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.
...But from what I see here, the churches do not teach it any differently than they did when I was a kid. ...
Once or twice a year I do go to a Methodist Church, which is the religion in which I was first raised. Much of it is so much the same as 50+ years ago. But, I have been pleased to see that there is rarely a mention of the Old Testament. It is almost exclusively all New Testament. Of course, that may just be that minister and that church.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
See, I've provided links, quotes and references to back my PoV up. I've shown you where the two teachings are similar to the point of being arguably, interchangeable.
I haver indicated the possible flaw in your perception, regarding the Biblical reference.
So if you can tell me where the holes are, I'm here with my trowel, at the ready....
@Kerome your mention of Universalists is interesting. There is a church in my area I want to check out. Upon reading their website they very much seem to be more concerned with compassion and embracing our differences rather than ignoring them or at worst substantiating them. I think it would be good to put the (Buddhist?) intellectual work I've been doing to practice with this church (multi faith Sangha?).
I think all these issues stem from teachings being lost in translation due to societal influences. When you cut that away as the Universalists have tried a purer form of love is very obvious. Isn't this what all original religious intent comes down to? Due to religions larger than life aspects there is a certain awe and beauty from which love naturally grows. The core teachings which focus on looking outside of ourselves all ring the same.
"My religion is very simple. My religion is kindness." - Dalai Lama
Around the Day of my First Communion, I realized I did not identify with my Catholic faith.
I was offered the Bible a few days before the ceremony, and was not much impressed by what I read.
As a gift for the family celebration, I was offered a book on ancient China and discovered Lao Tzu and his Tao Te Ching.
That was the biggest turning-point in my life, and the beginning of a path that gradually led me to Buddhism.
I never felt the need to revert back to Christianity.
Buddhism has answered my every question.
One can reason that metta and agape are similar. However, the theological and philosophical roots are different. In eastern orthodox school, theosis and kenosis are two of the most important concepts. Agape is only seen within the context of these two ideas. Metta, otoh, is not based on any specific doctrine. Rather, it's a general exhortation to be kind so as to clear the mind of disturbance or accumulate good karma or any number of reasons. So while the two ideas - agape and metta - appear similar on the surface, the philosophical and theological basis are completely different.
Can Christ help Christians? Buddhists? Just irrelevant? Too hard/unrealistic?
The Buddha's Dharma is enough for this practitioner...The more I delved into the Dharma, the more the other belief systems became irrelevant, nothing to offer or contribute to the spiritual path I tread....
I have no need to seek out the wisdom of any of the Abrahamic religions, (well apart from Sufism that is, which I find more accommodating, especially the poems of Rumi & Hafiz )
Different strokes for different folks I guess...some might find the Christzen path helpful (perhaps even comforting) ...Whatever floats or rocks their boat
I find the Buddha's Dharma to be a One Stop Spiritual Shop it has all that this "I" needs (for the life raft)
@vinlyn said:
I just don't find Buddhism to be consistent with a closed mind. In fact, Siddhartha realized Buddhism by being open-minded.
I can only guess that people with a certain age, that come from another religious background and voluntarily decide to take up Buddhism, can be nothing but open-minded.
The fact that Buddhadhamma satisfies all questions and existential ponderings for some people and they don't find that in Christianity or other religions, does not mean one is closed-minded.
It simply means one has found one's answers.
If anything, I do love Taoism and continue to read the Tao Te Ching.
But like @Shoshin said above, Buddhadhamma is also my One Stop Spiritual Shop.
Can Christ help Christians? Buddhists? Just irrelevant? Too hard/unrealistic?
The Buddha's Dharma is enough for this practitioner...The more I delved into the Dharma, the more the other belief systems became irrelevant, nothing to offer or contribute to the spiritual path I tread....
I have no need to seek out the wisdom of any of the Abrahamic religions, (well apart from Sufism that is, which I find more accommodating, especially the poems of Rumi & Hafiz )
Different strokes for different folks I guess...some might find the Christzen path helpful (perhaps even comforting) ...Whatever floats or rocks their boat
I find the Buddha's Dharma to be a One Stop Spiritual Shop it has all that this "I" needs (for the life raft)
The same for me @Shoshin . Buddhism is a one stop shop for me too.
@vinlyn said:
I just don't find Buddhism to be consistent with a closed mind. In fact, Siddhartha realized Buddhism by being open-minded.
I couldn't agree more @vinlyn ...And you have every right to see things your way and if I were in your shoes I would see things the same...However I'm not in your shoes just as you are not in mine, so we see things differently ....I'm open to this ...are you ?
The Buddha's Dharma has really opened my mind's eye...in fact...I have found...
When it comes to 'my' spiritual path, I personally don't find the Abrahamic religions relevant, but this does not mean that they hold no relevance for others, some might draw great satisfaction and comfort from some aspects of the Abrahamic belief system ...Good on them for doing so.... But they ( the Abrahamic religions) are just not my cup of tea...I can do without them...
Perhaps it's all down to one's conditioning ...who knows...
I enjoy learning about many religions, and I find wisdom in most (maybe even all) of them. But for me it is more so a way to relate to others. I find that I can better explain what I mean when I discuss Buddhism with, say, family members, if I can draw comparisons and contrasts to their own religion. I find it unique that I can view the world via my Buddhist lens and it doesn't restrict me from understanding other religions. Yet the same is not true for most other religions. I study other religions for a base of information, I do not delve into it and work with it as I do Buddhadharma. But having a base understanding of other faiths/beliefs gives me a better idea of the people I share the world with.
If someone finds peace in using teachings of Jesus with their Dharma, then I'm not one to tell them they can't or that they are wrong. I still practice Pagan rituals because I find them comforting and meaningful for the huge part of me that is immensely connected to our natural world. I'm sure some people would consider that "magic" that has no place. But it doesn't matter to me. My spiritual practices are many, but defining them to put them in a neat little container just isn't necessary to me. Necessary to communicate, yes. But as far as how I practice and feel about them, I don't segment them into "now I am doing a Pagan Solstice Practice and later I will be doing a Buddhist practice." They are all just wrapped up into what works for me. I get tired of the little boxes we put all aspects of ourselves and our lives into. Like we are nothing more than those little lunch containers that you pack into a larger lunch box/cooler. I prefer the chaos between the neat little boxes where my life isn't so defined.
5
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
I do quite enjoy the Christian celebrations just because there is something comforting about the ritual. Christmas, Easter, the days around the ascension, they're all still public holidays here even though 65% of the country is no longer Christian. And they are still celebrated in various locations.
Similarly I do track the longest and shortest day of the year and a few other aspects of the solar calendar, because it makes me feel in touch with the seasons. I don't do any particular rituals but I honour the days.
Buddhism has opened my eyes to all the world's wisdom. Though I want to study everything and experience new things I believe Buddhism will always be my "home base"
@eggsavior said:
Buddhism has opened my eyes to all the world's wisdom. Though I want to study everything and experience new things I believe Buddhism will always be my "home base"
I like your concept of "home base"!
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited June 2017
@Kerome said:
I do quite enjoy the Christian celebrations just because there is something comforting about the ritual. Christmas, Easter, the days around the ascension, they're all still public holidays here even though 65% of the country is no longer Christian. And they are still celebrated in various locations.
Similarly I do track the longest and shortest day of the year and a few other aspects of the solar calendar, because it makes me feel in touch with the seasons. I don't do any particular rituals but I honour the days.
Still holding my trowel, @Kerome, in case you're wondering....
(I used to be a terrier in my previous life. Never let go of a bone that needs burying... )
2
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
@Kerome said:
I do quite enjoy the Christian celebrations just because there is something comforting about the ritual. Christmas, Easter, the days around the ascension, they're all still public holidays here even though 65% of the country is no longer Christian. And they are still celebrated in various locations.
Similarly I do track the longest and shortest day of the year and a few other aspects of the solar calendar, because it makes me feel in touch with the seasons. I don't do any particular rituals but I honour the days.
Still holding my trowel, @Kerome, in case you're wondering....
(I used to be a terrier in my previous life. Never let go of a bone that needs burying... )
Guess I'm not very terrier-like... I don't feel the need to argue
"The most essential method which includes all other methods is to behold the Mind...The Mind is the root from which all things grow...If one can understand the Mind...Everything else is included !"
~BodhiDharma~
Hence why the Buddha Dharma is all that I need ...The "One Stop Spiritual Shop"... It includes "all other methods" by helping one to explore the root from which "all things grow" ( Including other belief systems )
@Shoshin said: "The most essential method which includes all other methods is to behold the Mind...The Mind is the root from which all things grow...If one can understand the Mind...Everything else is included !"
~BodhiDharma~
This reminds me of a favourite quote from Milarepa:
"I attain all my knowledge through observing the mind within...
Thus all my thoughts become the teaching of the Dharma,
and apparent phenomena are all the books one needs."
@Shoshin said: "The most essential method which includes all other methods is to behold the Mind...The Mind is the root from which all things grow...If one can understand the Mind...Everything else is included !"
~BodhiDharma~
This reminds me of a favourite quote from Milarepa:
"I attain all my knowledge through observing the mind within...
Thus all my thoughts become the teaching of the Dharma,
and apparent phenomena are all the books one needs."
@Shoshin said: "The most essential method which includes all other methods is to behold the Mind...The Mind is the root from which all things grow...If one can understand the Mind...Everything else is included !"
~BodhiDharma~
This reminds me of a favourite quote from Milarepa:
"I attain all my knowledge through observing the mind within...
Thus all my thoughts become the teaching of the Dharma,
and apparent phenomena are all the books one needs."
Just curious. Where does he say this?
Samsara is long and the toil is hard.
Do what I do: read and do the homework
@Will_Baker said:
Technically, I'm nominally a member of the Church of Rome, with an unconventional practice...
PS. It seems to me @Kerome was spot on with respect to nurture as it relates to developmental psychology.
As I was discussing this aspect with him, could you elaborate? And please don't mention Freud!
@Kerome wrote: "I would say that any human's understanding of loving other humans begins with love of one's mother, and then expands to other members of the family and spouses/lovers. For many people it stops there.
So if you are supposed to love your neighbour, it makes sense to love him as if he was a member of your family, your context for loving humans. You can't love him as if he was a doughnut or a pet, or something abstract, after all.
It all comes back to context, our minds are built on ever expanding structures of learned context for what we perceive..."
Here's an article which get's to my point:
The mother's gaze, or the father's (if he is the primary caretaker), determines more than you might realize about how you come to see yourself, your place in the world, and the moral nature of people around you. "The meeting eyes of love," novelist George Eliot called this all-important connection. According to Dan Siegal, a psychologist who specializes in early parental bonding, every child yearns for, and must have, this eye contact for healthy emotional development to occur. Siegal, who founded a new field of research known as interpersonal neurobiology (IPNB), has proved that the mother's gaze plays a critical role in how we develop empathy.
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'm beginning to lose the context here.
I explained that the love as described by Christ has nothing to do with originating in the realms of maternal love.
I also pointed out the full, accurate and correct Biblical quotation.
I also explained that this is made clear when we learn catechism. I further pointed out the similarity to the biblical quotation, to the earlier teaching of the 4 Sublime States.
So while I understand that in the context of the edited quotation in @Kerome's post, this is what it sounds like, in actual fact, because Christians are given the full benefit of the complete quotation and its meaning, Kerome's presumption is incorrect.
I wasn't referring exclusively to the "God is love" matter, I was responding to the exchange I posted below. As an aside, since Jesus was a figure in history, it seems to me what he said and did should be viewed within the context of his humanity...
@Kerome said: "I would say that any human's understanding of loving other humans begins with love of one's mother, and then expands to other members of the family and spouses/lovers..."
@federica said: "You would say. Can't think of anyone I know who 'would say' the same..."
"Repeated tens of thousands of times in the child's life, these small moments of mutual rapport [serve to] transmit the best part of our humanity --our capacity for love -- from one generation to the next..."
"Not long before his death, the late Pope John Paul II, who lost his own mother at an early age, was intrigued enough by IPNB - especially Dan Siegal's work on the mother's gaze - to invite Siegal to the Vatican for a private meeting to discuss how the pontiff's being orphaned had impacted his psychological and spiritual life..."
"In the complex relationship between parents and children, our earliest bonding patterns are formed. Our first glimmers of being loved by our mother, thereby feeling ourselves to be lovable, are indissolubly linked to our ability to care for others in our maturity..."
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited June 2017
You're not getting what I'm telling you. We are talking at cross-purposes.
You are talking about psychological phenomena.
(These are not broadly accepted, implemented or promoted by Christian Doctrine or teaching, no matter who took any interest for themselves).
I am talking about classic Biblical instruction as compared to Buddhist Teachings, and the accepted theistic interpretation thereof...
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited June 2017
From the above article:
IPNB is applied by therapists, educators, leaders, coaches, change agents, artists, parents, partners…anyone interested in a state-of-the-art-and-science approach to human development and potential. IPNB offers a comprehensive and scientifically grounded theory of mental health and of healthy relating, illuminating the ongoing interactions of the mind, the brain, and relationships.
There is nothing there to suggest or imply that the Church, or any representative of any Theistic calling, is either compliant with, contributing to or enabling this process within their professional remit.
And I certainly can't see it being applied to, or over-riding the standard accepted teaching of Biblical matters. Not if it has anything to do with 'Science'....
@federica said:
You're not getting what I'm telling you. We are talking at cross-purposes.
** You are talking about psychological phenomena.
(These are not broadly accepted, implemented or promoted by Christian Doctrine or teaching**, no matter who took any interest for themselves).
I am talking about classic Biblical instruction as compared to Buddhist Teachings, and the accepted theistic interpretation thereof...
-I am referring to empathy, how it develops in a subject (including me, you and Jesus Christ :-) and the Catholic Church's position on it.
Matthew 22:36-40New International Version (NIV)
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
There are four core principles in the Catholic Church’s social teaching: the dignity of the human person, the pursuit of the common good, the value of solidarity, and subsidiarity—the idea that higher decision-making bodies should not restrict lower-level action. Each of these principles have been woven through successive papal encyclicals—official statements of Catholic teachings proclaimed by the pope—and other documents such as those of the Second Vatican Council.
Despite what anything might say online of the core principles of the Church I think you will find it varies widely depending on the people running the Church and the geographical area. There are a whole lot of things the current Pope has said but may Churches are rejecting, for example. But in the 4 principles you quoted, what do any of them have to do with the idea that "love your neighbor as yourself" has anything to do with the idea of expanding a type of love that we understand in Buddhism to everyone? Like I said, i'm not Catholic, but my mom is and I've been to plenty of services and there is definitely no "love everyone" or dignity offered to all people. Only people who suit the needs of the church and share their beliefs. The ideas we talk about here about how Buddhism discusses love and empathy and compassion is definitely not the same as anything I've ever heard about in a Christian sense from Church officials. Buddhist love is all-encompassing, regardless of the person and their faults. Christian love, as taught by many churches, focuses on faults and how far off the mark everyone is and God's love as long as you obey.
I guess in a nutshell, in Christianity (in my experience with regards to official teachings and Churches) love is an expression of and by God and is earned by obeying him. In Buddhism love is our true nature. Christians largely believe you cannot love (or experience anything like gratitude or other positive emotions) without God because He is what expresses that through you. Buddhism says all of that is our true nature. So when you bring parents into it, Christians will largely tell you that parental love is an expression of God and most definitely not your true nature because in their belief you cannot have it without God in your life. To me, they are very different.
But in the 4 principles you quoted, what do any of them have to do with the idea that "love your neighbor as yourself" has anything to do with the idea of expanding a type of love that we understand in Buddhism to everyone?
-It seems to me it has everything to do with it. There is no compassion without empathy and those 4 principles are empathetic responses. I'm not trying to be argumentative or provocative. I'm just saying, compassion is compassion...
PS. By the way, I for sure do not fancy myself an RC apologist! :-)
But I think as Buddhists, we are tending to read into those phrases something that is not taught in Christian churches (again, in my experience). WE can obviously see that compassion and empathy. But the perception I have of it now with a Buddhist practice and foundation is not nearly the same as the perception I had of it from within Christianity and it was not in any way taught as a form of compassion and empathy for all people. Despite what it says.
the perception I have of it now with a Buddhist practice and foundation is not nearly the same as the perception I had of it from within Christianity
-Agreed and well said...
@33_3 said:
I lived with Christian guilt for 50 of my 63 years.
Tee hee (sorry not funny) ... maybe you are guilty?
Thanks everyone and Jesus for the fish.
Some great posts.
I am a sinner (one of my hobbies). Also prefer the other cheek, for a good slap up ...
However ... the inner teachings of dharma are out ... and available as a comic ...
0
silverIn the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded.USA, Left coast.Veteran
Maybe for Him to say 'love thy neighbor as thyself' (was that it?) as a Christian growing up in Episcopal go-to-church-every week, my take on it then and now, is to 'love' thy neighbor - as in be fair in all your doings with all your loved ones - not so much treating the neighbor strictly as a family member. I mean, how could that be? It is very much a common sense thing and using it to interpret what he meant by 'love' in that context.
love neighbor as self,reminds me of the golden rule,that is ,imo,applicable in all religion.one of my mantra is treat others as self.it helps mind-heart to recall ,remind my brain,be nice....try again...when brain forget.personal christian-buddhist practice.
Comments
Once or twice a year I do go to a Methodist Church, which is the religion in which I was first raised. Much of it is so much the same as 50+ years ago. But, I have been pleased to see that there is rarely a mention of the Old Testament. It is almost exclusively all New Testament. Of course, that may just be that minister and that church.
See, I've provided links, quotes and references to back my PoV up. I've shown you where the two teachings are similar to the point of being arguably, interchangeable.
I haver indicated the possible flaw in your perception, regarding the Biblical reference.
So if you can tell me where the holes are, I'm here with my trowel, at the ready....
@Kerome your mention of Universalists is interesting. There is a church in my area I want to check out. Upon reading their website they very much seem to be more concerned with compassion and embracing our differences rather than ignoring them or at worst substantiating them. I think it would be good to put the (Buddhist?) intellectual work I've been doing to practice with this church (multi faith Sangha?).
I think all these issues stem from teachings being lost in translation due to societal influences. When you cut that away as the Universalists have tried a purer form of love is very obvious. Isn't this what all original religious intent comes down to? Due to religions larger than life aspects there is a certain awe and beauty from which love naturally grows. The core teachings which focus on looking outside of ourselves all ring the same.
"My religion is very simple. My religion is kindness." - Dalai Lama
Around the Day of my First Communion, I realized I did not identify with my Catholic faith.
I was offered the Bible a few days before the ceremony, and was not much impressed by what I read.
As a gift for the family celebration, I was offered a book on ancient China and discovered Lao Tzu and his Tao Te Ching.
That was the biggest turning-point in my life, and the beginning of a path that gradually led me to Buddhism.
I never felt the need to revert back to Christianity.
Buddhism has answered my every question.
One can reason that metta and agape are similar. However, the theological and philosophical roots are different. In eastern orthodox school, theosis and kenosis are two of the most important concepts. Agape is only seen within the context of these two ideas. Metta, otoh, is not based on any specific doctrine. Rather, it's a general exhortation to be kind so as to clear the mind of disturbance or accumulate good karma or any number of reasons. So while the two ideas - agape and metta - appear similar on the surface, the philosophical and theological basis are completely different.
The Buddha's Dharma is enough for this practitioner...The more I delved into the Dharma, the more the other belief systems became irrelevant, nothing to offer or contribute to the spiritual path I tread....
I have no need to seek out the wisdom of any of the Abrahamic religions, (well apart from Sufism that is, which I find more accommodating, especially the poems of Rumi & Hafiz
)
Different strokes for different folks I guess...some might find the Christzen path helpful (perhaps even comforting) ...Whatever floats or rocks their boat
I find the Buddha's Dharma to be a One Stop Spiritual Shop it has all that this "I" needs (for the life raft)
I just don't find Buddhism to be consistent with a closed mind. In fact, Siddhartha realized Buddhism by being open-minded.
I can only guess that people with a certain age, that come from another religious background and voluntarily decide to take up Buddhism, can be nothing but open-minded.
The fact that Buddhadhamma satisfies all questions and existential ponderings for some people and they don't find that in Christianity or other religions, does not mean one is closed-minded.
It simply means one has found one's answers.
If anything, I do love Taoism and continue to read the Tao Te Ching.
But like @Shoshin said above, Buddhadhamma is also my One Stop Spiritual Shop.
The same for me @Shoshin . Buddhism is a one stop shop for me too.
I couldn't agree more @vinlyn ...And you have every right to see things your way and if I were in your shoes I would see things the same...However I'm not in your shoes just as you are not in mine, so we see things differently ....I'm open to this ...are you ?
The Buddha's Dharma has really opened my mind's eye...in fact...I have found...
When it comes to 'my' spiritual path, I personally don't find the Abrahamic religions relevant, but this does not mean that they hold no relevance for others, some might draw great satisfaction and comfort from some aspects of the Abrahamic belief system ...Good on them for doing so.... But they ( the Abrahamic religions) are just not my cup of tea...I can do without them...
Perhaps it's all down to one's conditioning ...who knows...
I have the feeling people tend to define as closed-minded the people whose ideas don't match their own
This ???
I enjoy learning about many religions, and I find wisdom in most (maybe even all) of them. But for me it is more so a way to relate to others. I find that I can better explain what I mean when I discuss Buddhism with, say, family members, if I can draw comparisons and contrasts to their own religion. I find it unique that I can view the world via my Buddhist lens and it doesn't restrict me from understanding other religions. Yet the same is not true for most other religions. I study other religions for a base of information, I do not delve into it and work with it as I do Buddhadharma. But having a base understanding of other faiths/beliefs gives me a better idea of the people I share the world with.
If someone finds peace in using teachings of Jesus with their Dharma, then I'm not one to tell them they can't or that they are wrong. I still practice Pagan rituals because I find them comforting and meaningful for the huge part of me that is immensely connected to our natural world. I'm sure some people would consider that "magic" that has no place. But it doesn't matter to me. My spiritual practices are many, but defining them to put them in a neat little container just isn't necessary to me. Necessary to communicate, yes. But as far as how I practice and feel about them, I don't segment them into "now I am doing a Pagan Solstice Practice and later I will be doing a Buddhist practice." They are all just wrapped up into what works for me. I get tired of the little boxes we put all aspects of ourselves and our lives into. Like we are nothing more than those little lunch containers that you pack into a larger lunch box/cooler. I prefer the chaos between the neat little boxes where my life isn't so defined.
I do quite enjoy the Christian celebrations just because there is something comforting about the ritual. Christmas, Easter, the days around the ascension, they're all still public holidays here even though 65% of the country is no longer Christian. And they are still celebrated in various locations.
Similarly I do track the longest and shortest day of the year and a few other aspects of the solar calendar, because it makes me feel in touch with the seasons. I don't do any particular rituals but I honour the days.
Buddhism has opened my eyes to all the world's wisdom. Though I want to study everything and experience new things I believe Buddhism will always be my "home base"
I like your concept of "home base"!
Still holding my trowel, @Kerome, in case you're wondering....
(I used to be a terrier in my previous life. Never let go of a bone that needs burying...
)
Guess I'm not very terrier-like... I don't feel the need to argue
For most of us the idea of a home or base system/practice is very relevant and important. My base is Buddhism and meditation.
Simple really ... you might say, 'this is my buddy/body/bodhi' if you were a little Catholic ...
"The most essential method which includes all other methods is to behold the Mind...The Mind is the root from which all things grow...If one can understand the Mind...Everything else is included !"
~BodhiDharma~
Hence why the Buddha Dharma is all that I need ...The "One Stop Spiritual Shop"... It includes "all other methods" by helping one to explore the root from which "all things grow" ( Including other belief systems )
This reminds me of a favourite quote from Milarepa:
Just curious. Where does he say this?
Samsara is long and the toil is hard.
Do what I do: read and do the homework
Technically, I'm nominally a member of the Church of Rome, with an unconventional practice...
PS. It seems to me @Kerome was spot on with respect to nurture as it relates to developmental psychology.
As I was discussing this aspect with him, could you elaborate? And please don't mention Freud!
@Kerome wrote: "I would say that any human's understanding of loving other humans begins with love of one's mother, and then expands to other members of the family and spouses/lovers. For many people it stops there.
So if you are supposed to love your neighbour, it makes sense to love him as if he was a member of your family, your context for loving humans. You can't love him as if he was a doughnut or a pet, or something abstract, after all.
It all comes back to context, our minds are built on ever expanding structures of learned context for what we perceive..."
Here's an article which get's to my point:
The mother's gaze, or the father's (if he is the primary caretaker), determines more than you might realize about how you come to see yourself, your place in the world, and the moral nature of people around you. "The meeting eyes of love," novelist George Eliot called this all-important connection. According to Dan Siegal, a psychologist who specializes in early parental bonding, every child yearns for, and must have, this eye contact for healthy emotional development to occur. Siegal, who founded a new field of research known as interpersonal neurobiology (IPNB), has proved that the mother's gaze plays a critical role in how we develop empathy.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ethical-wisdom/201104/the-meeting-eyes-love-how-empathy-is-born-in-us
I'm beginning to lose the context here.
I explained that the love as described by Christ has nothing to do with originating in the realms of maternal love.
I also pointed out the full, accurate and correct Biblical quotation.
I also explained that this is made clear when we learn catechism. I further pointed out the similarity to the biblical quotation, to the earlier teaching of the 4 Sublime States.
So while I understand that in the context of the edited quotation in @Kerome's post, this is what it sounds like, in actual fact, because Christians are given the full benefit of the complete quotation and its meaning, Kerome's presumption is incorrect.
I wasn't referring exclusively to the "God is love" matter, I was responding to the exchange I posted below. As an aside, since Jesus was a figure in history, it seems to me what he said and did should be viewed within the context of his humanity...
@Kerome said: "I would say that any human's understanding of loving other humans begins with love of one's mother, and then expands to other members of the family and spouses/lovers..."
@federica said: "You would say. Can't think of anyone I know who 'would say' the same..."
"Repeated tens of thousands of times in the child's life, these small moments of mutual rapport [serve to] transmit the best part of our humanity --our capacity for love -- from one generation to the next..."
"Not long before his death, the late Pope John Paul II, who lost his own mother at an early age, was intrigued enough by IPNB - especially Dan Siegal's work on the mother's gaze - to invite Siegal to the Vatican for a private meeting to discuss how the pontiff's being orphaned had impacted his psychological and spiritual life..."
"In the complex relationship between parents and children, our earliest bonding patterns are formed. Our first glimmers of being loved by our mother, thereby feeling ourselves to be lovable, are indissolubly linked to our ability to care for others in our maturity..."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ethical-wisdom/201104/the-meeting-eyes-love-how-empathy-is-born-in-us
You're not getting what I'm telling you. We are talking at cross-purposes.
You are talking about psychological phenomena.
(These are not broadly accepted, implemented or promoted by Christian Doctrine or teaching, no matter who took any interest for themselves).
I am talking about classic Biblical instruction as compared to Buddhist Teachings, and the accepted theistic interpretation thereof...
From the above article:
There is nothing there to suggest or imply that the Church, or any representative of any Theistic calling, is either compliant with, contributing to or enabling this process within their professional remit.
And I certainly can't see it being applied to, or over-riding the standard accepted teaching of Biblical matters. Not if it has anything to do with 'Science'....
-I am referring to empathy, how it develops in a subject (including me, you and Jesus Christ :-) and the Catholic Church's position on it.
Matthew 22:36-40New International Version (NIV)
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
There are four core principles in the Catholic Church’s social teaching: the dignity of the human person, the pursuit of the common good, the value of solidarity, and subsidiarity—the idea that higher decision-making bodies should not restrict lower-level action. Each of these principles have been woven through successive papal encyclicals—official statements of Catholic teachings proclaimed by the pope—and other documents such as those of the Second Vatican Council.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/transformation/susan-rakoczy/best-kept-secret-of-catholic-church—its-social-teachings
Despite what anything might say online of the core principles of the Church I think you will find it varies widely depending on the people running the Church and the geographical area. There are a whole lot of things the current Pope has said but may Churches are rejecting, for example. But in the 4 principles you quoted, what do any of them have to do with the idea that "love your neighbor as yourself" has anything to do with the idea of expanding a type of love that we understand in Buddhism to everyone? Like I said, i'm not Catholic, but my mom is and I've been to plenty of services and there is definitely no "love everyone" or dignity offered to all people. Only people who suit the needs of the church and share their beliefs. The ideas we talk about here about how Buddhism discusses love and empathy and compassion is definitely not the same as anything I've ever heard about in a Christian sense from Church officials. Buddhist love is all-encompassing, regardless of the person and their faults. Christian love, as taught by many churches, focuses on faults and how far off the mark everyone is and God's love as long as you obey.
I guess in a nutshell, in Christianity (in my experience with regards to official teachings and Churches) love is an expression of and by God and is earned by obeying him. In Buddhism love is our true nature. Christians largely believe you cannot love (or experience anything like gratitude or other positive emotions) without God because He is what expresses that through you. Buddhism says all of that is our true nature. So when you bring parents into it, Christians will largely tell you that parental love is an expression of God and most definitely not your true nature because in their belief you cannot have it without God in your life. To me, they are very different.
But in the 4 principles you quoted, what do any of them have to do with the idea that "love your neighbor as yourself" has anything to do with the idea of expanding a type of love that we understand in Buddhism to everyone?
-It seems to me it has everything to do with it. There is no compassion without empathy and those 4 principles are empathetic responses. I'm not trying to be argumentative or provocative. I'm just saying, compassion is compassion...
PS. By the way, I for sure do not fancy myself an RC apologist! :-)
But I think as Buddhists, we are tending to read into those phrases something that is not taught in Christian churches (again, in my experience). WE can obviously see that compassion and empathy. But the perception I have of it now with a Buddhist practice and foundation is not nearly the same as the perception I had of it from within Christianity and it was not in any way taught as a form of compassion and empathy for all people. Despite what it says.
the perception I have of it now with a Buddhist practice and foundation is not nearly the same as the perception I had of it from within Christianity
-Agreed and well said...
Tee hee (sorry not funny) ... maybe you are guilty?
Thanks everyone and Jesus for the fish.
Some great posts.
I am a sinner (one of my hobbies). Also prefer the other cheek, for a good slap up ...
However ... the inner teachings of dharma are out ... and available as a comic ...
Maybe for Him to say 'love thy neighbor as thyself' (was that it?) as a Christian growing up in Episcopal go-to-church-every week, my take on it then and now, is to 'love' thy neighbor - as in be fair in all your doings with all your loved ones - not so much treating the neighbor strictly as a family member. I mean, how could that be? It is very much a common sense thing and using it to interpret what he meant by 'love' in that context.
love neighbor as self,reminds me of the golden rule,that is ,imo,applicable in all religion.one of my mantra is treat others as self.it helps mind-heart to recall ,remind my brain,be nice....try again...when brain forget.personal christian-buddhist practice.
Found this on Farcebook at stupid o'clock when I couldn't sleep. Not sure on the reliability of the source.
Food for thought.....
http://truthcommand.com/2017/09/new-discovery-proves-jesus-buddhist-monk-named-issa/
Nice..Very nice..thanks..