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.
The level of consciousness of the Buddha (historical) is not a sentient being common, and even a researcher. In ancient times they were mentioned in Buddhism of the Totality, 10 levels of illumination corresponding to 10 levels of Bodisattwa. If the illumination level of a being is the tenth (for example), what he says when he teaches can be up to that level, and therefore contain much more than you think.
I don't dispute this, maybe it's as you say.
My point is that everything necessary to be understood, is understandable. All we need to know is what he has taught.
We can accept and comprehend that, and that is sufficient.
I don't dispute this, maybe it's as you say.
My point is that everything necessary to be understood, is understandable. All we need to know is what he has taught.
We can accept and comprehend that, and that is sufficient.
It 'true, everyone needs to know what was taught! It 'also true that people understand at their level, teaching (including that of the Buddha) is aware of this. What I can say about this is that teaching has always different levels of understanding and knowledge that can result from this teaching is spread over time. This means it can be said in the past, but also serve in the next millennia.What the Buddha is undoubtedly contains an important consciousness is not conceivable even a sentient being common.
Our universe is based on 4, then the number 4 is an important and crucial for us. This was obviously well aware of the Buddha and his teaching, in fact he spoke of 4Tr. Even the fundamental laws of physics (the four forces) are 4. Science in general, the most interesting and advanced are beginning to understand what the 4 and, as I said before, many important new discoveries are connected with the ancient teachings!
Lao Tzu could not say anything different from the Buddha or Confucius; Vimalakirti has not given much thought other than Hui Neng, Jesus Christ did not err by theorizing: "I and my Father are the same thing", the Beginning and the End, l 'Alpha and Omega.
OK. I will study the Bible from now on. And Confucius.
But tell me. Why do the Taoist texts always make fun of Confucius?
OK. I will study the Bible from now on. And Confucius.
But tell me. Why do the Taoist texts always make fun of Confucius?
I do not think that text Taoists always make fun of Confucius: I believe only in all-embracing that does not belong to any religion or political persuasion and has a unique attraction: the Absolute.:)
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 December 2009
'The Absolute' is just another label, or term for something 'out there' which you seem to believe ultimately has some influence or effect on us.
Which is theistic twaddle.
This Absolute exists in one place, and one place only.
Your imagination.
Which is where all perceptions and conditioned thoughts arise.
'The Absolute' is just another label, or term for something 'out there' which you seem to believe ultimately has some influence or effect on us.
Which is theistic twaddle.
This Absolute exists in one place, and one place only.
Your imagination.
Which is where all perceptions and conditioned thoughts arise.
How do I get to say this?
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 December 2009
You don't.
You realise that the only 'Absolute' is in your mind, and your Mind is the only place you create extensions or limitations.
These are created by your perceptions and the opinions, views and thoughts you form, as a result of your perceptions.
Perception is often deception.
Deception creates flawed thinking.
Your thinking of an absolute is as flawed as that of someone thinking - believing - they can create a master race, for example.
Each is the product of perception.
Each is fed by evaluation of those perceptions, and distorted by personal desire.
Each is as a result of convoluted imaginings and a train of different ideas and opinions, one born of the previous.
Such thinking flows from one thought to the next, but if the first thought is flawed (as a result of a distorted perception) then every following thought will also be flawed.
'Absolute' is the result of flawed thinking, brought about by an inaccurate perception, very probably influenced by previous upbringing and conditioning.
You live in the epicentre of Roman Catholicism.
You are a product and child of an extremely powerful social, cultural and environmental religious influence.
It stands to reason therefore that even with all your independent research and convoluted thinking, you still remain entrenched in this View of an Absolute.
Just God in Gold clothing, really.....
You don't.
You realise that the only 'Absolute' is in your mind, and your Mind is the only place you create extensions or limitations.
These are created by your perceptions and the opinions, views and thoughts you form, as a result of your perceptions.
Perception is often deception.
Deception creates flawed thinking.
Your thinking of an absolute is as flawed as that of someone thinking - believing - they can create a master race, for example.
Each is the product of perception.
Each is fed by evaluation of those perceptions, and distorted by personal desire.
Each is as a result of convoluted imaginings and a train of different ideas and opinions, one born of the previous.
Such thinking flows from one thought to the next, but if the first thought is flawed (as a result of a distorted perception) then every following thought will also be flawed.
'Absolute' is the result of flawed thinking, brought about by an inaccurate perception, very probably influenced by previous upbringing and conditioning.
I understand what you mean, in effect speaking of the Absolute is the wrong thing because it can not be described in any way and become just a mental discourse. Even the Buddha did it because he was aware of the impossibility! But there who can do it, believe it or not ... (in the Bhagavad Gita for example, is the Absolute that manifests itself and speaks).
There is a peculiar condition that is only experienced because words can not describe it, and is called "contemplation without seed." In this state of being beyond his soul and identifies with him! (I and my Father are the same thing). Some beings in the past have experienced this rare condition in humans, and among these is with Christ. We can invent to have appeared because the mind can do it, but a true teacher would know recognize this from what they say.
Of course, even Buddha contemplation without seed, but the condition of a realized is different from that of an enlightened.
You live in the epicentre of Roman Catholicism.
You are a product and child of an extremely powerful social, cultural and environmental religious influence.
It stands to reason therefore that even with all your independent research and convoluted thinking, you still remain entrenched in this View of an Absolute.
Just God in Gold clothing, really.....
I'm light years away from thinking of the Roman Catholic Church, which I consider a good workout for those who want to learn to close completely the deeper realities and ancient teachings. That is just a power management and has nothing to do with what I believe and I say!
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
I understand what you mean, in effect speaking of the Absolute is the wrong thing because it can not be described in any way and become just a mental discourse. Even the Buddha did it because he was aware of the impossibility! But there who can do it, believe it or not ... (in the Bhagavad Gita for example, is the Absolute that manifests itself and speaks).
The Bhagavad Gita is a Hindu text, and as such has little or nothing to do with Buddhism.
Buddhism does not ascribe to the same creed as Hinduism, which is chock-a-block (full to bursting) charged with all manner of Gods and deities.
Buddhism has Gods and deities, in some traditions, but they are subject to the same laws of impermanence as those in the Human realm.
therefore, there is nothing 'Absolute' in Buddhism....
There is a peculiar condition that is only experienced because words can not describe it, and is called "contemplation without seed." In this state of being beyond his soul and identifies with him! (I and my Father are the same thing). Some beings in the past have experienced this rare condition in humans, and among these is with Christ. We can invent to have appeared because the mind can do it, but a true teacher would know recognize this from what they say.
Buddhism does not ascribe to the existence of a Soul.
There is no hard and fast documentary evidence that Christ actually existed.
He might be a composite of people, he might be complete fabrication.
In any case, whatever the message he transmits (and it's extremely positive) it's questionable that it was actually ever directly from him at all, it bears in many ways, astonishing similarities to teachings first encountered in Buddhism.
I do not look upon Christ as a true teacher. I look upon him as a vehicle for conveying an already existent message.
I'm light years away from thinking of the Roman Catholic Church, which I consider a good workout for those who want to learn to close completely the deeper realities and ancient teachings. That is just a power management and has nothing to do with what I believe and I say!
I'm afraid, judging by all of the above, I'm inclined to doubt your insistence.
If you speak of Christ, there's your influence right there.
I too was born and raised a Roman Catholic, but am far more distantly and doggedly detached from them than you are.
'The Absolute' is just another label, or term for something 'out there' which you seem to believe ultimately has some influence or effect on us.
Which is theistic twaddle.
This Absolute exists in one place, and one place only.
Your imagination.
Which is where all perceptions and conditioned thoughts arise.
I have the utmost respect for your opinion, but do not share: The Absolute is in every place, has been around forever and is' infinite, we are all dots of the Absolute. This is not 'and' imagination or thoughts of the mind. In its perfection, grants to human freedom 'wrong and we' are not Catholic it perfect.I don't a fan of any religion: my only attractor is the love emanated from the Absolute.:)
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
I have the utmost respect for your opinion, but do not share:
Actually, you do....
The Absolute is in every place, has been around forever and is' infinite, we are all dots of the Absolute.
If you believe this, it's because of something you have processed, evaluated, learnt, absorbed and concluded in your mind.
You have no tangible, credible, visual, physical evidence of this.
it's merely something you have decided - on information absorbed, and perception formed - in your mind.
Therefore, if it's all in your mind, I was right.
If this is what you imagine the Absolute to be, then good luck to you.
But this is a Deistic construct, which is fine.
but it's not a Buddhist one, so we'll have to agree to differ, won't we?
This is not 'and' imagination or thoughts of the mind. In its perfection, grants to human freedom 'wrong and we' are not Catholic it perfect.I don't a fan of any religion: my only attractor is the love emanated from the Absolute.:)
If this is what you believe, then fine.
I'm not buying it, because Absolute is just another word for God.
You say you are not a fan of any religion, but you've just replaced one belief system with another.
you believe in God, and ascribe to a religion, but you choose to say you don't, and you talk of an Absolute. Same thing, different clothing.
The Bhagavad Gita is a Hindu text, and as such has little or nothing to do with Buddhism.
Buddhism does not ascribe to the same creed as Hinduism, which is chock-a-block (full to bursting) charged with all manner of Gods and deities.
Buddhism has Gods and deities, in some traditions, but they are subject to the same laws of impermanence as those in the Human realm.
therefore, there is nothing 'Absolute' in Buddhism...
The reference to the Bhagavad Gita was only to emphasize that there is no concept of the Absolute in human history. Then, even Hinduism has had his beliefs and mental constructs over time, but you're talking about the deities of Hinduism are not what they believe, are metaphors.<O:p</O:p
Buddhism does not ascribe to the existence of a Soul.
There is no hard and fast documentary evidence that Christ actually existed.
He might be a composite of people, he might be complete fabrication.
In any case, whatever the message he transmits (and it's extremely positive) it's questionable that it was actually ever directly from him at all, it bears in many ways, astonishing similarities to teachings first encountered in Buddhism.
I do not look upon Christ as a true teacher. I look upon him as a vehicle for conveying an already existent message.
Christ was not a real teacher, was just a Bodisattwa pursuing the quality of love. But let us leave this discourse, ok, because it becomes complicated and there are too many things that still do not know.<O:p</O:p
I'm afraid, judging by all of the above, I'm inclined to doubt your insistence.
If you speak of Christ, there's your influence right there.
I too was born and raised a Roman Catholic, but am far more distantly and doggedly detached from them than you are.
I speak of Christ, Buddha, the Prophet, Zen masters, and all researchers since the earliest times have tried to teach us what we are, who we are because we are! And all this, without excluding anyone because there is a common thread that unites them all. Christ spoke (not as a means today with the Catholic Church) of love, because that was the reason for teaching at that moment in the evolution of humanity. Buddha taught “not form” (emptiness of emptiness) because at his level and for the time evolution of humanity that was necessary. There were others, and others will come. Then there are those who do not know, but they teach the same and correct the errors, as well as the teachings. Formerly they were called the seven wise men!<O:p</O:p
If you believe this, it's because of something you have processed, evaluated, learnt, absorbed and concluded in your mind.
You have no tangible, credible, visual, physical evidence of this.
it's merely something you have decided - on information absorbed, and perception formed - in your mind.
Therefore, if it's all in your mind, I was right.
If this is what you imagine the Absolute to be, then good luck to you.
But this is a Deistic construct, which is fine.
but it's not a Buddhist one, so we'll have to agree to differ, won't we?
Maybe I have not explained well, sorry: I mean for compelling all the names that all religions give God, Odin, Allah, the prophet, Our Buddha himself: all different names to say the same thing she tells me about Tangible evidence: since there were errors in verbal and written translations from the past, even our Buddha has real evidence of its presence is seen as 'the world, but everything is' perfect ...sorry...cheers!:)
My point is that everything necessary to be understood, is understandable. All we need to know is what he has taught.
We can accept and comprehend that, and that is sufficient.
I speak of Christ, Buddha, the Prophet, Zen masters, and all researchers since the earliest times have tried to teach us what we are, who we are because we are! And all this, without excluding anyone because there is a common thread that unites them all. Christ spoke (not as a means today with the Catholic Church) of love, because that was the reason for teaching at that moment in the evolution of humanity. Buddha taught “not form” (emptiness of emptiness) because at his level and for the time evolution of humanity that was necessary. There were others, and others will come. Then there are those who do not know, but they teach the same and correct the errors, as well as the teachings. Formerly they were called the seven wise men!<O:p</O:p
Are ancient figures that are lost in the mists of time. We know very little about them, are elusive characters, do not call themselves teachers and their teaching does not seem to notice anyone! Argue the Universe in seven points and are the memory it. One of the most popular is Maya, the cosmic Mother, who is said to have been the mother of Buddha and the mother of Christ. A person who in past incarnations has also taken the body of man, and that some say is Buddha Nature (Mother Nature).
:eek:
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
Are ancient figures that are lost in the mists of time. We know very little about them, are elusive characters, do not call themselves teachers and their teaching does not seem to notice anyone! Argue the Universe in seven points and are the memory it. One of the most popular is Maya, the cosmic Mother, who is said to have been the mother of Buddha and the mother of Christ. A person who in past incarnations has also taken the body of man, and that some say is Buddha Nature (Mother Nature).
:eek:
Now we're entering the world of fantasy, superstition, folklore, fable, myth and fiction.
Maya?
Oh, Please....
Allegedly, Mary was the mother of Christ, and Mayadevi was the Buddha's. She needed a caesarian, to deliver the Buddha, and died shortly afterwards.
he was brought up in his father Suddhodana's palace, and brought up by his aunt.
so let's not add all this digressive hyperbole to the discussion, because frankly, if you're entering the realms of la-la land, the discussion begins to lose it's gravitas, and becomes ridiculous.
'The Absolute' is just another label, or term for something 'out there' which you seem to believe ultimately has some influence or effect on us.
Which is theistic twaddle.
This Absolute exists in one place, and one place only.
Your imagination.
Which is where all perceptions and conditioned thoughts arise.
This is not the case if we are thorough in our understanding. It is not existent, not non-existent, not both, not neither. It is a person, not a person, both, neither, etc. A-theism is also just in 'your imagination'. That which we can understand as being necessary for liberation also must encompass that which is inconceivable.
Now we're entering the world of fantasy, superstition, folklore, fable, myth and fiction.
Maya?
Oh, Please....
Allegedly, Mary was the mother of Christ, and Mayadevi was the Buddha's. She needed a caesarian, to deliver the Buddha, and died shortly afterwards.
he was brought up in his father Suddhodana's palace, and brought up by his aunt.
so let's not add all this digressive hyperbole to the discussion, because frankly, if you're entering the realms of la-la land, the discussion begins to lose it's gravitas, and becomes ridiculous.
I read that among the 7 sages there 'Divine Mother, she who takes care of all the events of nature, who knows' why' only Ameica there are hurricanes, cyclones and disasters similar type Katryna and not in Europe. ... but it 'all a chance ...I agree,maya is very ridicolus......not exist......
Allegedly, Mary was the mother of Christ, and Mayadevi was the Buddha's. She needed a caesarian, to deliver the Buddha, and died shortly afterwards.
he was brought up in his father Suddhodana's palace, and brought up by his aunt.
Are the same person! Anyway ...
Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha), is descended from Ebisu (Gotama) in sancrito, one of the seven sages who possesses the wealth of "meditation".
This is not the case if we are thorough in our understanding. It is not existent, not non-existent, not both, not neither. It is a person, not a person, both, neither, etc. A-theism is also just in 'your imagination'. That which we can understand as being necessary for liberation also must encompass that which is inconceivable.
How certain some people are that there is/is not a God/Absolute!
And how rude they get towards the other side of the opinion/belief!
When the Buddha called such speculation "imponderable" and unprofitable, it must be because he was tired of listening to the increasingly childish exchanges:
"There is!"
"There isn't!"
"Is!!"
"Isn't!!"
"Is!!!"
"'n't!!!"
Reminds me of the children in the back of the car.
To those of us who categorically deny an Absolute/God (however we define these notions), please remember that your opinion is only that: an opinion, and that many hold different views.
To those of us who categorically assert an Absolute/God (however we define these notions), please remember that your opinion is only that: an opinion, and that many hold different views.
Even Buddhists hold different views on this matter, so that (as usual) the statement that this or that view is or is not "Buddhism" only serves to demonstrate arrogant clinging to a personal view.
When the Buddha called such speculation "imponderable" and unprofitable, it must be because he was tired of listening to the increasingly childish exchanges:
"There is!"
"There isn't!"
"Is!!"
"Isn't!!"
"Is!!!"
"'n't!!!"
There is a fact, however: the Buddha did not alleged that the Absolute does not exist.
there already is a universal religion which everybody abides by, however, there are still innumerable and unlimited infesting sects within it, brought on by discriminative thinking, & o o my that religion is life
I think that brahmanism and buddhism are the same and the differences are only superficial. The rest, I don't know, probably they are flat out wrong for clinging to a "god" to save them.
yeah, well conceptually it may be incorrect to view an eternal substance in the form of an externalized god, though maybe it isn't. there are a lot of similarities between belief in god and belief in nirvana, or buddhamind. they are both transcendent in some way, though conceptually they may be significantly different, yet still both resting in the notion of spiritness, or nothingness, or divineness, some sort of 'thing' that is beyond all worldly, universal phenomena. or maybe it's not a thing, but a state of mind, maybe it's both. i don't know, i'm not enlightened... ha hA
at least not completely.
Hmm watching something on the discovery channel about the gospel of thomas which was apparently older than the other gospels. It consisted of just the words of Jesus, and no accompaning stories.
Apparently Jesus stated that you can become god, and that everything that is percieved is actually false, and the only real thing is one's soul, which is identical in quality to God. He also says he is the son of God and everyone else can also become son's and daughters of God.
Sooooooo if true Christianity in its origin isn't that different from buddhism, at all.
Now we are left with islam and judiasm as the odd ball religions (on top of modern Christianity. Note originally Judaism had reincarnation in it, to purge one's unfinished desires, but was phased out.
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 December 2009
Christianity had it too, but it was suppressed as an idea because otherwise how would God have exacted his retribution on damned souls?
Humans are such a weird bunch of control freaks. Give them a God, and they go berserk.....
Hmm watching something on the discovery channel about the gospel of thomas which was apparently older than the other gospels. It consisted of just the words of Jesus, and no accompaning stories.
Apparently Jesus stated that you can become god, and that everything that is percieved is actually false, and the only real thing is one's soul, which is identical in quality to God. He also says he is the son of God and everyone else can also become son's and daughters of God.
Sooooooo if true Christianity in its origin isn't that different from buddhism, at all.
Now we are left with islam and judiasm as the odd ball religions (on top of modern Christianity. Note originally Judaism had reincarnation in it, to purge one's unfinished desires, but was phased out.
We must become children of God, we are already children of God! Christ knew that having lived through the contemplation without seed (identification of being with his soul and beyond). That's why he said: I and my Father are the same thing ...
there already is a universal religion which everybody abides by, however, there are still innumerable and unlimited infesting sects within it, brought on by discriminative thinking, & o o my that religion is life
You are quite right: there are many innocent people in order to find the absolute fall in seven type scientology (there are also great actors like Tom Cruise) must be very careful!:)
Jesus basically said that the only way to the heaven was through him.
i highly doubt Jesus ever said anything that could have been interpreted as this. We have no idea what Jesus said or actually did but the impression that i get is that this "only way to heaven" crap comes from the Vatican and not Jesus the man.
i highly doubt Jesus ever said anything that could have been interpreted as this. We have no idea what Jesus said or actually did but the impression that i get is that this "only way to heaven" crap comes from the Vatican and not Jesus the man.
I have doubts about all the heads of the religions of the past, not only on Jesus', the problem is' the usual translation and oral report will not engage in 'never be the same as the original.:-/
That's not Christianity, that is Catholicism which is a strong deviation of what Christ would say! Coming to say absurd things ...
No Fedrica is right, Christianity originally had reincarnation in it, but my memory is fuzzy and I'm not sure who phased it out. Judiasm phased it out relatively recently, maybe reincarnation in chritianity was phased out by the romans, not 100% sure, but am sure that early christians did believe in reincarnation.
The Christianity that so many avidly believe in my school (houston baptist university) was nothing Christ taught. It is something that might as well be the equivalent of what sociological conflict theorists state religion is, a tool used by the ones in power to oppress.
EDIT: it was phased out of judiasm in the 14th century.
No Fedrica is right, Christianity originally had reincarnation in it, but my memory is fuzzy and I'm not sure who phased it out. Judiasm phased it out relatively recently, maybe reincarnation in chritianity was phased out by the romans, not 100% sure, but am sure that early christians did believe in reincarnation.
It was with the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 d.C. that the concept of reincarnation was removed from the Church, and became heresy!
No Fedrica is right, Christianity originally had reincarnation in it, but my memory is fuzzy and I'm not sure who phased it out. Judiasm phased it out relatively recently, maybe reincarnation in chritianity was phased out by the romans, not 100% sure, but am sure that early christians did believe in reincarnation.
The Christianity that so many avidly believe in my school (houston baptist university) was nothing Christ taught. It is something that might as well be the equivalent of what sociological conflict theorists state religion is, a tool used by the ones in power to oppress.
EDIT: it was phased out of judiasm in the 14th century.
Up to 6 centuries ago ', the church burned alive those who did not agree with his thinking (Giordano Bruno, Pomponio Leto), and even Galileo for his theories proved correct, he had serious problems!
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
What does this worldliness have to do with religion?
Was is Krishnamurti who said: "If we give to the poor they will just want more"?
DD, I have searched but cannot find this quotation anywhere in Krishnamurti. Indeed, it is arrant nonsense, similar to the child who says "Why should I wash? I shall only get dirty again."
You also quote the story of Jesus and the woman who anointed his feet. You quote the Gospel of Matthew but you fail to point out that Jesus is quoting from the book of Deuteronomy: "There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land." (15:11). He then adds that he is not going to be around all the time. It is a lesson in doing the job in front of you rather than worrying about what you might be doing instead. The same lesson is in the other story - in the same house in Bethany - about Mary and Martha: don't miss the good by going after "the best". A lesson in focused attention, not some sort of dismissal of the poor which would make no sense in view of the other sayings where Jesus urges the "corporal works of mercy".
If you are going to use Christian scriptural texts to 'prove' your points, it might be well to show the connections and complexities rather than falling into the trap of the "text provers".
You must not take the sense of literary terms, but the metaphor and the more hidden meaning to it. Like when Christ said:
"No one comes to the Father except through me"(Gospel of John 14:6)
How do you read?
I'm not sure if this is the right place to discuss my reading of this text but as you ask .....
After much thought, meditation and study, I have come to the conclusion that the meaning is so obvious that the churches have had to hide it: Jesus sees himself as opening the way to the Father for all creation. It is an inclusive statement. Just as the Tathagata showed that dukkha, whilst an inevitable condition of life, can be escaped, so Jesus shows that the way to realisation of the immaculate has been opened by his incarnation.
No need to 'belong' to any particular sect be it Buddhism, Christianity or Jedi: the way is open, the escape is available.
I'm not sure if this is the right place to discuss my reading of this text but as you ask .....
After much thought, meditation and study, I have come to the conclusion that the meaning is so obvious that the churches have had to hide it: Jesus sees himself as opening the way to the Father for all creation. It is an inclusive statement. Just as the Tathagata showed that dukkha, whilst an inevitable condition of life, can be escaped, so Jesus shows that the way to realisation of the immaculate has been opened by his incarnation.
No need to 'belong' to any particular sect be it Buddhism, Christianity or Jedi: the way is open, the escape is available.
I interpret this: must read the teaching, not the person. If the teaching of Christ for our evolutionary system was love (in the sense that he represents having lived in contemplation and according to his training as a researcher), then every time you read the word Christ has to change with the word love (the teaching of Christ). Here is that reading becomes:
“No one comes to the Father except through Love”
<O:p
The word love becomes real only when it is lived, and the condition is called since ancient times "contemplation." Contemplation is the identification of being with his soul. The soul is the door to God (infinite love that He is). So we can say:
</O:p<O:p</O:p
"No one goes to my Father except through his soul!"
<O:p</O:p
<O:pThe soul, contemplation, it is very difficult to live, because to get to that state must abandon any attachment that is obstruction (mind that hinders). Here's the door (the soul) that is very narrow, which means that I must lost all identification "I" (that's what it meant to another teaching of Christ).
</O:p
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 December 2009
Well, I don't believe we can have a universal religion with a godhead, because while not everybody can, or is willing to believe in God, everyone would probably be willing, eventually to follow a religion where self-evaluation and self-discipline are predominant.
As I have tried to say before.
Those who follow Buddhism as their one and only calling, do not ascribe to a transmigratory soul.
Therefore, this Universal religion, is nothing of the kind, if 'God' and 'soul' are involved....
Buddhism won “The Best Religion In The World” award on 15 Jul 2009, Tribune de Geneve.
The Geneva-based International Coalition for the Advancement of Religious and Spirituality (ICARUS) has bestowed "The Best Religion In the World" award this year on the Buddhist Community.
This special award was voted on by an international round table of more than 200 religious leaders from every part of the spiritual spectrum. It was fascinating to note that many religious leaders voted for Buddhism rather than their own religion although Buddhists actually make up a tiny minority of ICARUS membership.. Here are the comments by four voting members:
Jonna Hult, Director of Research for ICARUS said "It wasn't a surprise to me that Buddhism won Best Religion in the World, because we could find literally not one single instance of a war fought in the name of Buddhism, in contrast to every other religion that seems to keep a gun in the closet just in case God makes a mistake. We were hard pressed to even find a Buddhist that had ever been in an army. These people practice what they preach to an extent we simply could not document with any other spiritual tradition."
A Catholic Priest, Father Ted O'Shaughnessy said from Belfast , "As much as I love the Catholic Church, it has always bothered me to no end that we preach love in our scripture yet then claim to know God's will when it comes to killing other humans. For that reason, I did have to cast my vote for the Buddhists."
A Muslim Cleric Tal Bin Wassad agreed from Pakistan via his translator. "While I am a devout Muslim, I can see how much anger and bloodshed is channeled into religious expression rather than dealt with on a personal level. The Buddhists have that figured out." Bin Wassad, the ICARUS voting member for Pakistan 's Muslim community continued, "In fact, some of my best friends are Buddhist." Truly a religion of peace and love."
And Rabbi Shmuel Wasserstein said from Jerusalem, "Of course, I love Judaism, and I think it's the greatest religion in the world. But to be honest, I've been practicing Vipassana meditation every day before minyan (daily Jewish prayer) since 1993. So I get it.. Buddhism teaches the love of mankind. "
However, there was one snag - ICARUS couldn't find anyone to give the award to. All the Buddhists they called kept saying they didn't want the award.
When asked why the Burmese Buddhist community refused the award, Buddhist monk Bhante Ghurata Hanta said from Burma , "We are grateful for the acknowledgement, but we give this award to all humanity, for Buddha nature lies within each of us." Groehlichen went on to say "We're going to keep calling around until we find a Buddhist who will accept it. We'll let you know when we do."
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 December 2009
ICARUS doesn't exist.
This is a bogus report, "onion" style.
Comments
I don't dispute this, maybe it's as you say.
My point is that everything necessary to be understood, is understandable. All we need to know is what he has taught.
We can accept and comprehend that, and that is sufficient.
It 'true, everyone needs to know what was taught! It 'also true that people understand at their level, teaching (including that of the Buddha) is aware of this. What I can say about this is that teaching has always different levels of understanding and knowledge that can result from this teaching is spread over time. This means it can be said in the past, but also serve in the next millennia.What the Buddha is undoubtedly contains an important consciousness is not conceivable even a sentient being common.
Our universe is based on 4, then the number 4 is an important and crucial for us. This was obviously well aware of the Buddha and his teaching, in fact he spoke of 4Tr. Even the fundamental laws of physics (the four forces) are 4. Science in general, the most interesting and advanced are beginning to understand what the 4 and, as I said before, many important new discoveries are connected with the ancient teachings!
But tell me. Why do the Taoist texts always make fun of Confucius?
I do not think that text Taoists always make fun of Confucius: I believe only in all-embracing that does not belong to any religion or political persuasion and has a unique attraction: the Absolute.:)
Which is theistic twaddle.
This Absolute exists in one place, and one place only.
Your imagination.
Which is where all perceptions and conditioned thoughts arise.
How do I get to say this?
You realise that the only 'Absolute' is in your mind, and your Mind is the only place you create extensions or limitations.
These are created by your perceptions and the opinions, views and thoughts you form, as a result of your perceptions.
Perception is often deception.
Deception creates flawed thinking.
Your thinking of an absolute is as flawed as that of someone thinking - believing - they can create a master race, for example.
Each is the product of perception.
Each is fed by evaluation of those perceptions, and distorted by personal desire.
Each is as a result of convoluted imaginings and a train of different ideas and opinions, one born of the previous.
Such thinking flows from one thought to the next, but if the first thought is flawed (as a result of a distorted perception) then every following thought will also be flawed.
'Absolute' is the result of flawed thinking, brought about by an inaccurate perception, very probably influenced by previous upbringing and conditioning.
You live in the epicentre of Roman Catholicism.
You are a product and child of an extremely powerful social, cultural and environmental religious influence.
It stands to reason therefore that even with all your independent research and convoluted thinking, you still remain entrenched in this View of an Absolute.
Just God in Gold clothing, really.....
I understand what you mean, in effect speaking of the Absolute is the wrong thing because it can not be described in any way and become just a mental discourse. Even the Buddha did it because he was aware of the impossibility! But there who can do it, believe it or not ... (in the Bhagavad Gita for example, is the Absolute that manifests itself and speaks).
There is a peculiar condition that is only experienced because words can not describe it, and is called "contemplation without seed." In this state of being beyond his soul and identifies with him! (I and my Father are the same thing). Some beings in the past have experienced this rare condition in humans, and among these is with Christ. We can invent to have appeared because the mind can do it, but a true teacher would know recognize this from what they say.
Of course, even Buddha contemplation without seed, but the condition of a realized is different from that of an enlightened.
I'm light years away from thinking of the Roman Catholic Church, which I consider a good workout for those who want to learn to close completely the deeper realities and ancient teachings. That is just a power management and has nothing to do with what I believe and I say!
The Bhagavad Gita is a Hindu text, and as such has little or nothing to do with Buddhism.
Buddhism does not ascribe to the same creed as Hinduism, which is chock-a-block (full to bursting) charged with all manner of Gods and deities.
Buddhism has Gods and deities, in some traditions, but they are subject to the same laws of impermanence as those in the Human realm.
therefore, there is nothing 'Absolute' in Buddhism....
Buddhism does not ascribe to the existence of a Soul.
There is no hard and fast documentary evidence that Christ actually existed.
He might be a composite of people, he might be complete fabrication.
In any case, whatever the message he transmits (and it's extremely positive) it's questionable that it was actually ever directly from him at all, it bears in many ways, astonishing similarities to teachings first encountered in Buddhism.
I do not look upon Christ as a true teacher. I look upon him as a vehicle for conveying an already existent message.
I'm afraid, judging by all of the above, I'm inclined to doubt your insistence.
If you speak of Christ, there's your influence right there.
I too was born and raised a Roman Catholic, but am far more distantly and doggedly detached from them than you are.
I have the utmost respect for your opinion, but do not share: The Absolute is in every place, has been around forever and is' infinite, we are all dots of the Absolute. This is not 'and' imagination or thoughts of the mind. In its perfection, grants to human freedom 'wrong and we' are not Catholic it perfect.I don't a fan of any religion: my only attractor is the love emanated from the Absolute.:)
Actually, you do....
If you believe this, it's because of something you have processed, evaluated, learnt, absorbed and concluded in your mind.
You have no tangible, credible, visual, physical evidence of this.
it's merely something you have decided - on information absorbed, and perception formed - in your mind.
Therefore, if it's all in your mind, I was right.
If this is what you imagine the Absolute to be, then good luck to you.
But this is a Deistic construct, which is fine.
but it's not a Buddhist one, so we'll have to agree to differ, won't we?
If this is what you believe, then fine.
I'm not buying it, because Absolute is just another word for God.
You say you are not a fan of any religion, but you've just replaced one belief system with another.
you believe in God, and ascribe to a religion, but you choose to say you don't, and you talk of an Absolute. Same thing, different clothing.
Sorry.
My view....
The reference to the Bhagavad Gita was only to emphasize that there is no concept of the Absolute in human history. Then, even Hinduism has had his beliefs and mental constructs over time, but you're talking about the deities of Hinduism are not what they believe, are metaphors.<O:p</O:p
Christ was not a real teacher, was just a Bodisattwa pursuing the quality of love. But let us leave this discourse, ok, because it becomes complicated and there are too many things that still do not know.<O:p</O:p
I speak of Christ, Buddha, the Prophet, Zen masters, and all researchers since the earliest times have tried to teach us what we are, who we are because we are! And all this, without excluding anyone because there is a common thread that unites them all. Christ spoke (not as a means today with the Catholic Church) of love, because that was the reason for teaching at that moment in the evolution of humanity. Buddha taught “not form” (emptiness of emptiness) because at his level and for the time evolution of humanity that was necessary. There were others, and others will come. Then there are those who do not know, but they teach the same and correct the errors, as well as the teachings. Formerly they were called the seven wise men!<O:p</O:p
I speak of Christ, Buddha, the Prophet, Zen masters, and all researchers since the earliest times have tried to teach us what we are, who we are because we are! And all this, without excluding anyone because there is a common thread that unites them all. Christ spoke (not as a means today with the Catholic Church) of love, because that was the reason for teaching at that moment in the evolution of humanity. Buddha taught “not form” (emptiness of emptiness) because at his level and for the time evolution of humanity that was necessary. There were others, and others will come. Then there are those who do not know, but they teach the same and correct the errors, as well as the teachings. Formerly they were called the seven wise men!<O:p</O:p
Who are the seven wise?:D
Are ancient figures that are lost in the mists of time. We know very little about them, are elusive characters, do not call themselves teachers and their teaching does not seem to notice anyone! Argue the Universe in seven points and are the memory it. One of the most popular is Maya, the cosmic Mother, who is said to have been the mother of Buddha and the mother of Christ. A person who in past incarnations has also taken the body of man, and that some say is Buddha Nature (Mother Nature).
:eek:
Maya?
Oh, Please....
Allegedly, Mary was the mother of Christ, and Mayadevi was the Buddha's. She needed a caesarian, to deliver the Buddha, and died shortly afterwards.
he was brought up in his father Suddhodana's palace, and brought up by his aunt.
so let's not add all this digressive hyperbole to the discussion, because frankly, if you're entering the realms of la-la land, the discussion begins to lose it's gravitas, and becomes ridiculous.
This is not the case if we are thorough in our understanding. It is not existent, not non-existent, not both, not neither. It is a person, not a person, both, neither, etc. A-theism is also just in 'your imagination'. That which we can understand as being necessary for liberation also must encompass that which is inconceivable.
Is this statement absolutely true?
Are the same person! Anyway ...
Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha), is descended from Ebisu (Gotama) in sancrito, one of the seven sages who possesses the wealth of "meditation".
And how rude they get towards the other side of the opinion/belief!
When the Buddha called such speculation "imponderable" and unprofitable, it must be because he was tired of listening to the increasingly childish exchanges:
"There is!"
"There isn't!"
"Is!!"
"Isn't!!"
"Is!!!"
"'n't!!!"
Reminds me of the children in the back of the car.
To those of us who categorically deny an Absolute/God (however we define these notions), please remember that your opinion is only that: an opinion, and that many hold different views.
To those of us who categorically assert an Absolute/God (however we define these notions), please remember that your opinion is only that: an opinion, and that many hold different views.
Even Buddhists hold different views on this matter, so that (as usual) the statement that this or that view is or is not "Buddhism" only serves to demonstrate arrogant clinging to a personal view.
Lighten up and remember Omar Khayyam.
There is a fact, however: the Buddha did not alleged that the Absolute does not exist.
at least not completely.
Apparently Jesus stated that you can become god, and that everything that is percieved is actually false, and the only real thing is one's soul, which is identical in quality to God. He also says he is the son of God and everyone else can also become son's and daughters of God.
Sooooooo if true Christianity in its origin isn't that different from buddhism, at all.
Now we are left with islam and judiasm as the odd ball religions (on top of modern Christianity. Note originally Judaism had reincarnation in it, to purge one's unfinished desires, but was phased out.
Humans are such a weird bunch of control freaks. Give them a God, and they go berserk.....
That's not Christianity, that is Catholicism which is a strong deviation of what Christ would say! Coming to say absurd things ...
We must become children of God, we are already children of God! Christ knew that having lived through the contemplation without seed (identification of being with his soul and beyond). That's why he said: I and my Father are the same thing ...
You are quite right: there are many innocent people in order to find the absolute fall in seven type scientology (there are also great actors like Tom Cruise) must be very careful!:)
i highly doubt Jesus ever said anything that could have been interpreted as this. We have no idea what Jesus said or actually did but the impression that i get is that this "only way to heaven" crap comes from the Vatican and not Jesus the man.
I have doubts about all the heads of the religions of the past, not only on Jesus', the problem is' the usual translation and oral report will not engage in 'never be the same as the original.:-/
The Christianity that so many avidly believe in my school (houston baptist university) was nothing Christ taught. It is something that might as well be the equivalent of what sociological conflict theorists state religion is, a tool used by the ones in power to oppress.
EDIT: it was phased out of judiasm in the 14th century.
It was with the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 d.C. that the concept of reincarnation was removed from the Church, and became heresy!
Up to 6 centuries ago ', the church burned alive those who did not agree with his thinking (Giordano Bruno, Pomponio Leto), and even Galileo for his theories proved correct, he had serious problems!
DD, I have searched but cannot find this quotation anywhere in Krishnamurti. Indeed, it is arrant nonsense, similar to the child who says "Why should I wash? I shall only get dirty again."
You also quote the story of Jesus and the woman who anointed his feet. You quote the Gospel of Matthew but you fail to point out that Jesus is quoting from the book of Deuteronomy: "There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land." (15:11). He then adds that he is not going to be around all the time. It is a lesson in doing the job in front of you rather than worrying about what you might be doing instead. The same lesson is in the other story - in the same house in Bethany - about Mary and Martha: don't miss the good by going after "the best". A lesson in focused attention, not some sort of dismissal of the poor which would make no sense in view of the other sayings where Jesus urges the "corporal works of mercy".
If you are going to use Christian scriptural texts to 'prove' your points, it might be well to show the connections and complexities rather than falling into the trap of the "text provers".
He called himself a gate, a way through, NOT the destination.
You must not take the sense of literary terms, but the metaphor and the more hidden meaning to it. Like when Christ said:
"No one comes to the Father except through me"(Gospel of John 14:6)
How do you read?
I'm not sure if this is the right place to discuss my reading of this text but as you ask .....
After much thought, meditation and study, I have come to the conclusion that the meaning is so obvious that the churches have had to hide it: Jesus sees himself as opening the way to the Father for all creation. It is an inclusive statement. Just as the Tathagata showed that dukkha, whilst an inevitable condition of life, can be escaped, so Jesus shows that the way to realisation of the immaculate has been opened by his incarnation.
No need to 'belong' to any particular sect be it Buddhism, Christianity or Jedi: the way is open, the escape is available.
I interpret this: must read the teaching, not the person. If the teaching of Christ for our evolutionary system was love (in the sense that he represents having lived in contemplation and according to his training as a researcher), then every time you read the word Christ has to change with the word love (the teaching of Christ). Here is that reading becomes:
“No one comes to the Father except through Love”
<O:p
The word love becomes real only when it is lived, and the condition is called since ancient times "contemplation." Contemplation is the identification of being with his soul. The soul is the door to God (infinite love that He is). So we can say:
</O:p<O:p</O:p
"No one goes to my Father except through his soul!"
<O:p</O:p
<O:pThe soul, contemplation, it is very difficult to live, because to get to that state must abandon any attachment that is obstruction (mind that hinders). Here's the door (the soul) that is very narrow, which means that I must lost all identification "I" (that's what it meant to another teaching of Christ).
</O:p
As I have tried to say before.
Those who follow Buddhism as their one and only calling, do not ascribe to a transmigratory soul.
Therefore, this Universal religion, is nothing of the kind, if 'God' and 'soul' are involved....
The Geneva-based International Coalition for the Advancement of Religious and Spirituality (ICARUS) has bestowed "The Best Religion In the World" award this year on the Buddhist Community.
This special award was voted on by an international round table of more than 200 religious leaders from every part of the spiritual spectrum. It was fascinating to note that many religious leaders voted for Buddhism rather than their own religion although Buddhists actually make up a tiny minority of ICARUS membership.. Here are the comments by four voting members:
Jonna Hult, Director of Research for ICARUS said "It wasn't a surprise to me that Buddhism won Best Religion in the World, because we could find literally not one single instance of a war fought in the name of Buddhism, in contrast to every other religion that seems to keep a gun in the closet just in case God makes a mistake. We were hard pressed to even find a Buddhist that had ever been in an army. These people practice what they preach to an extent we simply could not document with any other spiritual tradition."
A Catholic Priest, Father Ted O'Shaughnessy said from Belfast , "As much as I love the Catholic Church, it has always bothered me to no end that we preach love in our scripture yet then claim to know God's will when it comes to killing other humans. For that reason, I did have to cast my vote for the Buddhists."
A Muslim Cleric Tal Bin Wassad agreed from Pakistan via his translator. "While I am a devout Muslim, I can see how much anger and bloodshed is channeled into religious expression rather than dealt with on a personal level. The Buddhists have that figured out." Bin Wassad, the ICARUS voting member for Pakistan 's Muslim community continued, "In fact, some of my best friends are Buddhist." Truly a religion of peace and love."
And Rabbi Shmuel Wasserstein said from Jerusalem, "Of course, I love Judaism, and I think it's the greatest religion in the world. But to be honest, I've been practicing Vipassana meditation every day before minyan (daily Jewish prayer) since 1993. So I get it.. Buddhism teaches the love of mankind. "
However, there was one snag - ICARUS couldn't find anyone to give the award to. All the Buddhists they called kept saying they didn't want the award.
When asked why the Burmese Buddhist community refused the award, Buddhist monk Bhante Ghurata Hanta said from Burma , "We are grateful for the acknowledgement, but we give this award to all humanity, for Buddha nature lies within each of us." Groehlichen went on to say "We're going to keep calling around until we find a Buddhist who will accept it. We'll let you know when we do."
This is a bogus report, "onion" style.
I'll be darned. It ain't April yet is it?