I read the first sentence of the OP sourced text and the text and proposed idea whatever it be lost absolute credibility. The fact that Masonry traces back AT LEAST half a millennia before Buddha negates the sources claim. Honestly is it that hard to try to proof the texts provided or assess them to any logical degree?

I do not know what is worse, the fact that this thread continued for three pages in what i can only assume is apparent discussion over the OP or that people actually thought such could possibly warrant discussion and chose to provide "their insights" into a blatantly ignorant and misrepresentation of reality, fact, and belief.

I hasten to add, after looking at many of the suggested materials to study, most have little to do with this thread and the ones that do are surely not well known for a good reason. Buddhist building stone henge?! come on.

reply to post by cancermanxx

---

Sorry if I have misunderstood what you mean Cancermanxx - but I'm going to assume that you think Buddha Shakyamuni / Prince Siddhartha Gautama, was the first Buddha??

Actually it's already been explained earlier in this thread, there were other Buddhas before him & other earlier forms of Buddhism too.

There's also obviously plenty of info about it on the internet...
Wikipedia for instance...




[edit on 16/5/2009 by moobaawoof]

reply to post by Tamahu

---

the thing is the buddhist type aspect of freemasonry if we say there is such.

would be revealed gradually, as freemason is shown firstly or to the profane to be a club, and not a religious teaching.

so anyway if freemasonry teaches people to be better and so does buddhism, then that is some similarities at least.

i quite like the zen buddhism myself really good for working out daily life.
zen-buddhist.blogspot.com...

I don't have too much to add here right now, other than that my views have changed quite a bit since my posting of this thread.... however, I'll still affirm that the writings of Godfrey Higgins, Albert Pike, Samael Aun Weor, H.P. Blavatsky, John Yarker, Manly P. Hall, etc. do contain info that is worthy of attention in regard to the subject at hand(even if said author's writings are mixed with some false information).

Especially in light of recent findings on the relationship between Yungdrung Bon and Manichaeism(see the books: "Heart Drops of Dharmakaya", "Bonpo Dzogchen Teachings", and anything by Keith Dowman, Vajranatha(John Myrdhin Reynolds) and Namkhai Norbu).


Here's an interesting short essay by a Essene Gnostic sect that is worth reading:

Bonpo and Buddhist Schools

A major qualm that I have with this^^^ website, is that it does not mention the Dravidian's and/or the Tamil's Mother Goddess Tantra, nor does it mention the likely possibility of the original Tantric Buddhist doctrine being somehow connected to pre-Dynastic Kemet and/or (pre)Sumer(see Metu Neter Volume 1 by Ra Un Nefer Amen).


Speaking of which... here's another essay on, who appears to have been Tamil, Padampa Sangye as being one and the same as Bodhidharma, founder of Chan or Zen:

Padampa Sangye

Remember though, that Zen is the pinnacle of Sutra and beginning of Tantra, whereas Dzogchen or Ati Yoga is the pinnacle of Tantra. One Tibetan Lama told a Chinese Chan teacher-monk Hashang that the latter's method(Zen) "...is like a duck trying to stir up the ocean". Meaning that Chan or Zen's methods are inferior to those of the Higher Tantras and direct introduction to the Natural State of Dzogchen. Of course Zen, being a "sudden" school, is said to be able to bring instantaneous Illumination. The same has been said of Dzogchen, the difference being that even though Ati Yoga, Dzogchen, or Mahasandhi states that Tantra practice is not necessary for realizing the Natural State, Dzogchen does have the option of practicing potent Tantric methods along the way, whereas Zen does not(unless of course any specific Zen school secretly practices Vajrayana).




[edit on 27-6-2009 by Tamahu]