Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is my understanding of Gautama. He was someone who achieved the clarity of a Buddah but Buddah itself is a concept similar to Messiah as a concept. I think it doesn't translate into certain religious sects that have only one being occupying that role. How accurate do you find my understanding?
This is my understanding of Gautama. He was someone who achieved the clarity of a Buddah but Buddah itself is a concept similar to Messiah as a concept. I think it doesn't translate into certain religious sects that have only one being occupying that role. How accurate do you find my understanding?
I'm not saying you're wrong. But it's not quite how I look at it...which is fine.
There have supposedly been a long line of Buddhas (some sects say 5, 7, 12, or 28) all of which have zero evidence of existance except for Gautama, and based on the teaching of Thai Buddhism (Theravada), each lived at a time after all the teachings of the previous Buddha had totally faded away from mankind's consciousness. Then the new Buddha would come. Which would mean that there were Buddhas as far back as (for example) Australopithecus. Well, excuse me...that's baloney. But, that may be where the concept is somewhat similar to a Messiah (again, somewhat).
But I think of how one sees Buddhism really does depend on whether one sees Buddhism as a religion or a philosophy, or somewhere in between. To me it's a philosophy where one looks at a teaching and reasons it out in terms of does this make sense to me. For example, when I look at the 5 (or 8) Precepts, they seem very reasonable (although not necessarily easy). But when I look at the 250 (give or take) precepts that monks are required to follow...some of them seem silly (https://en.dhammadana.org/sangha/vinaya/227.htm).
This is my understanding of Gautama. He was someone who achieved the clarity of a Buddah but Buddah itself is a concept similar to Messiah as a concept. I think it doesn't translate into certain religious sects that have only one being occupying that role. How accurate do you find my understanding?
Buddha is Sanskrit in which it merely means one who has achieved wisdom, derived from the root word buddhi, intellect. I does not mean Messiah, someone ordained by God to lead people or anything like that. It does however mean a special kind of wisdom, of realization. He however never said anything about it, but some of his Indian followers revere him as an avatar of Vishnu.
This is my understanding of Gautama. He was someone who achieved the clarity of a Buddah but Buddah itself is a concept similar to Messiah as a concept. I think it doesn't translate into certain religious sects that have only one being occupying that role. How accurate do you find my understanding?
every person has within the potential to be a Buddha.
"Buddha stated emphatically that we can all become Buddhas. And Buddha said that everyone can achieve what he did; everyone can become a Buddha. This is because we all have “Buddha-nature” – the fundamental working materials that enable Buddhahood."
Both Jesus and Buddha were mentioned in the post you responded to.
End of banter.
It's not banter. You are misreprestenting what I said. Period.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
