My latest article is a review of the documentary Jesus and Buddha - Practicing Across Traditions. In this three teachers share their knowledge of both traditions, and how they combine them in their own spiritual paths. Very interesting for any interfaith spiritual seeker.

I'm interested in anyone who considers themselves interfaith sharing their own thoughts...

Dear Lisa,

Recently saw a report from a group of 4 historians,that Jesus did not die on the cross.Jesus was only 6 hours on the cross.not
sufficient to kill a human.Also in that period of time,the punishment for the crimes of Jesus was flagellation.Jesus being
an advanced and well developped intellectually and otherwise,
put himself in a cathatonic state,simulating death.That nite
his followers using their healing energies helped Jesus back .
They removed him that nite.The historians with proofs ,showed that Jesus married Marie-Madeleine and had 2 sons.

Recently spoke with a friend deep into Jesus and the Indhi way of living,he knew of what I have written.
I would appreciate your comments.

loong

Hi Looong, that is a very interesting theory. I have read lots of different ideas about Jesus and his life- as I'm sure you know there are many different alternative theories out there. My opinion is that there is no way of knowing for sure, anymore than we can truly know the details of the Buddha's life. After their passing their life stories became 'teaching legends' - stories meant to convey the major lessons of their lifetime. So the subsequent texts telling their life stories - the gospels in Christianity and the sutras in Buddhism, vary according to who wrote them, and what lessons they wanted to convey.

What I do feel though is that one can find enlightenment through the teachings of Jesus, by connecting to 'Christ' instead of the historical Jesus. This is very much like connecting to 'Buddha-mind' instead of the historical Buddha. Ultimately, 'Christ-mind' and 'Buddha-mind' are the same. Those Christian mystics who have discovered this have gone through an awakening process remarkably similar to the awakening process described in Buddhist teachings. This is really the thrust of the documentary I reviewed in this article.

In addition to this documentary, there are many books available. Both the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh have written on this, you can see their books at the end of this older article I wrote a couple of years ago:

Buddhist Views of Jesus

Dear Lisa,


Made some research,on the word Christ,why the word was not used by Thich Nhat Han, in the article Buddhists view of Jesus.

The word Christ is from the Hebrew language meaning Messiah.His followers thought he was THE Messiah ,that the Jews are still waiting for,that is why he was called Christ.
Wrong word ,because the expected jewish Messiah should be a man of grear power,great warrior type.
Jesus was the opposite.So Christ should not be used when talking
of Jesus. That is why TNH and HH the Dalai-LAMAcalled him only Jesus nothing else .Calling Jesus,Jesus Christ is a historical
error of choice of words.

So we should say Jesus-Mind like Buddha Mind,if we say Christ-Mind,we are making an historical error,because Christ is not born yet.

loong

Lisa, I really liked your article and I can relate to all the points you mentioned. There are definite similarities between both belief systems. Even though I am Catholic and thus a Christian, I do embrace elements in the Buddhist tradition as well, and I can see why both appeal to me. Thank you for sharing this with us.

Loong.....you do not have to use the word Christ when speaking of Jesus, as this is your view. People who have beliefs other than Christianity may indeed share this philosophy.

I respectfully disagree with you on using the word Christ in my vocabulary. As a Catholic I will certainly refer to Jesus as the Christ. It is an integral part of my belief system, as well as other Christians.

To each his/her own. Peace _/\_

Loong, I see your point. There are many differing theories about Jesus or the Christ whichever you wish, and some have very adamant views about their belief systems, others not so.

The thing that I see is that no matter what a persons belief system is, attempting to usher them into greater realms of truth that benefit them should be our goal first.

One day while doing readings in a metaphysical book store a young man approached me calling himself a Satanist. I know very little about that world and it really did not matter if I did or not. I just knew that he was searching for the truth or he never would have stood by my table until I began to speak to him. I did have his best interest at heart and in the end I challenged none of his beliefs yet helped him lift some very negative things from his life.

Being understanding of others in the place that they are in is paramount first before sharing words that can truly benefit them. We can speak things that are firm yet the listener must be undergirded with a certain amount of comfort before any such words are absorbed as they are needed. I can have all of the facts in the world and blatantly speak them yet I may not have any understanding of what it takes to lead an individual to their own highest and best enlightenment.

These are also Buddhist teachings.

To all or none,

This is a buddhist forum.In no way I disrespect the beleifs of any religion phylosophy.
In my walk of the path of buddhism ,I was shown to encourage ,people to live their beleifs.

Again I repeat ,this is a buddhist section,and no religion has been attacked.
What you read are my views as a Buddhist.


One thing you do not know is the great and grand respect I have for Jesus,one of the great men of our times.

Wit loving kindness and an open mind

Loong
Son of the Universe

That is great, Loong. I did not feel attacked at all by your words but wanted to just give my view. We are all children of the universe. Peace to you.

Hi loong, you are mistaken. Thich Nhat Hanh's book is called 'Living Buddha, Living Christ' so he most certainly does use the word 'Christ'!! As does the Dalai Lama in his book on Christianity and Buddhism, The Good Heart.

While you are correct about the historical roots of the word, the way it is often used by mystic Christians is to refer to the spirit or power beyond the human Jesus. This is also how many Eastern teachers like Deepak Chopra (which also has a book out on Christianity), Thich Nhat Hanh, Dalai Lama etc. use it. In this sense it becomes very much like 'Buddha-mind'. The phrase 'Buddha-mind' in Buddhist teachings is meant to urge us to focus not on the historical Buddha but on shared enlightenment at the root of our own mind. 'Christ' is used in a similar fashion in some interfaith spiritual teachings.

Dear Lisa,

Just read your article again ,no mention of Christ but only of Jesus;

with respect
loong

Dear Lisa;

This is the basis of my view:[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ[url]

loong

Dear Lisa,

I am sorry to be in disagreement with you.Maybe my training wheels
are slowly coming off.

With valued respect

loong

Hi Loong, I think we are having a miscommunication. In this quote from you:



I thought you were saying that Thich Nhat Hanh does not use the term 'Christ'. So my response was that he does, in his book Living Buddha, Living Christ. My article is not about Thich Nhat Hanh though, so I am not sure what the relevance is to my article? It is simply repeating some of the comparisons of Jesus and Buddha that have been made by religious scholars and teachers over the years?

I don't dispute the history of the word 'Christ' that you gave, I am just missing its relevance here? How is that relevant to a discussion of Buddha and Jesus' teachings? Or of using the phrase 'Christ-mind' and 'Buddha-mind'? It is used by many different Christian sects, and religious scholars, in different ways.

Actually I re-read what you wrote, I think I get it now re: Jesus-mind vs. Christ-mind. In terms of how I am using them, I would say that 'Jesus' is to 'Christ' as 'Shakyamuni' is to 'Buddha'. And 'Christ-mind' is to 'Christ' as 'Buddha-mind' is to 'Buddha'. How's that for something to chew on??

Dear Lisa,
Sorry for not answering earlier.The 2nd precepts speaks of truth.
I rereread your article on Buddha and Jesus.There is one mention of Christ ,but at the bottom of the page ,the advertisement for
tha aforementionned book.
To me Jesus ,has nothing to do with the Christian Jesus.
To me Jesus was,is and will be a great man.

Not being a christian by choice,the word Christ has nothing to do with my conception of Jesus.The article you must have read,
clearly shows the error made 2000 years ago ,of who was Jesus.
He was not the Jewish Messiah,but another Messiah to save or change the whole world.He wanted to change the harsh Jewish mentality of the times with his message of love,like Buddha wanted to change the people stuck in the Braman system.

I hope this is clear enough?Sometimes ,finding the right words for me is a little inconvenience and so are the typing errors
in words used.
Read about 50 pages of the Book on Buddha's life.Did not find
anything worth subligning in yellow.So I put it aside .I like my mind to be challenged.Opened ,The Tibetan book of Living and dying.First I saw was Impermanence.I will read this one for now.

With the outmost respect

loong

Hi Loong, I think there is still confusion about what I meant here, but if you ever become interested in it, you can read Living Buddha, Living Christ. This has nothing to do with whether Jesus was or was not the Messiah - that is an historical argument that has played out for 2000 years and will no doubt continue to do so! For teachers like the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh etc. as well as many interfaith teachers, they are interested in connecting to Jesus as an enlightened being, like Buddha, and how there is a way to connect through his esoteric teachings (not the exoteric ones, which are the religion Christianity) to the awakening process. That is not what my article was about, but I didn't say it was - I mentioned 'Christ-mind' in a different place, so somehow this all got confused. But it doesn't really matter.

Yes the White Cloud book is a nice novel, and a great accessible telling of the Buddha's life story with a nice transmission, but not intellectually challenging, that is for sure. The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying will have more along those lines, but again it is written to be accessible to a Western audience not familiar with Buddhism, so it is not a book that covers sutra interpretation or anything like that. If you want a more advanced book you might just want to go straight to a sutra. Or to a commentary on a sutra - actually both the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh have published several books that are along these lines - interpretations of sutra or teachings meant for an established Buddhist seeker, instead of for a wider Western audience like most of their books.

Dear Lisa,

Thank you for taking the time ,to discuss with me with compassion.

_/\_
loong

Dear Lisa,

You wrote:do so! For teachers like the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh etc. as well as many interfaith teachers, they are interested in connecting to Jesus as an enlightened being, like Buddha, and how there is a way to connect through his esoteric teachings (not the exoteric ones, which are the religion Christianity) to the awakening process. That is not what my article was about, but I didn't say it was.

You see ,yourself ,in this short part of your post, there is no mention of Christ but of Jesus.I may sound stubborn .narrow minded,however the word Christ,has no relevance in a discussion on Buddha and Jesus.
I can never really write, what I totally think,this being an interfaith club,and Peace must reing at all price.

loong.

Hi Looong, I understand your view, based on the academic material you posted from Wikipedia. Whether Jesus was or was not the Jewish messiah is really not of that much interest to me. I was using 'Christ' in a different context entirely, which I realize I didn't explain before doing so. Like I said above, when I used 'Christ' it was like using 'Buddha' to refer to the historical Buddha - it is a way of referring to Jesus's spiritual 'enlightenment' (although I realize this isn't a Christian word.) Many interfaith and new age writers use 'Christ' in this sense, like 'Buddha' is used in Mahayana lineages to refer to other awakened beings that came after the historical Shakyamuni Buddha. So this is why I said 'Christ' is to 'Jesus' as 'Buddha' is to 'Shakyamuni' - it is a way of referring to a spiritual realization, not to a particular historical being. This is how writers like Thich Nhat Hanh are using it in books like 'Living Buddha, Living Christ'. They aren't interested in whether or not Jesus was the Jewish messiah either, only in the teachings about awakening that he offered.

In my article I used 'Jesus', to avoid this whole subject. I used 'Christ' in the Agora thread when I referred to 'Christ-mind'. So I guess this is when the confusion arose. My apologies! I couldn't really figure out why you were bringing up 'Christ' in the context of my article, or why you were saying Thich Nhat Hanh didn't use the word 'Christ' when I knew he had, but I think I just misread your posts or something.

Anyway, these are complicated words with a lot of different connotations for different individuals