Mahâsthâmaprâpta reincarnated as Jesus Christ?
-
i borrowed the book from the library, chinese section.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:LOL where you heard that from
Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva is in Buddhism from the very beginning.
He is not even a female, but appeared in female form in China. Avalokitesvara bodhisattva is known in Buddhism before the white robed guan yin appeared in China.
In Tibet, Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva manifested in male form.
it says that guan yin does not exist in buddhism. it came from polomenjiao. they adopted it later. it is actually xuangtozu but they changed it only a man, later into a woman because they are no female dieties in buddhism.
so who is right? -
I think that book is crap.Originally posted by dragg:i borrowed the book from the library, chinese section.
it says that guan yin does not exist in buddhism. it came from polomenjiao. they adopted it later. it is actually xuangtozu but they changed it only a man, later into a woman because they are no female dieties in buddhism.
so who is right? It is not from Brahmanism. Lotus Sutra words come directly from Buddha.
Guan Yin manifestation as the White-robed Guan Yin was not even a Deity or a Goddess. The White-Robed Guan Yin was the Earthly Manifestation of Miao-shan. Haven't you heard about it..? -
Then Buddhism was never a religion. We don't worship any bodhisattvas or pray for worldly things.Originally posted by maggot:Worshipping, relying on prayers...instead of one should see where he/she is heading in life... -
no, never heard of it.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:I think that book is crap. It is not from Brahmanism. Lotus Sutra words come directly from Buddha.
Guan Yin manifestation as the White-robed Guan Yin was not even a Deity or a Goddess. The White-Robed Guan Yin was the Earthly Manifestation of Miao-shan. Haven't you heard about it..?
anyway that book is about the history of buddhism. why do they want to bullshIt? -
Erm, mabbe u want to provide the book's name so that everyone can read abt it?Originally posted by dragg:no, never heard of it.
anyway that book is about the history of buddhism. why do they want to bullshIt? -
Lotus Sutra?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:I think that book is crap. It is not from Brahmanism. Lotus Sutra words come directly from Buddha.
Guan Yin manifestation as the White-robed Guan Yin was not even a Deity or a Goddess. The White-Robed Guan Yin was the Earthly Manifestation of Miao-shan. Haven't you heard about it..?
Possible to know it is the first or second or maybe 20th sutra from buddha? -
gimme some time.Originally posted by laurence82:Erm, mabbe u want to provide the book's name so that everyone can read abt it?
i will go to the library and look for it. -
Name and author? Not every book is trustable.Originally posted by dragg:no, never heard of it.
anyway that book is about the history of buddhism. why do they want to bullshIt?
http://www.purifymind.com/MiaoShan.htm -
What you mean? There are hundreds of sutras from the Buddha. Buddha gave so many discourses throughout his 49 years of teaching.Originally posted by maggot:Lotus Sutra?
Possible to know it is the first or second or maybe 20th sutra from buddha? -
why is her name in chinese?Originally posted by An Eternal Now: -
Because she was the earthly manifestation (human) in China. Called the White-robed Guan Yin.Originally posted by dragg:why is her name in chinese? -
this is getting confusing isnt it.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Because she was the earthly manifestation in China. Called the White-robed Guan Yin.
no disrespect intended how can the earthly manifestation be proven to be true? -
never mind lah.
let me look for the book first. -
You can read the story.Originally posted by dragg:this is getting confusing isnt it.
no disrespect intended how can the earthly manifestation be proven to be true?
Other than Guan Yin, there are also worldly manifestation of almost every mahabodhisattvas mentioned in the sutras. Even today there are Mahabodhisattva manifestations.
Remember Bu Dai monk? (maitreya bodhisattva/"laughing buddha"), master han shan (incarnation of manjusri bodhisattva), shih te is Samantabhadra bodhisattva, etc etc...
In Tibet also got alot of manifestation. The 5th Dalai Lama, if I recall, is known to be the famous incarnation of Guan Yin also.An official once went to Kuo Ching Monastery on Tien Tai Mountain to ask questions of the Abbot Feng Kan. The official and the Abbot chatted. What was the official's name, you wonder? Don't ask me; I've forgotten. Perhaps it was you, or perhaps it was me; it's not for certain. The official said to the Abbot, “In the past, there used to be a lot of Bodhisattvas who came into the world, but there aren't any in this day and age. I'd like to meet a genuine Bodhisattva, but I can't find one.”
Abbot Feng Kan said, “Oh, you want to see a Bodhisattva? We have two here. I'll introduce you to them, and you can go see them.”
The official was duly surprised, “Two Bodhisattvas, right here? You mean ones made of clay, or carved wooden ones?”
“No,” replied the Abbot. “These two are flesh-body Bodhisattvas. They are living Bodhisattvas.”
“No kidding?” asked the official.
“I'm the Abbot here. Would I joke with you about a thing like that?”
“Who are they?”
“One is the cook and the other boils the water. One is named Han Shan and the other is named Shih Te. One is a transformation of Manjushri Bodhisattva, and the other is a transformation of Universal Worthy (Samantabhadra) Bodhisattva. They practice ascetic practices in this temple, doing menial tasks. They do the things that no one else likes to do. If you want to see them, it's quite simple. Just go to the kitchen and you’ll find them there.”
The official asked the Guest Prefect to take him to the kitchen. There they found two grimy, tattered monks with long hair and beards, dirty faces, and a generally disreputable appearance. They appeared like present-day hippies. But the Abbot had said these two were Bodhisattvas, and so he dared not look down on them. Instead, he bowed to them.
“What are you doing?” the two demanded. “Why are you bowing to us?”
“Abbot Feng Kan said you were transformations of Manjushri and Universal Worthy Bodhisattvas, so of course I'm bowing to you.”
“Fen Kan's flapped his tongue”--by which they meant he was loose-tongued. “He’s said too much this time.” So, as the official bowed, they backed up and backed up and backed up, one knows not how great a distance--probably several hundred steps from the kitchen to the rock cliff at the base of the mountain. Then they said, “Feng Kan has flapped his tongue. You didn’t even bow to Amitabha. What are you doing bowing to us?”
“Who's Amitabha?” asked the official.
“The Abbot is. He's Amitabha Buddha come again. He came to China and became the abbot of Kuo Ching monastery on Tien Tai mountain. Go bow to him. Leave us alone.”
As the official stood there in amazement, the two grimy monks took one last step backwards and disappeared into the rock cliff. That place is now known as Moonlight Cliff on Tien Tai Mountain--the spot Han Shan and Shih Te disappeared into.
The official hurried back into Kuo Ching Monastery to bow to the Abbot Feng Kan--Amitabha Buddha. But when he arrived inside, he found that the Abbot had sat down and entered the stillness. HeÂ’d entered nirvana. The official now knew that the Abbot had been Amitabha Buddha come again, but it was too late. He had missed his opportunity. The official realized at that time that nobody knew Abbot Feng Kan was the transformation of Amitabha Buddha until he passed away.
Why don't Buddhas and Bodhisattvas let people know who they are when they come? If everyone knew, everyone would be bowing all day long one after another to to them the point that it would be pretty disruptive. There would be no time left to cultivate. So they don't want to let on to who they are.
That's the way it is in Buddhism. One would never announce, “Look! I'm enlightened!” “I'm a Bodhisattva!” “I'm a Buddha!” People like that are no different from the ones being discussed in this section of the Sutra. I’ve never met anyone who admitted he was enlightened. Neither Elder Master Hsu Yun, nor any of the other enlightened monks in China ever said a word about being enlightened, even if asked directly. There's no such thing in Buddhism, except perhaps in “New Buddhism.” Here in America, there is“new dharma.” -
Actually i used to learn abit on Buddhism.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Among Buddhas there are Lord Buddhas above which are in their own zone.
Forgot a whole lot of it. -
Own zone? what you meanOriginally posted by M©+square:Actually i used to learn abit on Buddhism.
Among Buddhas there are Lord Buddhas above which are in their own zone.
Forgot a whole lot of it.
All Buddhas are equal. -
Orh. My uncle used to tell me above the buddhas are Lord buddhas and there are higher beings above.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Own zone? what you mean
All Buddhas are equal. -
I think your uncle is mistaken.Originally posted by M©+square:Orh. My uncle used to tell me above the buddhas are Lord buddhas and there are higher beings above.
All Buddhas are equal. -
Orh. Ok.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:I think your uncle is mistaken.
All Buddhas are equal. -
lol sg knowledge of buddhism is really bad. although alot of ppl is a buddhist
-
At first , i also thought Lord Buddha is above other buddhas but after awhile learning buddhism at these forums then i know all buddhas are equal.Originally posted by M©+square:Orh. My uncle used to tell me above the buddhas are Lord buddhas and there are higher beings above. -
Buddhism and Other ReligionsOriginally posted by surfbabe:Is the above true?
Is that why he sits on the right of Buddha (West), while Avalokitesvara sits on the left of Buddha (East)?
Though Boston University professor Stephen Prothero has warned about a shallow and banal American "Boomer Buddhism," the Dalai Lama said he is generally not discouraged about the type of Buddhism he sees when he visits the West. He believes that people from different areas should keep their own faith. "Changing religion is not easy," he said. "Sometimes it creates more confusion." If someone in the West finds Buddhism more suitable, "It is their individual right, but it is extremely important to keep their respect towards their own traditional religion."
He expressed appreciation for Gere's efforts as a celebrity to spread Buddhist dharma (or teaching). He did not seem concerned about the depth or style of Buddhist devotion in America, except to make a point against what he called New Age Buddhists who take concepts from every religion. "If they do that and make clear this is something new, that is all right. If they claim that such a mixture is traditional Tibetan Buddhism, then this is not right."
The Dalai Lama is no advocate of one world religion. He has consistently spoken against this in his public speeches. "So if one is always trying to look at things in terms of similarities and parallels, there is a danger of rolling everything up into one big entity," he writes in The Good Heart, his book about the teachings of Jesus. "I do not personally advocate seeking a universal religion; I don't think it advisable to do so. And if we proceed too far in drawing these parallels and ignoring the differences, we might end up doing exactly that!"
But if not a universal religion, what about a universal following of Buddha? Why does he not simply urge people to follow the path of Buddha as the only truth?
He replied by citing India's pluralistic past and said that contradictions in Buddha's own philosophical teaching have forced Buddhists to realize that "one teaching or one view will not satisfy."
"To some people Christianity is much more effective, in some other case, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, or Zoroastrianism," he said. "Even if I say that Buddhism is the best, that everybody should follow Buddhism, everybody is not going to become a Buddhist."
He laughed.
"But you do believe Buddhism is the best, don't you?"
"Yes," he replied, "I can say that for me personally, Buddhism is best because the Buddhist approach is most effective to me."
"This does not mean Buddhism is best for everyone. No," he said when pushed further. "Now, for my Christian brother or sister, Christianity is best for him or for her." But Christianity, he said, is not the best for him.
"Here, the concept of one religion, one truth, is very relevant for the individual," he said, qualifying his other statements about one religion. "But for the community it must be several truths, several religions."
He believes this solves the contradiction between religions, though he said that there is a unity of all major religions on "the message of compassion, forgiveness, tolerance, contentment, simplicity, then self-discipline."
In terms of his own faith, the Dalai Lama drew a parallel between emotional love for Buddha and Christian love for Jesus. He said that his reflection on Buddha's teaching and sacrifice has led him to tears at times.
Does he thank Buddha for the good things in his life?
"Frankly speaking, my own happiness is mainly due to my own good karma," he said. "It is a fundamental Buddhist belief that my own suffering is due to my mistakes. If some good things happen, that is mainly due to my own good actions, not something related to a direct connection with Buddha."
In our interview, we devoted considerable time to the identity and integrity of Jesus. The Dalai Lama seemed at ease with the questioning, even while admitting that this was possibly the toughest area for exploration between evangelical Christians and Buddhists.
I reminded him of his belief that Jesus is "a fully enlightened being" and asked, "If Jesus is fully enlightened, wouldn't he be teaching the truth about himself? Therefore, if he is teaching the truth, then he is the Son of God, and there is a God, and Jesus is the Savior. If he is fully enlightened, he should teach the truth. If he is not teaching the truth, he is not that enlightened."
As the Dalai Lama felt the momentum of the question, he laughed more than at any other time in the interview. He obviously understood the argument, borrowed from C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity.
"This is a very good question," he said. "This is very, very important, very important." Even in Buddha's case, he said, a distinction must always be made between teachings that "always remain valid" and others that "we have the liberty to reject."
He argued that the Buddha knew people were not always ready for the higher truth because it "wouldn't suit, wouldn't help." Therefore, lesser truths are sometimes taught because of the person's ignorance or condition. This is known in Buddhist dharma as the doctrine of uppayah, or skillful means. The Dalai Lama then applied this to the question about Jesus.
"Jesus Christ also lived previous lives," he said. "So, you see, he reached a high state, either as a Bodhisattva, or an enlightened person, through Buddhist practice or something like that. Then, at a certain period, certain era, he appeared as a new master, and then because of circumstances, he taught certain views different from Buddhism, but he also taught the same religious values as I mentioned earlier: Be patient, tolerant, compassionate. This is, you see, the real message in order to become a better human being." He said that there was absolutely no lying involved since Jesus' motivation was to help people. -
Yes. Fo Zhu is Shakyamuni Buddha's given title. Any Buddha can be called Fo2 Zhu4. But because Shakyamuni Buddha is in charged currently of this 3000 world system, he is called Lord Buddha.Originally posted by gamesharkuser:At first , i also thought Lord Buddha is above other buddhas but after awhile learning buddhism at these forums then i know all buddhas are equal. -
true that all buddhas are equal. but there a higher being out there.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:I think your uncle is mistaken.
All Buddhas are equal. -
In Buddhism, Buddha is the highest. One that attains complete and perfect enlightened, and freed from samsara.Originally posted by dragg:true that all buddhas are equal. but there a higher being out there.
Even though the stage of Buddhahood seems "high", actually, every one us have the potential to be Buddha. Why? Because our Buddha Nature is complete and perfect. We have just yet to discover it.
The ultimate aim of Buddhism is to attain Buddhahood.