Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Animesh · 08-20-2002, 09:16 AM

Recently, I was watching the movie "Little Buddha", with Keanu Reeves playing Prince Sidhartha (sp?). The movie alternates between a modern day story, and a retelling of the life of Siddhartha and how he became Buddha.

And yes, I found myself thinking "Hey! It's Neo! And HE IS THE ONE!" But I digress.

In the beginning, we have the tale of how he lived a totally ideal life in the palace. All indications of sufferring were hidden from him by the King: all he knew was joy and happiness and all that. He accidentally learns of sufferring, and that leads him to leave the palace so that he could understand sufferring.

Compare this with the Garden of Eden story. Adam is in some ideal garden, knowing nothing but joy and happiness. There was no sufferring there. Until he breaks a rule and eats of a tree, thus learning of good and evil. And then he is forced out of the garden, into the world of sufferring.

It struck me that both stories were similar, with one big difference. In the tale of Buddha, leaving the palace was a "good" thing. Buddha NEEDED to do this. In the Garden of Eden story, leaving Eden was a "bad" thing, and mankind was cursed forevermore because of that.

Keith Russell · 08-20-2002, 09:25 AM

Greetings:

There is one other difference.

In the 'Eden' story, humans had to choose to eat of fruit of the tree, before they could actually eat of it. Thus, the ability to choose 'evil' was already present within people, making the effects of the eating of the fruit redundant.

Even as the story was written, I think it is clear that the 'God' of the story punishes his 'Creation' for acting on impulses present in them from the beginning.

Keith.

Orestes · 08-20-2002, 10:55 AM

Well, I think the Garden of Eden story is more to do with the mother-womb and birth (which is why it is the woman who eats the apple and causes man to be expelled from paradise-the womb. Man does not come to life but through woman), at least on one level, and doesnt seem to be a good comparison to the Buddha story. The Jesus story is a better comparison, I think.

Animesh · 08-20-2002, 11:41 AM

A while ago, I wrote a poem that discussed the Eden story that way: that Eden represented a womb. And it was not a case where the "Male God" forbade man from eating of the apple and punished him with expulsion afterwards. Rather, the "Male God" knew man needed to do these things to be born from the womb but was powerless to do anything -- men don't give birth, after all. So it was left to the woman, Eve, to take the step needed for mankind to be born. This poem got especially tiresome when I started equating it to Shakti and Shiva: the male form (Shiva) had the knowledge that he needed to eat from the tree, but it was left to the female form (Shakti) to make him do it.

Okay, maybe it wasn't so much a poem as it was an overlong babble.

Anyway, I wasn't clear on what you were saying: is the Jesus story a better comparison to the Eden story, or to the Buddha story?

Quote:

Originally posted by Orestes:
<strong>Well, I think the Garden of Eden story is more to do with the mother-womb and birth (which is why it is the woman who eats the apple and causes man to be expelled from paradise-the womb. Man does not come to life but through woman), at least on one level, and doesnt seem to be a good comparison to the Buddha story. The Jesus story is a better comparison, I think.</strong>

Orestes · 08-20-2002, 11:42 AM

To the Buddha story, sorry for the confusion.

YHWH666 · 08-20-2002, 01:37 PM

I think it speaks of the overriding attitude of Buddhist VS. Christian philosophy. In the Buddhist story the quest for knowledge and enlightenment is the ultimate meaning of life. In the Christian story knowledge is the source of all evil. Buddhism encourages thought and contemplation. Christianity encourages blind faith.

There is a Buddhist story where a man hears the dharma and wishes to become a monk. The Buddha tells him to contemplate Buddhism. He tells him to accept the dharma not because he was told to, or because other people do, but because he has examined the dharma and fond it to be reasonable.

Then there is the Christian story of doubting Thomas. Where we are taught to believe without question. Where Thomas is chastised for wanting to examine the evidence first.

Buddhism teaches that it is up to us to solve our own suffering. It encourages understanding and thought to solve the problems of suffering, old age and death.

Christianity presents us with a collection of myths and delusions to believe without question. It gives a wonderful afterlife without any problems in it. It gives us a nice little sky fairy to solve all our problems for us.

People don�t like the fact that there are going to suffer, grow old, and die. Buddhism solution is to achieve understanding of suffering and learn to be happy and blissful despite the reality of suffering and death. Christianity instead denies reality and encourages ignorance and delusion.

Personally I think Christianity is the weaklings way out.

Ierrellus · 08-21-2002, 04:48 AM

Animesh,

John Milton's view of the fall of Man according to Genesis is "felix culpa", happy guilt! The version of the fall in the book of Enoch is bad guilt, because the sons of heaven gave knowledge to the earthlings. There is some evidence that the serpent represents knowledge among the ancients. But even in modern dictionaries "knowing" is given a sexual definition. Therein lies much confusion. Was the serpent Faustian or phallic!

Ierrellus
PAX

[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>

NialScorva · 08-21-2002, 05:34 AM

I'm gonna move this to misc religion to give it a better audience.

Lord Asriel · 08-21-2002, 06:48 AM

First to address the OP, I don't think the comparison holds as the fall from Eden marks the beginning of suffering, and Buddha's enlightenment marks the end of suffering.

On a different, but related note, I have a dim memory of a proposition that Jesus was influenced by Buddhist philosophy. Has anyone ever heard of this, and could you point me in the direction of more information about it?

08-20-2002, 09:16 AM	#1
Animesh Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 107	Fall from "Eden" and Buddha Recently, I was watching the movie "Little Buddha", with Keanu Reeves playing Prince Sidhartha (sp?). The movie alternates between a modern day story, and a retelling of the life of Siddhartha and how he became Buddha. And yes, I found myself thinking "Hey! It's Neo! And HE IS THE ONE!" But I digress. In the beginning, we have the tale of how he lived a totally ideal life in the palace. All indications of sufferring were hidden from him by the King: all he knew was joy and happiness and all that. He accidentally learns of sufferring, and that leads him to leave the palace so that he could understand sufferring. Compare this with the Garden of Eden story. Adam is in some ideal garden, knowing nothing but joy and happiness. There was no sufferring there. Until he breaks a rule and eats of a tree, thus learning of good and evil. And then he is forced out of the garden, into the world of sufferring. It struck me that both stories were similar, with one big difference. In the tale of Buddha, leaving the palace was a "good" thing. Buddha NEEDED to do this. In the Garden of Eden story, leaving Eden was a "bad" thing, and mankind was cursed forevermore because of that.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-20-2002, 09:25 AM	#2
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Greetings: There is one other difference. In the 'Eden' story, humans had to choose to eat of fruit of the tree, before they could actually eat of it. Thus, the ability to choose 'evil' was already present within people, making the effects of the eating of the fruit redundant. Even as the story was written, I think it is clear that the 'God' of the story punishes his 'Creation' for acting on impulses present in them from the beginning. Keith.

08-20-2002, 10:55 AM	#3
Orestes Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: California Posts: 349	Well, I think the Garden of Eden story is more to do with the mother-womb and birth (which is why it is the woman who eats the apple and causes man to be expelled from paradise-the womb. Man does not come to life but through woman), at least on one level, and doesnt seem to be a good comparison to the Buddha story. The Jesus story is a better comparison, I think.

08-20-2002, 11:42 AM	#5
Orestes Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: California Posts: 349	To the Buddha story, sorry for the confusion.

08-20-2002, 01:37 PM	#6
YHWH666 Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: North America Posts: 457	I think it speaks of the overriding attitude of Buddhist VS. Christian philosophy. In the Buddhist story the quest for knowledge and enlightenment is the ultimate meaning of life. In the Christian story knowledge is the source of all evil. Buddhism encourages thought and contemplation. Christianity encourages blind faith. There is a Buddhist story where a man hears the dharma and wishes to become a monk. The Buddha tells him to contemplate Buddhism. He tells him to accept the dharma not because he was told to, or because other people do, but because he has examined the dharma and fond it to be reasonable. Then there is the Christian story of doubting Thomas. Where we are taught to believe without question. Where Thomas is chastised for wanting to examine the evidence first. Buddhism teaches that it is up to us to solve our own suffering. It encourages understanding and thought to solve the problems of suffering, old age and death. Christianity presents us with a collection of myths and delusions to believe without question. It gives a wonderful afterlife without any problems in it. It gives us a nice little sky fairy to solve all our problems for us. People don�t like the fact that there are going to suffer, grow old, and die. Buddhism solution is to achieve understanding of suffering and learn to be happy and blissful despite the reality of suffering and death. Christianity instead denies reality and encourages ignorance and delusion. Personally I think Christianity is the weaklings way out.

08-21-2002, 04:48 AM	#7
Ierrellus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 2,082	Animesh, John Milton's view of the fall of Man according to Genesis is "felix culpa", happy guilt! The version of the fall in the book of Enoch is bad guilt, because the sons of heaven gave knowledge to the earthlings. There is some evidence that the serpent represents knowledge among the ancients. But even in modern dictionaries "knowing" is given a sexual definition. Therein lies much confusion. Was the serpent Faustian or phallic! Ierrellus PAX [ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>

08-21-2002, 05:34 AM	#8
NialScorva Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Median strip of DC beltway Posts: 1,888	I'm gonna move this to misc religion to give it a better audience.

08-21-2002, 06:48 AM	#9
Lord Asriel Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Essex, UK Posts: 467	First to address the OP, I don't think the comparison holds as the fall from Eden marks the beginning of suffering, and Buddha's enlightenment marks the end of suffering. On a different, but related note, I have a dim memory of a proposition that Jesus was influenced by Buddhist philosophy. Has anyone ever heard of this, and could you point me in the direction of more information about it?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.