The Superlative Jesus, Part 1
Frequent commenter Keshav left this interesting remark on a previous post:
Dan, what do you think about this quote by Robert Ingersoll?
“Why should we place Christ at the top and summit of the human race? Was he kinder, more forgiving, more self-sacrificing than Buddha? Was he wiser, did he meet death with more perfect calmness, than Socrates? Was he more patient, more charitable, than Epictetus? Was he a greater philosopher, a deeper thinker, than Epicurus? In what respect was he the superior of Zoroaster? Was he gentler than Lao-tsze, more universal than Confucius? Were his ideas of human rights and duties superior to those of Zeno? Did he express grander truths than Cicero? Was his mind subtler than Spinoza’s? Was his brain equal to Kepler’s or Newton’s? Was he grander in death – a sublimer martyr than Bruno? Was he in intelligence, in the force and beauty of expression, in breadth and scope of thought, in wealth of illustration, in aptness of comparison, in knowledge of the human brain and heart, of all passions, hopes and fears, the equal of Shakespeare, the greatest of the human race?”
This seems like a fun challenge. I’ll work through these in a series of posts. To help with the comparisons, I encourage you to flesh out Ingersoll’s challenge in the comments, by telling me exactly what he has in mind for each of these traits.
-
Comparison #1
: “Was [Jesus] kinder, more forgiving, more self-sacrificing than Buddha?”
Jesus showed kindness to children, women, and lepers. He associated with prostitutes and tax collectors. When a woman was caught in adultery–a capital crime in the Mosaic law–Jesus said that he who was without sin should cast the first stone, then told her He didn’t condemn her (yet instructed her to sin no more). At the Last Supper (shortly before He is arrested). Jesus told His followers, “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. 35 By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
Jesus let Himself be taken into custody, knowing He would be tortured severely before being nailed to a cross, where He would hang for hours before suffocating. Even though He was sinless, He did this in order to reconcile a sinful man with a perfect God, providing a free gift of our salvation.
After these evil fools had beaten Him and nailed Him to the cross, Jesus hung there as they continued to mock Him. In the midst of that agony, Jesus still prayed, “Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do.”
I confess I’m not very familiar with Buddha’s life. I skimmed two online accounts of his life and didn’t see anything even in the same ZIP code as the above. (Indeed, I have a hard time even imagining how it would be possible to be more forgiving and self-sacrificing than Jesus.)
On this criterion, I think we easily say Jesus is the winner. It’s not even close.
But Jesus’s claim to primacy has nothing to do with any of those traits. I’m sure you know this Bob.
His claim isn’t that he set the best example of right living that we should look up to, his claim os that he was God made flesh and his death was the payment for our wrongness, that faith in him is the only way to be right with God. It’s important that he lived a righteous life before our creator, but comparing him to other religious leaders is a waste of time…
Adam wrote:
“But Jesus’s claim to primacy has nothing to do with any of those traits. I’m sure you know this Bob.
His claim isn’t that he set the best example of right living that we should look up to…”
Of course. However, the context here is that in the earlier thread, Dan in the comments said he had trouble embracing the entire Christian worldview. I encouraged him to read the gospel accounts and reflect on the character of Jesus. (This was a stepping stone in my own conversion back from atheism.) Dan said that he already agreed Jesus was the best human who had ever lived (or words to that effect), and then in response Keshav gave that quote from Ingersoll.
So, I’m happy to deal with this on its own terms. There are lots of people who would say, “Hey, I don’t believe a guy could walk on water or raise the dead, but I agree Jesus was a phenomenal teacher and role model.” So Ingersoll is attacking *that*, and I want to explain why secular people could believe that Jesus was amazing.
“So, I’m happy to deal with this on its own terms. There are lots of people who would say, “Hey, I don’t believe a guy could walk on water or raise the dead, but I agree Jesus was a phenomenal teacher and role model.” So Ingersoll is attacking *that*, and I want to explain why secular people could believe that Jesus was amazing.”
I hope you are able to overcome Ingersoll’s challenge on those terms Dr. Murphy. I’ll just point out that C.S. Lewis postulated that Jesus was either a liar, crazy or divine. So, it would seem to me that if the terms of the debate confine us to discussing Jesus only as a secular being and everything spiritual or supernatural is removed from consideration then that’s a pretty big handicap. It’s probably also a handicap that Ingersoll didn’t intend. If he had he would never have put Zoroaster in the same ZIP code as Kepler or Newton. What would Zoroaster have to offer in a rational, secular discussion?
Yes I will deal with CS Lewis’ argument in the next post.
Capt. J Parker, Scott Alexander, the author of the Slate Star Codex blog, wrote what I think is a good response to the “Lord, Liar, Lunatic” argument on his old blog:
squid314.livejournal.com/343999.html
Basically, one can say that Jesus was a “lunatic” in a very broad sense of the word, so broad that it does not much impair the claim that he was a wise moral teacher.
There is also the significant possibility that Jesus did not actually claim to be God, but was claimed to be so by his followers after he died.
What squid314 did not tell you (although people mentioned it in the comments) is that Kary Mullis is a big LSD user. (Or at least, was. I met him once in West Hollywood years ago at a speech on HIV and AIDS. Mullis improved the PCR technique and won the Nobel Prize for it. He, like Peter Duesberg, denies HIV as the cause of AIDS.) To equate an LSD-caused hallucination with Jesus’ claim to be God (and His subsequent miracles, including raising Himself from the dead) is absurd. Lewis is right – good moral teachers do not run around telling others they are God. Lunatics do – plenty of those on Hollywood Blvd almost any time of day.
Mark, if everyone believed that Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead, the C.S. Lewis’ argument would be unnecessary. C.S. Lewis’ argument is targeted at those of us who are skeptical that Jesus did such things. In any case, taking LSD is only one potential cause of delusional disorder. Scott Alexander’s point is that one can have delusional disorder and still be a perfectly rational and high-functioning member of society. They need not be the kind of person one conjures up when one hears the word “lunatic”. So it is perfectly coherent to say that Jesus was a “lunatic” in a very broad sense of the term, and yet was also a wise moral teacher.
Keshav: “Mark, if everyone believed that Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead, the C.S. Lewis’ argument would be unnecessary.”
No offense, but I’ll take the Blatantly Obvious for 500, Alex. 🙂
“So it is perfectly coherent to say that Jesus was a “lunatic” in a very broad sense of the term, and yet was also a wise moral teacher.”
I think very few would agree with that statement. But again, wise moral teachers do not run around the landscape proclaiming they are God. That kind of negates the claims of being wise or moral.
“But again, wise moral teachers do not run around the landscape proclaiming they are God. That kind of negates the claims of being wise or moral.” Well, it definitely doesn’t negate the claim of being moral; if you genuinely think that you’re God (even if you’re wrong), what’s immoral about saying so? And it arguable doesn’t negate being wise either. You can be wise in all other areas of life, including morality, while having an incorrect belief in your divinity.
Wow. if we’re going off-topic, I’d much prefer the flying spaghetti monster to Michael Jordan.
My training, while not downplaying Jesus, is much more church-oriented, as in Body of Christ. So yes, His suffering on the cross may not be as painful as some of the truly horrific tortures humanity is able to dream up and His preaching is not as logically rigorous as many more educated theologians.
What we have is a clear and consistent dialogue with a God who chose to make us and communicate with us as humans through a Church that he has promised he would guide and protect (even when the members gather in twos and threes).
Consider, by way of example, Austrian economics. If you read some of Bob’s work, you will come to realize that Hayek or Rothberg do not fully and inerrantly state all of economic theory in all of its aspects. So, too, God speaks to us both communally and individually. As such, we hear his voice tailored to our lives through the Bible, in the words of Jesus, through the teachers, and in our hearts in prayer and in sacraments.
Buddha was probably a previous incarnation of Jesus.
They taught many of the same things, had similar life experiences, and, according to the Cayce revelations, Christian Gnosticism has more in common with Buddhism than with modern forms of Christianity. Christian Gnosticism is the highest form of Christianity according to the Cayce revelations.
https://www.near-death.com/reincarnation/jesus/buddha.html
Nonsense, of course. Reincarnation is a fairy tale, and doesn’t happen. Hebrews 9:27 tells us, “ And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to *die once* and after this comes judgment…”
And Jesus Himself quashed the baloney about reincarnation: “As He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth. And His disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him.” John 9:1-3
Buddha is dead. If he was cremated, and if his ashes are still around, that’s all that’s left of him in this world. Cayce is dead and his body rotted in the ground. Cayce was a non-Christian who practiced occult garbage the Bible condemns. Gnosticism (nothing Christian about it) was condemned in 1 John. Jesus raised Himself from the dead and was seen by His disciples and over 500 hundred people. When Buddha raises himself from those ashes, get back to us.
Oops, sorry, on the 500 hundred – that’s really a number, I guess, but not what I intended. Just 500. 🙂
Mark, I’m curious, how would you convince someone who doesn’t believe that Jesus rose from the dead that it really happened? Would you cite the notion that 500 people saw Jesus? But we don’t have the testimony of 500 people saying that they saw Jesus, all we have is Paul’s statement that 500 people saw him.
Here is a nice list of those who saw Him after the Resurrection https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_814.cfm
I don’t believe I can convince anyone – it’s a question of faith prompted by the work of The Holy Spirit: “But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.” John 16:13, 14
OK, but who do we know that those people even claimed to see Jesus (let alone actually saw him). We don’t have documents written by those people in which they claim to have seen him, do we? We just have the Biblical account claiming that those people saw him. So I hope you can understand how that might not be persuasive.
I also find your statement “I don’t believe I can convince anyone” interesting. Because Hindus believe that it’s possible to rationally convince someone that Hinduism is true. And the way we do it is rather unique. Other religions start by establishing the existence of God, then try to show that scriptures of their religion was authored by God, and thereby argue that their religion is true. Whereas Hindus do things in the reverse order. We start by showing that our central scriptures, the Vedas, are eternal texts authored by no one, not even God, and then establishing the existence of God using the statements about God made in the Vedas.
This also assumes that everything that Jesus ever did or said was written down, which it clearly was not.
John concludes his Gospel with:
“Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.”
Buddha is said to have attained Nirvana, which is basically analogous to the kind of total universal comprehension you were talking about in your previous post, Bob. In a manner of speaking, Buddha went to the Buddhist equivalent of Christian heaven. Note that some Buddhist monks of ages past have committed ritual suicide when they believed they had achieved this. Instead, Gautama Buddha spent the rest of his life traveling around and teaching people despite knowing that they would never fully understand.
He gave up heaven, in a way, to share his knowledge with the world. That’s an enormous sacrifice. Now, you could argue that it wasn’t as big a sacrifice because it didn’t involve torture and crucifixion, but is that really the standard we want to set for self-sacrifice? It only really counts if it’s physically painful? I don’t think so.
The other thing we must keep in mind is that a major part of Buddhism itself is about denying the individual self and learning that we are all one with the universe. I don’t happen to agree with that sentiment, but the teaching itself reflects a major self-sacrifice that is not part of the Christian gospel. Buddhism itself is an act of self-sacrifice in a way that Christianity is not. Perhaps this is Ingersoll had in mind.
One final note: although Ingersoll presents Buddha by name, I think his real point is that any example of great generosity and self-sacrifice might challenge the view that Jesus was the pinnacle. In other words, I don’t think defeating this one example meets Ingersoll’s challenge. I think Jesus would have to defeat every example.
This argument only works if you assume that Nirvana actually exists and isn’t a bunch of nonsense.
Suppose a man held a gun to my wife’s head and said he’d shoot her unless I agreed to throw myself off the edge of a tall building. Suppose his gun wasn’t really loaded, but I didn’t know that. If I agreed to sacrifice myself for my wife’s sake, I’d argue that this is a real sacrifice, regardless of whether the man’s gun was really loaded.
That’s how I see this situation. It’s easy to say that religion is a bunch of hooey. I’m an atheist, I might even agree with you there. But that’s not what determines the veracity of a sacrifice.
Your sacrifice in your example is real because you actually die. You die even though the gun isn’t really loaded. What does Buddha sacrifice if Nirvana doesn’t exist? Nothing. He’s still alive.
We can only compare Buddha and Jesus’ sacrifices fairly by assuming neither Christianity nor Buddhism are true. To do otherwise would be an exercise in question begging.
If Christianity is not true, Jesus still made a sacrifice because he physically suffered and died. If Buddhism is untrue, Buddha made no sacrifice, because he gave up nothing, lost nothing, suffered nothing.
Assuming Christianity is not true, there are serious questions as to the existence of Jesus as a historical figure. That which does not exist cannot make a sacrifice.
But I don’t think you’re right. I think you can assume both Christianity and Buddhism to be true, and compare sacrifices according to the internal logic of each faith. This is what I have attempted to do.
You cannot assume both to be true, because Christianity being true requires Buddhism to be false.
No, RPLong is saying that you can in turn assume that Buddhism and Christianity are each true, and then in each case you can determine what would be a sacrifice for someone who believed that religion to be true. In the case of Buddha, Andrew_FL he gave up what he thought was infinite happiness for the sake of other people. Now you might not think he would have actually gotten infinite happiness if he hadn’t made that sacrifice, but you have to consider things from his perspective.
If I consider them each in turn then who wins depends entirely on the order of my consideration, because if Christianity is true it isn’t even a question that Jesus’ sacrifice was the greater.
No, the order doesn’t matter. Just think “from Jesus’ perspective, how great was Jesus’ sacrifice?” And “from Buddha’s perspective, how great was Buddha’s sacrifice?”
From any perspective if you assume Christianity is true, Jesus’s sacrifice trumps all others. This is why assuming it is true is question begging.
Andrew_FL I realize we’re getting into odd subtleties here, but can you clarify? Do you mean, “If Jesus is the Son of God who died for the sins of the world, then obviously His sacrifice is the most significant of all time”? Or do you just mean, “If Jesus endured the stuff we see in Mel Gibson’s movie, then c’mon who tops that?”
The former, obviously
“Assuming Christianity is not true, there are serious questions as to the existence of Jesus as a historical figure.”
More nonsense. A quick search of the internet will provide all the arguments you need to prove the historical existence of Jesus – and that’s even outside the Bible.
I have a talk on my iTunes by Greg Koukl titled Jesus – Man or Myth? I don’t remember where I got it (I probably purchased it from Stand to Reason, Koukl’s ministry.) If you can find it online, have a listen. Here’s the blurb that describes the CD of the talk:
“There is a reason the ancient historical accounts of the life of Jesus of Nazareth do not start with the phrase, “Once upon a time….” On the face of it, the authors did not appear to be writing fairy tales for future generations, but rather detailed accounts of the extraordinary events in the life of a particular Jewish carpenter who actually changed the course of history. They were convinced the events in their accounts really happened.
“This conviction has come under attack today, particularly in popular culture. Countless books, movies, and websites have sprung up arguing that Jesus Christ never even existed, or if He did, that the miraculous works attributed to His divinity are mere mythical embellishments borrowed from surrounding pagan religions.
“In this powerful presentation, Greg mounts a three-pronged defense of Christ’s historicity. First, he shows that Jesus of Nazareth was a real, flesh-and-blood human of history. Second, he silences the charge that Jesus was a “recycled redeemer,” one of many miracle-working, dying-and-rising messiahs of legend. And finally, he demonstrates why professional historians consider the Gospel accounts reliable history.
Countless examples of this sort all over the internet, in books, videos, etc.
And Christianity and Buddhism cannot both be true – Jesus claimed exclusivity: “Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.”” John 14:6
Of course Christianity and Buddhism cannot both be true. That’s not what Tel was saying. He was saying that one should compare how big a sacrifice Jesus thought he was making, given Jesus’ belief system, with how big a sacrifice Buddha thought he was making, given Buddha’s belief system.
But Jesus did believe that he was the son of God and therefore immortal so he knew right from the start that this “gun” was not loaded.
On that note Buddha believed he would be reincarnated so death to him was at worst a temporary setback… not that Buddha ever actively sought out death, he simply wasn’t perturbed by it.
By the way, Buddha believed in rebirth, but he did not believe in the existence of a soul. (That’s one of the big differences between Buddhism and Hinduism.) He didn’t think there was a persistent self that continued from one life to the next, in fact he didn’t even think there was a persistent self that continued from one moment to the next. Momentariness of existence is a core element of Buddhism.
You might be wondering, how can there be rebirth without a soul? The idea is that the actions done by one body give rise to the creation of another body which experiences positive and negative results as a consequence of the actions done by the first body, but there is no entity which is transferred from the first body to the second body.
The notion of “self” (and therefore “soul” as the core of self) is a bit sketchy at the best of times if you attempt to tie it down precisely. Consider the problem of how to go about measuring (in a scientific sense) where yourself ends and where another self begins. Buddhism recognizes this more enthusiastically than other religions, but IMHO that’s more a question of emphasis. Then again, I don’t consider myself religious so a real Buddhist or Hindu might make a more dramatic distinction.
It think it’s evident that our minds are not closed since we can demonstrably communicate… but at the same time our minds are not open either, since we could be keeping secrets and even when we don’t want to keep secrets we still cannot be 100% sure that we understand each other correctly.
I used to have a lot of Zen poetry around the place, back in the days when people hung onto bits of paper, but that was a long time ago, and I’m allergic to nostalgia.
“Consider the problem of how to go about measuring (in a scientific sense) where yourself ends and where another self begins.”
Part of how Science is defined, these days, is the idea that non-empirical things are not within the realm of scientific discovery.
So science defines souls out of existence, whether or not they exist.
Scientists will say that its because souls cannot be proven to exist that they are not considered to be scientific.
I happen to think that’s debatable, but even if it’s true that souls don’t exist, it is also true that science *defines* souls out of existence.
So science, by definition, would be the wrong tool to use for discovering the soul. That is, it is illogical to think that science would be capable of determining yes or no.
This comic is pertinent. Check out the D&D ones if you have ever played.
http://existentialcomics.com/comic/1
If what you are saying about the lack of existence of continuity of being in Buddhism is true then it precludes Buddha making any kind of sacrifice, because the Buddha that made the decision to suffer or give up something actually inflicted that suffering or loss on a different Buddha. This is not sacrifice, it’s closer to murder.
You don’t have a soul, you are a soul. You have a body. C.S. Lewis
CS Lewis never said this
https://mereorthodoxy.com/you-dont-have-a-soul-cs-lewis-never-said-it/
Andrew_FL: “CS Lewis never said this”
Good to know – thanks. But I still believe it to be a true statement.
Buddha starved himself which would be physically painful if any of us attempted it, but I cannot say for sure how Buddha felt about it. Probably it was painful.
He did it to discover whether there was such a thing as reality underneath the illusions of the mind, and he concluded that yes he would have died if he had kept going.
The average postmodernist hasn’t made such a serious effort IMHO.
Yes, and forget even starving himself. Before he sat under the tree and meditated, giving up food, water, and the like, he first joined a Jain monastery which was focused on self-mortification. He inflicted extreme amounts of pain in the hope that it would lead to a realization of how to end suffering. He became so good at inflicting pain on himself that he surpassed the Jain masters who were teaching him. But still he achieved no realization. That’s when he decided to leave the Jains and sit under the tree.
I, for one, am eagerly anticipating Bob’s analysis of whether Jesus could dunk a basketball better than Michael Jordan.
Bob, I love the idea of this series of posts! I’m glad I inspired it. For the record, I don’t have a dog in this fight, because none of these figures are Hindu. But I would claim that the Hindu figures Rama and Krishna are at the pinnacle of human characteristics. However, it would only be clear how excellent their characteristics are if you already believed in Hindu morality. Whereas Jesus’ personal characteristics are more suited to modern secular morality in Western cultures.
I’m a Hindu, not a Buddhist, but here are some examples of Buddha’s kindness and self-sacrifice off the top of my head:
1. Buddha was opposed to the animal sacrifices that Hindus were doing at the time, and once when he saw an animal about to be killed in an animal sacrifice, he asked to be killed in its place.
2. Buddha was originally a prince who lived a sheltered life in the palace, but once he went out and saw the suffering associated with birth, death, disease, and old age, he gave up all royal luxuries and went in search of a cure for all the world’s suffering.
3. He joined a Jain monastery whose focus was self-mortification, in the hope that inflicting great pain upon himself might lead him to achieve a realization of how to end the world’s suffering.
4. He sat under a tree giving up food, water, etc. and meditated, in the hope of achieving a realization of how to end the world’s suffering.
5. He asked that all the sins of not only mankind but all living beings accrue to him instead.
6. Buddha believed he’d found the end to suffering, and he could have just adopted the solution for himself and ended all of his suffering, but he decided to forgo his happiness for the sake of alleviating the suffering of others.
7. Once he was walking through a forest when he met a robber who said “I’ve come to take all your belongings.” He said “OK, take them.” Then the robber said “No, but I’m also going to cut off your little finger, because I make a garland out of the little fingers of all my victims.” Buddha said “OK, take it.” The robber said “No, you don’t understand, I’m not just going to take your little finger, I’m going to take your life.” Buddha said, “OK, take it.”
8. Once someone gave Buddha poisoned pork. Buddha accepted it with equanimity and ate it. He immediately fell violently ill, but he told his disciples to tell the person who gave it to him that the pork was excellent and that he would achieve great rewards in the afterlife for serving the last meal of Buddha. Buddha died shortly thereafter.
And these are just some examples of personal behavior on Buddha’s part. There is also the kindness and forgiveness embedded in Buddha’s teachings.
Oh, and Buddha associated with lots of sinners, for he cared about their suffering just as much as he cared about the suffering of the righteous.
Thanks Keshav! I hadn’t heard of these. How definitive is that account of his death? I only ask because it wasn’t mentioned in the two websites I looked at, and that seems like a pretty iconic story.
It is definitive, it’s described in detail in the Maha-parinibbhana Sutta, which is part of the Pali Canon or core scriptures of Buddhism. Here’s the account of how he got sick:
“And Cunda the metalworker, after the night had passed, had choice food, hard and soft, prepared in his abode, together with a quantity of sukara-maddava, and announced it to the Blessed One, saying: “It is time, O Lord, the meal is ready.” Thereupon the Blessed One, in the forenoon, having got ready, took bowl and robe and went with the community of bhikkhus to the house of Cunda, and there sat down on the seat prepared for him. And he spoke to Cunda, saying: “With the sukara-maddava you have prepared, Cunda, you may serve me; with the other food, hard and soft, you may serve the community of bhikkhus.” “So be it, Lord.” And with the sukara-maddava prepared by him, he served the Blessed One; and with the other food, hard and soft, he served the community of bhikkhus. Thereafter the Blessed One spoke to Cunda, saying: “Whatever, Cunda, is left over of the sukara-maddava, bury that in a pit. For I do not see in all this world, with its gods, Maras, and Brahmas, among the host of ascetics and brahmans, gods and men, anyone who could eat it and entirely digest it except the Tathagata alone.” And Cunda the metalworker answered the Blessed One saying: “So be it, O Lord.” And what remained over of the sukara-maddava he buried in a pit. Then he returned to the Blessed One, respectfully greeted him, and sat down at one side. And the Blessed One instructed Cunda the metalworker in the Dhamma, and roused, edified, and gladdened him. After this he rose from his seat and departed. And soon after the Blessed One had eaten the meal provided by Cunda the metalworker, a dire sickness fell upon him, even dysentery, and he suffered sharp and deadly pains. But the Blessed One endured them mindfully, clearly comprehending and unperturbed. Then the Blessed One spoke to the Venerable Ananda, saying: “Come, Ananda, let us go to Kusinara.” And the Venerable Ananda answered: “So be it, Lord.””
And here is him telling everyone not to speak harshly of the guy who gave him the food:
“Then the Blessed One spoke to the Venerable Ananda, saying: “It may come to pass, Ananda, that someone will cause remorse to Cunda the metalworker, saying: ‘It is no gain to you, friend Cunda, but a loss, that it was from you the Tathagata took his last alms meal, and then came to his end.’ Then, Ananda, the remorse of Cunda should be dispelled after this manner: ‘It is a gain to you, friend Cunda, a blessing that the Tathagata took his last alms meal from you, and then came to his end. For, friend, face to face with the Blessed One I have heard and learned: “There are two offerings of food which are of equal fruition, of equal outcome, exceeding in grandeur the fruition and result of any other offerings of food. Which two? The one partaken of by the Tathagata before becoming fully enlightened in unsurpassed, supreme Enlightenment; and the one partaken of by the Tathagata before passing into the state of Nibbana in which no element of clinging remains. By his deed the worthy Cunda has accumulated merit which makes for long life, beauty, well being, glory, heavenly rebirth, and sovereignty.”‘ Thus, Ananda, the remorse of Cunda the metalworker should be dispelled.” Then the Blessed One, understanding that matter, breathed forth the solemn utterance: “Who gives, his virtues shall increase; Who is self-curbed, no hatred bears; Whoso is skilled in virtue, evil shuns, And by the rooting out of lust and hate And all delusion, comes to be at peace.””
And here is the account of Buddha’s death:
“And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: “Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!” This was the last word of the Tathagata. And the Blessed One entered the first jhana. Rising from the first jhana, he entered the second jhana. Rising from the second jhana, he entered the third jhana. Rising from the third jhana, he entered the fourth jhana. And rising out of the fourth jhana, he entered the sphere of infinite space. Rising from the attainment of the sphere of infinite space, he entered the sphere of infinite consciousness. Rising from the attainment of the sphere of infinite consciousness, he entered the sphere of nothingness. Rising from the attainment of the sphere of nothingness, he entered the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. And rising out of the attainment of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he attained to the cessation of perception and feeling. 10. And the Venerable Ananda spoke to the Venerable Anuruddha, saying: “Venerable Anuruddha, the Blessed One has passed away.” “No, friend Ananda, the Blessed One has not passed away. He has entered the state of the cessation of perception and feeling.” Then the Blessed One, rising from the cessation of perception and feeling, entered the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. Rising from the attainment of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he entered the sphere of nothingness. Rising from the attainment of the sphere of nothingness, he entered the sphere of infinite consciousness. Rising from the attainment of the sphere of infinite consciousness, he entered the sphere of infinite space. Rising from the attainment of the sphere of infinite space, he entered the fourth jhana. Rising from the fourth jhana, he entered the third jhana. Rising from the third jhana, he entered the second jhana. Rising from the second jhana, he entered the first jhana. Rising from the first jhana, he entered the second jhana. Rising from the second jhana, he entered the third jhana. Rising from the third jhana, he entered the fourth jhana. And, rising from the fourth jhana, the Blessed One immediately passed away. And when the Blessed One had passed away, simultaneously with his Parinibbana there came a tremendous earthquake, dreadful and astounding, and the thunders rolled across the heavens.”
Oh, I forgot the link. Here it is: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html
Not definitive at all. You don’t have to go any further (farther? I can never remember) than the wikipedia article on him:
“Accounts of his life, discourses, and monastic rules are believed by Buddhists to have been summarized after his death and memorized by his followers. Various collections of teachings attributed to him were passed down by oral tradition and first committed to writing about 400 years later.”
Note the key words, are believed, memorized, attributed, oral tradition, 400 years later. Nothing definitive there.
I just meant that it’s definitive from a Buddhist viewpoint. Certainly it’s possible to question its accuracy, just as it’s possible to question the accuracy of the Bible.
There’s the Mesenteric Infarction theory which would not have been understood by anyone in 500 BC, but is a projection of modern medical knowledge back onto the historic record.
https://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha192.htm
So it could possibly be that there was nothing wrong with the pork, and that Buddha was simply being honest with Cunda. Still a decent thing to say, however you look at it.
Yes, just like modern scientists speculate that Paul’s road to Damascus moment was a seizure. But at least from a traditional Buddhist perspective, it’s definitive.
LOL Why not become a Christian and when you die you can ask Paul yourself?
If you can convince me that Christianity is true, I’d gladly become a Christian. But currently I’m convinced that Hinduism is true.
Keshav,
“Buddha believed he’d found the end to suffering, and he could have just adopted the solution for himself and ended all of his suffering, but he decided to forgo his happiness for the sake of alleviating the suffering of others.”
Ths seems to equate end of suffering with happiness – do you think this is the case, or is this a sort of shorthand because it is clumsy to say he decided to forgo an end to his suffering?
And why would adopting the solution for oneself preclude alleviation of the suffering of others?
Harold, in some sense I’m not being imprecise by using “happiness”, I’m being imprecise by using “suffering”. Suffering is a pretty extreme word in English, but in Buddhist discourse it’s being used as a general term for anything a person is experiencing that prevents them from being happy.
There are three kinds of suffering: internal, external, and supernatural. Internal suffering comes in two forms: diseases and maladies of the body, and unhappiness coming from within the mind. External suffering refers to threats from other living beings, like humans, wild animals, etc. Supernatural suffering refers to what Westerners call “acts of God”, i.e. natural disasters and other weather events.
By the way, Buddhism and Hinduism share this classification of types of suffering. We just differ about how to deal with it.
Keshav, there is much room for misunderstanding through language. Terms like suffering have a vast context and are difficult to translate, but thank you for the clarification.
“Was [Jesus] kinder, more forgiving, more self-sacrificing than Buddha?”
Bob – The answer to all the questions in the quote about Him being kinder, more forgiving, wiser, patient, etc., is yes – He was all of those and more. As far as your inability to imagine someone being more forgiving than Jesus, that’s because it’s not possible to be more forgiving than Jesus.
If you slug someone, and I tell them that I forgive you, all but the brain dead are going to recognize that I can’t do that – I wasn’t the one offended. Only the sluggee can forgive you. But Jesus can (and did) forgive everyone – His death forgave the sins of the entire world:
All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name. Acts 10:43
I write to you, dear children, because your sins have been forgiven on account of his name. 1 John 2:12
For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. 1 Peter 3:18
But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. 1 John 3:5
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! John 1:29
Only Jesus can forgive everyone’s sins because He is the one offended. (“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” Romans 3:23) Buddha couldn’t forgive anyone’s sins except a person that might have offended him.
“On this criterion, I think we easily say Jesus is the winner. It’s not even close.”
Zactly. And there is so much error and misinformation in the replies to this post, that it will take a lot to refute them. I apologize in advance, but many of them I can’t ignore – I’ll do my best to minimize my comments and maybe just do a few each day.
Phew! I thought you were going to scold me Mark for falling into this agnostic trap! 🙂
Heh heh