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.
An intriguing observation.
Jason
God EmperorArrakis Moderator
Everyone,
To me, this statement reflects the general attitude of society more than anything else. It seems that since the beginning of recorded history, humanity has ignored the fact that we are all capable of committing evil deeds by body, speech, and mind while condemning those that have simply been caught in the act.
This particular attitude brings to mind the story of Jesus in The Gospel of John. A woman was caught committing adultery, and those of Jesus’ time brought her to him asking what he had to say about her. They were not only intent on punishing her by stoning, but seeking to find some fault within him as well.
With this attitude of only seeing the faults in others, it is odd that the world is not worse than it is. Jesus' answer does for them exactly what this quotation from Bhikkhu Nanamoli's A Thinker's Note Book does for me. He said, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” (John 8:7)
Those who understood the meaning of this realized that none of us is perfect, and if we are to find fault in another, we should look to our own deeds before passing judgment. Our perception is often that the majority of our deeds are as pure as the water, when in reality, that could not be further from the truth.
In this world, evil appears more effective because we often ignore our own intentions out of our lust for the fulfillment of our sensual desires. Nevertheless, we are always on the look out for signs that others have acted inappropriately—perhaps to focus our awareness on the criminals outside instead of the ones inside.
Sincerely,
Jason
"Like the drop of ink in the glass of water and the drop of water in the glass of ink. An evil doer does not purify his reputation with one good act, but the virtuous man ruins his reputation by one bad action. So evil would seem more effective than good. Odd that the world is not worse than it is." (Apr. 51)
- Bhikkhu Nanamoli from A Thinker's Note Book
To me, this statement reflects the general attitude of society more than anything else. It seems that since the beginning of recorded history, humanity has ignored the fact that we are all capable of committing evil deeds by body, speech, and mind while condemning those that have simply been caught in the act.
This particular attitude brings to mind the story of Jesus in The Gospel of John. A woman was caught committing adultery, and those of Jesus’ time brought her to him asking what he had to say about her. They were not only intent on punishing her by stoning, but seeking to find some fault within him as well.
With this attitude of only seeing the faults in others, it is odd that the world is not worse than it is. Jesus' answer does for them exactly what this quotation from Bhikkhu Nanamoli's A Thinker's Note Book does for me. He said, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” (John 8:7)
Those who understood the meaning of this realized that none of us is perfect, and if we are to find fault in another, we should look to our own deeds before passing judgment. Our perception is often that the majority of our deeds are as pure as the water, when in reality, that could not be further from the truth.
In this world, evil appears more effective because we often ignore our own intentions out of our lust for the fulfillment of our sensual desires. Nevertheless, we are always on the look out for signs that others have acted inappropriately—perhaps to focus our awareness on the criminals outside instead of the ones inside.
Sincerely,
Jason
0
Comments
Palzang
I agree. This is one place where the teachings on kamma and rebirth can be extremely useful in our practice. I think that besides reflecting on the unskillfulness our past actions, learning to observe our present actions and then reflecting on the subsequent consequences of those actions can act as an antidote to such thinking as well. This goes all the way back to the Buddha’s instructions to his son (MN 61) in which he stressed the importance of honesty in one’s practice as well as the importance of constant reflection on one's motives. As easy as it sounds, it is something that the mind of an ordinary, run-of-the-mill being has incredible difficulty with doing consistently.
Respectfully,
Jason
The story is not about the woman or about the accusers, it is about Jesus. Within the context, Jesus is described as 'sinless' so that he is the only person there who would, under his own stricture, be entitled to throw a stone. There are Jewish commentaries to this effect.
If we bring together with this story another text from 'John', we find that Jesus tells his group, at dinner, that they can understand God by understanding him. Thus, from the story of the woman 'taken in adultery', we need to learn that God does not condemn. An interesting lesson for the 'Paulists' who spend all their time trying to turn underlying compassion/wisdom into some sort of hanging judge.
For those of us who have not achieved a full awareness of karma and rebirth as realities rather than as metaphors, these stories of the incarnation of compassion help us towards the non-judgment that empowers peace between people.
[I hope that you will forgive the Christian exegesis. I wanted to enlarge the usual, 'pulpit' explanations that put condemnation onto the accusers: in the story no one ends up accused or condemned.]
This is precisely the problem of 'religious education' which, to judge from its outcomes, aims to put people off the study of scripture or the practice of the virtues!
I was aware that this particular story concerned Jesus; however, it was not so much Jesus that I was interested in when I referenced it as it was those around him. In particular, I was more interested in the accusers themselves, who to me reflected the general attitude of society. While Jesus' reply was meant to show something profound about him, it also showed something profound about the ordinary, run-of-the-mill mind—the way it can hide its own faults while at the same time going outside to highlight another's.
What I got from this story was the same general message that I received from the Buddha's instructions to his son Rahula—honesty in one’s practice as well as the importance of constant reflection on one's motives. Nevertheless, I appreciate your exegesis, as I am always open to learning more about the intended meanings of certain teachings besides my own personal reflections and interpretations. I am not sure what you think, but perhaps this thread might find a better home in the Jesus and Buddha sub-forum.
Respectfully,
Jason
Fascinating, isn't it, that both of these teachers of compassion challenge the mundane mind-set with examples that contradict most of our received ideas. After all, the punishment for adultery (by women, at least) was stoning to death. It was seen as one of the props of family values, so dear to many of today's politicians!
I do not think that you detracted from my take on the story at all, but simply added onto to it—albeit from a different perspective, but a valid and important one nonetheless. To be quite honest, I did not know if my interpretation had anything to do with the original intent of this story, but it certainly inspired that idea of inner honesty and self-reflection, as well as their importance, to me.
Jason
There's a terrible joke I heard once about this story...after Jesus says what he says, the people gathered slowly drop the stones in their hands and then out of the blue comes a stone that hits the woman. Jesus says, "You know, mother, sometimes you really piss me off."
LOL!!!
[SERIOUS BIT - BUT CATHOLIC NOT BUDDHIST:
In Catholic doctrine, and as a matter of defined faith since 1870, Mary, the Mother of Jesus, is believed to have been conceived without the stain of Original Sin, which is the inheritance of every descendant of our 'First Parents': the flaw in creation that is the natural tendency to get things wrong. Without this stain, she is "full of grace" and the 'pure vessel' from whom the Saviour could be born. Whilst setting her apart from all other humans since the First, it does not make her divine in any non-human way. Jesus, on the other hand, as the Incarnation of the Self-Emptying Father, is, of his nature, sinless. This is a point that 'John' makes from the very first chapter of the Fourth Gospel.
Very few Catholic doctrines have been more misunderstood, misrepresented or misinterpreted than that of the Immaculate Conception, which is probably why it took the Church so many centuries to declare it to de de fide. Just as non-Buddhist deify the Buddha Shakyamuni , so non-Catholics do the same to Mary, as ways of discrediting these two incredible human beings who were prepared to go through what they did in order to bring liberation to their fellow-humans.
I hope you will forgive this bit of Catholic Christian theology. It is hurtful when one whom we respect and reverence is misunderstood. This is not to say that I object in any way to jokes - I have a few of my own. My image of the Theotokos is always of a laughing mother!]
I can't tell you how many times I've had people disagree with me over the question of the Immaculate Conception. Even Catholics I've known, who have studied, have argued with me vehemently that the Immaculate Conception was about Jesus being conceived without his parents having consummated their marriage. In other words, they confuse the Virgin Birth with The Immaculate Conception. It was such a common misunderstanding that I stopped arguing about it after a while.
Anyway, sorry. I'm off topic and shall sort myself out now.
[And you are quite right, the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth refer to two succeeding an d different generations of the family. If you want to wonder about why I.C. took so long to define, you may want to consider that it could have something to do with the centuries' long argument about when the soul enters the unborn infant and the problem of women having 'lesser' souls as per Thomas Aquinas - but that is certainly[/] off topic and off these boards]
As for the Immaculate Conception, I remember taking my parents to see the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception at Catholic University in Washington, DC, years ago. My dad asked a priest who was lurking around if that referred to the immaculate conception of Jesus, and the priest explained that it referred to Mary's conception. Both my dad and I were stunned. That was so foreign to us. The way I was brought up, in a rather severe Swedish protestant church, the immaculate conception was taught to be the conception of Jesus, not Mary. This whole concept of Mary's birth being "immaculate" seemed very bizarre to us and typically Catholic. It seems to me that the whole Mary thing in Catholicism is simply a vestige of Roman goddess worship and is thus quite laughable. I'm sorry, but I'll never understand what it all has to do with Christianity, or rather (since Christianity has very little to do with what Jesus taught anyway) what it has to do with Jesus and his teachings!
Palzang
Suffice it to say that I have a little diptych (two-panel, hinged religious picture), a gift from HHDL, of Jesus as Pantocrator (Lord of All) and Mary as Theotokos (Mother of God). It often stands next to the statue of Kwan Yin. Goddess reverence is much older and spread far wider than those nasty Romans.
Quite true, but I'm sure it snuck into Christianity via the Romans.
Palzang
Just as a footnote, Saint Paul was born in Tarsus which is in Anatolia. "Anatolia" means "the Land of the Mother". Long, long before the Romans raped the Sabine women to found their state, the Mother was celebrated in such ancient sites as Catal Huyuk. Intresting, too, that the nun whose visions were used in that horrid film The Passion of the Christ, Anna Katherine Emmerich, had visions of Mary the Mother living her last dys and dying in Ephesus which is also in the same area of what is now Turkey.
Palzang