Who had the best teachings, Jesus or Buddha?

It is true.

>Conceived in a miraculous manner
>Similar names of mother (Maya for Buddha, Mary for Jesus)
>Was a bit of a child prodigy
>Underwent a long period of fasting while traveling alone
>Tempted by, but overcame, the devil
>Began an itinerant ministry around the age of 30
>Had disciples who traveled with him.
>Performed miracles, such as curing blindness and walking on water
>Renounced worldly riches and required his disciples to do so also
>Rebelled against the religious elite (Brahmans for Buddha and Pharisees for Jesus)
>Dispatched disciples, shortly before his death, to spread his message

I was surprised to hear that actually the Buddhists learned to make the statues you always see from the Greeks actually.

Cool stuff

i have never seen a picture of jesus as blonde and blue-eyed that wasn't doctored to reinforce this point
where does this meme come from?
i'm protestant and i've never seen this, and the pictures of jesus i see in catholic churches and at my catholic friends' houses are always olive skinned, swarthy and brown eyed

It's a two way street tbqh

Who depicts Jesus as blonde, really? Some fringe northern countries? I come from a strictly catholic nation and I've never seen a single blonde jesus. He normally has brown hair. He's not represented as an arab mulatto like some would want, but he's certainly not represented as a german blonde.

Greco-buddhism was an indian/central asian thing. It was greek stuff in buddhist areas, not buddhist stuff in greek areas.

Never seen a blonde Jesus, but the depictions I've around here give him a slim face, fairly pale with long brown hair and a full beard.
I live in a predominantly catholic town.

Dhammapada > The Gospels

>Rebelled against the religious elite (Brahmans for Buddha and Pharisees for Jesus)
You mean the sadducees right?

The cultural interchange went further then that.
The Greco-Indian kingdom introduced Heracles to the Buddhists, over time he came to be seen as a protectionary figure.
As Buddhism was transmitted across East Asia, so was Heracles.
In Japan Heracles was localized as the 'Nio' protection deity found today at the entrance to most Japanese Buddhist temples.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nio

Utterly wrong.
Buddhist missionaries were sent into the Mediterranean by the Indian emperor Ashoka ~250 BCE.
Cassius Dio even mentions a well known Buddhist monk called Zarmarus that burnt himself to death in Athens.
That is all before you get to the importance that Buddhist thought had on western philosophical/religious schools such as Stoicism, Neo-Platonism and Gnosticism.

>burnt himself to death in Athens
Sorry what the fuck are they playing at with this?

Stop being so pedantic fagtron.

Huh? Protestants in northern europe are quite left wing. The protestant fringes would be in USA with your snake-charmers and shit.

By blonde I believe people mean that he is not depicted as average arab I suppose

Fringe has nothing to do with being left or right. It just means you're relatively aparted and irrelevant in relationship to the center. Which is what all nordic nations are.

Northern countries don't depict jesus as blond. This is a thing with American bible thumbers.

>Cassius Dio even mentions a well known Buddhist monk called Zarmarus that burnt himself to death in Athens

Where can I read about this? What fragment of Dio?

>The Nordic countries are fringe.
Do you need a license to be this dumb?

Thanks, I was asking just in case since it would actually make sense for northern countries to depict him as blonde, just like ethiopians depict him as black and chinese as an east asian.

Yeah, everyone knows they're the neuralgic center of european civilization.

penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/54*.html#9

>en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_characteristics_of_the_Buddha
He is dark haired blue eyed

>depicted as a blonde white dude for 2000 years

erm, no?

Jesus relied on apostles, Buddha did all alone so he was a better teacher.

Go to Latin America. Jesus is a blonde (or light brown) handsome man, with green or blue eyes. Baby Jesus is almost always blonde.

>Heracles
The Buddhist name is Vajrapani a guardian spirit general. Also quite likely the popularity is due to the understanding/similarities with the role Krishna played. In HInduism, Buddha is one of the latest incarnation of Vishnu. Krishna was the previous (Mahabharata). Familiarity is probably the main reason.

Greeks gave art/body to Buddha, before that, it was considered a taboo to show Buddha's depiction. Only his foot prints, symbol of lion, wheel of life, hand gestures were known. The Greeks probably also contributed quite in the dialectic tradition, the methods of debates (it already existed in India but a version from greek was introduced to add to it). The famous Buddhist monk Nagasena and the Greeko-Bactrian king Menander I discussion happened in the style of Greek. The reverse contribution is probably to do with clarification of core ideas that many Greek philosophers understood vaguely. By that I mean, the Greeks already knew about some core Indian ideas before invading India. This is explained in the book "The Shape of Ancient Thoughts."

The some very important core of pre-socratic Greek philosophy comes from India via Persian empire proxy. Things like reincarnation, monism, theories surrounding atoms and such.

No, he's not. Stop lying. He is almost always depicted as

no

More reddish/orangish sometimes too. Tho that might be due to color fading

>This is a thing with American bible thumbers.

No it isn't. We depict Jesus as brown haired too. I don't know where blonde jesus comes from.

>Baby Jesus is almost always blonde

Even if it was true, it's pretty normal for south european people to be born blonde and had the hair go from blonde to brown as we grow. I'm sure it's the same for lots of latinos with spanish and italian heritage.

People roleplaying the "u whitewashed Jesus" bit

Usually one hears the reverse.

White Jesus comes from the portrait of Caesare Borgia that was passed off as Jesus by the Catholics.

What sources say Jesus was a prodigy as a child? Ir have any detailed accounts of jesus as a child at all?

Stirner.

Buddha, hands down.
In a nutshell:
Buddhist precepts are guidelines for training, not some damning commandments.
Buddhism doesn't demand belief, it requires understanding for oneself.
Buddhist practices are many and one will easily find a suitable one for oneself. Also non-Buddhists can also benefit from some practices, e.g. meditation.
There is little sectarianism in Buddhism too, compared to the various opposing schisms in Christianity.
It's the rational "religion" par excellence.

Lots of weird theories going in Asia about the missing years of Jesus, some say in India or Tibet or somewhere...

Historyfags and myth-mongers will want to check out this odd legend, a Buddhist history that ended up as a Christian saint story:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barlaam_and_Josaphat

Gnostic gospels, infancy gospels, the quran; all unholy sources.

Buddhism is useless in the eternal afterlife. It's not even very useful in the here and now.

Jesus taught people how to live with God forever.

It's not even a close contest.

But Cesare wasn't blond.

non-argument

Buddha didn't claim to be the grandiose son of a God, nor did he demand worship, if I had to choose I'd choose Buddha.

Which is why I said white Jesus, not blonde Jesus.

Nor an argument for which is best but rather which is not worst.

One's teachings are true and will benefit the living and the dead.

The other's teachings are false.

What other "argument" do you need to determine which has the superior teachings?

Literally the only thing the Buddha said that was true was that Hinduism is a false religion based on false documents, and demons.

But why would jesus not look like Cesare if he was a mediterranean man too? I don't say they looked alike, but that they could. Black ethiopian jesus is way weirder and no white person has ever complained about it ever.

>Comparing philosophy to religion

This is total nonsense. You have zero knowledge of Buddhism, nor of Hinduism, for that matter. And I question your grasp of Christianity too.

Buddha is depicted as thin in India...

That's the soft racism of low expectations. Per the bible, Jesus did not look special, or attractive, or powerful. The "typical semite" pic is probably not far off.

You poor, sad, sucker.

That joke refers to the fat laughing depiction, which comes from China, a portrayal of a fat monk who was reputed to the incarnation of Maitreya Buddha.

Lol those are all either false or misconstrued.

>mischaracterise 2 great religious traditions, as well as demonstrate your ignorance of your own.
>get called out on it
>butthurt.jpeg
>resort to gratuitous ad hom
Congratulations, you win, I convert.

>Hinduism is a false religion based on false documents, and demons.
You know nothing about Hinduism or Buddhism; that much is evident from your post. It must be horrible being a fundamentalist because you shut out all other philosophy that doesn't jive with your worldview as "demonic" or negative in some way.

Popular meme but false. There are plenty of depictions of a similar looking Jesus that far predate that.

hes also asian in japan and black in parts of africa and the US
the point is the further you go from the source the more regionalized they become. Since eastern rome was where he was from his image hadn't changed much.

Good luck choosing the right demon mentor from the 330,000,000 demons available.

Jesus was white
Adam was white
Niggers are the son of ham.
It could be ultimately derived from Hebrew אדם ('adam) meaning "to be red", referring to the ruddy colour of human skin, or from Akkadian adamu meaning "to make". According to Genesis in the Old Testament Adam was created from the earth by God (there is a word play on Hebrew אֲדָמָה ('adamah) "earth"

He's a fucking troll, please don't feed him.

...

It's another "I have no idea what people native to the Levant look like" niggepisode

In churches he's depicted as that pic, but see any picture of Jesus sold in a latin american market (the shitty ones) and he's almost blonde with green/blue eyes.

You faggits need to remember those pictures of Muhammad drawed as a chink. Also, there's plenty of black Jesus out there (actually black, like african).

Buddha, I think. Regrettably that faith is too much "for Asian".

Christ imo

Nice tumblr comprehesion. OP asked about the teachings of Christ and Buddha, not the teachings of the religions.

You should watch The Man From Earth (2007)

Gautama probably has a corpus of sayings and teachings around 5x larger than christ at the least.

Do people still get the fat buddha confused with Guantanamo Buddha?

Funfact: The image of Jesus you know was actually based on an Italian man. You aren't worshiping Jesus when you pray to him, you are literally worshiping some Italian dude.

Non-Whites usually call brown hair blond. Not sure why but it explains the OP picture.

>italian
spaniard

also, it is a shit meme created by retards, Jesus has always been represented like that

>The image of Jesus you know
But i use byzantine icons.
Also, it's an overblown meme.
Jesus has been represented in so many ways, the model someone took some renaissance paintings is irrelevant(fun fact: Vlad the Impaler was the model for Herod)

>Works vs Faith

Let me tell you about Buddhism since this thread is shit already (like all threads that involve Christianity here). It's gonna be long and noone will read it but fuck it.

In the middle of the sixth century before Christ appeared Goutama Buddha, a prince of one of the peoples of North-East India. Long a pupil of the Brahmins, he abandoned positionand family, became a sannyassee and wandered through a large part of India. His teaching was not revolutionary in Brahmin metaphysics, since he retained the two chief doctrines of Brahminism —life treated as an evil and the transmigration of souls. The difference was thathe did not concern himself with the question of the first beginnings of things; he was not
concerned with God or gods and did not accept the immortality of the soul. Belief in the soulwas early condemned in pure Buddhism as the "heresy of individuality". Similarly pureBuddhism does not accept the efficacy of prayer.

All this would not have caused a religious revolution in Asia. The fundamentaldifference for communal life lies in the fact that Buddha overthrew the principle of Brahminethics, according to which spiritual victories are only to be attained through bodilyrenunciations. Buddhism also attaches no importance to castes, does not fill life with penances, even abolishes sacrifice. So at least Prince Sakyamuni, Gautama Buddha taught.

Neither Brahminism nor Buddhism strives to remove evil. The constant migration of the soul, the wandering of the human individual forced to adopt a new body and to live (andso suffer) again without end, is an unceasingly moving "circle of desires and anxieties", ahunting for non-existent happiness. The nature of the reincarnation is decided by karma, thatis a reckoning of moral pluses and minuses in the previous life. The transmigration of soulslasts until moral excellence, consisting in complete annihilation of all attachment to being, isachieved. At this point the karma of the individual concerned is exhausted and a new one isnot formed. Then follows the divine state of nirvana, which accompanies the last life of the perfect man. This is "a sinless, peaceful state of soul". It is possible to reach this staterelatively quickly, but it may also take thousands of years. Approach to nirvana or increasingdistance from it is determined by the degree of morality of the last karma.

Gautama Buddha opposed Brahminism decisively by creating a morality. A true Buddhist must be a good man and be victorious over himself. A buddhist is not allowed to reject his responsibilities. The example of Sakyamuni, still based on Brahminism, did not survive in face of the morality which he himself later preached. The begging order, in which from the beginning caste was not recognised, became the characteristic feature of Buddhism. Begging and constant wandering are obligatory. Monks are in addition bound by specialmoral regulation? The begging of the Buddhist order is not, however, intended to honour poverty, but to show that the bsggar aims at nothing in external life. that he really does not possess this life, and so cannot attach himself to anything. This state approaches the perfection of nirvana.

It is a state of complete a-civilisation. Pure Buddhism remained indifferent to the five categories of life: the human quincunx [Truth, Good, Health, Prosperity, Beauty] means Evil. Buddhism cannot of itself create anycivilisation. It builds nothing because it is not allowed to want anything. An active attitude tolife is ruled out. Perfection consists in the disappearance of the categories of life.

For the generality. Buddhism contains only five rules: do not kill (not even animals!),do not steal, do not lie, do not get drunk and keep clean. There are other rules for monks only.Sacral law is non-existent; pure Buddhism contains nothing sacral.

Despite everything. Buddhism could have created its own civilisation in India if it hadcontinued to take the firm stand for the abolition of the caste system to which its rapid initial spread was due. But in time Buddhism grew reconciled to castes. The history of Buddhism inIndia covers a whole millenium from the fifth century before Christ to the seventh after Christ. When it accepted the caste system, other breaches followed and it began again to resemble Brahminism. Buddhism then ceased to act as a leaven, ceased to operate creativelyin the history of India. Ceasing to reform, it became unnecessary to the Indians. Brahminismwas better suited to castes, and castes to Brahminism. About the beginning of the Christianera, India was again divided between the two religions; from the seventh century there was arenewed predominance of Brahmiiijism, until finally Buddhism disappeared. In the eleventhcentury some Indian rulers still supported it, but by the twelfth century, when the Moslems conquered Kashmir, there were hardly any Buddhists left. Yet Brahminism held its own even against Islam.

Exterminated in its homeland. Buddhism nevertheless became a universal religion. Inthe fifth century it reached Ceylon and thence spread to Burma, Siam, Java and on to Sumatra.By the road leading from India through Eastern Turkestan it reached beyond the Himalayancrests, and on the other side as far as China, where Buddhism became the State religion in thefourth century, and Korea, which adopted Buddhism at the same time. In 552 Buddhismreached Japan, and then penetrated back across the Himalayas to conquer Nepal and Tibet.

But what kind of Buddhism was it? It spread by compromises, and increasinglyserious ones, until in the end for the mass of believers whole mythologies arose, and under theappearance of Buddhism the forces of nature were honoured, evil spirits worshipped andsorcery, incantation and witchcraft practised. Compromises entered into even the monasteries.True Buddhism, the Buddhism of Gautama-Buddha, is almost without adherents. Some sects,the polytheist Jains, for example, reject even a genetic link with it. In China also buddhism has changed so much that scholars long regarded it not as Buddhism but as a separate religion.

And so there is Buddhism and Buddhism — a plurality of Buddhisms.

Lamaism would wish to be regarded as the most legitimate Buddhism, but itscharacteristic feature, overgrown monasticism, is organised in open violation of Buddhism, because hierarchically, and in Tibet is coupled with the exercise 'of theocratic government. Inlamaism the sacral principle has grown to such an extent that it extends to the whole of life,which it is hard even to glimpse apart from the sacral.

Among peoples of a low standard of civilisation monasticism has become a caricature.The Mongolians, for example, are divided into two rites, red and yellow, with the red notregarding celibacy as a condition of their estate. And in Nepal the Tantra system "poor inform, repulsive and unworthy in content" belongs to the worship paid the god Shiva. Inthese lands Buddhism has certainly not raised the standard of civilisation.

Buddhism adapted itself to every civilisation it encountered, not excluding the lowestlevels. It is possible with and without castes. and so under diametrically opposed systems of community life: evidently it contains within itself no system. Buddhism is as the civilisation is.Civilisations do not adapt themselves to Buddhism. but it to them. Theoretically, from the point of view of civilisation it contains nothing, in practice everything.

The religious thread is so weak, so barely visible that it needs to be supported andsupplemented by other beliefs if Buddhism is to become a positive religion. These additionsgive adherents of Buddhism organisation and form the base of civilisation: frequently also an existing base is taken over, as it were the outer Buddhist garmentcut to the local civilisation.

tl;dr Buddhism may sound cool and shit but it's really just void.

>All this derail just for the skin color

I mean, who cares if Jesus was white, black or blue? the only thing that matters is what he did on the cross for all us!

>there is little sectarianism in buddhism
>no damning commandments in buddhism
>Buddhism is a secular religion meme
holy fuck you are retarded Buddhism has tons of sects and has since the beginning, buddhism advocates for severe aestheticism, and have you ever met a Buddhist from asia they are ridiculous spiritual they have satvas and really complex cosmology

>can't read
There's a major difference between sect and sectarianism, my friend, before you choke.
There are many sub-sects and schools of Buddhism, yes, and yet they don't all condemn each other to Eternal Hell like their Christian counterparts, perhaps with one exception. They don't kill each other either.

The rest of your post is stuff and nonsense, tryhard. Buddhism advocates the middle way, which is precisely between asceticism and hedonism, in case you missed that bit. If you'd actually bone up on the cosmology and the like, you'd see that most do not take it literally in fact, unlike other religions. But hey, some random Asian knows better than the ancients, monks and masters and the like.
Also I question your understanding of being spiritual: believing in random shit=spiritual? wtf?
>ITT: Asian Buddhist

funfact: thisicon of Christ is almost a millennium older than that italian dude

Go to sleep Brigham.

the fat buddha is not actually the original buddha and isn't depicted as such

nobody knows what jeusus looked like but best guesses are some sort of modern middle eastern (brown hair, eyes)

you pulled that shit straight out of some 19th century colonial Orientalist's book so you did. Come on, try better next time, we have the internet you know...

>he doesn't know buddha is a saint in some interpretations

>Barlaam & Josaphat
mentioned above

forgive me but thus seems to be contradictory.

if one many give that there is no such existences as the soul. then how does reincarnation work as it is not the physical body being reincarnated.

No. It's from professor of history that devoted half of his on coming out with coherent civilisation theory and it's relation with religion, language, race etc etc.
Also, refute arguments because no you are just shitposting.