If Reincarnation is real, was Buddha the reincarnated Jesus?

Originally posted by ThreeNF
www.rael.org

Rael is the last prophet to be sent by the Elohim and is the brother of Jesus - they both have the same father.

Read Rael's book - it's a free download which can be found via the link above.

Oh, man.

I can't believe I never saw the light sooner.

I am now a bonafied RAELIAN!

Rael and Jesus are blood brothers .. because Rael is like, a UFO abductee from Jesus time, back when his name was Timothy or somehing.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

I was going to say the same thing in my earlier comment but decided not to! Seriously, who wants to keep coming back to this hell hole repeatedly in future lives? No thanks! Once around the block is enough to wear out even the best of us!

Originally posted by runetang
Oh, man.

I can't believe I never saw the light sooner.

I am now a bonafied RAELIAN!

Now be nice!

Do unto others....remember!

reincarnation doesn't even exist.......its almost comical. There is but one God, and his son is Jesus Christ. Jesus died once and was raised from the dead in three days. So, being alive means you can't be reincarnated even if it existed. Besides, Budda ate a lot of twinkies and had to be put on Divine weight control.

^ I'm all for you believing what you want, but don't you think that's a tad ignorant?

Hasn't it been claimed that Jesus went to India and studied Buddhism during what people call his "lost years"?

[edit on 31-12-2007 by tdb0805]

[edit on 31-12-2007 by tdb0805]

Originally posted by tdb0805
Hasn't it been claimed that Jesus went to India and studied Buddhism during what people call his "lost years"?

Yes, and parts of these years are also recorded in one of the Gospels and the apocrypha. Although I don't consider the apocrypha a legitimate source, these records (claims) place him in the vicinity of Judea- not the Far East. So "claims" mean very little without the evidence to back it up. They can claim Jesus traveled to to the Far East and I can claim I'm a shoelace. It doesn't make it true.

reply to post by AshleyD



AshleyD, be careful because there are those who will call you out on it and say, "Well, there is no real historical evidence of Jesus' existence, period." I am not in that camp, but they are here.

Not far from buddhahood

A university student while visiting Gasan asked him: "Have you even read the Christian Bible?"

"No, read it to me," said Gasan.

The student opened the Bible and read from St. Matthew: "And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow. They toil not, neither do they spin, and yet I say unto you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these...Take therefore no thought for the morrow, for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself."

Gasan said: "Whoever uttered those words I consider and enlightened man."

The student continued reading: "Ask and it shall be given you, seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you. For everyone that asketh receiveth, and he that seeketh findeth, and to him that knocketh, is shall be opened."

Gasan remarked: "That is excellent. Whoever said that is not far from Buddhahood."

According to the Vedas the original Bhudda was an avatar of God. When you translate the sanskrit word Krishna (which means all attractive and is the original personality of God) to greek it becomes Christos. When you translate Christos into hebrew it becomes Christ. Emanuel was baptised to become Jesus (or Hey Zues) and he was an Acarya (manifested energy of God sent to the material world to teach God Consciousness). Therefore yes Bhudda and Jesus are of the same energy but probably not direct incarnations of one another.

As far as my research has went thus far, Jesus was overlighted by the Buddha and Archangel Christ Michael during his infancy for Protection. They are not the same soul entity. Some schools of thought have Jesus incarnations as Quetzacotle of central America, Melchizedek, Jesus the Christ, Apollonius of Tyanna, also as an unknown Syrian in the 1600's. Personally I like to think that Kahlil Gibrin was one of them.

The Lord Maitreyia or Buddha was also Zoroaster, Orpheus, founder of the Greek Mystery School amongst others.

Jesus is also known as Yeheshua, Lord of the Light Supreme; Creator Son; Universal Christ, Galactic Christ, as well as the planetary Christ.

Melchezedek (not the same entity as one of Christ incarnations) is known as Lord of Eternal Light.

Sathya Sai Babba is known as the Cosmic Christ ( anybody from India out there please let me know if he is still alive). It is writtten that he will come back as Petri Sai Babba in his next incarnation.

Moses, Jesus, and Elijah are Parts of the "Anointed Paradise Trinity" sent into the world of man to activate Light thresholds of the Father's Program of "Salvation" so that humankind can ascend from world of light to world of light thought a soul's onword evolution through incarnational processes. Even after the 4th and 5th initiation it progresses in higher dimensions "for my Father's house has many mansions"

Moses gives humanity the "Torah Or" which he receives from "The Living Light" Elijah demonstrates Oneness with the "Vehicle of Light" which attaches our physical universe to other universes of messengers of "The Living Light" Christ Jesus demonstrates the "Collective Messiahship" with the "firstborn seed" of the higher Overself worlds, whereby the "Man/Woman of Holiness" brings the garment of the Christ body to those appointed to be "risen sons and daughters of Light" in the regeneration and resurrection of this world of intelligence.

Jesus activates the Sonship of YHVH for everlasting world dominion through his "resurrection by Light".

Moses-Jesus- Elijah came to the world together through the transfiguration of Light, so they will return together to quicken the saints in the day when the Earth shakes and passover is not seen as the passover of Man, but of the"Sons of of the heavens" that will appear in the skies.

Moses and Elijah will judge Isreal (those whom have chosen TO BE or not to be a son or daughter of the Living light in the flesh) of the flesh.

Christ Jesus will judge the Isreal "of the heavens", and the very souls of mankind before his Fathers Throne.

Hope this pics you curiosity further.. Seek and you shall find, knock it shall be opened to you. Emmanuel Lives in us all.

Peace to all this new year!!!!

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
AshleyD, be careful because there are those who will call you out on it and say, "Well, there is no real historical evidence of Jesus' existence, period." I am not in that camp, but they are here.

Oh, I hope they do because I'm ready for them! There is simply too much secular and extrabiblical evidence supporting the existence of a historical Jesus. And the pagan copycat theory? Please! It doesn't have a leg to stand on. Here are two article series I already wrote on the subject: (Answering pagan copycat allegations using pagan religious texts for our sources and Historical References to Jesus.

It's a weak and lazy argument. The easiest way to dismiss a religion is to claim its founder never existed. How lazy! Too bad for them the Judean tax registers recorded His birth during the time and the early church fathers recorded this fact for us. Thanks for the heads up.

[edit on 12/31/2007 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by plague
According to the Vedas the original Bhudda was an avatar of God.

WRONG! Buddhism doesn't even believe in a god but an energy of law. Buddha was only believed to be a teacher. Not a prophet, avatar, or god. Ask a Buddhist. They will confirm this.

See: Bhuddist Philosphy

When you translate the sanskrit word Krishna (which means all attractive and is the original personality of God) to greek it becomes Christos.

WRONG! Krishna in sanskrit means "black one, "dark one," or "Blue-black one" because Hindus believe he had bluish-black skin.

See: The meaning of the name Krishna

When you translate Christos into hebrew it becomes Christ.

WRONG! "Christos" is translated from the Hebrew word "Messiah." Messiah was strictly a Hebrew word. Christ is an English word for "Messiah" and "Christos/Chrestus/Christus" are Latin and Greek versions of the Hebrew word Messiah.

Emanuel was baptised to become Jesus (or Hey Zues)

WRONG! Jesus in Hebrew is simply Yehoshua/Yeshua/Joshua (God saves). Immanuel is Hebrew for "God with us."

See: Joshua, Immanuel, and Yeshua.

[edit on 12/31/2007 by AshleyD]

Ashley D,
No my friend you are very wrong. The Bhudda you refer to is a false Bhudda. You can find evidence of the real Bhudda in Vedic writing.
SRIMAD BHAGAVATAM Cantos one chapter3 text 24

Tatah kalau sampravrtte
sammohaya sura-dvisam
buddho namnanjana-sutah
kikatesu bhavisyati

translation:
Then in the beginning of Kali Yuga the lord will appear as Lord Bhudda the son of Anjana in the province of Gaya just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful thiest.

The beginning of Kali-Yuga started over 5000 years ago ...way before Jesus or the "bhudda" you refer to.

Ashley D,
In sanskrit one word can have many different meanings. The meaning is changed by the tone or pitch you say it in. Sanskrit is the language of the Demi gods and is sung. That is why all ancient Vedic sanskrits verses are called slokas. And yes Krishna means "All attractive one". I am a Vaishna and so I read alot of Shastra so I would know.

As far as the Krishna/christos/hebrew translation. It was shown to me by his grace Satyaraja Dasa who is a great scholar in ancient languages.

Ashley D,
How do you think Emanuels name became Jesus? Did you notice that the apostles changed there names after baptism? How about when "christian" missionaries go to 3rd world countries and baptise people and give them "Christian" names.

Originally posted by plague
No my friend you are very wrong. The Bhudda you refer to is a false Bhudda.

You better go and let the other millions of Buddhists know about this. They firmly believe he was a true Buddha.

You can find evidence of the real Bhudda in Vedic writing.

SRIMAD BHAGAVATAM

I quote from source: "A common misconception among non-Buddhists is that the Buddha is the Buddhist counterpart to 'God'. Buddhism however, is non-theistic."

But I think I discovered our problem. It seems we are having a bit of a language barrier problem. I'm talking about Buddha as enlightened ones as they pertain to the Buddhist religion. You seem to be using the word Buddha as simply meaning an incarnation. What you quoted is also from a Hindu text, Krishna is a Hindu god, and all of your arguments refer to Hinduism in some way. I was specifically talking about Buddhism in the first part of my comment then the rest of my comment referred to Hinduism.

It looks like you are referring to only Hinduism (which indeed has multiple gods) judging by your information and citations while I am discussing both religions. Let me know if this is where our problem is. You might have wrongfully assumed I was talking about Hinduism while I wrongfully assumed you were talking about Buddhism due to language problems.

The beginning of Kali-Yuga started over 5000 years ago ...way before Jesus or the "bhudda" you refer to.

I'm under the impression the Kali-Yuga system, again a Hindu concept, is somewhat along the lines of the Mayan or Hopi calendar systems. In other words, a certain "count" origin is created arbitrarily. I could bring up the fact the Hebrews trace their calender to 6,000 years ago due to internal biblical evidence, which precedes your 5,000 years starting point but I'm not interested in competing with you- I'm trying to point out the silliness of this argument. So what exactly is the relevance of the Kali-Yuga to this? It reminds me of the "My God is better than your God" argument.

How do you think Emanuels name became Jesus?

Jesus' name was never Immanuel. Immanuel was part of the Messianic prophecies. Because it means "God with us," it was a reference to the future Messiah who would be God in human form, hence "God with us." Christians don't believe it was ever Jesus' literal name.

How about when "christian" missionaries go to 3rd world countries and baptise people and give them "Christian" names.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? Yes, the Bible often mentions people receiving new names after their conversion. However, Jesus was never a sinful convert therefore He never required a new name to express a covenanted conversion.

In sanskrit one word can have many different meanings. The meaning is changed by the tone or pitch you say it in. Sanskrit is the language of the Demi gods and is sung. That is why all ancient Vedic sanskrits verses are called slokas. And yes Krishna means "All attractive one". I am a Vaishna and so I read alot of Shastra so I would know.

One word having several meanings is true in most languages. I also saw that there were dozens (hundreds even) of translations and titles for Krishna. But basically you're saying is that Krishna can mean whatever one wants it to mean by trying to make a connection between Krishna and Christ. The thing is, the original root was strictly Hebrew in origin. I get very suspicious of pagan copycat theorists who use the wording to connect Jesus to other figures when actually what is happening is they are connecting the other figures to Jesus by plagiarizing a Hebrew word.

As far as the Krishna/christos/hebrew translation. It was shown to me by his grace Satyaraja Dasa who is a great scholar in ancient languages.

Bless his heart but the man is flat out wrong. The "Messiah" [Christ] was specifically a Hebrew concept alluding to the coming "anointed one" or redeemer.

Originally posted by Yechidah
Moses and Elijah will judge Isreal (those whom have chosen TO BE or not to be a son or daughter of the Living light in the flesh) of the flesh.

Peace to all this new year!!!!

Actually, Moses died a human death. The only other one that was "taken up by God" while still in the flesh was Enoch. So the two witnesses are likely going to be Enoch and Elijah, two which were taken up into heaven without ever dying. And to this day, they have yet to experience human death.

Ashley D,
Bhudda is taken from the sanskrit word Bhuddi which means intelligence or enlightenment. Bhudda means enlightend one. According to scripture the ancient Vedic society had declined due to the changing of the Yugas (theres 4 yugas each containing 100s of 1000s of years) and the people had taken and twisted the Vedas to use them for there own purposes like using sacrifices by unqualified Brahmans for eating of meat and other such unpious things. So God incarnated himself as Bhudda and after demonstrating through penance (meditating under a tree with no food and water for an insane amount of years) that he was the incarnation that is spoke of in the Vedic literature he was proclaimed God incarnate. When asked about the Vedas and there laws he said these dont matter. When asked about whether he was God incarnate he said this doesnt matter. When asked if there was a god he said maybe there is maybe not. So what matters? He then began to spread the pure word of the Vedas (the true science of the soul) without teaching of God. Slowly some of the people started to give up there unpious ways and turned to what they called Bhuddaism. At this time also Hinduism (although it was not called that until the british took control of India) started to grow. In the ancient times they believed in one God (none by many names (Govinda, Vishnu, Narayana, but specifically Krishna or the supreme personality of God head) with many Demi-gods that served God. However after Bhudda the people forgot about the original and began to whorship the Demi-gods (actually this had started to happen to some degree during the 2nd and 3rd Yugas and each time Krishna would reapear as some sort of an incarnation to set the people right) Then some years later after Bhudda Lord Caitanya Mayaprabhu (the devotee incarnate of Krishna) came to spread the words of the original Vedas and to glorify the name and fame of Krishna and his devotees. Many 100s of years later the son of a king (cant remember his name but you know who i refer to) who had never left his palace was looking out his window and saw an old man all crippled up he asked his servents what was wrong with him and they said he was old and would soon die. This didnt sit well with him so he left the palace in search of enlightenment. He came to a tree where he meditated for 40 years and came upon the conclusion that there is a soul. Word spread and people thought this to be the prophesised Bhudda. Only he wasnt.
Now to claim Bhudda with out the Vedic prophesy is like excepting Christ without the Hebrew prophesies. The conclusion is that to except the prophesie of Bhudda you have to except the Vedic conclusion and that is that Bhudda is an incarnation of God. So yes these millions of Bhuddist are wrong in there conclusion that there is no God and yes they are following a false Bhudda.

Now as far as "Hinduism" it developed from the remnents of the Vedic society who Had one supreme God with many Demi-gods. Your short sightedness of the Vedic Tradition shows you have no real insight on that of your so called "hinduism" and yes there are many Indians who practice what they call "hinduism" that has been handed down to them by there forbearers but you will meet many more Brahmacharies from India who will tell you that acording to the Vedas there is one God.

Now as for Jesus. His original name was Emanuel. The prophesies found in Isaiah tell us this much. He was also a Vaishna or devotee to the Lord or more important he was an acarya (directly manifested energy of the lord incarnated on this earth to teach us God Consciousness) and taught many things like vegetarianism and renuciation which are the key fundimentals to God consciousness. Yes Jesus was spreading the teachings of the Vedas.
Now how did he get his name Jesus. Well its not in the Bible but a good bet was after john baptised him. Why because he was sent to show the way. He was the living embodyment of perfection. He was what humanity was to strive for. So he had to do these things like be baptised and take on a new spiritual name to show the way.

Originally posted by plague
Bhudda is taken from the sanskrit word Bhuddi which means intelligence or enlightenment. Bhudda means enlightend one.

I'm aware of that and mentioned this definition in my above comment so I'm thinking that is where our confusion stepped in. The "Buddha concept" differs slightly between Hinduism and Buddhism so our paths got crossed. We were talking about the concepts of separate religions but we're on the same page now.

According to scripture the ancient Vedic society had declined due to the changing of the Yugas (theres 4 yugas each containing 100s of 1000s of years)

Again, I'm aware of this and mentioned other ancient civilizations that also believed in cyclic ages and linear time lines. What I'm trying so say is I have a hard time accepting this belief. Christianity also doesn't teach this concept so I'm wondering about the relevance of this to our discussion. If its to imply God incarnated Himself many times into different Buddhas or enlightened ones including Jesus, then I need to be honest and directly say this is something I don't believe.

He then began to spread the pure word of the Vedas (the true science of the soul) without teaching of God. Slowly some of the people started to give up there unpious ways and turned to what they called Bhuddaism.

Is this why you think Gautama Buddha was a false Buddha? Although I obviously don't follow Gautama's teachings, I was under the impression Buddhism believes many Buddhas have come and that Gautama was only the most recent. Many trace the origins of Buddhism back to Gautama and believe he actually founded the system although his followers claim the religion is much older.

Hinduism... in the ancient times they believed in one God (none by many names (Govinda, Vishnu, Narayana, but specifically Krishna or the supreme personality of God head)

Krishna was only an avatar of Vishnu so how could he be superior to Vishnu or differentiated from Vishnu? This is way off topic but thought I'd ask why you anyways.

Many 100s of years later the son of a king (cant remember his name but you know who i refer to) who had never left his palace was looking out his window and saw an old man all crippled up he asked his servents what was wrong with him and they said he was old and would soon die.

Ah, yes. Gautama Buddha. I answered my own question then. So you think he was the "false Buddha that started the split?" It doesn't matter to me but I would still like to know your thoughts.

Now to claim Bhudda with out the Vedic prophesy is like excepting Christ without the Hebrew prophesies. The conclusion is that to except the prophesie of Bhudda you have to except the Vedic conclusion and that is that Bhudda is an incarnation of God. So yes these millions of Bhuddist are wrong in there conclusion that there is no God and yes they are following a false Bhudda.

Ok, now I feel like I'm defending Buddhism which isn't remotely my interest but: No, he didn't have any prophecies to fulfill like Jesus but he was claimed to have "the marks of the Buddha," specific physical traits that all Buddhas are required to have.

Now as for Jesus....

Finally! A subject matter I actually care about.

His original name was Emanuel. The prophesies found in Isaiah tell us this much.

This is not in the Bible at all as Jesus' actual name. The prophecy in Isaiah is exactly what I said it was above: the prophecy that the future Messiah would be "God with us," as in living with us in human form. Nowhere in the NT or early Christian writings was His name Immanuel. Ask any Christian this (more on this below).

He was also a Vaishna or devotee to the Lord or more important he was an acarya (directly manifested energy of the lord incarnated on this earth to teach us God Consciousness) and taught many things like vegetarianism and renuciation which are the key fundimentals to God consciousness.

1) Jesus was not an "avatar" in the sense the word is defined by Eastern religions. Was he God in human form? Yes, but this was to happen once and only once. Christianity does not teach multiple incarnations like Eastern religions do.
2) Jesus never taught vegetarianism. The epistles even warn against vegetarianism and chastise those who adhere to such a diet.
3) The doctrine of renunciation: Yes and no. Jesus didn't actually teach the concept of self deprivation but He did teach us to not be too concerned with earthly possessions and hedonistic pleasures. The doctrine of renunciation is similar albeit not the same as teaching self control or investing more in eternity and not humanity.

Yes Jesus was spreading the teachings of the Vedas.

...but you will meet many more Brahmacharies from India who will tell you that acording to the Vedas there is one God

My beliefs on the matter are this: Christians obviously believe we are all descendants of Adam and Eve, and later Noah. I have a strong suspicion all modern religions were monotheistic in ancient, ancient times. This is due to us all having common ancestors and one belief of the true God. As the centuries went on, other beliefs crept into various religions. Naturally, I think the one true God is Jehova and not Vishnu, or Allah, or Brahma, etc.

Now how did he get his name Jesus. Well its not in the Bible but a good bet was after john baptised him.

How about we stick with what the Bible says (and it is most definitely in the Bible). Matthew 1:21 "...You are to give him the name Jesus..." So before He was even born, His name was to be Jesus." His name was not changed at His baptism.

[edit on 12/31/2007 by AshleyD]

Ashley D,
No Krishna is not an incarnation of Vishnu. This is a latter day belief that some "Hindus" think. If you read the Vedic scriptures they will tell you that Krishna is the supreme personality of godhead and that Vishnu is only an expansion of this personality. We are told this directly in the Gita and also by Lord Brahma himself in the Brahma-samhita. We are also told this in the Srimad Bhagavatam by Yvasedeva who is an avatar of Krishna along also by Lord caintanya.

The problem with the modern day "Hindus" is they have become much like the "Christians" in the way of being hand fed there info. There is no Sampradaya for the "Hindus" or the "Christians" or a disiplinic system of teaching. They have no idea how to read there scriptures which often lead them ("Hindus" and "Christians") to misunderstand or miss certain things that are interconnected to one another.

Now you have pointed out to me my biggest beef with the so called modern day "Christians". Not understanding scripture. Now that leads me to the Emanuel/Jesus/vegetarian debate. You can not....ok one more time ...YOU CAN NOT take the bible at face value. You cannot read it line for line or scripture for scripture. You can not take out the Old test and still use the New Test. I pointed out the prophesie in the old and you showed me where I seem to be wrong because you are not reading scripture as authorised. We are told in prophesies he will be named Emanuel then in Mathews we are told its Jesus but again we are not told why this is changed. Now in oder to believe that Jesus was who the New test. says he is you must adhere to the prophesies. You must also look at who is writing these things. The Old Testament is the beginning of the sacred Hebrew text called the Torra and it is authorised where as the New Testament is all un authorised letters. Most of these letters were written by Paul who is not a disciple and his disciple or written from disciples of the original Apostles and are very much second hand. All put together by a crooked council of sapposed pious individuals.

I can also show you many passages where Jesus is teaching about vegetarianism. As for his Apostles... they were not on Jesuss level and did not appear to adhere to his teachings. This is rampant through the New Testament. They were weak and that is why Jesuss Sampradaya was destroyed. Jesus was an Acarya not an Avatar. He was not the direct incarnation of God or Gods only son. We are all children of God and part and parcel of his spiritual spark. If you want to believe that God had only one son then it would stand to reason that this would be Adam and if Jesus is an incarnation of Adam then he is certainly not God in direct manifestation.

I am not aware of where people are chastised for being vegetarian in the bible????
[edit on 1-1-2008 by plague]

[edit on 1-1-2008 by plague]