Buddhists...what have they ever done for us?

Buddha professed to be the messiah but instead of giving the glory to God as the true messiah did (Jesus Christ) Buddha obscured the true God with his own brilliance. (As countless other would be Messiah's did...)

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

RexRed wrote:
The problem I find with Buddhism is because it s based upon a caste system. Those with the enlightened knowledge are "better" than those who are not enlightened. How is one enlightened? By studying... So those who study are better than those who don't, plain and simple.

Where with Christianity, studying only grants approval of God but not the sanctity of God for the Christian God is "not a respecter of persons". God does not like one over another because they meditate longer or burn the incense with more servitude. He looks to the spirit which is a product of "his own" likeness not our own.

So the Christian spirit liberates one from the caste system and levels the playing field that ALL are judged by "the spirit" and not by the world or whose considered by men/women to be "illustrious".

Buddhism is simply a lesser system overall than Christianity. Though Buddhism posses much truth it is only a partial and often erroneous view of the whole picture.

In my experience nothing or no one is more convinced they are better than other people than "Christians". Caste system indeed.

And you speak as someone who has studied the Christianity of the Bible or Christian religion?

0 Replies

Rex,

Let me repeat myself; Rex, you don't know the least thing about Buddhism.

Siddharth Shakiamuni, has never been regarded nor worshiped as a god, a Messiah, or even a prophet. The term "Buddha" means the Enlightened One. That is someone whose understanding of the nature of Ultimate Reality, a great "physician" whose teachings mitigate suffering. Once again, in Buddhism there are no gods of any sort, nor is there a "Soul". The foundation of Buddhism is its concern with suffering, its causes and its treatment. Unlike the Abrahamic religions, every sentient being is equally capable of having the Enlightenment Experience regardless of their statioin life, their "religion", mental acuity, faith, or learning ... no matter their Time/Space Loci in the universe of our perceptions.

"Why was Buddha called the illustrious "one" and followed around like a god, if there is no respect of certain persons given in the system?" The Buddha was a great teacher, and his message was one that corresponded to the fundamental questions regarding human suffering. The prevailing Hindu religion recognized souls, and taught that only by gaining merit within their birth caste could the soul progress toward full and total reunion with Brahma. (I've really generalized here, so if anyone needs clarification, just ask). Buddha's message is that there are no "souls" per se, and that anyone can obtain enlightenment and release from suffering in this very lifetime. The Buddha had a group of disciples who followed him around asking questions and hoping to fully understand the Teachings and their implications. Nothing that the Abrahamics would ever regard or define as godlike. No claims of divinity.

"Maybe you are just not familiar with a system without this cast system that you don't even recognize a caste system when you see it." Sorry about that, but I was raised within the Christian religion and was exposed to a wide range of denominations. I'm a long time student of both Western and Eastern Civilizations. In Graduate School I studied Oriental Religion and Philosophy, and comparative religion was just a part of the territory to be covered on the way to my Doctorate. O.K., so I didn't finish the Doctorate but shifted over to Law School in hopes of making more money ... oh well, another story. I'm very confident that I know more about the Abrahamic religions than most of the faithful believers in Christianity and Islam.

"RESPECTER OF PERSONS... give that some careful thought before you point a finger at Abraham (who was humbled to God)..." I haven't a clue as to what you're trying to say.

"Buddha professed to be the messiah but instead of giving the glory to God as the true messiah did (Jesus Christ) Buddha obscured the true God with his own brilliance. (As countless other would be Messiah's did...)" Laughing

, I embarrassed for you. In Northeastern India during the 6th century BCE, the prevailing religion was Hinduism, and no one was expecting any Messianic figure. That's more a product of Judahism, and the Babylonian Captivity was around 587 BCE ... Roughly contemporaneous with the founding of Buddhism.

I'd suggest that you not make totally uninformed statements about a religion you know nothing about. Frankly, I'm not even convinced you know all that much about your own family of religions, their sources and how they developed within their historical and geographical context. The Trojan War was around 1210 BCE, and Moses led the People out of Egypt around 1300 BCE. We KNOW precious little about either, and many scholars regard Jewish History prior to Moses as mostly legendary. Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. But anyone who thinks, even for a moment, that their Bible (a product of numerous scribes and translations without the slightest effort to find evidence to support it until the 19th century) is the most reliable means of understanding what was happening in ancient Southwest Asia, must be very, very gullible.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

Rex,

Let me repeat myself; Rex, you don't know the least thing about Buddhism.

You're not trying to have an actual conversation with RexRed are you? This could be fun Smile

Rex is like a self contained path to enlightenment; a finger pointing at itself.

0 Replies

You're right, Rosborne. Asherman is showing the immense generosity he always shows in writing out detailed and competent reports on the nature of Buddhism. But it is clearly wasted on Rex. His only necessary message to Rex is to inform him that he is TOTALLY ignorant of the subject. Rex's comments to Asherman are not even wrong.

0 Replies

My comments are in the color red

Asherman wrote:

Rex,

Let me repeat myself; Rex, you don't know the least thing about Buddhism.

Tit for tat I won't play that game.

Siddharth Shakiamuni, has never been regarded nor worshiped as a god, a Messiah, or even a prophet. The term "Buddha" means the Enlightened One. That is someone whose understanding of the nature of Ultimate Reality, a great "physician" whose teachings mitigate suffering. Once again, in Buddhism there are no gods of any sort, nor is there a "Soul". The foundation of Buddhism is its concern with suffering, its causes and its treatment. Unlike the Abrahamic religions, every sentient being is equally capable of having the Enlightenment Experience regardless of their statioin life, their "religion", mental acuity, faith, or learning ... no matter their Time/Space Loci in the universe of our perceptions.

Buddha is worshiped as a god merely by his omission of God... So I beg to differ. We do not have to go back to prehistory of these cultures to compare one system with another and thus discern and weight in the balance of the spirit which system will bring the greatest profit. That is provided you actually perceive and understand your own Buddhism that you profess. I am wondering if I actually do know a great deal about Buddhism that you are unaware of. I do challenge you to compare your system to that of the Christ Jesus and Paul the apostle etc...

"Why was Buddha called the illustrious "one" and followed around like a god, if there is no respect of certain persons given in the system?" The Buddha was a great teacher, and his message was one that corresponded to the fundamental questions regarding human suffering. The prevailing Hindu religion recognized souls, and taught that only by gaining merit within their birth caste could the soul progress toward full and total reunion with Brahma. (I've really generalized here, so if anyone needs clarification, just ask). Buddha's message is that there are no "souls" per se, and that anyone can obtain enlightenment and release from suffering in this very lifetime. The Buddha had a group of disciples who followed him around asking questions and hoping to fully understand the Teachings and their implications. Nothing that the Abrahamics would ever regard or define as godlike. No claims of divinity.

Actually the very words "enlightened one" are from the book of Genesis which It's story far predates Buddha (by at least 2000 years). It is the meaning of the name Lucifer (enlightened one)... One of the oldest words in the Bible considering the word light is in one of the very first words God uttered, let there be light. As he in whom the scepter belongs, the bright and morning star. I do not doubt that there is great truth in Buddhism. But I also believe the end result of the system comes up drastically, and deceptively short of the perfection of God's matchless word. Just as many other pantheistic and pagan systems do. So are we supposed to follow Buddha around or just envy him? He does not impart the glory of God so he usurps God's throne by subtle omission...

The Bible terms the "soul" as breath life. So for Buddha to not have a soul it would require that he did not breath. Or be "breathless"... To be alive but still dead (as Cain was marked with this seal) Because we know Buddha breathed we can conclude he had a soul. But as for the spirit I believe Buddha was aware of the spirit but I am not sure that he represented the spirit in truth...

"Maybe you are just not familiar with a system without this cast system that you don't even recognize a caste system when you see it." Sorry about that, but I was raised within the Christian religion and was exposed to a wide range of denominations. I'm a long time student of both Western and Eastern Civilizations. In Graduate School I studied Oriental Religion and Philosophy, and comparative religion was just a part of the territory to be covered on the way to my Doctorate. O.K., so I didn't finish the Doctorate but shifted over to Law School in hopes of making more money ... oh well, another story. I'm very confident that I know more about the Abrahamic religions than most of the faithful believers in Christianity and Islam.

I do not wish to detract from your achievements. I just want to add to your fulfillment of your quest for truth if I can.

"RESPECTER OF PERSONS... give that some careful thought before you point a finger at Abraham (who was humbled to God)..." I haven't a clue as to what you're trying to say.

You must know that within Buddhism is embedded gnosticism. The worship of knowledge. This is the caste system I speak of. I can show you this in most encyclopedias describing the core beliefs of Buddhism. So in other words if your are not smart or enlightened you are going to hell. OR you an come back imprisoned in a rock... This is not actually funny because it leads people into dead ends and does not lead them to a kind and tender salvation and reunion with the great Atman/God. It leads to fear and a salvation based upon human deeds rather than divine providence. It glorifies men rather than God. This does not take all of the books written on the subject to reason and learn that Christianity has answers that bring greater spiritual and living profit than Buddhism. Christianity also has a more evolved form of prayer/meditation which provides a greater release and commune with our benevolent creator of all that is.

"Buddha professed to be the messiah but instead of giving the glory to God as the true messiah did (Jesus Christ) Buddha obscured the true God with his own brilliance. (As countless other would be Messiah's did...)" , I embarrassed for you. In Northeastern India during the 6th century BCE, the prevailing religion was Hinduism, and no one was expecting any Messianic figure. That's more a product of Judahism, and the Babylonian Captivity was around 587 BCE ... Roughly contemporaneous with the founding of Buddhism.

The messiah has been prophesied since Adam and Eve that is 6000 years ago... All pseudo-pagan (Buddhism, because it claims God's throne by omitting God) and pagan (Hindu) religions of every tribe in the world have secret messianic knowledge. Buddhism is directly derived from Babylon. I am quite informed of this.

I'd suggest that you not make totally uninformed statements about a religion you know nothing about. Frankly, I'm not even convinced you know all that much about your own family of religions, their sources and how they developed within their historical and geographical context. The Trojan War was around 1210 BCE, and Moses led the People out of Egypt around 1300 BCE. We KNOW precious little about either, and many scholars regard Jewish History prior to Moses as mostly legendary. Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. But anyone who thinks, even for a moment, that their Bible (a product of numerous scribes and translations without the slightest effort to find evidence to support it until the 19th century) is the most reliable means of understanding what was happening in ancient Southwest Asia, must be very, very gullible.

The errors that have crept into the oldest copies of say, the book of Isaiah have been nearly completely negligible over thousands of years. These books are not the readers digest they were the writings of "holy men" as God spoke to them. The Hebrew numbering system was nearly flawless.. Who's leg are you trying to pull? Legendary, my foot.

I am well informed. It seems you have read so many books but possibly neglected the sole book that makes sense of it all... Who takes serious a book when the have a preconceived notion that it is full of "legends"... This is possibly the reason why the scholars you refer to are so unlearned and "unenlightened".

Peace with God

0 Replies

Well, one must at least TRY to open an effective discussion. I try to restrain myself as to the dangers that, to me seem inherent in the Abrahamic world view.

It is far too easy to condemn the Abrahamics on their bloody history, confused and contradictory statements, intolerance for others, and dogma that clearly is factually wrong in light of scientific discovery. We should not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Judaism is a powerful belief system that held together a minor People through repeated defeats and subjugation that would have exterminated others. Rex is correct in saying that the antiquity of a religion is no proof of its authenticity or value. Judaism is old, but almost certainly not as old as the religions of Egypt, Mesopotamia, or India. The 6th century BCE was the Age of Religion. a time of innovation that produced the Jain, Buddhist, Confucian religions, and many more less known religions. In the early 6th century, around 800 years after the Exodus, the Babylonian Captivity had great impact on Judaism, not least of which was the need to get the principle doctrines written down to avoid their loss during slavery. Prior to the Captivity there isn't much mention of Judaism in the Egyption, or cuneiform tablets of Egypt, Persia, Greece, etc. Of course there is some archaeological evidence that the Jewish People inhabited the area sometime after 1300 BCE. Solomon's Temple existed with its Holy of Holies before which animal sacrifices were routinely made. The Ark of the Covenant probably existed there, but there is no direct evidence for David, Saul, ect. They probably did exist historically, but there is no tangible evidence for it. The bottom line here, is that much of what Judaism is today probably dates from around 587 BCE, though the oral tradition predates that by as much as 800 to 1,000 years.

Animal sacrifice at Herod's Temple continued right up to the Diaspora (70 BCE), and outside the New Testament, there are only hints that Jesus even existed. He probably did, born around 4 BCE during the later years of Augustus and if crucified in approximately 31 CE during the reign of Tiberius. This was a period in Roman history where numerous Asian religions found adherents in Rome. Christianity had great appeal to the slave and freedmen classes, with some converts even among the powerful. Nero wasn't alone in blaming them for the Great Fire (64 CE), and there were martyrs to the new religion. The number of martyrs isn't known, but there certainly were many. The Gospels were written between 75 and 100 CE, and the Codification of Jewish law in the Mishnah by Rabbi Judah the Prince (the foundation of modern Judaism) was written in 200 CE.

Christianity played an importan role in "civilizing" the Barbarians of Northern Europe, and was a caretaker of Lex Roma during the early medieval period. The Church preserved humanistic values and ancient literature that might other wise have been lost to Europe. Christianity's role in forging what became Britain's notions of government and just ice can not be under estimated. Though the religious wars of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation were bloody almost beyond belief, they set the stage for separation of Church and State. Even the zeal of missionaries with swords in the Americas, Africa and Asia were not without some positive effects in the way we humans look at the world around us. Judaism, Christianity and Islam, all have within them strong humanitarian values, and they all have been spectacularly successful in supplying the religious needs of their adherents.

In our family we had a couple who were devout Quakers. These were people who were infinitely kind, peaceful and a credit to the family. They were humble, and while not well educated themselves, they valued education for others. Once while in my sophomore year at Ashland, I loaned them copies of several books I thought they might find interesting. "1982", "Brave New World", "The Complete Writings of Voltair", "The True Believer", etc. They burned them as blasphemous. Did that make Maggie and Jonas evil? Did it negate all the good that they did for others over a long life? I'm not excusing their burning of my books, but only wish here to demonstrate that people are not two-dimensional stereotypes .

Rex has determined for some reason that his own version of religious truth is unassailable, and so he has turned off his mind to any other possible way of looking at religion. I believe that he has become so self-righteous that any challenge to his religious views are regarded with sorrow as being evil in a world that can only be White, or Black. He sees no grey, no possible chance that his religious convictions might not be perfect. That's not a very good way to live life, and it must give rise to suffering, both his own and those who have to live around him. Oh well ...

I tried.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

Well, one must at least TRY to open an effective discussion. I try to restrain myself as to the dangers that, to me seem inherent in the Abrahamic world view.

It is far too easy to condemn the Abrahamics on their bloody history, confused and contradictory statements, intolerance for others, and dogma that clearly is factually wrong in light of scientific discovery. We should not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Judaism is a powerful belief system that held together a minor People through repeated defeats and subjugation that would have exterminated others. Rex is correct in saying that the antiquity of a religion is no proof of its authenticity or value. Judaism is old, but almost certainly not as old as the religions of Egypt, Mesopotamia, or India. The 6th century BCE was the Age of Religion. a time of innovation that produced the Jain, Buddhist, Confucian religions, and many more less known religions. In the early 6th century, around 800 years after the Exodus, the Babylonian Captivity had great impact on Judaism, not least of which was the need to get the principle doctrines written down to avoid their loss during slavery. Prior to the Captivity there isn't much mention of Judaism in the Egyption, or cuneiform tablets of Egypt, Persia, Greece, etc. Of course there is some archaeological evidence that the Jewish People inhabited the area sometime after 1300 BCE. Solomon's Temple existed with its Holy of Holies before which animal sacrifices were routinely made. The Ark of the Covenant probably existed there, but there is no direct evidence for David, Saul, ect. They probably did exist historically, but there is no tangible evidence for it. The bottom line here, is that much of what Judaism is today probably dates from around 587 BCE, though the oral tradition predates that by as much as 800 to 1,000 years.

Animal sacrifice at Herod's Temple continued right up to the Diaspora (70 BCE), and outside the New Testament, there are only hints that Jesus even existed. He probably did, born around 4 BCE during the later years of Augustus and if crucified in approximately 31 CE during the reign of Tiberius. This was a period in Roman history where numerous Asian religions found adherents in Rome. Christianity had great appeal to the slave and freedmen classes, with some converts even among the powerful. Nero wasn't alone in blaming them for the Great Fire (64 CE), and there were martyrs to the new religion. The number of martyrs isn't known, but there certainly were many. The Gospels were written between 75 and 100 CE, and the Codification of Jewish law in the Mishnah by Rabbi Judah the Prince (the foundation of modern Judaism) was written in 200 CE.

Christianity played an importan role in "civilizing" the Barbarians of Northern Europe, and was a caretaker of Lex Roma during the early medieval period. The Church preserved humanistic values and ancient literature that might other wise have been lost to Europe. Christianity's role in forging what became Britain's notions of government and just ice can not be under estimated. Though the religious wars of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation were bloody almost beyond belief, they set the stage for separation of Church and State. Even the zeal of missionaries with swords in the Americas, Africa and Asia were not without some positive effects in the way we humans look at the world around us. Judaism, Christianity and Islam, all have within them strong humanitarian values, and they all have been spectacularly successful in supplying the religious needs of their adherents.

In our family we had a couple who were devout Quakers. These were people who were infinitely kind, peaceful and a credit to the family. They were humble, and while not well educated themselves, they valued education for others. Once while in my sophomore year at Ashland, I loaned them copies of several books I thought they might find interesting. "1982", "Brave New World", "The Complete Writings of Voltair", "The True Believer", etc. They burned them as blasphemous. Did that make Maggie and Jonas evil? Did it negate all the good that they did for others over a long life? I'm not excusing their burning of my books, but only wish here to demonstrate that people are not two-dimensional stereotypes .

Rex has determined for some reason that his own version of religious truth is unassailable, and so he has turned off his mind to any other possible way of looking at religion. I believe that he has become so self-righteous that any challenge to his religious views are regarded with sorrow as being evil in a world that can only be White, or Black. He sees no grey, no possible chance that his religious convictions might not be perfect. That's not a very good way to live life, and it must give rise to suffering, both his own and those who have to live around him. Oh well ...

I tried.

Peace and understanding my friend, I agree with most of what you say Asherman,

I disagree that Buddhism or any other common pantheistic or pagan religion is older than some of the stories of the Bible but that is my opinion.

I have not turned off my mind to much Asherman, I see gray in the grace of God that is sufficient for our shortcomings and the liberty of our often mischarted ways. I see a benevolent, yeilding God and not one black and white or legalistic and without mercy.

I have never once not listened or fairly and honestly considered another view point on this forum so I think your assessment of my character is unfounded. If you can point out a case where I ignored a post please bring it to my attention otherwise you are making unfounded assertions. I am "completely" non-denominational so the only denomination I adhere to is the written word in regard to how it "interprets itself" through study and comparison of spiritual matters and scriptures. I have not shut my mind in fact I am very interested in many of the truths of Buddhism (especially it's non-violence) but I think it is not a complete picture of God... In some cases completely erroneous and isn't the "pure and complete" truth which we seek? I believe this picture is lacking because I have seen and experienced better thus it pales in comparison. Maybe I am missing something or maybe something is missing from Buddhism.

I love nature but that does not make me a wiccan or pantheist... It just means I accept certain truths as being misplaced from Christianity/Judaism or maybe Christianity did not need to be redundant on truths already universally accepted and already part of the collective consciousness as a whole. I do not revere nature above it's creator this is logically sound to me not just a religious point of blind adherence.

I much rather prefer being your friend Asherman because I know much of my history is spotty and at times containing great holes but I believe my spiritual foundation to be impregnable. I still do have an open heart/mind, I am here in this discussion putting my ideas up for scrutiny aren't I? I would not accuse my fellow A2Kers of being soft though sometimes slow on the uptake....

Smile

0 Replies

Rex,

No one doubts that you are sincere in your dedication to, and zeal for Christianity. Neither have I any doubt that you've found it personally fulfilling and an extremely satisfying foundation for your life. The Abrahamic religions have grown to encompass between them the largest number of people in the religious world. That success in attracting adherents demonstrates the power of the conception, but it is not a proof that the belief system is True. Christianity and Islam are especially noted for their intolerance of other religions, and their use of force to "induce" religious conversion. Still, the Abrahamic religions manage to satisfy the religious needs of millions of people.

If you doubt that other religions are older than Judaism, all you have to do is read translations of Egyptian and Mesopotamian writings that date from 5,000 years ago. Even in your own Bible there is evidence that other religions predated Abraham. After all, Abraham grew up within a culture that had a polytheistic dominant religion. In the oldest parts of the Bible the text strongly suggests that originally, even what evolved into Judaism accepted the idea of multiple gods, of whom the most powerful was what became the God of Abraham. There is no evidence of written religious Jewish literature prior to the Captivity in 587 BCE, though an oral tradition and a set of cultural traditions may have existed going back to around 1300 BCE. Contrast that with Egyptian and Mesopotamian religious writing s that were already over a thousand years old when the Jews in Captivity began to write down their traditions.

BTW, Buddhism isn't polytheistic nor pantheistic. Polytheistic means "many gods", and Buddhism has none. Pantheistic means to worship nature, and Buddhism doesn't do that either. Actually, Buddhism does have a well-earned reputation for peaceful toleration, but that does not mean that non-violence is absolutely fundamental to our religion. Buddhists have been involved as highly effective warriors in countless wars, though the number of our religious conflicts is almost nil. How can you make judgments about a religion of which you are totally ignorant? Before you go off making foolish statements, you should take the trouble to become fully informed.

I didn't say that your God sees only black and white. What I said was that you, Rex, see only black and white ... a zero/sum game, where everything is reduced to only two possibilities and that YOU are convinced that your religious notions about the nature of the universe are absolutely correct and all other points of view are absolutely wrong. "Either/Or" is the most elemental fallacy. I'm sure you do read the responses to your postings here, but your responses clearly indicate that you never, ever consider the possibility that anyone other than yourself has anything useful to say about religion. Your self righteousness and unwillingness to discuss religion with an open mind results in "turning off" your putative audience. If your purpose is to persuade, you have failed dismally. If you are only interested in "testifying" your belief, you would do better within a circle of people who hold the same beliefs you do. The only "religious" interest of many of the A2K crowd is to demean all religion, to insist that religion is the "opiate of the People", and that only idiots adhere to any religion. Your self-righteousness only strengthens that groups criticism of religion. Is that your intent?

0 Replies

Quote:

I much rather prefer being your friend Asherman because I know much of my history is spotty and at times containing great holes but I believe my spiritual foundation to be impregnable.

Rex, did you really mean to use the word "impregnable" there? Doesn't this imply invulnerability? It sounds too defensive or powerful to me, I prefer "permeable". How about the pool of water, a waterfall streams into, constantly in motion, effortlessly nimble.

0 Replies

Ashers wrote:

Quote:
I much rather prefer being your friend Asherman because I know much of my history is spotty and at times containing great holes but I believe my spiritual foundation to be impregnable.

Rex, did you really mean to use the word "impregnable" there? Doesn't this imply invulnerability? It sounds too defensive or powerful to me, I prefer "permeable". How about the pool of water, a waterfall streams into, constantly in motion, effortlessly nimble.

True, impenetrable, immovable or even incorruptible would be more my intent... Smile

thx (even stronger words)

It is not that I don't debate my spiritual foundation but I highly doubt it can be made to succumb to vigorous scrutiny. Body, soul and spirit are the crux of my entire faith.

If you are talking about the nature of the spirit and how it moves then nimble and fluid etc apply but if talking about the virtues, existence, power and longevity of the spirit then stronger words apply.

Within spirit is the very idea of "seed" which represents an inner code of sonship, a royal household and inheritance to be bold and have godly pride about.

0 Replies

Asherman, I need to study your post to reply about it, I will be back to your thoughtful reply soon.

Thank-you

Rex

0 Replies

Quote:

Buddhists...what have they ever done for us?

Answer: They have questioned those words "done" and "us" such that some have occasionally been able to reconsider their ephemeral urges to "achieve something" or "become somebody" as passing ripples in the flow of life.

0 Replies

Well put, Focus: I have known a number of advanced Buddhist practitioners (four were acknowledged "zen masters"). They did me a world of good, not by showing me my delusions--I had to discover them (well, some of them) on my own. They pointed me in what is undoubtedly the right direction. I can die with the joy that my true nature will never be wasted or abolished. I am that YOU (and Asherman and Rex) which I have always been, and will always be. This has nothing to do with doctrine or belief. There is no literature to teach me that "truth" because it is a reality rather than an ideational "truth."

0 Replies

You know, JL, we might form a wrestling tag-tem (Battling Buddhists) and join the WWF. If that didn't work out we could still use the name and start up a rock and roll band for seniors. Smile

0 Replies

We would be unconquerable. No matter what our "opponents" do to "us", we could claim a victorious DRAW--for, as Fresco noted, "they" could not have "done" anything to "us", nor "we" to "them."

0 Replies

^

Rex, to me flexibility, permeability and fluidity are infinitely "strong", as opposed to strength, power and pride which are, in my opinion, temporarily or subjectively "strong". Just how I like to think of it I guess, in some ultimate sense. I see how we divide ourselves against the perceived rights and wrongs or virtues and "sins" to ground ourselves, to provide a firm placement for bigger and bigger actions to take place but, God (if you like), reality, that which is beyond typical analysis, these things are, to me, beyond condition and division, you don't find God via paths & conclusions between correctness and wrongness...God, reality, the infinite, these "things" appear to me as inexpressible but division perpetuates division, whereas I see reality as one movement.

I thought today about how my opinions are in such frequent movement, what my "self" a year ago would have criticised of my "self" a second ago, if given the chance. So instead of criticism, I say good luck to you, truly. Smile

0 Replies

Movement implies multiplicity giving birth to time and space. Ultimate Reality, Tao, whatever, is less than a mathematical zero yet it embraces an infinite number of illusory universes. Preceptive Reality, as solid and real as it seems, is one of those infinite universes. The Ultimate Reality is that there is no time, no space, nor even any consciousness as we know it.

This is what the Enlightenment experience is; to lose the ego, awareness of time and space vanish into infinity ... a zero. Not even a one, for that infers a zero and two.

This has a profound influence on how one thereafter regards the mundane. Suffering arises with consciousness of the perceptual world. In the four dimensional world change is inevitable, otherwise the time/space structure collapses back into nothingness. Consciousness within the perceptual world is constantly putting values on phantoms. "Bad", "Better", "Best". The sentient being is constantly pursuing something better with the full confidence that progress is at least possible. Failures to achieve the goal, is a root cause of suffering. But, even when a person is successful at gaining their goal, it loses its savor and a new goal must be pursed. All suffering.

There seems no escape from being born into the perceptual world, and once entangled in the time/space we have to deal with growing old, becoming ill, and dying. In the world of multiplicity, both physical, mental and emotional injuries are our common lot.

What! Are we condemned dream creatures mever to escape suffering?

The fundamental message of Buddhism is that suffering can be defeated. We should feel less "stressed" at the banging around we all get in the material world in just knowing that perceptive reality is only a dream, and illusion. Within this perceptual world there are rules, and the better we understand those rules the greater the possibility that we can avoid some of the suffering inherent in it. Perhaps there is no greater challenge to the effort to mitigate suffering, than in dealing with interpersonal relationships.

Rage, jealousy, grief, greed, and the eternal struggle to escape loneliness, all give rise to suffering. Buddhism, starting with the insights and teachings of the Buddha, has analyzed the dickins out of these causes for suffering at a level more easily grasped than trying to communicate more than a glimpse of what the Enlightenment experience is. Not everyone will have a transcendental moment, but arranging our lives to minimize suffering for ourselves and the world at large pays big dividends. It's a win-win situation, when people learn self-discipline remain focused come to peace with themselves, and all those around the practicing Buddhist will benefit by having the causes of suffering constrained.

0 Replies

Thanks for the comments Asherman, much appreciated. I see what you're saying with the nature of the word "movement". I've used words like process, movement & flux before but I guess these too describe a perspective of relationship for the purposes of language and discussion. I guess I feel that ideas of God and the like are attempts to bind and wrap a net around the "processes we see". I know there was a topic a while back when I drifted onto 'something vs nothing' etc and what these concepts might mean. The word "closure" and the need for it has been mentioned in another thread just recently too.

I know you guys have mentioned the enlightenment experience before and I have a memory of there being talk of feelings like terror/horror associated with it, that might be the wrong word altogether but if not why do you suppose this is? I thought maybe the comparison with the ingrained nature of multiplicity in "us" against this void but you lose the ego, there are no comparisons? Or is this the difference between thoughts/experiences that arise naturally and those we formulate through further grasping maybe?

0 Replies

For those caught unprepared for the experience, loss of the self and the dissolution of the material world with all its dimensions can be very startling. The loss of everything you thought you knew, of your very being, is terrifying if fought against. Being prepared for the experience, one metaphorically rushes forward into ecstasy. To in the same moment find yourself back in the world of multiplicity is almost as devastating. In a single moment one is whipped from the discomforts of the world of perception to completeness without end and encompassing all possible times and universes, and back to a world where you have to get up and go to the toilet isn't something that leaves a body unmoved. How can one possibly describe completeness to a world where nothing is ever complete? A condition that is counter-intuitive and out of which dimensions are born has to be talked about in terms of time and space; the Changeless mother of change. It is the Great Ineffable that gives rise to gods and mere eternity. Language is at best a poor means of communicating something that is outside common experience.

0 Replies

Buddhists...what have they ever done for us?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know