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.
Personally, I tend to think of God as being more akin to nibbana, the deathless, which transcends human concepts and language and is impossible to discard.
Nibbana is an existing reality much the same as the God of the mystics, who is often called Nothing and Empty by the likes of Denys the Areopagite, Duns Scotus Erigena, and Meister Eckhart (cf., nibbana paranam sunnam and nibbanam paramam sukham, 'nibbana is the supreme emptiness' and 'nibbana is the supreme happiness').
The path leading to God/nibbana is more like the raft that's no longer needed once the destination has been reached.
saw this in a book I am reading and found it interesting. I was reading comments on a discussion online yesterday and several Christians were pointing out how they are told to speak and share their religion (which in turn often leads them to condemn others) and I'm not sure they have any idea how bad it makes their religion look. Same with others, but that is what was on my mind in light of the discussion I was reading. This is from "Saffron Days in LA: Tales of a Buddhist Monk in America" by Bhante Walpola Piyananda. The quote is attributed to Emperor Asoka of India in the 3rd century
"One should not honor one's own religion and condemn the religions of others, but rather should honor others' religion. If acting otherwise, one digs the grave of one's own religions, and does harm to other religions. Whosoever honors his own religion and condemns that of others does so indeed through devotion to his own religion, thinking, 'I will glorify my own religion.' But, on the contrary, in so doing he or she injures their own religion more gravely.
3
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I think we're veering a little bit.
I don't think anyone here has condemned the beliefs or practices of others, but it's an interesting quotation, particularly as it hails from so long ago...
No, I didn't mean to direct it to anyone here. I just found it interesting in light of the title about the future of world religions and that it was from so long ago. We really don't work in the right direction, do we? lol
I think it applies to all religions though. It's easy to think yours has all the right answers while convincing ourselves the none of the others do. Really, they all have mostly the same answers in just a different format and when we waste our time talking smack about other religions, we do a better job of misrepresenting our own and making it look bad than we do making it look good.
I find it to be true for me. It might be the farthest thing from my mind, but then someone might go around proclaiming their own religion and my first thought is usually "Yikes." The comments that lead me to the thought were about a billboard post that said "religion is like a penis. it's good to have one. It's fine to be proud of it. It's not ok to whip it out in public whenever you want." Many Christians in the comment section backed up their belief that it is their Godly duty to proclaim their religion everywhere they go. But really, it doesn't do them OR anyone else any good. Spiritual (no matter the religion) journeys are solo journeys and they should be mostly kept that way. That would be my ideal future of religion. That people keep it to themselves, but live it skillfully.
2
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
"Tracing the origin of Mahā Brahma, the so-called Creator-God, the Buddha comments in the Pātika Sutta. [4]
"On this, O disciples, that being who was first born (in a new world evolution) thinks thus: 'I am Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Vanquisher, the All-Seer, the Disposer, the Lord, the Maker, the Creator, the Chief, the Assigner, the Master of Myself, the Father of all that are and are to be. By me are these beings created. And why is that so? A while ago I thought: Would that other beings too might come to this state of being! Such was the aspiration of my mind, and lo! these beings did come.
"And those beings themselves who arose after him, they too think thus: 'This Worthy must be Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Vanquisher, the All-Seer, the Disposer, the Lord, the Maker, the Creator, the Chief, the Assigner, the Master of Myself, the Father of all that are and are to be.
"On this, O disciples, that being who arose first becomes longer lived, handsomer, and more powerful, but those who appeared after him become shorter lived, less comely, less powerful. And it might well be, O disciples, that some other being, on deceasing from that state, would come to this state (on earth) and so come, he might go forth from the household life into the homeless state. And having thus gone forth, by reason of ardour, effort, devotion, earnestness, perfect intellection, he reaches up to such rapt concentration, that with rapt mind he calls to mind his former dwelling place, but remembers not what went before. He says thus: 'That Worshipful Brahma, the Vanquisher, the All-Seer, the Disposer, the Lord, the Maker, the Creator, the Chief, the Assigner, the Master of Myself, the Father of all that are and are to be, he by whom we were created, he is permanent, constant, eternal, un-changing, and he will remain so for ever and ever. But we who were created by that Brahma, we have come hither all impermanent, transient, unstable, short-lived, destined to pass away.'
"Thus was appointed the beginning of all things, which ye, sirs, declare as your traditional doctrine, to wit, that it has been wrought by an over-lord, by Brahma." "
_
this is interesting because it says yes there is a mind/ being that was first. Other arisings came afterwards (evolving to this realm) so the assumption arose in him he was the CREATOR because he arrived first. We, he(the Creator) can neither approve that nor can we/he disapprove it. In either case it looks like we are left with that that we are all one. MIND and because of our ignorance the illusion of a You or the Other.
Discussing illusory temporary arisings is dangerous because is it softening our hearts or are we building a new boundary around our heart.
I understand more and more why HH the Dalai Lama stated my religion is kindness and this concept of kindness I think is really worth working for in the future
Comments
Most Christians don't regard God as a raft to be discarded though, and that's where the contradiction lies.
For sure,
people are serious about their beliefs.
Personally, I tend to think of God as being more akin to nibbana, the deathless, which transcends human concepts and language and is impossible to discard.
Nibbana is an existing reality much the same as the God of the mystics, who is often called Nothing and Empty by the likes of Denys the Areopagite, Duns Scotus Erigena, and Meister Eckhart (cf., nibbana paranam sunnam and nibbanam paramam sukham, 'nibbana is the supreme emptiness' and 'nibbana is the supreme happiness').
The path leading to God/nibbana is more like the raft that's no longer needed once the destination has been reached.
saw this in a book I am reading and found it interesting. I was reading comments on a discussion online yesterday and several Christians were pointing out how they are told to speak and share their religion (which in turn often leads them to condemn others) and I'm not sure they have any idea how bad it makes their religion look. Same with others, but that is what was on my mind in light of the discussion I was reading. This is from "Saffron Days in LA: Tales of a Buddhist Monk in America" by Bhante Walpola Piyananda. The quote is attributed to Emperor Asoka of India in the 3rd century
"One should not honor one's own religion and condemn the religions of others, but rather should honor others' religion. If acting otherwise, one digs the grave of one's own religions, and does harm to other religions. Whosoever honors his own religion and condemns that of others does so indeed through devotion to his own religion, thinking, 'I will glorify my own religion.' But, on the contrary, in so doing he or she injures their own religion more gravely.
I think we're veering a little bit.
I don't think anyone here has condemned the beliefs or practices of others, but it's an interesting quotation, particularly as it hails from so long ago...
No, I didn't mean to direct it to anyone here. I just found it interesting in light of the title about the future of world religions and that it was from so long ago. We really don't work in the right direction, do we? lol
I think it applies to all religions though. It's easy to think yours has all the right answers while convincing ourselves the none of the others do. Really, they all have mostly the same answers in just a different format and when we waste our time talking smack about other religions, we do a better job of misrepresenting our own and making it look bad than we do making it look good.
I find it to be true for me. It might be the farthest thing from my mind, but then someone might go around proclaiming their own religion and my first thought is usually "Yikes." The comments that lead me to the thought were about a billboard post that said "religion is like a penis. it's good to have one. It's fine to be proud of it. It's not ok to whip it out in public whenever you want." Many Christians in the comment section backed up their belief that it is their Godly duty to proclaim their religion everywhere they go. But really, it doesn't do them OR anyone else any good. Spiritual (no matter the religion) journeys are solo journeys and they should be mostly kept that way. That would be my ideal future of religion. That people keep it to themselves, but live it skillfully.
Yup, I can go with that.
_this question of god or not god Buddha said _
"Tracing the origin of Mahā Brahma, the so-called Creator-God, the Buddha comments in the Pātika Sutta. [4]
"On this, O disciples, that being who was first born (in a new world evolution) thinks thus: 'I am Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Vanquisher, the All-Seer, the Disposer, the Lord, the Maker, the Creator, the Chief, the Assigner, the Master of Myself, the Father of all that are and are to be. By me are these beings created. And why is that so? A while ago I thought: Would that other beings too might come to this state of being! Such was the aspiration of my mind, and lo! these beings did come.
"And those beings themselves who arose after him, they too think thus: 'This Worthy must be Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Vanquisher, the All-Seer, the Disposer, the Lord, the Maker, the Creator, the Chief, the Assigner, the Master of Myself, the Father of all that are and are to be.
"On this, O disciples, that being who arose first becomes longer lived, handsomer, and more powerful, but those who appeared after him become shorter lived, less comely, less powerful. And it might well be, O disciples, that some other being, on deceasing from that state, would come to this state (on earth) and so come, he might go forth from the household life into the homeless state. And having thus gone forth, by reason of ardour, effort, devotion, earnestness, perfect intellection, he reaches up to such rapt concentration, that with rapt mind he calls to mind his former dwelling place, but remembers not what went before. He says thus: 'That Worshipful Brahma, the Vanquisher, the All-Seer, the Disposer, the Lord, the Maker, the Creator, the Chief, the Assigner, the Master of Myself, the Father of all that are and are to be, he by whom we were created, he is permanent, constant, eternal, un-changing, and he will remain so for ever and ever. But we who were created by that Brahma, we have come hither all impermanent, transient, unstable, short-lived, destined to pass away.'
"Thus was appointed the beginning of all things, which ye, sirs, declare as your traditional doctrine, to wit, that it has been wrought by an over-lord, by Brahma." "
_
this is interesting because it says yes there is a mind/ being that was first. Other arisings came afterwards (evolving to this realm) so the assumption arose in him he was the CREATOR because he arrived first. We, he(the Creator) can neither approve that nor can we/he disapprove it. In either case it looks like we are left with that that we are all one. MIND and because of our ignorance the illusion of a You or the Other.
Discussing illusory temporary arisings is dangerous because is it softening our hearts or are we building a new boundary around our heart.
I understand more and more why HH the Dalai Lama stated my religion is kindness and this concept of kindness I think is really worth working for in the future