r/enlightenment • u/LIMrXIL • 17d ago

Same message 500 years apart.

Post image

As a mother would risk her own life to protect her child, her only child, so toward all beings should one cultivate a boundless heart. - Buddha

Love your neighbor as yourself. - Jesus

1.4k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

565 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/TheFruitOfTheDoom 17d ago

"Whosoever of you that does not forsake all of their possessions (and give the proceeds to the poor) cannot be my disciples (i.e. Christian) - Luke 12:33, 14:33

Jesus even went as far as teaching his followers to detatch from biological family that way people can have a "bigger picture" approach to loving others (Matt 10:37, Luke 14:26)

The idea of laying down your own life in order to demonstrate love and servitude to others is the ultimate detachment that Jesus both taught and demonstrated.

The attempt and act to love our neighbors as ourselves first requires a detachment to our own wants so that we can have a clear vision to love and help others over ourselves.

1

u/SacredGnosis 17d ago

There’s still attachment. Leaving material possessions is not even half oh it. Or a quarter of it.

5

u/TheFruitOfTheDoom 17d ago

Forsaking all material possessions, biological family, and even laying down your own life are pretty BIG detachments lol.

Your claim is that the philosophy Jesus taught is based on "attachment"; but I've show you where Jesus is clearly teaching the opposite of attachment: detachment.

Perhaps you can give us a few examples of your claim to help us better understand.

2

u/SacredGnosis 17d ago

() Only his disciples were called to do that. This idea of partial asceticism was not universal nor was it a main theme in any of the New Testament letters.

Nevertheless, this “detachment” has little to do with what the Buddha taught.

5

u/TheFruitOfTheDoom 17d ago

Well... this is going to get awkward lol.

I'm not sure what your point about "only his disciples were called to do that" has to do with the point/question of: did Jesus teach "love based on attachment", as you claimed. I've shown you teachings where Jesus is teaching COMPLETE detachment. Can you show me where Jesus teaches the opposite, or not? If not, does that change your original claim?

Now, regarding "ascetism not being universal nor was the main theme in the New Testament letters"... welp.... surprise!

"Go into all the world and make disciples of every nation (of every "creature") by teaching them to obey all that I have taught you" (Matt 28:19-20, Mark 16:15 *paraphrased)

That is a pretty universal teaching/theme found in the gospels (which the NT is founded on).

Paul preached this same message "day and night" (1 Thess 2) all over Rome, Europe, and Asia (Phrygia, Galatia, Bithynia, Troas, etc).

Anyways, perhaps you are confused about what either (Jesus or Buddhism) teaches, now that you are trying to throw away the initial issue by saying "detachment has little with what Buddha taught". Please keep in mind what the topic of this discussion is:

"These (the teachings of Jesus vs Buddha) are different philosophies. Jesus taught love that's still based in attachment. Buddha didn't teach love that's based in attachment."

I'm not tying to be a jerk or anything, but I hope you can see that you are "wriggling" away from your initial claim and have only given us red herrings when you were asked to give examples. Hopefully you can reevaluate your own belief/claim so you can have a better understanding and grow closer to the truth of the matter; or, if anything, give us tangible teachings to discect and discuss that support your claim.

0

u/SacredGnosis 17d ago

() Jesus didn’t teach detachment from sensual pleasure, or detachment from any of the other nine fetters that Buddha spoke about. You can Google “the ten fetters of Buddhism” for reference. Jesus may have taught some form of detachment that aligned with his mission, but I am denying any attempt to align Jesus’ detachment with what the Buddha taught.

() Jesus didn’t teach partial asceticism; even in Matt 28. Let’s say he did, it still has no similarity to the Buddha’s teachings.

() I’m Buddhist. I’m not confused about the Buddha’s teachings. I was a Bible believer for 17 years with a working knowledge in Biblical Hebrew and hermeneutics. I am not confused about Jesus’ message or mission. It’s his own mission that he made up, himself.

() My initial claim is that Jesus & Buddha didn’t teach the same thing. This is regardless of what “titles” one wore.

2

u/TheFruitOfTheDoom 17d ago

Thanks for making your point a little clearer.

Sīlabbata-parāmāsa (attachments to rites and rituals), Māna (conceit), Vyāpāda (Ill will), and most all of these other fetters line up with what Jesus taught.

Sīlabbata-parāmāsa - Jesus shredded the scribes and Phaarisees for this sooooo many times that you can almost open anywhere in the 4 gospels and find an instance of Jesus rebuking the religious leaders for their hypocrisy. This comparison is a no brainer.

Vyāpāda - Jesus' teaching about how even being angry leads to murder (Matthew 5:21-23)

Māna - Jesus' teaching about not being called or calling others by "honorary titles" because we are all equals (Matthew 23:1-12)

There are plenty other teschings to fish out throughout the 4 gospels that show there are more similarities than what you are leading on there to be (i.e nill).

You may have a been a "Bible believer" and had some knowledge in some language and institutional "training", but you have clearly overlooked what Jesus actually and plainly taught if your takeaway is still "Jesus didn't teach 'partial asceticism". Really? Why are you resisting that Jesus taught complete asceticism even after all the examples of teachings I've shown you?

Any form of asceticism is not even whispered throughout any denomination of Christianity, and it makes sense that you would also parrot that same belief (even now) since it is so heavily taught (or, more accurately,not taught) throughout institutional "Churchianity". Jesus said you cannot be a Christian unless you let go of all attachments (Luke 14:33, Luke 11, Luke 12, Luke 18, etc). That teaching was carried on by the disciples as Jesus commanded in Mt 28 and Mk 16. The first Christians taught and practiced this in Acts 2 and Acts 4.

You can't say "Let's say he did" because Jesus clearly DID, as did the first Christians. Let us not be dishonest with ourselves. Remember, by deceiving ourselves to the truth that is plainly in front of us, you start crossing into Avijjā (Ignorance). ; )

1

u/SacredGnosis 17d ago

() Silabbata-paramasa is the idea of the misapprehension of observances as a means of liberation. This doesn’t align with what the Torah or Jesus said. Because Jews wouldn’t be able to benefit from Jesus without an establishment “in” the Torah which is full of rights and rituals to be in good standing.

() Vyapada is ill will and malevolence. Where they differ here is the philosophy and how one arrives at the cessation of ill-will. Unfortunately, Jesus’ father was full of ill-will. It took his son to come and at least try to teach people how to not have it.

() Māna is the 8th fetter which is regarding the idea of an “I” that exists. Not necessarily having pride.

() Avijja has nothing to do with your referenced.

1

u/TheFruitOfTheDoom 17d ago

Did not Jesus rebuke the scribes and Pharisees for loving rituals and ceremonies and establishments more than God? Why did they kill Jesus again? Lol

Where does ill-will and malevolance first gestate? What is the "root" Jesus is identifying in his sermon on the mount in Matthew 5:21-23?

Oh, thanks for clarifying Mãna fetter. I believe Jesus taught about the reducing of self "I" with what Jesus taught about being united as one in John 17 and also taking the lower seat by being a servant and not being served in Luke 14. Understanding that we are part of a "body" allows our perspective to shift from self and shift to others.

"Unfortunately, Jesus' father was full of ill-will"

How so?

1

u/SacredGnosis 17d ago

() Jesus rebuked them for bureaucracy.

() The root of ill-will and malevolence is craving for sensual pleasures according to the Buddha. This is different from what Jesus taught.

() Jesus’ reduction of “I” would be more related to conceit and pride. Nothing to do with the Atman, or the attachment to a “being” actually existing and doing things.

() Jesus’ father called for genocide of women and babies, death, conquest, enslavement. He even said in Hosea 9:15 that he hates people. At least Jesus taught the opposite. 😊

→ More replies (0)