151&language=G
'ruach' in OT, eg Gen6:17 Psa33:6 :
http://www.khouse.org/cgi-bin.blb/strongs.pl?hr=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.khouse.org&stro
ngs=7307&language=H
'prajna' in PTS:
????
:?)
David Yeung
> 2. Philo's lifestyle description of the Therapeutae lists perhaps 7
> traits out of 11 that are definitely Buddhist 3. Christians definitely
> borrowed halo imagery from India 4. Christians definitely borrowed rosary
> from India, (they both have same # of beads) 5. Christians definitely made
> Buddha a Christian saint with the name Jehosaphat
> 7. at least two
> parables have close analogues: Prodigal Son and Widow's Mite
In every one of these instance, borrowing, if it has occurred, has not
been accredited. When the Christians borrowed the rosary they didn't
say it was an "Indian" rosary. When they canonized Josaphat they didn't
call him a "Buddhist" saint. If anything, the examples you cite should
counter the argument that Jesus was influenced by Buddhism since many of
these cultural elements which Christianity eventually absorbed were no
longer identified with India or Buddhism. Even supposing that he
retold Indian stories (or, what I think is more likely, his biographers
attributed free-floating stories to him), they would have already lost
their connection to India.
I think the Christian and Buddhist versions of the Prodigal Son are too
different to have influenced each other. Another example along these
lines which is often cited to show the similarities between Buddhism and
Christianity is the story of the Penitent Thief. The thief in the
Buddhist case is Angulimala (Finger-Garland). The stories are very
different, and yet the Buddhist one was stuck with the Christian name by
early European scholars of Buddhism.
Parts of the biographies of the saints Eustace and Christopher also
appear to be based on Buddhist stories (the Jataka tales). Eustace was
converted by a talking stag while Christopher was an animal-headed man
who was converted by a child. The stag is the bodhisattva in one of the
Jatakas, who converts the hunter-king. In another Jataka the
bodhisattva as Prince Sutsasoma (spelling???) converts an animal-headed
man. The unicorn also seems to have derived from the Indian
rhinoceros. (The Europeans misunderstood the Indian stories about the
one-horned creature.)
Of course, Christianity also canonized a pagan Celtic goddess (saint
Bridget, I think). It was influenced by all the cultures which it came
into contact with, and isn't any more influenced by (say) Indian culture
than by Irish culture.
> 1. Buddhist missionaries were very likely present in Egypt during Jesus's
> time
They were met with minimal success.
> 6. there definitely is a
> temple still extant in India attributed to St. Thomas
There are Christian churchs in a lot of countries attributed to the
disciples. 1) The were sent all over the world. 2) People like to
believe that someone special founded their church/lineage.
> 8. Christian
> legend of flight to Egypt and 'adoration' of the 'Magi' could easily be
> morphed memories of Jesus's traveling to Egypt and encountering instruction
> by 'wise teachers from the east'
I'll answer this in another post (when I have time). These stories are
actually based on the Jewish scriptures and oral tradition.
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
--
David Yeung
amore1...@my-dejanews.com
This is Roy Amore. Someone kindly alerted me to this thread on possible
Buddhist influence on early Christianity. I have just read through all 87
postings at one sitting. Do I win anything for that? Some good points were
made, along with the (to me) time-wasting flames.
First, thanks for grouping me in the "scholar" rather than sensationalist
camp. I hope that I deserve that.
Now, here are a few of my thoughts after reading the 87 messages.
1. The summary of my position was well done. Better than many of the
reviewers of my book Two Masters, One Message did! It didn't go into the Q
material, however, so I will mention that below.
2. My position was (and still is) that the jury is still out on the question
of Buddhistic influence on early Christianity. There are no conclusive
parallels or historical facts. And yet, there are so many intrigueing
parallels that it would be unscientific to dismis the matter outright
3. I personally do not think that Jesus ever went to India, Nepal, Tibet, or
even Egypt. There is nothing in the more-likely-to be-authentic sayings of
Jesus to indicate any knowledge of areas outside what is now the West Bank
and Israel. (No one that I know who has made such a big trip leaves it out of
their conversations very long!) I did review some of the claims in Two
Masters, One Message, but rejected them.
4. The Saint legends make it clear (to me at least) that later Christianity
did absorb and assimilate Buddhist stories. The reference to a river "in
India" is the best "hard textual data" that I know.
5. The issue remains, did Christianity in the first and second centuries also
absorb any Buddhistic (or Indian) stories or motifs?
6. Of stories, the Walking on the Water is a strong candidate for influence,
although it may not have come directly from Buddhism.
7. Of motifs, the "cycle of nature" (or "wheel of rebirth") in James 3:6 may
be the strongest. (see Two Masters, One Message, p. 176)
8. The main conclusion of my book is that the compilers of the Q source may
have incorporated some Buddhistic sayings unknowingly, and if so, some version
of the Dharmapada is the likely origin. In the book, I develop this case. It
is possible that Jesus himself is the one acquainted with the Dharmapada
sayings (if there was influence). I have not updated my research to take into
account the great Q scholarship by my friend John Kloppenborg and others that
has appeared since my book. Maybe some day . . .
But enough already.
Roy Amore
Tang Huyen
amore1...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> 7. Of motifs, the "cycle of nature" (or "wheel of rebirth") in James 3:6 may
> be the strongest. (see Two Masters, One Message, p. 176)
Roy,
You don't need to go any further East than Athens for this motif. I do not know
what the original mentioned by you is, but Stoicism is full of just the idea. The
cosmic cycle -- the Great Year -- is a big cycle of nature, which keeps repeating
itself unchanged. Even earlier Heraclitus has the idea, though in more diffuse
form, and the Stoics formally recognize him as a predecessor. As to rebirth, Plato
is full of it (pun intended).
Tang Huyen
David Yeung
Hi Prof. Amore,
I was the one who posted the quotes from your book. I must say that it
thoroughly absorbed me while I was reading it. :)
amo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> I liked the pencil-twilling illustration that someone raised. I can confirm
> it among my own students, many of whom are from Hong Kong. A. Bharati wrote
> of the "pizza effect", making a related point.
By the way, what is the "pizza effect"?
>
> My opinion is that religions have been cross-influencing each other forever.
> My guess is that the process was working in both directions during the first
> and second centuries. But it sure is hard to prove or disprove.
>
> Roy Amore
Tang Huyen
amo...@my-dejanews.com wrote: <<But Eastern influence on the Stoics and Cynics has
been suspected.>>
Stoicism is a development of pure reason, which may have been borrowed from
Mesopotamia or reconstructed totally a priori without external influence. If there
is external influence, it goes no more eastward than Mesopotamia. According to Paul
Mus, the Buddha and Buddhism borrow their thinking from the same place, but I think
that the Buddha reconstructs his own thought a priori, without external help. As to
the Cynics, they are Platonists who go Plato one better, the way Devadatta goes the
Buddha one better; on top of that, their teaching is in concrete mode of life and
not abstract doctrine, so how does one go about tracing external influence on them?
So I see no Eastern (i. e., Indian or Iranian) influence on those Greek schools.
Roy: <<My opinion is that religions have been cross-influencing each other
forever.>>
As I said before in this thread, Jewish mythology restricts itself to the
imagination, so whatever influence it gets from elsewhere (and much of its content
gets to it that way, but mostly from its immediate neighbors, including the
Mesopotamians) has to be degraded from, say, the understanding or reason, to the
imagination. In contrast, Greeks, Mesopotamians, Indians, Chinese reason in pure
reason, so mutual influence among them can survive from reason to reason. And reason
can be transmitted in systems, which are fairly easy to trace, while what Jewish
mythology absorbs is merely at the level of bits, which are very hard to trace. So
most of what you cite as Buddhist influence on Jewish myths is total junk to me. I
can (if I care to) account for most of it by way of Greece or Mesopotamia, which are
in direct contact with Jews (remember the Jews in Babylon and Alexandria?).
Tang Huyen