Spotlight on.....BUDDHISM

Risky Thicket · Jun 22, 2014

tosca1 said:
I've already read about meditation and the other practices (methods) by which to reach the third and fourth noble truths. And it's a very long process, and no short-cut to it.

I'm referring to the time - in the mean time - while you're going through the process of training!

First, you don't reach or attain the Four Noble Truths. They are truths.

There is nothing to short cut. Time compared to what? We already have within us the ability to become enlightened, true Buddha nature. It's already there. Attaining enlightenment is not a process of time and as I mentioned earlier there are no real levels to attain. I understand that it is confusing and it is a concept that is often difficult to comprehend initially. If you approach the concept with a western Christian mind, as all western Christians do initially, it's not going to be easy to understand.

The Buddhist perspective is different. Buddhism involves, very much so, releasing attachment. Attachment causes suffering. Training helps us on our paths. We each take from it what we need, when we need it. There isn't any test, we don't complete our training, we don't have a time limit, there are no levels, we don't compare ourselves to other Buddhists, we don't count the days. All those things are given to attachment. By placing value on those things we set ourselves up for suffering. We do the best we can to live correctly and we do it by living in the present, not in the past or in the future.

The cessation of suffering is supposed to happen when you've reached nirvana. It's a long way to nirvana!

What happened BEFORE then? How do you alleviate sufferings while waiting?

We don't measure the way to enlightenment. Our perspective is different. We don't count time. In that regard it is meaningless. We let go of that attachment. How can we suffer from "It's a long way to nirvana" if we are not attached to that concept? There is no long way, it has no meaning and therefore we do not suffer from it.

But that's whole point of wanting to know, isn't it? Because it's supposed to be reaching certain levels and upgrading!

It's not. There is no reaching certain levels and upgrading. Those things cause attachment and attachment causes suffering.

So of course you'd want to see where you're at. To see if you're doing things right, and you're on the right track!
To know that you're gradually improving and inching towards that goal....and not sliding down away from it.

No, that is not a Buddhism. See above.

Not having the desire to know is easier said than done! That's not in-step with another current reality!

We're used to wanting to know - we've been conditioned to that!
That's why we now even have "THE RIGHT TO KNOW"....and we cite that right every time we want transparency! :lol:

Not having the desire to know is difficult, yes. But it is possible. Meditation for example is very much about that, not thinking at all. Empty mind, void of thoughts.

tosca1 · Jun 22, 2014

sangha said:
How do you alleviate suffering before you've learned how to alleviate suffering? Did you really just ask that?

As a Christian, I've already found my refuge! Being a Christian may not necessarily stop bad things from happening.....but I've found rest, solace and comfort in knowing that what's of this world is only temporary.

By giving myself to God, and humbly submitting to His will - wherever that may lead me - had actually given me this feeling of FREEDOM.

Money or material matters don't really matter anymore! With that issue alone being taken out of the equation - it's a tremendous feeling of relief. No more real or imagined pressure to try to keep up with the Jones', you've conquered greed, envy, and adoration of material things.

But, what about you? How do you cope with life and existence while still training how to alleviate sufferings?

The point isn't that you should accept it, or that you should not. The point is to realize that suffering is a part of life. To not "accept" it means to not recognize the reality of its' existence. Not recognizing reality is not the way to enlightenment. You must recognize and understand reality and respond to it with Right Actions

But I do recognize and accept that suffering is part of life. We both agree with that.

Tosca1
Moral values during the time of Buddha are not exactly the same now. There are a lot of gray areas - thus even Buddhism has strayed away - in a relativistic way - from the explicit precept #1.
Some Buddhists see abortion as murder, and others, not. Because of relativism.

Christ had foreseen that, thus we've been warned not to conform to this world!
To stay firmly grounded on the Rock!

Sangha
You are trying to make Buddhism fit your understanding in order to make it seem as if it supports your view. It doesn't work that way.

Click to expand...

No, I'm simply stating a fact! Sexual ethics had changed dramatically in the last 50 years! People are no longer content with having a small house with white picket fence. Gender roles had shifted, priorities had changed! Single parents try to cope doing both roles. Materialism had soared to new heights! We can't keep up with new toys brought on by technology - HD TV is out! Ultra-HDTV is in!
People work longer hours, schedules are more hectic than ever.

It's a different world now from the time of Buddha! People nowadays are into instant gratification!

And yes, though relativism had always existed....it's really very prominent now!
Precept #1 of Buddhism seems to have fallen victim to relativism. Christianity faces the same problem too, with Commandment #5.

Many things are easier said that done. Doesn't make them any less true.

And your talk of rights and transparency is just another attempt to impose your own views (in this case your political and moral views) on Buddhism. It's not working.

I'm not imposing my view. I am discussing your belief.

It just seems that way to you I suppose because, for a change....it's actually your faith that's being questioned,
instead of mine.

Anyway, if you've found comfort in your faith......to each his own. I wish you the best.

JP Cusick · Jun 22, 2014

tosca1 said:
Reborn, how? To what?

My understanding is that reincarnation is really a Hindu religion concept, while reincarnation is NOT ever said in the Noble Truths, and other sayings of the Buddha about reincarnation are often misapplied as if the Buddha was a Hindu which is not quite accurate.

Being reborn can be done in many ways and being reborn over and over again is a common human event throughout humanity.

Christians try to claim that their Christian born-again rebirth is the one (1) and the only one but that is not really true. John 3:3-8

An alcoholic who gives up the booze will often say that they experience a rebirth (reborn) into a new life - and that is true.

People who join up to any new religion like becoming Islamic or becoming Catholic or even becoming Buddhist is like a rebirth and reborn or born-again.

And it is not just religion as people join the military or go to school or lots of big life changes are experienced as a born-again experience.

My understanding is that this rebirth is what was meant by the idea of reincarnation.

Of course I do not argue against believing in a rebirth to another life and a different life time, but that is unproven and irrelevant to our lives here-and-now, IMO.

tosca1 · Jun 22, 2014

Risky Thicket said:
First, you don't reach or attain the Four Noble Truths. They are truths.

There is nothing to short cut. Time compared to what? We already have within us the ability to become enlightened, true Buddha nature. It's already there. Attaining enlightenment is not a process of time and as I mentioned earlier there are no real levels to attain. I understand that it is confusing and it is a concept that is often difficult to comprehend initially. If you approach the concept with a western Christian mind, as all western Christians do initially, it's not going to be easy to understand.

The Buddhist perspective is different. Buddhism involves, very much so, releasing attachment. Attachment causes suffering. Training helps us on our paths. We each take from it what we need, when we need it. There isn't any test, we don't complete our training, we don't have a time limit, there are no levels, we don't compare ourselves to other Buddhists, we don't count the days. All those things are given to attachment. By placing value on those things we set ourselves up for suffering. We do the best we can to live correctly and we do it by living in the present, not in the past or in the future.

We don't measure the way to enlightenment. Our perspective is different. We don't count time. In that regard it is meaningless. We let go of that attachment. How can we suffer from "It's a long way to nirvana" if we are not attached to that concept? There is no long way, it has no meaning and therefore we do not suffer from it.

It's not. There is no reaching certain levels and upgrading. Those things cause attachment and attachment causes suffering.

No, that is not a Buddhism. See above.

Not having the desire to know is difficult, yes. But it is possible. Meditation for example is very much about that, not thinking at all. Empty mind, void of thoughts.

Btw, what specific Buddhism do you follow? I've read that there are different kinds.

tosca1 · Jun 22, 2014

JP Cusick said:
My understanding is that reincarnation is really a Hindu religion concept, while reincarnation is NOT ever said in the Noble Truths, and other sayings of the Buddha about reincarnation are often misapplied as if the Buddha was a Hindu which is not quite accurate.

Being reborn can be done in many ways and being reborn over and over again is a common human event throughout humanity.

Christians try to claim that their Christian born-again rebirth is the one (1) and the only one but that is not really true. John 3:3-8

I've never heard Christian born-again being compared with reincarnation or cyclical re-birth.

An alcoholic who gives up the booze will often say that they experience a rebirth (reborn) into a new life - and that is true.

People who join up to any new religion like becoming Islamic or becoming Catholic or even becoming Buddhist is like a rebirth and reborn or born-again.

I guess I'm talking about the Buddhism that believes in reincarnation, or cyclical re-birth.

My understanding is that this rebirth is what was meant by the idea of reincarnation.

Of course I do not argue against believing in a rebirth to another life and a different life time, but that is unproven and irrelevant to our lives here-and-now, IMO.

There is a kind of Buddhism that believes in reincarnation - physically being re-born. Perhaps the Buddhist posters here belong to a different denomination (if that's how they'd call it).

sangha · Jun 22, 2014

tosca1 said:
As a Christian, I've already found my refuge! Being a Christian may not necessarily stop bad things from happening.....but I've found rest, solace and comfort in knowing that what's of this world is only temporary.

By giving myself to God, and humbly submitting to His will - wherever that may lead me - had actually given me this feeling of FREEDOM.

Money or material matters don't really matter anymore! With that issue alone being taken out of the equation - it's a tremendous feeling of relief. No more real or imagined pressure to try to keep up with the Jones', you've conquered greed, envy, and adoration of material things.

But, what about you? How do you cope with life and existence while still training how to alleviate sufferings?

None of that has anything to do with what I asked. You're dodging.

But I do recognize and accept that suffering is part of life. We both agree with that.

No, I'm simply stating a fact! Sexual ethics had changed dramatically in the last 50 years! People are no longer content with having a small house with white picket fence. Gender roles had shifted, priorities had changed! Single parents try to cope doing both roles. Materialism had soared to new heights! We can't keep up with new toys brought on by technology - HD TV is out! Ultra-HDTV is in!
People work longer hours, schedules are more hectic than ever.

It's a different world now from the time of Buddha! People nowadays are into instant gratification!

And yes, though relativism had always existed....it's really very prominent now!
Precept #1 of Buddhism seems to have fallen victim to relativism. Christianity faces the same problem too, with Commandment #5.

Repeating yourself doesn't make it any more relevant to this discussion

I'm not imposing my view. I am discussing your belief.

It just seems that way to you I suppose because, for a change....it's actually your faith that's being questioned,
instead of mine.

Anyway, if you've found comfort in your faith......to each his own. I wish you the best.

You're neither discussing nor questioning Buddhism. You're filtering it through your own viewpoint as others have noticed.

anatta · Jun 22, 2014

Amadeus said:
I agree. I am not a Buddhist myself. I don't think I can follow the tenets. I respect it because it promotes self-improvement not for fear of punishment, but for personal fulfilment. There is no punishment other than what we do to ourselves.

there is some "fear of punishment" but not like an eternal hell -no permanent hell - but lower "planes of existence" can last millions of years. It's all karma, dependent origination.

Risky Thicket · Jun 22, 2014

tosca1 said:
Btw, what specific Buddhism do you follow? I've read that there are different kinds.

Zen. I received my initial training in Vietnamese Zen. I like Korean Zen. Recently I received training in Tibetan, I have also attended Jodo Shinshu, but I am a Zen Buddhist. It suits me best.

anatta · Jun 22, 2014

Risky Thicket said:
Zen. I received my initial training in Vietnamese Zen. I like Korean Zen. Recently I received training in Tibetan, I have also attended Jodo Shinshu, but I am a Zen Buddhist. It suits me best.

nice, and while there are different emphasis by different ..schools.. the differences aren't dramatic. from what I know of zen it is a kind of self actualization that produces nirvannah -
while Tibetan Buddh emphasis compassion as the ultimate. I remember reading some place "compassion is the straight line to enlightenment" and that has always stuck with me.

Both embrace Bodhisattva. again I think ( not being all that familiar with zen) is the methods, that diverge, but not to a radical division

Risky Thicket · Jun 22, 2014

annata said:
nice, and while there are different emphasis by different ..schools.. the differences aren't dramatic. from what I know of zen it is a kind of self actualization that produces nirvannah -
while Tibetan Buddh emphasis compassion as the ultimate. I remember reading some place "compassion is the straight line to enlightenment" and that has always stuck with me.

Both embrace Bodhisattva. again I think ( not being all that familiar with zen) is the methods, that diverge, but not to a radical division

Absolutely. There are many things that I have taken from Tibetan. I have always found acceptance and welcome in all traditions I have experienced.

anatta · Jun 22, 2014

Risky Thicket said:
Absolutely. There are many things that I have taken from Tibetan. I have always found acceptance and welcome in all traditions I have experienced.

meditation is my down fall, I used to be able to empty the mind, but as I aged, and my body weakens I do not have the....passion to sit quietly. So I do some walking meditation now.

I try to keep inside my thoughts, and not go into the "monkey mind" syndrome; but Tibetan just suites my personality better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_monkey

monkey mind, from Chinese xinyuan and Sino-Japanese shin'en 心猿 [lit. "heart-/mind-monkey"], is a Buddhist term meaning "unsettled; restless; capricious; whimsical; fanciful; inconstant; confused; indecisive; uncontrollable

JP Cusick · Jun 23, 2014

tosca1 said:
I've never heard Christian born-again being compared with reincarnation or cyclical re-birth.

That comes from the universal concept that God (God by any of the many names) is working throughout all of humanity and therefore we can find the highest of truths by comparing and by mixing all the religions together to get the bigger picture and to get the more accurate truths.

Christianity tries to be far more spiritual and far less physical, while Buddhism is far more physical and much less spiritual, and so the two messages blend together nicely, and even the two persons of Jesus and Buddha are very much alike and compatible.

There is no reason to accept either one or to reject either one, as the two go together very well indeed.

tosca1 · Jun 24, 2014

JP Cusick said:
That comes from the universal concept that God (God by any of the many names) is working throughout all of humanity and therefore we can find the highest of truths by comparing and by mixing all the religions together to get the bigger picture and to get the more accurate truths.

Okay. That's based on pluralism. That's more prevalent now with the world being in an all-inclusive mindset.

Religious pluralism is an attitude or policy regarding the diversity of religious belief systems co-existing in society. It can indicate one or more of the following:

As the name of the worldview according to which one's religion is not the sole and exclusive source of truth, and thus the acknowledgement that at least some truths and true values exist in other religions.

As acceptance of the concept that two or more religions with mutually exclusive truth claims are equally valid. This may be considered a form of either toleration (a concept that arose as a result of the European wars of religion) or moral relativism.

The understanding that the exclusive claims of different religions turn out, upon closer examination, to be variations of universal truths that have been taught since time immemorial. This is called Perennialism (based on the concept of philosophia perennis) or Traditionalism.
Sometimes as a synonym for ecumenism, i.e., the promotion of some level of unity, co-operation, and improved understanding between different religions or different denominations within a single religion.

As term for the condition of harmonious co-existence between adherents of different religions or religious denominations.
As a social norm and not merely a synonym for religious diversity.[1]
Religious pluralism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Being mono-theistic, that conflicts with Christianity, though.

Christianity tries to be far more spiritual and far less physical, while Buddhism is far more physical and much less spiritual, and so the two messages blend together nicely, and even the two persons of Jesus and Buddha are very much alike and compatible.

Christianity is also very much physical! And both are very much spiritual.

The only difference is the WAY by which we reach our goals.

To Christians, Jesus Christ is THE Way. His teachings, upon deep reflection, are practically the same - embodied in His teachings about LOVE, and compassion. All living things have values (thus God made a covenant with man AND ALL LIVING THINGS regarding how life will be in the NEW EARTH).

Buddhism ends sufferings through enlightenment - which is achieved by undergoing numerous trainings which can last several lifetimes.

Whereas.....

Christianity teaches that sufferings end by believing in Jesus Christ - all those that Buddhist learn in several lifetimes, are practiced in the one and only lifetime of the Christian.

If one accepts Jesus as his Saviour and believes in Him - the person will have a TRANSFORMATION!
He'll be transformed because if he believes in Christ - of course, all the teachings of Christ will be reflected in his daily everyday life! Thus, Christianity is spread by the reflections of Christ's teachings through our everyday lives, and how we treat others.

There is no trial run in Christianity.

There is no reason to accept either one or to reject either one, as the two go together very well indeed.

A practicing Christian cannot accept Buddhism on the simple ground that there is only ONE WAY to end all sufferings, and that is through Jesus Christ. Cyclical re-birth goes against the Bible, too.

To try to marry the two religions would be relativistic.

Rainman05 · Jun 24, 2014

Another religion that people in the west fall over in droves thinking it's somehow better or more "enlightened" when in fact, it's not. It's not a peaceful religion or anything. That's us stereotyping it.

You know what buddhists monks are? A military order. You know what the purpose of buddhism is when implemented in the real world? To establish a theocracy, as Tibet was for so many centuries/milleniums. So stop romanticizing the whole concept of buddhism. Just because the Dalai Lama seems like a sweet old man, doesn't mean that he prezides over a sweet religion whose **** don't stink.

Andalublue · Jun 24, 2014

Rainman05 said:
Another religion that people in the west fall over in droves thinking it's somehow better or more "enlightened" when in fact, it's not. It's not a peaceful religion or anything. That's us stereotyping it.

You've never read here a single Buddhist claiming that Buddhism is 'better' than anything - that's called dualist thinking. It just IS, as we all are. Buddhists are not anything, they are all different.Risky, Annata, Sagha and I are all different, almost certainly practice Buddhism differently, and wouldn't claim superiority to anyone.

You know what buddhists monks are? A military order. You know what the purpose of buddhism is when implemented in the real world? To establish a theocracy, as Tibet was for so many centuries/milleniums. So stop romanticizing the whole concept of buddhism. Just because the Dalai Lama seems like a sweet old man, doesn't mean that he prezides over a sweet religion whose **** don't stink.

I think you're projecting your misunderstanding of Buddhism onto everyone else's understanding of it. Every Buddhist's s*** stinks the same as every Christian's, every Jew's, every Moslem's and every atheist's. S*** stinks, that's the nature of it, better to accept that stinky nature and realise that the wind blows away stink with time. Nothing stinks forever, and so what? Don't take a positive or negative attitude to stinky things, just recognise it and move on, knowing that it will disappear, just like everything else.

tosca1 · Jun 24, 2014

There is a theory that Buddha may've been an Israelite. Didn't have the chance to read this, and I've got to go....but, read.

BUDDHA THE ISRAELITE

IN almost startling confirmation of the Israelitish origin of Buddhism many references are to be found in ancient writings, symbols and rock inscriptions which compel us to the conclusion that the original Buddhism was none other than the Israel religion. When the prophet Ezekiel was carried captive to Babylon at the age of 25 both he and his father, Buzi, as Aaronites had the missionary urge to see their kinsfolk of Israel cleansed from their idolatry and return to the worship of the one true God, the God of Israel.

In the book of Ezekiel we have the missionary prophets denunciation of the sins of the House of Judah with whose King (Jehoiachin) , and Court officials Ezekiel was carried captive to Babylon. (II Kings XXIV, 14 -16, Ezekiel 1, 2)

The prophet covers a wide field for he sees in a vision the whole House of Israel, twelve tribed Israel, revived and restored to God's favour. The home training of Ezekiel in the house of his father, Buzi, had one object and that was missions to Israel.

Buddha The Israelite

Rainman05 · Jun 24, 2014

Andalublue said:
You've never read here a single Buddhist claiming that Buddhism is 'better' than anything - that's called dualist thinking. It just IS, as we all are. Buddhists are not anything, they are all different.Risky, Annata, Sagha and I are all different, almost certainly practice Buddhism differently, and wouldn't claim superiority to anyone.

I think you're projecting your misunderstanding of Buddhism onto everyone else's understanding of it. Every Buddhist's s*** stinks the same as every Christian's, every Jew's, every Moslem's and every atheist's. S*** stinks, that's the nature of it, better to accept that stinky nature and realise that the wind blows away stink with time. Nothing stinks forever, and so what? Don't take a positive or negative attitude to stinky things, just recognise it and move on, knowing that it will disappear, just like everything else.

My comment wasn't written in the idea that one is better than the other.
My comment was written to deter people... or rather try and persuade people to stop romanticizing about a religion and it's dogmatic aspects.

As far as what religion you follow personally, it doesn't matter to me. Follow whichever religion makes you want to be a better person.

But don't sell snake oil and say it's honey. Stop romanticizing about what certain religions are or what certain things are in. No major religion that exists today, judaism in all forms, christianity in all forms, islam in all forms, hinduism in all forms, buddhism in all forms, etc exist because they're "peaceful" religions. No, they all have the propensity to do violence and instigate people to religious warfare in a greater extent or another. Obviously religions like hinduism or islam find it a lot more easier to manipulate their followers to such than others, but the rest are not far behind. It's a very narrow race for first place.

You know what only religion that exists today cannot be manipulated to make people to do violence? Jainism. That's the only one. You know how many jains are there in the world? Around 4mil. Mostly in the Gujarat area (NW of India). Now if you know your geography, you should know that said region is where the so called fertile crescent area starts and spreads all over northern india. So because it's the most fertile of areas... logically, you would assume that the highest number of people live there. And yet, why just 3-4mil jains when there are almost 1bil hindus? Jeez, I wonder why...
hint: jainism is a very old religion, about 3k years old. In a very fertile region... there is just 1 correct answer to explain the low numbers.

EDIT: Corrected spelling errors and minor mistakes.

Rainman05 · Jun 24, 2014

tosca1 said:
There is a theory that Buddha may've been an Israelite. Didn't have the chance to read this, and I've got to go....but, read.

BUDDHA THE ISRAELITE

IN almost startling confirmation of the Israelitish origin of Buddhism many references are to be found in ancient writings, symbols and rock inscriptions which compel us to the conclusion that the original Buddhism was none other than the Israel religion. When the prophet Ezekiel was carried captive to Babylon at the age of 25 both he and his father, Buzi, as Aaronites had the missionary urge to see their kinsfolk of Israel cleansed from their idolatry and return to the worship of the one true God, the God of Israel.

In the book of Ezekiel we have the missionary prophets denunciation of the sins of the House of Judah with whose King (Jehoiachin) , and Court officials Ezekiel was carried captive to Babylon. (II Kings XXIV, 14 -16, Ezekiel 1, 2)

The prophet covers a wide field for he sees in a vision the whole House of Israel, twelve tribed Israel, revived and restored to God's favour. The home training of Ezekiel in the house of his father, Buzi, had one object and that was missions to Israel.

Buddha The Israelite

No he wasn't. He was an indian from india. Not an israelite.

Risky Thicket · Jun 24, 2014

Rainman05 said:
Another religion that people in the west fall over in droves thinking it's somehow better or more "enlightened" when in fact, it's not. It's not a peaceful religion or anything. That's us stereotyping it.

You know what buddhists monks are? A military order. You know what the purpose of buddhism is when implemented in the real world? To establish a theocracy, as Tibet was for so many centuries/milleniums. So stop romanticizing the whole concept of buddhism. Just because the Dalai Lama seems like a sweet old man, doesn't mean that he prezides over a sweet religion whose **** don't stink.

Your opinion is noted.

Andalublue · Jun 24, 2014

Rainman05 said:
But don't sell snake oil and say it's honey. Stop romanticizing about what certain religions are or what certain things are in. No major religion that exists today, judaism in all forms, christianity in all forms, islam in all forms, hinduism in all forms, buddhism in all forms, etc exist because they're "peaceful" religions.

Straw-man argument, since no one here has made such a claim.

tosca1 · Jun 24, 2014

Rainman05 said:
No he wasn't. He was an indian from india. Not an israelite.

It is quite interesting. I never knew about that....but because I am intrigued by the similarities of the teachings (entertained the possibility of Buddha having had contact with Judaism, and was inspired by it), I googled and that came up.

Here's another one:

In conclusion, when we break down the names, we get a partial picture of the migrational trail in which these Shakya/Sakyas took. First is the name that they are identified with, which is Shakya/Sakya, and as you can see it is another rendering of the name Isaac, thus indicating that they are from the land of Israel.
This particular branch also refers to themselves as Khathiya, which as you have just read is another name for Kush/Cush, and suggests that when they were taken into exile by the Assyrians and were placed most likely in Hara and from their migrated eastward to the land called Cush otherwise western portions of India at a later date.
Now, Buddha's clan as you already know by now is Gautam/Gautama/Gotama. All of these names point to none other then the tribe of Gad as already stated. When we add the fact that they referred to themselves as Khathiya, which translates to Cush, then Gandhara seems to be the area of choice for Gandhara is next door to the lands called Cush. Gandhara [im Old Persian was named Gadar meaning Hara of Gad] and had been named after the tribe of Gad.[18] This suggests a presence of that tribe at one time before this particular clan made their push into the land of Cush and then finally settling in the land of what is today the nation of Nepal.

"Was Buddha an Israelite?" by Cam Rea

Buddhism may be older than Christianity, HOWEVER..... the New Testament is the continuation of the OLD TESTAMENT.

JP Cusick · Jun 25, 2014

tosca1 said:
It is quite interesting. I never knew about that....but because I am intrigued by the similarities of the teachings (entertained the possibility of Buddha having had contact with Judaism, and was inspired by it), I googled and that came up.

Here's another one:

In conclusion, when we break down the names, we get a partial picture of the migrational trail in which these Shakya/Sakyas took. First is the name that they are identified with, which is Shakya/Sakya, and as you can see it is another rendering of the name Isaac, thus indicating that they are from the land of Israel.
This particular branch also refers to themselves as Khathiya, which as you have just read is another name for Kush/Cush, and suggests that when they were taken into exile by the Assyrians and were placed most likely in Hara and from their migrated eastward to the land called Cush otherwise western portions of India at a later date.
Now, Buddha's clan as you already know by now is Gautam/Gautama/Gotama. All of these names point to none other then the tribe of Gad as already stated. When we add the fact that they referred to themselves as Khathiya, which translates to Cush, then Gandhara seems to be the area of choice for Gandhara is next door to the lands called Cush. Gandhara [im Old Persian was named Gadar meaning Hara of Gad] and had been named after the tribe of Gad.[18] This suggests a presence of that tribe at one time before this particular clan made their push into the land of Cush and then finally settling in the land of what is today the nation of Nepal.

"Was Buddha an Israelite?" by Cam Rea

Buddhism may be older than Christianity, HOWEVER..... the New Testament is the continuation of the OLD TESTAMENT.

You and that have simply got things mixed up.

It is God who connects all the religions together, when it just looks as if the religions have some independence of each other.

"Israel" does not really mean "Judaism nor Jewish" as it shows in the Bible that where the first place the "Jews" are mentioned then the Jews are at war (at war) with Israel, see 2 Kings 16:5-7, so Jews and Israel are different, and modern Judaism has had lots of influence from Buddhism which is why we can see lots of Jews as Buddhist today. Plus there is significant evidence that Jesus traveled to the "east" which means that Jesus had to have known about the Buddha and about Buddhism too, plus at least one (and maybe more) of Jesus' apostles also traveled "east" into the lands of Hinduism and of Buddhism and of Taoism too. There is also the reality that most of the Hebrew Bible (the so-called Old Testament) was written during the Babylonian captivity and the Bible text was mixed together with the much older Babylonian scriptures, see Akkadian (a distant and much older cousin to Hebrew).

So all the old religions do have connections and interactions, but it is a far FAR stretch to view the Buddha as an Israelite, and yet it is highly possible that the Buddha might have read or studied the Hebrew scriptures of those times.

tosca1 · Jun 25, 2014

JP Cusick said:
It is God who connects all the religions together, when it just looks as if the religions have some independence of each other.

Beg to disagree with you on that. That flies against logic.

If all religions are connected by God.....there wouldn't be the very first (and most important) Commandment shared by Judaism and Christianity: Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.

Idolatry wouldn't have been a problem. No bowing down to idols - especially pagan idols.
There wouldn't have to be any warnings about false teachings.

"Israel" does not really mean "Judaism nor Jewish"

Israel is the land promised to Abraham by God.

The history of the Jewish people begins with Abraham, and the story of Abraham begins when G-d tells him to leave his homeland, promising Abraham and his descendants a new home in the land of Canaan. (Gen. 12). This is the land now known as Israel, named after Abraham's grandson, whose descendants are the Jewish people. The land is often referred to as the Promised Land because of G-d's repeated promise (Gen. 12:7, 13:15, 15:18, 17:8) to give the land to the descendants of Abraham.

The Jewish People. Another name for the Children of Israel. It is a reference to the Jews as a nation in the classical sense, meaning a group of people with a shared history and a sense of a group identity rather than a territorial and political entity.[
url=http://www.jewfaq.org/israel.htm]Judaism 101: The Land of Israel[/url]

as it shows in the Bible that where the first place the "Jews" are mentioned then the Jews are at war (at war) with Israel, see 2 Kings 16:5-7, so Jews and Israel are different,

Not really different. However, during that time - Israel was split into two kingdoms (Northern and Southern).

Question: "Why was Israel divided into the Southern Kingdom and Northern Kingdom?"

Answer: Throughout their history in the Promised Land, the children of Israel struggled with conflict among the tribes. The disunity went back all the way to the patriarch Jacob, who presided over a house divided. The sons of Leah and the sons of Rachel had their share of contention even in Jacob’s lifetime (Genesis 37:1-11).

“So Israel has been in rebellion against the house of David to this day” (1 Kings 12:19). The northern kingdom is called “Israel” (or sometimes “Ephraim”) in Scripture, and the southern kingdom is called “Judah.” From the divine viewpoint, the division was a judgment on not keeping God’s commands, specifically the commands prohibiting idolatry. From a human viewpoint, the division was the result of tribal discord and political unrest. The principle is that sin brings division (1 Corinthians 1:13, 11:18; James 4:1).

The good news is that God, in His mercy, has promised a reuniting of the northern and southern kingdoms. “He will raise a banner for the nations / and gather the exiles of Israel; / he will assemble the scattered people of Judah / from the four quarters of the earth. / Ephraim’s jealousy will vanish, / and Judah’s enemies will be destroyed; / Ephraim will not be jealous of Judah, / nor Judah hostile toward Ephraim” (Isaiah 11:12-13). When the Prince of Peace—Jesus Christ—reigns in His millennial kingdom, all hostility, jealousy, and conflict among the tribes will be put to rest.

Read more: Why was Israel divided into the Southern Kingdom and Northern Kingdom?

and modern Judaism has had lots of influence from Buddhism which is why we can see lots of Jews as Buddhist today.

I'm not talking about modern Judaism, or modern Buddhism.

Plus there is significant evidence that Jesus traveled to the "east" which means that Jesus had to have known about the Buddha and about Buddhism too, plus at least one (and maybe more) of Jesus' apostles also traveled "east" into the lands of Hinduism and of Buddhism and of Taoism too.

That is simply an assumption...but there is no known evidence that Jesus travelled to the east. Perhaps you heard of it because of Notovitch's Unknown Life of Jesus? Here's a long detailed article about that.

Conclusion

It remains quite clear that Notovitch’s Unknown Life of Jesus was a hoax. It is proof enough of this that Notovitch, intimidated by Max Müller’s attack, backed down and changed his story, pulling the rug out from under his subsequent defenders, who were apparently ignorant of his revisionism. And the vehement denials of the original Hemis abbot echo loud and clear. So what are we to make of the testimonies and assertions of Swami Abhedananda, Nicholas Roerich, and Mrs. Caspari? First, we must conclude Roerich’s literary imagination ran away with him, especially since we can actually identify his unacknowledged sources. He provides no independent corroboration. And in the cases of Swami Abhedananda and Mrs. Caspari we are not even dealing with people who claim to have read the manuscript! Both were shown impressive volumes that they could not read, and someone else assured them that it was the Notovitch manuscript (or something corresponding to it).

The solution is simple: the monks of Hemis had come to be familiar with Notovitch’s book through Douglas’s efforts to debunk it, and in later years some of them told visitors what they wanted to hear, actually reading or paraphrasing from Notovitch’s hoax-text itself. Even though Swami Abhedananda initially feared Notovitch’s story was too good to be true, it is obvious that, if true, it would have delighted him, because the Vedanta Society highly esteems Jesus as an incarnation of Vishnu. A Jesus trained in Asia would be ideal for the Swami’s beliefs. This would be no less true for Mrs. Caspari, a member of a pseudo-Zoroastrian syncretic religion. A handful of Tibetan monks, welcoming a theological agenda that made Christianity a derivative sub-set of Buddhism (Jesus having been trained in Tibet, after all), were happy to take up Notovitch’s ball and run with it. Though not for long, since, as we have seen, some years later, Abhedananda’s disciple was told there were no such books to be found.

So, did Jesus visit Tibet? It is possible. Such travel even in ancient times was not out of the question. But there is no real evidence that he did. The historian must always address the question of the great New Testament scholar F.C. Baur: “Anything is possible, but what is probable?” It is probable that Jesus did not visit Tibet.

Jesus in Tibet « Westar Institute Westar Institute

tosca1 · Jun 25, 2014

JP Cusick said:
Jesus' apostles also traveled "east" into the lands of Hinduism and of Buddhism and of Taoism too.

That doesn't matter. I was talking of the possible influence of Judaism on Buddha.

Judaism has its roots as a structured religion in the Middle East during the Bronze Age.[14] Of the major world religions, Judaism is considered one of the oldest monotheistic religions.[15][16] The Hebrews / Israelites were already referred to as "Jews" in later books of the Tanakh such as the Book of Esther, with the term Jews replacing the title "Children of Israel".[17] Judaism's texts, traditions and values strongly influenced later Abrahamic religions, including Christianity, Islam and the Baha'i Faith.[18][19] Many aspects of Judaism have also directly or indirectly influenced secular Western ethics and civil law.[20]
Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is also the reality that most of the Hebrew Bible (the so-called Old Testament) was written during the Babylonian captivity and the Bible text was mixed together with the much older Babylonian scriptures, see Akkadian (a distant and much older cousin to Hebrew).

There is no such reality! That's an assumption!

Here's a long article from Ted Wright.

Was the Old Testament Invented During the Babylonian Exile? The Answer is NO.

Just recently the History Channel aired the six-part docu-drama, “Mankind: The Story of Us.” Perhaps you might have watched it. Last year I was contacted by the producers and asked if I would like to participate as one of the “experts.”

last April I flew to New York where I was interviewed for approximately 2 hours with about thirty questions which would be posed on the “Mankind” series. Here is the second question sent to me by the producers.

“Describe how the Hebrew Bible originates during the exile in Babylon. How significant a moment do you think this is?

I did have an answer ready but when I began to give it the interviewer stopped me and said that he was “looking for a different answer” and that the series “wasn’t going to be focusing on controversies and debates” and such. So, I had to politely refuse to answer the question – which of course, “begs the question” on the origins of the Bible as well as Hebrew monotheism.

In the documentary (see above clip) Dr. Reza Aslan, an Iranian born, Shia Muslim writer, states in essence, that the Jews didn’t actually believe that the God they worshipped (Yahweh) was the “one true God for all of mankind” until after their experience in Babylonian captivity in 604-586 B.C.. Another point made in the episode dealt with the origins of the Hebrew Bible itself. The selected experts in no uncertain terms, either stated or implied that Hebrew monotheism, the Bible, and the stories contained therein such as Abraham, Noah, David & Solomon, etc… “emerged” from the experiences of the Jews during the Babylonian exile.

For a more in-depth treatment on this subject and on the general trustworthiness of the Old Testament, I would recommend these two excellent books. On the Reliability of the Old Testament (2003), by Egyptologist, Professor Kenneth A. Kitchen and the insightful volume, Israel: Ancient Kingdom or Late Invention? (2008), Edited by Daniel I. Block.

To begin with, the claim that the Hebrew Bible, and monotheism began during the exile ignores or overlooks literally tons of epigraphic and archaeological evidence to the contrary which reveals that Hebrew Bible and the nation Israel have roots deeply embedded in real history. The first artifact discovered which referred to Israel as a people was in 1896 by the British archaeologist Sir Flinders Petrie. The find by Petrie was called the “Merneptah Stele”[1] and is also known as the “Israel Stele.” It got its name from the fact that the main text on the stele commemorates the Egyptian Pharaoh Merneptah’s victory over the Libyans and their allies. In line 27 “Israel” is mentioned by name as one of the people groups who were conquered. What is significant is that in Egyptian hieroglyphics the determinative for “people” is used which indicates that there was a group of people who identified themselves by the name “Israel” in the 13th Century B.C.

MORE...

Was the Old Testament Invented During the Babylonian Exile? The Answer is NO. - Cross Examined - Christian Apologetic Ministry | Frank Turek | Christian Apologetics | Christian Apologetics Speakers

So all the old religions do have connections and interactions, but it is a far FAR stretch to view the Buddha as an Israelite, and yet it is highly possible that the Buddha might have read or studied the Hebrew scriptures of those times.

I don't know about how far a stretch that would be....but certainly, it is highly possibly that Buddha might've had access to the Scriptures, or had contact with someone who'd discussed it with him.

Amadeus · Jun 25, 2014

tosca1 said:
Buddhism may be older than Christianity, HOWEVER..... the New Testament is the continuation of the OLD TESTAMENT.

Christ reformed Judaism, just as Buddha reformed Hinduism (which predates Judaism).

Spotlight on.....BUDDHISM

Risky Thicket

Sewer Rat

tosca1

JP Cusick

The Expert

tosca1

tosca1

sangha

anatta

Risky Thicket

Sewer Rat

anatta

Risky Thicket

Sewer Rat

anatta

JP Cusick

The Expert

tosca1

Rainman05

Andalublue

Hello again!

tosca1

Rainman05

Rainman05

Risky Thicket

Sewer Rat

Andalublue

Hello again!

tosca1

JP Cusick

The Expert

tosca1

tosca1

Amadeus

Chews the Cud