Siddhārtha Gautama (c. 5th to 4th century BCE), also famously known for his honorific name, the Buddha, was an inspirational leader and practitioner of pre-Gospel ἀγάπη, (latinized agapē). Before Gautama Buddha’s time, religions were tribalistic in the truest sense. In fact, the honorific name used in this article’s title, Shakyamuni, is a reference to the Buddha’s home tribe Shakya. The Buddha himself was born into the Kshatriya warrior caste in an Ancient Indian Brahmanistic order. In his time, the ruling caste was the Kshatriya warrior, and all castes were decreed to live out their lives fulfilling the roles of their society in servitude to his father, the tyrant king.
In his time, “might makes right” could have been the motto for the Buddha’s society. But due to the circumstances of the life he led, he overcame his father’s tyranny and the bellicose norms of his tribesmen. The pressures of society were especially acute and disorienting for him, because his father prevented him from learning about the outside world until it became impossible to sequester him any longer.
The Buddha gained great insight to the truths of the world. Unlike the religions of his time, he sought to distil the facts of life into practical and cogent maxims aimed at promoting wellness and mindfulness in his pupils. Other alternatives still clung to sophistry and flowery language to attract followers. So in contrast, the Buddha’s own insights were often given as brief, yet succinct, maxims. The chief among his insights were the Four Noble Truths. These insights were the beginning of his path to becoming recognized as a great sage and instructor. The Four Noble Truths in a nutshell are: 1) Dukkha: life will always be unsatisfactory; 2) Samudaya: dissatisfaction occurs in the mind because we crave for different circumstances; 3) Nirodha: we can cease this dissatisfaction, and thus suffering as a whole, by relinquishing our craving; 4) Magga: the path to relinquishing craving has eight steps we call the Noble Eightfold Path.
LOVE IN A FEW PALI WORDS
The chief teaching of the Buddha, however; was not necessarily the Noble Eightfold Path- as it was intended to be an instruction for achieving Buddhahood. Rather, it was an instruction for all people in his community: to have compassion for, or love others indiscriminately. This was agapē before it even reached Judean mystics in the Levant. The Buddha is famous for attracting monastics to join his cause, and together they made up the Sangha (the congregation of Buddhist monks). But the Buddha also spread his teaching to the laity (ordinary people who were not monks). And to culminate all of his deeds and the Buddha’s agapē, the Sangha made great efforts to relay his message to all surrounding areas. In Buddhism there are seemingly countless ways to describe this tenet of compassion towards others. And below are just a few ways the Buddha conveyed this message:
Karuṇā: This word is from both Sanskrit and Pali. It has been transcribed to mean “compassion”. But before we can have compassion for others, Karuṇā requires that we have compassion for our own selves. This self-love allows us to develop the skill to love others as extensions of ourselves. Lately the proverb “you must learn to love yourself before you can love others” actually derives from Karuṇā. It is said that if one practices Karuṇā every day, their state of mind will become blissful and equanimous.
This makes practical sense because conflicts within the self, such as insecurities and self-loathing, are dealt with, and this allows for one to be more charitable with others. Charitable listening and deeds become the result of Karuṇā practice. And the effort and care put into it translates into agapē love in the truest sense. The concept of compassion in the Western sense is more about showing others affections, but Karuṇā begins with self-love and forgiveness as we are not our egos, and it is the ego that hurts when we loathe ourselves. This self-loathing is a delusion because it means we place so much importance on ourselves that we cannot understand that all other beings suffer in this world. Compassion begins with the self because it frees up our minds and attention to peer into the true state of others with unclouded insights.
Mettā: From the Pali language, Mettā is often called “loving-kindness” or “benevolence” and it is strongly tied to “empathic joy” (Muditā). The meditation practice, mettā bhāvanā (the development, or cultivation, of loving-kindness), begins with acknowledging one’s own body; next to surrounding beings; and then expanding one’s concerns outwards— even to enemies. The expansion of loving-kindness is gradual and does not require one to forgive others immediately of wrongdoing. But it is a step-by-step process towards letting go of the burden of resentment. Mettā really is the precursor to “love thy neighbor as thyself” (Matthew 22:39).
As Karuṇā is the first step in teaching compassion by decree, Mettā is the practice and process of cultivating this agapē love. Mettā bhāvanā is a meditative remedy for those who struggle with anger. As we all are given inborn dispositions and proclivities of the body and mind, the Buddha prescribed specific meditation practices in order to cure us of any ailments of the mind. For me personally, mettā bhāvanā has been my practice, and it has helped me cope with my temper. And in this vein, I consider it to be the greatest gift the Buddha could have offered. His love persists to this day as I use the practice he devised to correct my own shortcomings.
Muditā: This Pali and Sanskrit word is considered both a tenet and a meditation practice. Muditā is the endeavor to feel joy for the success or happiness of others. It is often contrasted with jealousy. Muditā meditation is recommended to people who struggle with emotions of envy. It is strongly linked to love, because it allows us to extend the vicarious joy we feel for family and friends on to all people we are aware of. When the topic of Muditā comes up, I always think of the social situation surrounding pregnant mothers. All of the people in their family and circle of friends suddenly take on a very different demeanor when approaching the pregnant woman. Their vocal pitch heightens and they become inquisitive, always asking a litany of questions, and then finally giving words of congratulations.
Even as a young child I always thought, “Everyone’s being so nice. I wish they could be this way all the time.” And that is kind of what Muditā is like. It is this praising and congratulatory demeanor towards others. And one might wonder why we congratulate others, even in times of great strife. And the reason is simply the fact that we are fortunate to be alive and hopefully not in any pain at the time. But as one gets deeper into Buddhist practice, it becomes second nature to practice Muditā, even in the face of adversity.
Avihiṃsā: This Pali word is the antonym to the noun hiṃsā (harm), so its direct meaning is “non-harm”. In most Hindu traditions this concept surfaced at one point in time or another. In Buddhist philosophy and that of Mahatma Gandhi, avihiṃsā became a central principle. The term is often rendered today as “non-violence”. The Buddha spoke against violence at length and this principle is featured in the Noble Eightfold Path under the tenets right action and right livelihood (sammā-kammanta and sammā-ājīva respectively). Violence is often (but not always) caused by anger or resentment, and this obstacle is confronted heavily by the Buddha in all his literature. Another tenet of the Noble Eightfold Path, right effort (sammā-vāyāma) puts anger at the forefront of unwholesome states of mind. The Buddha conveyed that we must make a continuous effort to abstain from violence and to practice avihiṃsā:
“One who checks rising anger as a charioteer checks a rolling chariot, they I call a true charioteer. Others only hold the reins.”
“Overcome the angry by non-anger; overcome the wicked by goodness; overcome the miser by generosity; overcome the liar by truth.”
-The Buddha, Dhammapada: 222-223
JUDEA, AN UNLIKELY SETTING FOR THE DHAMMA
Let’s step back a moment away from the milieu of the Shakya tribe and the Sangha in 5th century BCE India to examine what society was like for their contemporaries in Judea leading up to the time of Christ. The tribes of Israel were living as a subordinate ethnicity within the vast Persian Empire that was once the domain of the Babylonians. The land and possessions of the Judeans were first assimilated by the Babylonians a century prior at the Siege of Jerusalem in 605 BCE. The temple of Jerusalem was destroyed in the process. But the stringent tribal faith of the Judeans persisted unassuaged. And moving into the 4th century BCE Persia was quickly losing control of the Levant to tax, land, and tribal revolts by disparate tribes, such as the Phoenicians. And eventually, the Judeans were allowed to return to Jerusalem by the graces of Cyrus the Great.
While the Persians were promoting their dualistic faith of Zoroastrianism, the Judeans were in the midst of reestablishing their temple hierarchy. The Judeans praised Cyrus for allowing them to return to their homeland. But in their account of the repatriation in the book of Ezra, the Judeans credited their God to have inspired Cyrus, while Cyrus himself declared that the Babylonian god Marduk commanded him to do it. This anomalous behavior from Cyrus was likely an attempt to appease the manifold beliefs of people within his realms. But as time went on the region fell into further discord, and the Judeans had to manage to remain unified through regional wars for the next few centuries. The Phoenian raids (5th century BCE) and the campaigns of Xenophon (4th century BCE) stripped the land and shook up Persia’s long-time possession of the Levant. In the Hellenistic period (332–63 BCE), Alexander the Great assumed control of the Levant, but his reign ended as swiftly as it came. The Seleucid era soon followed where many Greeks settled the region and this essentially led into the Roman Empire’s consolidation of the region into the province of Judea at the turn of the Common Era (CE).
This was the lead-up into the new status quo of Jesus of Nazareth’s Judea. The homeland of the Christ was a region of constant tribal and imperial strife. The Judeans were caught up, released, consolidated, and governed, by foreign dictates that often suppressed the religion of Judah. This milieu oversaw the foundation for radical Judean groups such as the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin whom voiced insurrectionist and unforgiving rhetoric against foreign elements in Judah for centuries. The Pharisees in particular, were Judeans who pushed for armed rebellion against the Romans. They were known for tearing their robes in outrage, and using something like flash mobs to isolate individuals they deemed enemies of the tribe, and flogging or stoning them to death. It was the Pharisees that Christ was famous for confronting all the time. When it came to making a stand, the Christ figure was no slouch.
In a famous confrontation he likened the Pharisees to mausoleums filled with bones (Matthew 23:27)- which was the ultimate condemnation from anyone, let alone someone who made it a point to look like a beggar to everyone. The Gospels' accounts of Jesus made it seem like he really confused the Pharisees. His rhetoric always seemed to knock them off balance. All this talk about loving the commoner and blessing the poor and disabled was very alien to Judean society. That is until it became a popular theme among Jewish mystics in the region. The Messianic figure was once a tribal leader aimed at saving the tribe through rallying his chosen people to bloodshed of his pagan enemies. Now this Messiah was always talking about agapē love and deliverance from evil.
I believe that the Buddha’s agapē love is the very same agapē love that Jesus Christ speaks of in the Gospels. And it is what Paul of Tarsus (c. 5 – c. 64/67 CE) spoke of in his famous letters to Roman congregations. It is the very message Christ commands of his disciples when they pried him for the most integral message of all his teachings. This commandment is typically called the New Commandment, or the Farewell Discourse. In one rendition it reads as follows:
“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
–John 13:34-35, NIV
And the same message is imparted by Christ again in his famous Sermon on the Mount. The instructions of the famous sermon are called the Beatitudes, which means the utmost blessings declared by Jesus Christ. And another interpretation offered for the meaning of Beatitude is “a state of bliss”. The word itself comes from the Latin word beātitūdō which means ‘blissfulness’. The word beātus, its cognate, has come to mean “blessed” in the sense that we use the word in English now. And in the Beatitudes, Christ commands again:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you[.] If you love those who love you, what reward will you get?”
- Matthew 5:43, 46, NIV
We can see the clear display of the Gospel’s core message as it was intended. Agapē love is the New Commandment, or ultimate commandment for a reason. It was a major shift from the tribal origins of the Hebrew God. Suddenly the God that said, “I will carry out great vengeance on them and punish them in my wrath. Then they will know that I am the Lord, when I take vengeance on them,” (Ezekiel 25:17, NIV) was now commanding his followers to love one another. The regime change is so dramatic that it caused multiple rifts in religious lineages from the Levant outwards.
But what was the driving force for this change? Why was the Gospel— the “good news”, as it is known to be translated— suddenly delivering messages about forgiveness, love, compassion for neighbors and enemies alike? Why was there a call to understanding the ways of “savages” such as the Judeans considered the Samaritans to be? Why did the Christ figure tell his congregants to hide away in their closets outside of the synagogues and street corners, to pray, as a means for followers to destress and collect themselves?*
* “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen.” –Matthew 6:5-6, NIV
CHRIST AND BUDDHA VS. TRIBALISM
Christ clearly did not approve of the society the Pharisees had in mind for their tribe. And the same can be said about Shakyamuni Buddha. The Shakya tribe was every bit as xenophobic and bellicose as the tribe of Judea. Society was every bit as a caste system in both regions. The Roman presence in Judea was a caste system where the Pharisees obtained influence in the Sanhedrin. They garnered influence over the masses of Judean tribesmen and played a role in allowing Romans to execute persona non grata in an ironic twist of spiteful use of the occupying state to enforce violence. The Buddha deemed all people capable of reaching Buddhahood, just as Christ declared all souls could find salvation in his name. This is the common egalitarian thread that I find has true value in both traditions. Both initially advocated an equal opportunity society without despotic hierarchy. And this was the case for both early congregations— the early church and the Sangha— until later leadership built up new hierarchies in spite of the wishes of their prophets.
But I’m sorry Christians, this is where I cease lauding the Christian Gospel. Even though the Gospel does appear to have a universal message, it is still yet dogmatic in that message. Christ falls short in his offer for salvation when he commands others to speak in his name, and to fellowship as the “body” of congregants in opposition to non-believing “pagans”. The dismissive and irreconcilable rhetoric even in the Gospel has not gone unnoticed. And I believe where there is agapē love and karuṇā compassion in the Gospel, I actually see the Buddha’s lotus footprint there.
THE MAGI LIAISON
The real locus of this piece is where we delve into the hypothesis that the source of the Gospel’s message of agapē love was actually adapted from foreign cultures making their way across trade routes and the caravans of mystics and magi. As many are aware, the magi were originally Zoroastrian clerics well known in the Levant since Persian times. A magus’ job was divination, and essentially folk fortunetelling. This was lucrative, because, as is shown in Matthew, magi often had audience with vainglorious rulers seeking signs of their long reign and fortune. One key means of divination was their use of astrology. By the time of Hellenistic Judea, mystics were in regular communication to places as far as China and India. Both China and India have their own distinct astrology tradition, and neighboring cultures invariably embellished the allure and mystery to these respective lands. And while it is true the scripturally relevant astrological references derive from Greek astrology, the recherché eclecticism of mystics’ points to an allegorical narrative. The magi were referenced in the Nativity story, and much about their presence is veiled in abject mystery. Even the set number of magi is uncertain, as there is no specific number used in the Gospel of Matthew. However, the term magus or magi changed quite dramatically by the time the first Gospel transcripts were being written. We can deduce, with allegorical thought, Jungian analysis and hermeneutics, that the biblical number was always intended to be three. However, another, later manuscript, the Revelation of the Magi (c. 2nd or 3rd century CE), says there were at least twelve. By the 2nd century CE, the term ‘magi’ is ambiguous regardless of the source. Merchants and artisans were often accused of being magi. A person of a different complexion or wearing different garments could be called magi. And it took on a pejorative tone by the late Hellenistic period. Of course there was the original Zoroastrian designation, which does make sense for at least one of the three. But early Christian apocrypha, such as the Revelation of the Magi and the Zuqnin Chronicle (c. 775 CE), —both written in Syriac Aramaic— narrate an extended tale of the journey of the famous magi of the Gospel of Matthew to their eventual destination, Bethlehem. What’s more, one magus is specifically said to come from a land called “Shir”. Shir itself has an extensive role in the narrative structure of the story, and according to Brent Landau Th.D, when we examine the “widespread ancient geographical tradition” of the time, “Shir” or “Seiris” is definitely China. So far, that takes care of the cultural identity of two of the magi. One magi had to have symbolized Zoroastrianism from Iran, simply based on the initial description. And the second almost certainly represents Confucian and Daoist influences from China. The Zoroastrian threads within the Gospel show up whenever dualism is the central theme. As mentioned above, dualism (being the battle between the God of light and goodness and the Devil of darkness and evil) was not an early Judean belief. This spiritually black-and-white worldview owes much to the Zoroastrian tradition that no doubt reigned over the Levant for centuries before the time of Christ. Confucian and Daoist elements are explained in less direct ways. In fact, by the time Christian doctrine was canonized, many of the elements that could be attributed to Chinese influence were weeded out. But broader themes can be compared to Confucian literature. Themes such as when Christ draws attention to self-reflection and familial relations, the longer discourses on these aspects have more in common with Chinese literature than Judean scriptures. It is this article’s hypothesis that the third main influence on early Christian mysticism was from 1st century Kushan India and the Suren Kingdom. At the time Emperor Kanishka and his subjects spread Buddhism as far as Northern India, Afghanistan and Iran. And this was a time when Buddhism and Zoroastrianism cohabited within the majority of the same regions. Thus, Kushan India was a seedbed for the spread and tolerance of mysticism, which streamed from the Silk Road into the contemporaneous Hellenistic Judean region. The conceptualization and approach to wisdom was more occult than contemporaries in the West until they caught up some centuries later. The House of Suren, a rival of the Kushans, famous for constructing the Takht-i-Bahi Buddhist monastery, are considered to be the inspiration for one account of the Indian magus Gaspar attested in the Syriac Aramaic Acts of Thomas (3rd century CE). Albeit Gaspar (a.k.a. Gondophares or Gastaphar), was also mistaken to be a Persian monarch by scribes in later centuries, while his true ethnicity was Indo-Parthian. It stands to reason that later efforts were made to correct the spurious origin of Magus Caspar in other manuscripts of similar origin, from the Persian to the Indian designation. And those who cared to make this adjustment were most likely privy to other occult discourses regarding the magi involvement in early Christian mysticism. If we were to follow the allegorical importance of this tale that is largely built by occult references, we would understand the importance is not necessarily found in geographical precision, but in attempts towards cultural contextualization and reattribution. If we use a Jungian approach to our deductions, we come to understand that the attributes given to mystery characters in tales littered with occult references lead us to their allegorical origin. With this Occam’s razor, we can cut to the most likely explanation about these magi characters, and their persistent importance in early Christianity, and deduce that they are archetypal representations of the origin faiths that bore influence into the esoteric doctrine of the Gospel.
What’s more, church iconography always depicts each magus as having different features. Each is from a different nation towards the East. Each holds symbolic gifts and wears symbolic garb and various accessories hinting at semiotic lore. This is no coincidence, as church iconography has always been deeply symbolic. And with each icon, there is the lay overtone for ordinary people and esoteric undertones for adepts. We can summarize the solution to this esoteric mystery with recognizing the gifts the magi famously gave to the infant Christ: frankincense, myrrh, and gold. Allegorically, these gifts represent three cultural contributions to the lore of the esoteric origins of the early messianic movement in the Levant. Frankincense represents the Zoroastrians from Persia. Mò yào, what the Chinese called myrrh, although native to the Middle East, really had value in Han China. Chinese Daoist mystics distributed myrrh as an ancient remedy to improve blood flow. Of course, gold was valued everywhere. But at the time gold was most austere in India for mystical reasons. In the mystical sense, gold represents self-purification, the rays of the sun, and glow of divinity. Kushan Indian currency had a higher volume of gold coinage than their contemporaries, including the Romans. The Indic faces of their coins literally bear the faces of Shakyamuni Buddha, and Maitreya Buddha (the Buddha of the future).
CONCLUSION: THE SPLINTERED DHAMMA DELIVERED TO JUDEA
The dualism in the Gospel’s message is an extension of Zoroastrian themes. As one might notice, the only divinity seen in the Old Testament was the God Yahweh, and his angels. The book of Job was somewhat of an anomaly and not really something in wide use in its contemporary time. But the concept that the Devil, Satan, as an enemy to oppose God in a spiritual war that would reach an eventual climax in the apocalypse, was really a Zoroastrian concept that predated Christianity for six centuries. The golden rule “treat others as you would like to be treated” (Luke 6:31), was predated by the Confucians for about the same amount of time- at least six centuries.
Similarly, the concept of Christ’s temptation in the desert is predated by Buddhism by five centuries. But to really make a point it might be more helpful to lay out the parallels between the Buddha’s path to enlightenment, and the temptation of Christ:
The Buddha had set out to reach enlightenment by becoming an ascetic. He refused to eat anything or drink anything aside from the smallest grains of rice and drops of rain water or dew that would happen to fall to his lip.
Following his baptism with John the Baptist, Christ went into the desert wilderness for forty days and forty nights, fasting. The book of Matthew says Jesus was led to the wilderness by the Holy Spirit to be tempted.
The Buddha was approached by the allegorical representation of worldly desire: Mara repeatedly throughout his meditation under the Bodhi tree.
Satan mocks scripture saying Christ should turn stones to bread so that Christ can conveniently quip with a verse from the Old Testament, “Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4, NIV).
Mara sends his “daughters” to the Buddha to seduce him. Mara’s daughters are manifestations of Taṇhā (Thirst), Arati (Aversion, Discontentment), and Rāga (Attachment, Desire, Greed, Passion). The Buddha overcomes them by mastering Nekkhamma, non-attachment.
Satan tempts Christ to plunge himself from the roof of the highest temple in the city, and Jesus quips again reciting the appropriate Old Testament verse. “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’” (Matthew 4:7, NIV).
Mara becomes enraged that the Buddha is close to enlightenment, so he amasses an army of demons and they unleash their weapons and arrows onto the Buddha. But the Buddha did not react in anger or fear, or any other unskillful emotion—as this was the test— he remained equanimous, and his equanimity rendered all weapons launched at him transformed into flowers that fell as decoration all around him.
Satan told Christ that he would give him the entire world if he would just bow to him. Jesus responds in anger saying, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’” (Matthew 4:10, NIV).
The end to the Buddha’s temptation is the hallmark of serenity, whereas Christ’s ends in anger and aversion. The Buddha defeats his “enemy” through mastery of his own mind. Christ defeats his enemy by shouting at him and referencing vaguely relevant verses from an older book. In the Buddha’s story we see agapē love even in the times a Westerner might expect some feat of heroism. And this to me is a sign of the real source of the tenet. I believe that when we see agapē love in the Gospel, we are actually seeing traces of Eastern philosophy being transferred to a new culture that is unfamiliar with the creeds that work towards, and complete the task of agapē: Karuṇā, Mettā, Muditā, and Avihiṃsā (compassion, loving-kindness, empathic joy, and non-violence).
It would be a useful task to seek out areas where agapē appears in the Gospel and take our philosophical sieve to it to filter out the core principles and see how they might have derived from other cultures. This seems like a more fruitful way to cultivate a caring society. Frankly the divisive messages of the Christian Bible’s Old and New Testament defeat the purpose of the Gospel, and we see evidence of this in so many current events and through a discourse analysis of how Christians speak of non-believers. Where good tidings are seen as gifts from the grace of God in Christianity, and the natural faults of humans are damnable offenses- Buddhism promotes a far more merciful and proactive approach. The tribulations we see in society stem from an inability to see the truth behind our motivations. The Buddha’s philosophy cuts through that delusion. And the aversion towards non-believers or those we perceive as enemies is replaced with an equanimous disposition and a piercing gaze that is able to cut through to the conceptual roots of the problem: Taṇhā (Thirst), Arati (Aversion, Discontentment), and Rāga (Attachment, Desire, Greed, Passion).
This piece is not enough to espouse my true beliefs and insights to the story of the Gospel. Nor is it enough to explicate what I think are indelible indicators of the Buddhist origins of agapē love. So, another edition to this title is sure to follow.
“This is what should be done by one who is skilled in goodness And who knows the path of peace: Let them be able and upright, straightforward and gentle in speech, Humble and not conceited, contented and easily satisfied. Unburdened with duties and frugal in their ways. Peaceful and calm, and wise and skilful, not proud and demanding in nature.”
-The Buddha, Suttanipāta, Metta Sutta (Sutra on Loving-Kindness), (Sn 1.8)
Photo: Todai-Ji no Daibutsu (Dainichi Nyorai), Nara, Japan. (December 2020) Nicholas LeMon-Armin
Comentarios