Was jesus another buddha? (disciples, Holy Spirit, quote, Christianity)

[june 7th]

Originally Posted by koi

This is a one-dimensional perspective that sees "differences", and is taken verbatim from Evangelical teaching, without any independent thought or analysis or insight. Other ways of looking at the problem don't reveal as many differences.

No, actually, it was written by someone who is anything BUT one dimensional in either her thinking or how she views human beings. It was also written by someone who isn't exactly capable of writing anything that is "verbatim from Evangelical teaching." --It was, however, written by an atheist who spent a fair amount of her academic time studying Buddhism, and for a while there after, practicing it. As for the lack of independent thought or analysis or insight? This: (Trans: I don't think we've had the chance to get to know one another, have we?)

Originally Posted by koi

It's a matter of perspective, though.

Very Zen. Buddha would agree, and so do I.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

June . . . this is a misunderstanding of the spiritual import of these two figures. The "religions" or "philosophies" that grew out of them are not similar at all being derivatives of the cultures and societal influences in which they evolved. Your discussion is more properly a comparative religion discussion . . . NOT a comparision of the spiritual attainments of the two figures. Guatama was less developed spiritually . . . but responding to the same source of enlightenment driving human spiritual evolution that eventually produced Jesus.

This is also why he did not succeed in achieving the spiritual development that he intuitively knew should be possible and would eventually manifest in the Maitreya . . . i.e. Jesus.

...spiritual development has little to do with the societal context in which it exists.

Not sure about ^ this. For one thing, it would appear to be extremely difficult for anyone to 'spiritually evolve' independent of their respective culture. That is not to say, however, that if true "enlightenment/nirvana" exists (and June suspects it does) that it would not by definition transcend culture. However, we all start from somewhere, and whether we like it or not, we are all largely influenced by our cultural mindset and upbringing.

Nonetheless, June still fails to see how Buddha and Jesus spiritually attained the same thing. --And bear in mind, June is one who tends to see more of the similarities in things than she does the disimilarities. (Despite what someone above, states.) Buddha and Jesus took very different paths in attaining what they each did, spiritually. Their purposes were vastly different.

Although June was going to disagree with you regarding your statement about Buddha being less spiritually developed, in pondering it a bit further, it resulted in her actually finding what she can now see as one big similarity. June still disagrees that Buddha was "less" spiritually devoloped; it depends what one's 'index' is as regards 'spiritually developed.' It would strike June as pretty darn sophisticated on the part of the Buddha to have attained nirvana. --And therein, June sees the similarities: The "oneness" of the Buddha's experience as well as the "oneness" of Jesus and God the Father.

-But then again, "nirvana" is oftentimes translated as "extinction." --The most common example being that of blowing out a candle. (Hence, the extinction/non-existence of the ego.) While Jesus certainly possessed a very humble ego, he possessed one, nonetheless. --And resurrection doesn't jive in June's mind with nirvana.

Now the one thing that was most compelling (at least for June) about what you wrote, above, would be this: That both Buddha and Jesus (along with all of mankind, June would humbly add) were "responding to the same source of enlightenment driving human spiritual evolution." -Which would admittedly place June perilously close to more of a theistic posture. (Which she's not about to do!) However, if one is to entertain the prospect that a deity exists, then even June would have to agree with your statement. (Little heathen though she may be!)

Originally Posted by HonuMan

Just curious: why does June refer to himself or herself in the third person?

Because she can.

[coyoteskye]

Originally Posted by june 7th

Now this is interesting...June doesn't see too many similarities between Jesus or the Buddha at all. (An occasional parallel, perhaps, but that's about all.) For one thing, the Buddha never claimed divinity, whereas Jesus claimed to be sent by God the Father, who (reference Genesis 1) was the creator of all mankind and the world at large. Buddhists do not adhere to any such notion or belief. Buddhism is fundamentally non-theist.

In looking at the underlying theology of Christianity, and the precepts/philosophy of Buddhism, the 'similarities' become that much more obscure, if not altogether non-existent. The two have incredibly different 'world views' if not messages. Buddhism is not the most positive of mindsets, as compared to Christianity. Buddhism underscores the 'pain and sorrow/suffering' of the worldly condition and emphasizes the means by which to escape that. Christianity, on the other hand, would appear to emphasize the more positive attributes; one emphasizes the ways and means by which one can escape the world, the other, those ways and means by which one can better engage in this world.

As a result of Buddha's life and teaching, nirvana is the ultimate goal to be attained by Buddhists. Jesus, on the other hand, advocated for eternal life. There is no concept of "eternal life" in Buddhist mindset, thought, or philosophy; there is reincarnation, instead. Unless one wishes to make the (very broad) leap that Jesus somehow advocated (if not existsed) as a means by which to break the chain of samsara, June's just not getting the similarities between the two figures.

Buddha attained at "oneness" in his achieving nirvana, just as Jesus reunited with the Father in his resurrection. While this could perhaps be perceived as a similarity, there nonetheless exists such a vast difference between the two concepts, beginning with the very definition of 'mankind' in terms of orientation and mindset. The ultimate goal as advocated by Buddha entails an "inward" directiveness, as opposed to the 'outward' message advocated by Jesus.

If nothing else, the negation of the Divine would stand out in June's mind as the greatest dissimilarity. While both Buddha and Jesus advocated for, and taught similiar messages of love/loving-kindness and the means by which mankind could be 'redeemed' that concept of "redemption/salvation" is SO dissimiliar in both orientation and underlying philosophy.

So at the end of the day, June sees far more of that which Jesus and Buddha did NOT have in common than she does the similarities...

This post is filled with misspellings and poorly written, as June is late for work.


Take gentle Friday care.

Let's distinguish Jesus and the mystical path of Christ from the Christianity that people have come to know and accept and which you are basing your limited understanding of Jesus and the path of Christ upon.

To base our understanding of Jesus and his life soley (or even primarily) on exoteric christianity (as opposed to esoteric Christianity) is a mistake, imo.

"When you make the two one,
and when you make the inner as the outer
and the outer as the inner
and the above as the below,
and when you make the male and female
into a single one,
so that the male will not be the male
and the female not be the female ...
then shall you enter the kingdom of heaven."

-The Gospel according to Thomas, logion 22-

That is, as i perceive, Jesus indicating an experiential understanding of non-dualistic awareness ... a very high and exhalted state of mind which a yogi would necessarily ultimately attain in the process of depth meditation / spiritual evolution / consciousness expansion.

Once again, to "judge" or think we understand who Jesus truly was by way of "traditional" sources of information is folly.
Just the understanding alone that the bible is radically mistranslated and misinterpreted should make one question (and doubt) what one has learned and what one assumes regarding Christ, the life of Jesus and the words that he spoke (or didn't speak).

And reincarnation is not a substitute for the christian notion of "eternal life".
One does, ultimately, "get off the wheel".

And you speak of Jesus being outwardly directed. This is far from the truth ... "the kingdom of heaven is within" is the most obvious teaching (and in the bible no less) indicating that Jesus was absolutely inwardly directed.
Christian mystics and the expressions of their mystical Christic experiences throughout the ages are testimony that Jesus and the true path of Christ are absolutely not outwardly "driven".
The teachings that he gave to the common people of the time and that have been available to all people via the bible should not be used to uphold the assumption that Jesus was outwardly directed.

Good works, charity, etc., etc., is an aspect of the Christianity that we are familiar with and similar (if not identical to) Karma Yoga and the Buddhist notion of selflessness and/or selfless service.

And to say that "Buddhism is not the most positive of mindsets compared to Christianity" is just silly, imo.
The understanding that what we perceive to be real is transient and illusory is not a negative position but rather a necessary and foundational realization that results in the awareness that our attachments to that which is transient and illusory cause us great suffering.

[june 7th]

Originally Posted by coyoteskye

Let's distinguish Jesus and the mystical path of Christ from the Christianity that people have come to know and accept and which you are basing your limited understanding of Jesus and the path of Christ upon.

June's with ya on that one, although she couldn't help but react to your little "jab."...

Originally Posted by coyoteskye

To base our understanding of Jesus and his life soley (or even primarily) on exoteric christianity (as opposed to esoteric Christianity) is a mistake, imo.

"When you make the two one,
and when you make the inner as the outer
and the outer as the inner
and the above as the below,
and when you make the male and female
into a single one,
so that the male will not be the male
and the female not be the female ...
then shall you enter the kingdom of heaven."

-The Gospel according to Thomas, logion 22-

June doesn't have access to the Gospel according to Thomas, however, she would underscore the point you are making above with this:

"The goal is for all of them to become one heart and mind-
Just as you, Father, are in me and I in you,
So they might be one heart and mind with us.

...

So they'll be as unified and together as we are--
I in them and you in me.
Then they'll be mature in this oneness."

-John 17

Originally Posted by coyoteskye

That is, as i perceive, Jesus indicating an experiential understanding of non-dualistic awareness ... a very high and exhalted state of mind which a yogi would necessarily ultimately attain in the process of depth meditation / spiritual evolution.

No disagreement here.

Originally Posted by coyoteskye

Once again, to "judge" or think we understand who Jesus truly was by way of "traditional" sources of information is folly.
Just the understanding alone that the bible is radically mistranslated and misinterpreted should make one question (and doubt) what one has learned and what one assumes regarding Christ, the life of Jesus and the words that he spoke (or didn't speak).

Uh, with all due respect, June's not too sure what she has to go on, other than the various translations of the bible that she has, and what she has been taught. Sorry.

Originally Posted by coyoteskye

And reincarnation is not a substitute for the christian notion of "eternal life".
One does, ultimately, "get off the wheel".

Agreed that reincarnation is not a substitute for 'eternal life.' I wasn't implying it was, unless I was coming across as very unclear in what I posted early this morning. (Which is entirely possible.) If I'm not mistaken, I was attempting to point out that "nirvana" and "resurrection" don't have too many parallels that I can see...

Originally Posted by coyoteskye

And you speak of Jesus being outwardly directed. This is far from the truth ... "the kingdom of heaven is within" is the most obvious teaching (and in the bible no less) indicating that Jesus was absolutely inwardly directed.

Again, I would agree. BUT, I'm not so sure that those who write about the differences between the western Judeo-Christian mindset/religious beliefs and those of the east would necessarily agree with you. In the world of Christianity, God is perceived as external and 'separate from' the self of the individual. -Not so, in eastern religious traditions.

Mysticism, on the other hand, is vastly different. Clearly your Christian mystics did not perceive God, Christ, or the sacred as a separate entity.

Originally Posted by coyoteskye

And to say that "Buddhism is not the most positive of mindsets compared to Christianity" is just silly, imo.

Okay. Well, then we'll have to settle for disagreeing. Buddhism starts out with the premise that life is suffering, and that it cannot be avoided. That, in my mind, is not the most positive of mindsets. (I'm not criticizing it. I am just stating that unlike Hinduism or Taosim, it has a much more 'pessimistic' premise starting out. To base an entire religious/philosophical ideology around that, however, has clearly resulted in many constructive, worthwhile attributes.

Originally Posted by coyoteskye

...what we perceive to be real is transient and illusory is not a negative position but rather a necessary and foundational realization that results in the awareness that our attachments to that which is transient and illusory cause us great suffering.

"The kingdom of God is at hand."



(P.S. And "June" never quotes scripture!)...


Take gentle care.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by june 7th

Not sure about ^ this. For one thing, it would appear to be extremely difficult for anyone to 'spiritually evolve' independent of their respective culture. That is not to say, however, that if true "enlightenment/nirvana" exists (and June suspects it does) that it would not by definition transcend culture. However, we all start from somewhere, and whether we like it or not, we are all largely influenced by our cultural mindset and upbringing.

June . . . it needn't transcend culture to be something independent of it. Culture merely provides the context and modes of expression available for the developing inner spiritual drives (urges and promptings toward enlightenment).

Nonetheless, June still fails to see how Buddha and Jesus spiritually attained the same thing. --And bear in mind, June is one who tends to see more of the similarities in things than she does the disimilarities. (Despite what someone above, states.) Buddha and Jesus took very different paths in attaining what they each did, spiritually. Their purposes were vastly different.

Although June was going to disagree with you regarding your statement about Buddha being less spiritually developed, in pondering it a bit further, it resulted in her actually finding what she can now see as one big similarity. June still disagrees that Buddha was "less" spiritually developed; it depends what one's 'index' is as regards 'spiritually developed.' It would strike June as pretty darn sophisticated on the part of the Buddha to have attained nirvana. --And therein, June sees the similarities: The "oneness" of the Buddha's experience as well as the "oneness" of Jesus and God the Father.

Their goals do not determine their achievement . . . just as their paths do not determine where they ended up. There is only one "place" to end up (as I have) . . . irrespective of where we seek to go. When you go inward . . . the endpoint is the same . . . God. Experiencing that unmistakable "love and acceptance" in "oneness" is undoubtedly the source of the concept of maitri . . . which amazingly enough (with all the apathy and elimination of desire going on in Buddhism) is the cardinal virtue of Buddhism. It is a love that extends to all life without undue preference for one object over another.

Encountering this love and joy could explain Gautama's belief that he failed to achieve the ultimate . . . because I assure you if it is what I experienced . . . it is nothing like what he expected it to be. This could account for his expectation that someone better than he would eventually achieve the perfection that he could not. According to Gautama . . . the enlightened man is indifferent to the pain and pleasure of this world. I assure you I did not experience ANY indifference and I suspect neither did Gautama. In fact, the joy was indescribable.

Jesus, however, exemplified to the Nth degree indifference to the pain He experienced during scourging and crucifixion while retaining an undiminished love ("Forgive them . . ."). THAT is why I said Gautama did NOT achieve the same level.

-But then again, "nirvana" is oftentimes translated as "extinction." --The most common example being that of blowing out a candle. (Hence, the extinction/non-existence of the ego.) While Jesus certainly possessed a very humble ego, he possessed one, nonetheless. --And resurrection doesn't jive in June's mind with nirvana.

Resurrection is a corruption based on our physicality. Gautama's Nirvana and Hinduism's merger with the Supreme Soul make the same error in expecting our individuality to disappear. (That was the biggest shock to me . . . the multiplicity in the "oneness" . . . and my retention of "self.") God is pure Spirit . . . we are "embryo" Spirits in the "wombs" of our human bodies . . . we must be reborn upon our physical death as full Spirits at one with God.

Now the one thing that was most compelling (at least for June) about what you wrote, above, would be this: That both Buddha and Jesus (along with all of mankind, June would humbly add) were "responding to the same source of enlightenment driving human spiritual evolution." -Which would admittedly place June perilously close to more of a theistic posture. (Which she's not about to do!) However, if one is to entertain the prospect that a deity exists, then even June would have to agree with your statement. (Little heathen though she may be!)

Face it, June . . . we ALL have the same "source of enlightenment driving our spiritual development" . . . we don't all access it as directly as some ("few there are who find it.")

Be well,
Mystic

[coyoteskye]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Gautama rejected the idea of permanence because of the reincarnation and seeming endless tedium of lives. He didn't trust God (essentially) and therefore didn't want ANY form of permanent entity or sense of self to endure . . . hence no "God." This is also why he did not succeed in achieving the spiritual development that he intuitively knew should be possible and would eventually manifest in the Maitreya . . . i.e. Jesus. It is our entrapment in the varied contexts of our worldly and carnal milieus created by human society that blinds us to the underlying spiritual template being manifested in the spiritual evolution of the species. In English . . . spiritual development has little to do with the societal context in which it exists.

Be well,
Mystic

I'm all for those who find their way spiritually outside of any particular tradition or religious context or paradigm ... as i do.
But if you're going to speak about Buddhism i think it's important to be accurate about the information that you are disseminating particularly as there are many people who have no understanding of Buddhism and the Buddhist tradition and who do not realize the importance of lineage and who do not know that the lineage holders would agree with absolutely nothing that you have said here.

I have no intention of arguing with you about the historical Buddha or Buddhism but i do want to remind people to take the information that you presented regarding the historical Buddha and the Maitreya Buddha with a huge grain of salt.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by coyoteskye

I'm all for those who find their way spiritually outside of any particular tradition or religious context or paradigm ... as i do.
But if you're going to speak about Buddhism i think it's important to be accurate about the information that you are disseminating particularly as there are many people who have no understanding of Buddhism and the Buddhist tradition and who do not realize the importance of lineage and who do not know that the lineage holders would agree with absolutely nothing that you have said here.

I do not wish to contribute to confusion or misunderstanding about Buddhism . . . so for the sake of clarity I will point out the basis for my analysis presented earlier.

Buddhism was founded in the 6th century B.C. in a region west of what is now Bengal, India. Buddhism was eventually supplanted in India by Hinduism, The idea of a god creating or ruling the world is completely absent from Buddhism. God is not denied, He is simply not known or recognized in that sense. Buddhism does not conceive of any god or gods as being pleased or displeased by the activities of the individual souls and dispensing either reward or punishment in accord with those activities. It is the activities themselves which determine the fate of the individual souls.

When a man dies, he is automatically born again, or appears in a new shape, consistent with the merit or lack thereof that he achieved in his life. These forms range from the most despicable inanimate object to being a veritable god. He could be born in any of 136 hells in the interior of the earth, or in a happy position on earth, or as a spirit in one of many heavens. There is never any end to these rebirths because no matter what form you end up in, it has a limited life span, though it may be billions of years.

The only salvation from this perpetuity is the development of the proper frame of mind. This represents Gautama's special "tour de force." In one stroke, he becomes noncommittal on the existence of Brahman and avoids considering Atman, while retaining Karma as some cosmic quality akin to gravity or magnetism, which ceases to be only when it stops wanting or needing to exist. This is Nirvana, the end of all desire.

In sum, God is not known; only the character of what we term soul is considered; belief in immortality is treated as a mistake, and the hope of it a sin by virtue of the fact that it represents the existence of desire; prayer is eliminated; and lastly, men must look to their own efforts to end this miserable and meaningless existence by refusing to want it (or anything else for that matter!). This is the apathy I referred to. Maitri along with purity, patience, courage, contemplation, and knowledge are the methods of perfection that tend directly to "conduct to the other shore."

In the final analysis, the end described by Gautama and the end described by Sankara are identical. The specifics of getting there and what comprises the intervening states are the points on which they differ. Sankara claims that the freed individual Atman will lose itself in the universal Brahman with a cessation of all desire. Gautama contends that it, whatever it is that constitutes Karma, diffuses and loses the characteristics of desire and activity that constitute its separate existence. These are two ways of saying the very same thing,IMO.

I have no intention of arguing with you about the historical Buddha or Buddhism but i do want to remind people to take the information that you presented regarding the historical Buddha and the Maitreya Buddha with a huge grain of salt.

I wouldn't argue with you about Buddhism, Coyote . . . but feel free to point out any egregious errors you see in my synopsis. My speculation about the Maitreya and about the "source" of Gautama's development of the concept of maitri can rightfully be taken with much salt. Although I find it completely persuasive.

[coyoteskye]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

feel free to point out any egregious errors you see in my sunopsis. My speculation about the Maitreya and about the "source" of Gautama's development of the concept of maitri can rightfully be taken with much salt. Although I find it completely persuasive.

I'm not equipped to respond to main body of your post.
My Buddhist friend would probably have fun taking you to task but i can't take that on.
Your notion (in your previous post) that the historical Buddha did not attain perfect enlightenment is interesting and i don't know how or why you come to that conclusion.
And you're explanation of his process of awakening is erroneous ... to put it simply and without going into detail, the awareness that the Buddha attained was not preconditioned and had nothing to do with what he wanted or did not want.
And as appealing as the idea is, Jesus is not considered to be the Maitreya Buddha who is apparently to be the 11th (i think i've got this right) incarnation of Vishnu.
Siddhartha (the historical Buddha) is considered to be the most recent incarnation of the avatar.
The Maitreya Buddha, according to prophecy / lineage holders, will incarnate in the future when humanity will be in a very, very dark period of human history.
p.s. .... this is my understanding.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by coyoteskye

Your notion (in your previous post) that the historical Buddha did not attain perfect enlightenment is interesting and i don't know how or why you come to that conclusion.
And you're explanation of his process of awakening is erroneous ... to put it simply and without going into detail, the awareness that the Buddha attained was not preconditioned and had nothing to do with what he wanted or did not want.

Sorry . . . but Gautama had very definite ideas about what he sought. They came from Brahmanism. Brahmanism is the root belief of most eastern and oriental religions. The basic tenet holds that the soul of man must become free of all guilt. It must alter its character (Karma) before it can be merged with the perfect being from whom it comes.

Unfortunately, the human soul is unable to achieve this purification in the brief life allotted to us. Therefore, it must pass through as many successive reincarnations as is necessary to eliminate all the imperfections which prevent it from being absorbed into the Supreme Soul. This cycle of births and deaths is called Samsara. When the purified soul has eliminated all imperfections Samsara is annihilated and ultimate union is achieved.

In reality, probably the only reason Gautama had for ignoring Brahman, or the existence of a permanent entity, is the fact that an admission that any permanent substance whatever exists as an entity contains the implicit danger that things could conceivably start all over again, even after Nirvana, and this prospect was unacceptable. In short, Gautama sought to annihilate any chance of permanent existence because he didn't trust God.

And as appealing as the idea is, Jesus is not considered to be the Maitreya Buddha who is apparently to be the 11th (i think i've got this right) incarnation of Vishnu.
Siddhartha (the historical Buddha) is considered to be the most recent incarnation of the avatar.
The Maitreya Buddha, according to prophecy / lineage holders, will incarnate in the future when humanity will be in a very, very dark period of human history.
p.s. .... this is my understanding.

Your understanding is not the problem . . . it is the result of human cultural and spiritual expectations and preferences. However, NONE of that has anything to do with the reality that an expectation of another human being who would PERFECTLY manifest the maitri existed and Jesus PERFECTLY did so. What the various religions and philosophies preferred to believe about who or when it would happen is irrelevant to the event itself. The Jews didn't believe Jesus fufilled their expectations either. This is a SPECIES phenomenon . . . NOT a specific CULTURAL one . . . and there is no more perfect exemplar than Jesus.

[coyoteskye]

I'm speaking to you in a very simple and essential way.
Your intellect wants to complicate so as to, it seems, evade and avoid simple and essential truths.

I addressed 3 issues from a previous post of yours.
1) I challenged your belief (and that's all it is) that Siddhartha did not attain perfect and complete enlightenment.
2) Awakening is not dependent on (and is generally hindered by) preconceived ideas of the conditioned mind.
One may have ideas about what one seeks, but those ideas have absolutely nothing to do with the truth that one ultimately finds which is beyond conditioned reality.
This is my simple way of expressing an essential yogic (and buddhist) principle.
3) Despite the the fact that it's a lovely idea that Jesus was the Maitreya Buddha, he is not considered to be such by the lineage holders and the Maitreya Buddha is expected to incarnate in the future.

A Buddha is a fully awakened being. Period.
There are countless buddhas .... "here" and "not here".
I tend to accept that Jesus was an awakened being ... that he was a buddha.
That does not mean however that he was the Maitreya Buddha as much as you would like it to be so.
Though i essentially "operate" outside of any particular religious construct, i have respect for the lineage holders and i shall defer to them in this regard.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by coyoteskye

I'm speaking to you in a very simple and essential way.
Your intellect wants to complicate so as to, it seems, evade and avoid simple and essential truths.

Simple is important early on the path . . . but it is insufficient. If there is a single major flaw in most of the religions extant it is that they have stagnated at the early stages of understanding.

I addressed 3 issues from a previous post of yours.
1) I challenged your belief (and that's all it is) that Siddhartha did not attain perfect and complete enlightenment.

True it is my belief . . . but given the accomplishments of Jesus as a comparative it seems unassailable to me. There really is no comparison between the maitri achieved by Buddha and that achieved and acted upon unto death by Jesus.

2) Awakening is not dependent on (and is generally hindered by) preconceived ideas of the conditioned mind.
One may have ideas about what one seeks, but those ideas have absolutely nothing to do with the truth that one ultimately finds which is beyond conditioned reality.
This is my simple way of expressing an essential yogic (and buddhist) principle.

I don't believe we are in disagreement here . . if you will recall my post:

"Their goals do not determine their achievement . . . just as their paths do not determine where they ended up. There is only one "place" to end up (as I have) . . . irrespective of where we seek to go. When you go inward . . . the endpoint is the same . . . God."

3) Despite the the fact that it's a lovely idea that Jesus was the Maitreya Buddha, he is not considered to be such by the lineage holders and the Maitreya Buddha is expected to incarnate in the future.

I do not dispute that at all . . . I am just certain that they are wrong by placing their focus on physical lineage instead of spiritual achievement.

A Buddha is a fully awakened being. Period.
There are countless buddhas .... "here" and "not here".
I tend to accept that Jesus was an awakened being ... that he was a buddha.
That does not mean however that he was the Maitreya Buddha as much as you would like it to be so.
Though i essentially "operate" outside of any particular religious construct, i have respect for the lineage holders and i shall defer to them in this regard.

I understand completely. But awakening is only an essential stage . . . not the end point. Jesus reached the end point of perfect resonance with God consciousness. His perfection is His validation as the Maitreya.