Careful there. Treat anything too abstractly and it will inevitably become everything else. "Knowledge of Good and Evil" as an evil itself is a pretty good link between the two, but Genesis falls pretty hard on the side of 'What's done is done, let's talk about genealogies', where Buddhism verbosely strives to overturn such an injustice. Basically polar opposite endpoints, right? Not to mention that God himself (an omniscient being who can be trusted to accurately gauge these sorts of things) declares all of creation to be "Good", while Buddhism, as you suggested with the Jhana comparison, values an ongoing nothingness as "Good". Once again, polar opposites.
Hope I'm not too far off the mark here, I'm not crazy well versed in Buddhist beliefs, but if Genesis truly is a narrative form of Buddhism, you'd expect it to draw similar conclusions, set similar goals for the reader. Even a pretty cursory engagement with the text seems to dispel this belief. Also, ah, sorry if this piece was more intended as a romanticized analogy than a genuine proposition. Religious imagery complements your prose quite nicely, as it has many before you.
Totally agree with that first part. Maybe it helps to clarify. I'm not arguing "X is Y" so much as "it looks like X contains within it something that looks a heck of a lot like a translation of Y."
I don't think Genesis has so much of a "what's done is done" vibe as it is describing a kind of progression. Buddhism has its eightfold path, which is for individuals to progress out of suffering towards peace. Genesis (in my read) describes a similar process but over a much, much longer time frame, not for individual persons, but for humanity.
My understanding of the Jhanas is that you are supposed to be able to maintain these states while walking around all the time. This sounds a bit like Jesus' talk about the kingdom of God. I think Buddhism is far too complex for most people to grasp; sitting and watching content arise and fall in consciousness only makes sense for certain kinds of people. Sort of like, fasting for 40 days and nights in the desert is probably beyond most people.
Judaism seems to broaden the focus from 'just the mind' to interplays between human beings and their communities. It replaces 'rules for concentrating the mind around good' which are only attainable by a small group of people, with a broader set of 'rules for concentrating a people around good', which are more attainable but still hard to get.
The idea of Jesus as the embodiement of the logos looks like the 'limit point' of increasingly relaxing the set of rules and the process, until you get to the bare minimum essence, which is basically 'just trust that things will be ok so long as you are ~trying~ to do good, even if you're done some awful things and people have done awful things to you, just re-orient in the present moment towards doing good and things will work out because of this one very special primate here.'
So from my view, there's a progression from "buddhism -> judaism -> christianity" that looks like a broadening out of the instruction set, from detailed instructions for would-be priests to attain total peace in this lifetime, to a broader, simpler instruction set that's for more people to work together peaceably to from a healthy community, to an even broader, even simpler mandate made possible by an "uber priest" who worked out all the details and came back and said, look, just trust me on this, stop judging other people, i will take care of that, focus on your own sins first, know that you are forgiven and keep trying to do good and everyting else will work itself out."
I don't think these things are so much as polar opposites, as they are different strategies of going about the same thing at different scales: the cessation of suffering and sadness. There are some key differences, though: Buddhism says this entire world is Maya (illusion) whereas Judaism says that the world is fundamentally good but we make a mess of it through our flawed judgements about it. I definitely don't think the two are purely equivalent.
Technically, Buddhist concepts were available when the Old Testament was composed (Seleukid era; check the Elephantine papyri), as the emperor Ashok was a Buddhist. However, I don't see any hard evidence Genesis relied on the Indians; it seems generically chin-lifty with Babylonian characteristics.
You seem to rely too much on the conscious mind.
For all we know, suffering arises from chemistry.
I am not a fan of Buddhism. Focus out, not inward.
Why is Buddhism your starting point? Personally I'm more familiar with Christianity here, so maybe you're just reaching the other way. But if you think that they tell similar stories, why is Buddhism the template for Genesis, and not vice versa?
It’s a good question. If you see my responses elsewhere, I think Judaism has “more to it” than Buddhism, in that Buddhism seems more concerned with a path for an individual to alleviate their own suffering, whereas Judaism is more like an operating system for a people.
Great post! I had a half formed thought along similar lines once, where original sin is the illusion of self and hence the source of suffering. The moment of eating the apple is a metaphor for the moment the self is fabricated. I think this also fits with what you’ve been saying. The Jhanas are often thought of as the progress of defabrication, for example.
Incredible. What is your IQ? Do you consider yourself intelligent? What about your peers? I wish to write like you one day but I suspect that you may be too far ahead.
Hi, Thank you, this is very kind. I have no idea what my IQ is; I went to a small liberal arts school in the midwest and eventually wound up at places like Google. I do consider myself intelligent, yes - but there are writers who are far, far better than I am, and the thing that seems to mke them good at it is their breadth of experience and the time they've spent reflecting on that experience. I'm in my late 30's now and have been writing compulsively for almost 20 years now, if that is any help.
If you want to improve at writing, all you have to do is:
a) read a whole lot
b) write a whole lot
i started doing b) as a means to process my feelings, in a journal. Eventually i started blogging in 2003, and did it primarily out of some compulsion to share.
Why do you want to write well? What would it mean if you could? Try writing about why that is and what it means to you?
For me, there were always questions i couldn't help but want to know the answers two, and both reading and writing became means to the end. Maybe half of the reason I write is that people will respond to my writing in ways that make me think, show me new sources to consider, point out problems in what i'm saying that I hadn't yet considered.
Feel free to share anything you've written with me if you'd like some feedback. Whatever it is in you that wants something deeply, it's my belief that this is a kind of self knowledge of real potential, expressing itself as desire.
Yes, especially in light of what the Codex Oera Linda has to say about "Yesus" AKA "Buda" (he was essentially a very popular, righteous man who traveled to the East and returned sharing knowledge).
Given the amount of re-writing and editing of the Old/New Testament per Mauro Biglino, I can easily accept that perhaps this happened as Mark PXN describes, and even perhaps... Yesus was the one that told the story.
Careful there. Treat anything too abstractly and it will inevitably become everything else. "Knowledge of Good and Evil" as an evil itself is a pretty good link between the two, but Genesis falls pretty hard on the side of 'What's done is done, let's talk about genealogies', where Buddhism verbosely strives to overturn such an injustice. Basically polar opposite endpoints, right? Not to mention that God himself (an omniscient being who can be trusted to accurately gauge these sorts of things) declares all of creation to be "Good", while Buddhism, as you suggested with the Jhana comparison, values an ongoing nothingness as "Good". Once again, polar opposites.
Hope I'm not too far off the mark here, I'm not crazy well versed in Buddhist beliefs, but if Genesis truly is a narrative form of Buddhism, you'd expect it to draw similar conclusions, set similar goals for the reader. Even a pretty cursory engagement with the text seems to dispel this belief. Also, ah, sorry if this piece was more intended as a romanticized analogy than a genuine proposition. Religious imagery complements your prose quite nicely, as it has many before you.
Totally agree with that first part. Maybe it helps to clarify. I'm not arguing "X is Y" so much as "it looks like X contains within it something that looks a heck of a lot like a translation of Y."
I don't think Genesis has so much of a "what's done is done" vibe as it is describing a kind of progression. Buddhism has its eightfold path, which is for individuals to progress out of suffering towards peace. Genesis (in my read) describes a similar process but over a much, much longer time frame, not for individual persons, but for humanity.
My understanding of the Jhanas is that you are supposed to be able to maintain these states while walking around all the time. This sounds a bit like Jesus' talk about the kingdom of God. I think Buddhism is far too complex for most people to grasp; sitting and watching content arise and fall in consciousness only makes sense for certain kinds of people. Sort of like, fasting for 40 days and nights in the desert is probably beyond most people.
Judaism seems to broaden the focus from 'just the mind' to interplays between human beings and their communities. It replaces 'rules for concentrating the mind around good' which are only attainable by a small group of people, with a broader set of 'rules for concentrating a people around good', which are more attainable but still hard to get.
The idea of Jesus as the embodiement of the logos looks like the 'limit point' of increasingly relaxing the set of rules and the process, until you get to the bare minimum essence, which is basically 'just trust that things will be ok so long as you are ~trying~ to do good, even if you're done some awful things and people have done awful things to you, just re-orient in the present moment towards doing good and things will work out because of this one very special primate here.'
So from my view, there's a progression from "buddhism -> judaism -> christianity" that looks like a broadening out of the instruction set, from detailed instructions for would-be priests to attain total peace in this lifetime, to a broader, simpler instruction set that's for more people to work together peaceably to from a healthy community, to an even broader, even simpler mandate made possible by an "uber priest" who worked out all the details and came back and said, look, just trust me on this, stop judging other people, i will take care of that, focus on your own sins first, know that you are forgiven and keep trying to do good and everyting else will work itself out."
I don't think these things are so much as polar opposites, as they are different strategies of going about the same thing at different scales: the cessation of suffering and sadness. There are some key differences, though: Buddhism says this entire world is Maya (illusion) whereas Judaism says that the world is fundamentally good but we make a mess of it through our flawed judgements about it. I definitely don't think the two are purely equivalent.
Cool, the clarification definitely helps. Wasn't totally sure how one-to-one you were making things.
Technically, Buddhist concepts were available when the Old Testament was composed (Seleukid era; check the Elephantine papyri), as the emperor Ashok was a Buddhist. However, I don't see any hard evidence Genesis relied on the Indians; it seems generically chin-lifty with Babylonian characteristics.
You seem to rely too much on the conscious mind.
For all we know, suffering arises from chemistry.
I am not a fan of Buddhism. Focus out, not inward.
Also, can you please leave a comment on my "Russian physical therapy" post?
Why is Buddhism your starting point? Personally I'm more familiar with Christianity here, so maybe you're just reaching the other way. But if you think that they tell similar stories, why is Buddhism the template for Genesis, and not vice versa?
It’s a good question. If you see my responses elsewhere, I think Judaism has “more to it” than Buddhism, in that Buddhism seems more concerned with a path for an individual to alleviate their own suffering, whereas Judaism is more like an operating system for a people.
Great post! I had a half formed thought along similar lines once, where original sin is the illusion of self and hence the source of suffering. The moment of eating the apple is a metaphor for the moment the self is fabricated. I think this also fits with what you’ve been saying. The Jhanas are often thought of as the progress of defabrication, for example.
Incredible. What is your IQ? Do you consider yourself intelligent? What about your peers? I wish to write like you one day but I suspect that you may be too far ahead.
Hi, Thank you, this is very kind. I have no idea what my IQ is; I went to a small liberal arts school in the midwest and eventually wound up at places like Google. I do consider myself intelligent, yes - but there are writers who are far, far better than I am, and the thing that seems to mke them good at it is their breadth of experience and the time they've spent reflecting on that experience. I'm in my late 30's now and have been writing compulsively for almost 20 years now, if that is any help.
If you want to improve at writing, all you have to do is:
a) read a whole lot
b) write a whole lot
i started doing b) as a means to process my feelings, in a journal. Eventually i started blogging in 2003, and did it primarily out of some compulsion to share.
Why do you want to write well? What would it mean if you could? Try writing about why that is and what it means to you?
For me, there were always questions i couldn't help but want to know the answers two, and both reading and writing became means to the end. Maybe half of the reason I write is that people will respond to my writing in ways that make me think, show me new sources to consider, point out problems in what i'm saying that I hadn't yet considered.
Feel free to share anything you've written with me if you'd like some feedback. Whatever it is in you that wants something deeply, it's my belief that this is a kind of self knowledge of real potential, expressing itself as desire.
Thank you :)
Yes, especially in light of what the Codex Oera Linda has to say about "Yesus" AKA "Buda" (he was essentially a very popular, righteous man who traveled to the East and returned sharing knowledge).
Given the amount of re-writing and editing of the Old/New Testament per Mauro Biglino, I can easily accept that perhaps this happened as Mark PXN describes, and even perhaps... Yesus was the one that told the story.