Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Thanks @Jason, I like that quote for a long time when I thought that was from Marcus Aurelius but I always thought that was reminiscent to Buddhism in some way.
Yeah, I'm a fan of Marcus Aurelius too. Really enjoyed reading Meditations.
In that case to clarify my own position, I believe that what Jesus really meant by "God" is the same thing Buddhists call Emptiness or Mind. Or what Hindus call Brahman. This is in contrast to an independent supreme being and creator. It seems increasingly likely to me that Jesus (Yeshua), after taking issue with his own religion, may have awakened to our ever-changing interdependent reality... our true "Father" (of which we are all manifestations, all "children"). He then tried to reform Judaism so that everyone was acting in harmony with this reality.
If there is one reality that we're all part of, it would make sense that those who experience the nature of this reality (over the course of history) would interpret it differently, given many factors including their traditions and "common knowledge". Did the Buddha not do the same, and use terms known to himself and others such as karma and dukkha? Jesus may not have known fully the origin and cessation of suffering, even if he knew of our Unity (seeing that we only harm ourselves). The interesting parallels between Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and Christianity would then seem to all be pointing to the same Moon (Ultimate Reality).
It's all a matter of perspective and my personal opinion. Take it as you like, or leave it and cancel your subscription.
I believe that what Jesus really meant by "God" is the same thing Buddhists call Emptiness or Mind. Or what Hindus call Brahman.
Sorry to be pedantic, but are you saying that emptiness and mind in Buddhism are the same as Brahman in Hinduism? And what's the "ultimate reality" you mention at the end of your post?
@PedanticPorpoise, I'm not saying they mean the same conceptually (they are defined differently), but rather that it's quite probable they're actually talking about the same reality... but in different ways, through their own lens of understanding. That's what the "ultimate reality" is, whatever the reality actually is. You can add "what the Taoists call Tao" to the list. At least that's what I think, that's my opinion.
Obviously each one of these (each religion) is going to claim that their view is correct and the others wrong, rather than admitting in any way that they might be describing different parts of the same elephant! They'll all say "no, this is what the elephant is like", and yet all be correct (yet incomplete) in themselves.
I love how complicated this topic is. There is literally no end to it's ever-unfolding components. And that is the reason why the history of man is essentially the history of "conversations about God".
Did religion cause civilization or did civilization cause religion?
Obviously each one of these (each religion) is going to claim that their view is correct and the others wrong, rather than admitting in any way that they might be describing different parts of the same elephant! They'll all say "no, this is what the elephant is like", and yet all be correct (yet incomplete) in themselves.
I believe the Native Americans had the most correct and honest approach to God... They respectfully referred to It as the "Great Mystery".
Why can't we just admit that we don't know instead of creating a story based on our non fact imagination, then feel a need to defend it and push it on others, as if we will be proven correct if others will buy into it.
I believe the Native Americans had the most correct and honest approach to God... They respectfully referred to It as the "Great Mystery".
Why can't we just admit that we don't know instead of creating a story based on our non fact imagination, then feel a need to defend it and push it on others, as if we will be proven correct if others will buy into it.
Hmmmm. I find little of value (in terms of accuracy) with many NA views of such things. Last summer I was up in the Black Hills, and there's a pretty average hill up there that those Indians felt their civilization "came out of", and I've seen that a number of other places in the west.
I believe the Native Americans had the most correct and honest approach to God... They respectfully referred to It as the "Great Mystery".
Why can't we just admit that we don't know instead of creating a story based on our non fact imagination, then feel a need to defend it and push it on others, as if we will be proven correct if others will buy into it.
Hmmmm. I find little of value (in terms of accuracy) with many NA views of such things. Last summer I was up in the Black Hills, and there's a pretty average hill up there that those Indians felt their civilization "came out of", and I've seen that a number of other places in the west.
Yes, they needed to expand their views abit to include the universe instead of us coming out of the hills... But still more sensible than the book about talking snakes, virgin births, rising dead and other various magic.
I believe the Native Americans had the most correct and honest approach to God... They respectfully referred to It as the "Great Mystery".
Why can't we just admit that we don't know instead of creating a story based on our non fact imagination, then feel a need to defend it and push it on others, as if we will be proven correct if others will buy into it.
Hmmmm. I find little of value (in terms of accuracy) with many NA views of such things. Last summer I was up in the Black Hills, and there's a pretty average hill up there that those Indians felt their civilization "came out of", and I've seen that a number of other places in the west.
Yes, they needed to expand their views abit to include the universe instead of us coming out of the hills... But still more sensible than the book about talking snakes, virgin births, rising dead and other various magic.
Of course, you can get wrapped up in the "magic" of it, or you look to the wisdom of it.
After all, Siddhartha's mother did become miraculously pregnant after a white elephant entered her abdomen. Right?
I believe the Native Americans had the most correct and honest approach to God... They respectfully referred to It as the "Great Mystery".
Why can't we just admit that we don't know instead of creating a story based on our non fact imagination, then feel a need to defend it and push it on others, as if we will be proven correct if others will buy into it.
Hmmmm. I find little of value (in terms of accuracy) with many NA views of such things. Last summer I was up in the Black Hills, and there's a pretty average hill up there that those Indians felt their civilization "came out of", and I've seen that a number of other places in the west.
Yes, they needed to expand their views abit to include the universe instead of us coming out of the hills... But still more sensible than the book about talking snakes, virgin births, rising dead and other various magic.
Of course, you can get wrapped up in the "magic" of it, or you look to the wisdom of it.
After all, Siddhartha's mother did become miraculously pregnant after a white elephant entered her abdomen. Right?
If you take it in the aspect of looking for some wisdom, then sure, but it doesn't logically explain anything truthful about God, for me anyways... Just a church trying to control a population through fear by introducing a heaven if you follow us vs hell if you don't concept.
I understand what you're saying, but what really is the difference between a Catholic church's paintings of angels flying around heaven, and a Buddhist temple's painting of a boddhistava floating above a village of Thais all looking up? Why are we so quick to denigrate the idea of Christian heaven and hell, but more protective of the concept of multiple levels of heavens and hells? ("In "Devaduta Sutta", the 130th discourse of the Majjhima Nikaya, Buddha teaches about the hell in vivid detail. Buddhism teaches that there are five (sometimes six) realms of rebirth, which can then be further subdivided into degrees of agony or pleasure. Of these realms, the hell realms, or Naraka, is the lowest realm of rebirth. Of the hell realms, the worst is Avīci or "endless suffering". The Buddha's disciple, Devadatta, who tried to kill the Buddha on three occasions, as well as create a schism in the monastic order, is said to have been reborn in the Avici Hell. However, like all realms of rebirth, rebirth in the Hell realms is not permanent, though suffering can persist for eons before being reborn again. In the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha teaches that eventually even Devadatta will become a Pratyekabuddha himself, emphasizing the temporary nature of the Hell realms. Thus, Buddhism teaches to escape the endless migration of rebirths (both positive and negative) through the attainment of Nirvana. The Bodhisattva Ksitigarbha, according to the Ksitigarbha Sutra, made a great vow as a young girl to not reach Nirvana until all beings were liberated from the Hell Realms or other unwholesome rebirths. In popular literature, Ksitigarbha travels to the Hell realms to teach and relieve beings of their suffering." (Wikipedia).
@vinlyn I don't get wrapped up in any Buddhist teachings of rebirth and hells either, because for me, this also falls into the "we really don't know" category because it is something we can not experience or provide proof in this current life experience..... People are free to believe whatever they want, but my original point was that God can't be proven, it remains a mystery, so I gave credit to the NA for at least recognizing that.
My attraction to Buddhism is the learning and experiencing, without the requirement of "faith"... The whole idea of eliminating suffering made sense to me, it really has nothing to do with the God argument.
@vinlyn I don't get wrapped up in any Buddhist teachings of rebirth and hells either, because for me, this also falls into the "we really don't know" category because it is something we can not experience or provide proof in this current life experience..... People are free to believe whatever they want, but my original point was that God can't be proven, it remains a mystery, so I gave credit to the NA for at least recognizing that.
Why are we so quick to denigrate the idea of Christian heaven and hell, but more protective of the concept of multiple levels of heavens and hells?
Well, it seems like quite a lot of Buddhists are quick to denigrate the teachings on the realms and rebirth these days. But I agree, it's inconsistent to be skeptical about one belief system and accepting of another. Unless one system makes more sense than the other, and it could be argued that the realms/rebirth model taught in Buddhism hangs together more consistently than the heaven and hell dichotomy taught in Christianity. In any case we simply don't know, so perhaps it's best to keep an open mind.
As Eastern Orthodox Christians we have the lives of our saints as proof. It’s not that they performed miracles as the primary importance, but how they lived their lives, and even more personally we have our own repentance too. For those acclimated to the various forms of Western Christianity repentance means a change of heart.
As Eastern Orthodox Christians we have the lives of our saints as proof. It’s not that they performed miracles as the primary importance, but how they lived their lives, and even more personally we have our own repentance too. For those acclimated to the various forms of Western Christianity repentance means a change of heart.
Precisely. That's what we have. Faith, and it deepens with experience. Buddhism without faith in the Buddha's enlightenment is just a philosophy. What of Shikantaza? Without any technical pyrotechnics. Faith that when one sits as the Buddha one is the Buddha. How do you prove enlightenment?
Jesus said "Your faith has made you well", and I believe the Buddha taught that one can't transfer their realizations to another. So how do you prove it? Through personal experience, and then your life becomes a witness. Nobody would be listening to the Dalai Lama if there was no amount of personal realization in his being.
I don't believe Buddha asked for anyone to have faith, but actually says to not believe any teaching unless it rings true... it's for you to discover. Quite the opposite of faith based religions.
I strongly disagree. Buddhism does require faith. When you say that "its for you to discover" what you are referring to is a personal experience. It can't be proven to you by reading some scientific discourse or because someone told you so. You are also limiting your understanding of "Faith" on Western based forms of Christianity.
Why did you and continue to take refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha?
I don't believe Buddha asked for anyone to have faith, but actually says to not believe any teaching unless it rings true... it's for you to discover. Quite the opposite of faith based religions.
I think there is one fundamental difference that's important to distinguish (not that I want to get involved in this particular debate that's going on here), when it comes to issues of faith and personal experience such as are being discussed, because there is not a very good correlation between Christianity and Buddhism in this regard...
In Buddhism there have been enlightened masters ever since the Buddha. You can actually go out and meet them and learn from them, so although they're not the Buddha himself they are liberated beings like he was. This "Noble Sangha" is something that connects the time of the Buddha and the present, and so the faith or confidence in Buddhism isn't just regarding the Buddha's enlightenment.
In Christianity you have just Jesus and have to have faith in his divinity and the existence of God without any intermediary sources. There are no other sons of God living in the world of today, nor does God walk the Earth. And so much greater faith is required. Also faith/belief in Jesus and God do not lead anywhere "in this life", you can't know heaven or hell in truth until after death.
In Buddhism and Christianity both you have the "teacher" that is enlightened or divine, and you have the teachings that have been preserved, but in Buddhism alone do you have a continuity of enlightenment that more easily facilitates confidence that this Noble Eightfold Path leads somewhere in this very life.
I think there is one fundamental difference that's important to distinguish (not that I want to get involved in this particular debate that's going on here).
In Buddhism there have been enlightened masters ever since the Buddha. You can actually go out and meet them and learn from them, so although they're not the Buddha himself they are liberated beings like he was. This "noble sangha" is something that connects the time of the Buddha and the present, and so the faith or confidence in Buddhism isn't just regarding the Buddha's enlightenment.
But you have faith in the Buddha and his enlightenment, and faith in the enlightenment of the other masters.
In Christianity you have just Jesus and have to have faith in his divinity and the existence of God without any intermediary sources. There are no other sons of God living in the world of today, nor does God walk the Earth.
In Buddhism and Christianity both you have the "teacher" that is enlightened or divine, and you have the teachings that have been preserved, but in Buddhism alone do you have a continuity of enlightenment that more easily facilitates confidence that this path leads somewhere in this very life.
But it's still ultimately faith based. Everything is. Faith in the Buddha, faith in your alarm clock going off, faith in the traffic lights changing at the right time. Faith, everywhere and always.
@Cloud Thanks for the two cents The big difference that you are missing is what we call Theosis or deification. It is becoming what God is by nature through grace by participating in His divine Uncreated Energies. So the saints are revealed to as participants in that grace, or sons and daughters by adoption if you will. Thought you might like to know. This is quite different from Roman Catholicism and other fragmented forms of Western Christianity.
Precisely. That's what we have. Faith, and it deepens with experience. Buddhism without faith in the Buddha's enlightenment is just a philosophy. What of Shikantaza? Without any technical pyrotechnics. Faith that when one sits as the Buddha one is the Buddha. How do you prove enlightenment?
Don't get me wrong. I think faith (in any religion) is as important as fact...providing the individual knows the difference between the two.
But you have faith in the Buddha and his enlightenment, and faith in the enlightenment of the other masters.
But it's still ultimately faith based. Everything is. Faith in the Buddha, faith in your alarm clock going off, faith in the traffic lights changing at the right time. Faith, everywhere and always.
But you have faith in the Buddha and his enlightenment, and faith in the enlightenment of the other masters.
But it's still ultimately faith based. Everything is. Faith in the Buddha, faith in your alarm clock going off, faith in the traffic lights changing at the right time. Faith, everywhere and always.
Well said!
There are different kinds of faith. Faith in holy scripture being Truth because the scripture tells you it's Truth is blind faith.
Faith in your alarm clock going off in the morning is based on previous experience and the knowledge you have set it correctly.
Faith in Buddhist teachings can be "Well, the Buddha was correct about 'that', so maybe he is correct about 'this'!"
The latter kind of faith is more intellectually honest and rational.
Faith in your alarm clock going off in the morning is based on previous experience and the knowledge you have set it correctly.
You still have to go on faith. Intellectual honesty would include the inability to guarantee anything. Sure, the alarm clock has gone off every time before, and you can set it properly, but what if there's a power outage or an earthquake you know? So it really does boil down to faith. All of our actions boil down to faith, and whenever we're shocked by anything it's only because we had faith in another outcome.
I would say that perhaps in the very initial stages one's spiritual development there is a sort of blind faith in the hope liberation or salvation. Perhaps its an inate quality to seek for lastong peace and joy. And before someone pounces to correct me meaning freedom from suffering. However, if they say otherwise why bother following a spiritual path.
I don't believe Buddha asked for anyone to have faith, but actually says to not believe any teaching unless it rings true... it's for you to discover. Quite the opposite of faith based religions.
But then you have to have faith in your findings
Experience and Faith are apples and oranges... you learn from experiences, that builds your reality, and realities can be different for each individual. If you experience God, then by all means, God is real, but real to you, not necessarily to me. I view faith as lack of any proof.
But this brings the question back around... did God create us or did we create God?
Is enlightenment possible if we don' t talk about? To answer your question yes. In Eastern Orthodox Chritisnity union with God is called Inner Stillness or Silence.
The point was, let's say there is a God. Let's say we don't care and we don't talk about it and we don't pay respects to it, etc. What then of God? Is it striking you down when it's your time? Is it lifting you up when it feels inspired to do so? If it is functioning regardless of our admiration or recognition of it, then why dote over it? Because doting over it leads to the cessation of suffering? Isn't the very question of the existence of God something that leads to suffering? If it's a God that needs our attention and praise then it's not really all-powerful and such, now is it? It's the power that we grant it. If we grant it no power, then what changes? Does God change? Does God need our recognition? We spend a lot of time asking "what" but maybe we need to ask "why", instead. Why do we need God? Why do we want God? If God has a plan for us then why bother questioning it? Why not live life and never mention God or even think of it?
I don't believe Buddha asked for anyone to have faith, but actually says to not believe any teaching unless it rings true... it's for you to discover. Quite the opposite of faith based religions.
But then you have to have faith in your findings
Experience and Faith are apples and oranges... you learn from experiences, that builds your reality, and realities can be different for each individual. If you experience God, then by all means, God is real, but real to you, not necessarily to me. I view faith as lack of any proof.
But this brings the question back around... did God create us or did we create God?
And so you have faith that that way of looking at things is the correct one. Yes, I could go on like that all day
@TheBeejAbides Truly I say to you it is rather late for me and these are many questions, and I only have access to my cell phone. I will address your questions specifically as soon as I'm able and free to do so. However, are in error we need God and not the other way around.
@Telly03 I will expound on your comment when able as well.
The point was, let's say there is a God. Let's say we don't care and we don't talk about it and we don't pay respects to it, etc. What then of God? Is it striking you down when it's your time? Is it lifting you up when it feels inspired to do so? If it is functioning regardless of our admiration or recognition of it, then why dote over it? Because doting over it leads to the cessation of suffering? Isn't the very question of the existence of God something that leads to suffering? If it's a God that needs our attention and praise then it's not really all-powerful and such, now is it? It's the power that we grant it. If we grant it no power, then what changes? Does God change? Does God need our recognition? We spend a lot of time asking "what" but maybe we need to ask "why", instead. Why do we need God? Why do we want God? If God has a plan for us then why bother questioning it? Why not live life and never mention God or even think of it?
We need God to help us make sense of the chaos we experience... Buddhism is another way to make sense of it.
Comments
If there is one reality that we're all part of, it would make sense that those who experience the nature of this reality (over the course of history) would interpret it differently, given many factors including their traditions and "common knowledge". Did the Buddha not do the same, and use terms known to himself and others such as karma and dukkha? Jesus may not have known fully the origin and cessation of suffering, even if he knew of our Unity (seeing that we only harm ourselves). The interesting parallels between Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and Christianity would then seem to all be pointing to the same Moon (Ultimate Reality).
It's all a matter of perspective and my personal opinion. Take it as you like, or leave it and cancel your subscription.
God is a meaningless word because it has so many meanings.
And what's the "ultimate reality" you mention at the end of your post?
Obviously each one of these (each religion) is going to claim that their view is correct and the others wrong, rather than admitting in any way that they might be describing different parts of the same elephant! They'll all say "no, this is what the elephant is like", and yet all be correct (yet incomplete) in themselves.
Did religion cause civilization or did civilization cause religion?
The answer to my question is "yes".
http://news.yahoo.com/baywatch-star-abandons-search-noahs-ark-fearing-abduction-192658175.html
Why can't we just admit that we don't know instead of creating a story based on our non fact imagination, then feel a need to defend it and push it on others, as if we will be proven correct if others will buy into it.
After all, Siddhartha's mother did become miraculously pregnant after a white elephant entered her abdomen. Right?
My attraction to Buddhism is the learning and experiencing, without the requirement of "faith"... The whole idea of eliminating suffering made sense to me, it really has nothing to do with the God argument.
Well, it seems like quite a lot of Buddhists are quick to denigrate the teachings on the realms and rebirth these days.
But I agree, it's inconsistent to be skeptical about one belief system and accepting of another. Unless one system makes more sense than the other, and it could be argued that the realms/rebirth model taught in Buddhism hangs together more consistently than the heaven and hell dichotomy taught in Christianity.
In any case we simply don't know, so perhaps it's best to keep an open mind.
http://science.discovery.com/videos/through-the-wormhole-did-we-invent-god/
Why did you and continue to take refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha?
In Buddhism there have been enlightened masters ever since the Buddha. You can actually go out and meet them and learn from them, so although they're not the Buddha himself they are liberated beings like he was. This "Noble Sangha" is something that connects the time of the Buddha and the present, and so the faith or confidence in Buddhism isn't just regarding the Buddha's enlightenment.
In Christianity you have just Jesus and have to have faith in his divinity and the existence of God without any intermediary sources. There are no other sons of God living in the world of today, nor does God walk the Earth. And so much greater faith is required. Also faith/belief in Jesus and God do not lead anywhere "in this life", you can't know heaven or hell in truth until after death.
In Buddhism and Christianity both you have the "teacher" that is enlightened or divine, and you have the teachings that have been preserved, but in Buddhism alone do you have a continuity of enlightenment that more easily facilitates confidence that this Noble Eightfold Path leads somewhere in this very life.
That's my two cents thrown in.
Thanks for the two cents
Faith in your alarm clock going off in the morning is based on previous experience and the knowledge you have set it correctly.
Faith in Buddhist teachings can be "Well, the Buddha was correct about 'that', so maybe he is correct about 'this'!"
The latter kind of faith is more intellectually honest and rational.
But this brings the question back around... did God create us or did we create God?
Most people I know
Truly I say to you it is rather late for me and these are many questions, and I only have access to my cell phone. I will address your questions specifically as soon as I'm able and free to do so. However, are in error we need God and not the other way around.
@Telly03
I will expound on your comment when able as well.
:-)