Swiss Mercenary on 22/12/2007 at 19:49
Quote Posted by paloalto90
Do you think it might have been a way of showing you how not to approach God?You seemed to question the way people were applying the teachings but now have thrown out God lock stock and barrel.
It seems to me that he threw out God, because it was clear to him that a God that you had to bow and wail to, and accept into his heart, and all that, was not necessary for him being a good person, despite what many sects of Christianity like to claim.
Now, if God is still in his heart and leading him to do good things, and all that, despite the lack of worship and prayer, then the worship and prayer is clearly unnecessary. Unless we suspend our disbelief yet again, and assume that God is just playing some cosmic game where he remains with the unfaithful, and then, when the big day comes, goes "Bang - all those good things you did - that was me. Enjoy hell, sinner."
Papy on 23/12/2007 at 00:16
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
Ego itself and the desires it manifests are no more than survival tools, ones that mankind can outgrow.
No, we can't outgrow our very own nature. We can have some form of indirect control over what we think and what we feel, but it will be only by refusing to live our life to its fullest. And even that refusal is only the consequence of our very own nature, of our own ego and desires.
There is no way someone can truly know himself for the simple reason that his thoughts are only the result of his own nature. When he learn something about himself, he don't peel a layer of the onion, he just add one layer to this onion. He just create a bigger onion. The core of the onion is still there, and it is still the basis of everything.
Epos Nix on 23/12/2007 at 03:48
Quote:
There is no way someone can truly know himself for the simple reason that his thoughts are only the result of his own nature. When he learn something about himself, he don't peel a layer of the onion, he just add one layer to this onion. He just create a bigger onion. The core of the onion is still there, and it is still the basis of everything.
Thank you for debunking 2500 years of Buddhist teachings and practice. Clearly they had not taken into account the Onion Construct!
... or more likely: maybe when Buddha peeled the proverbial onion to its core, he actually found that the onion was a lie!
Epos Nix on 23/12/2007 at 04:38
Quote:
Without getting into semantics, let's just say that I defined those things by study of the language, context, and traditional interpretation handed down by the apostles.
Fett, would it be a stretch of the imagination to say that the Holy Spirit is just another name for purity of wisdom? That God is another name for purity of
you? That Heaven is a state of bliss one experiences when one reaches said state of purity? And so, if God is a pure
you and the Holy Spirit is perfected wisdom, the 'Son' in the Trinity equation surely equals purity of love.
I would quote Biblical scripture to support my interpretations (ie. "the Kingdom of God is within") but I have limited space here... and it seems you've given up on the idea anyway. But lucky for me, my interpretations of the Christian Bible mesh very well with my Buddhist teachings! Amazing that two religions separated by vastly different cultures and 500 years of history can have so many parallels, ain't it?
fett on 23/12/2007 at 04:53
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
Fett, would it be a stretch of the imagination to say that the Holy Spirit is just another name for purity of wisdom? That God is another name for purity of
you? That Heaven is a state of bliss one experiences when one reaches said state of purity? And so, if God is a pure
you and the Holy Spirit is perfected wisdom, the 'Son' in the Trinity equation surely equals purity of love.
I would quote Biblical scripture to support my interpretations (ie. "the Kingdom of God is within") but I have limited space here... and it seems you've given up on the idea anyway. But lucky for me, my interpretations of the Christian Bible mesh very well with my Buddhist teachings! Amazing that two religions separated by vastly different cultures and 500 years of history can have so many parallels, ain't it?
Actually, most religions have parallels. The problem with the Bible is that it is absolutely intolerant of any interpretation other than it's own, whether concerning world events, personal issues, definitions of it's own terms, or even itself. There are internal laws of interpretation to which it demands adherence, despite post-modern attempts to mesh it with other belief systems. Jesus himself was very clear, "No man comes to the Father except by me." The strikingly clear message of both the Jewish scriptures and NT is that the single, solitary, only, hope for man is through the Jewish Messiah and his interpretation of what the scriptures say. There aren't multiple ways to interpret that internally, though I know Buddhism condones such multiplicity. The most misunderstood fact about the Jewish/Christian scriptures is that there are not multiple interpretations. There are multitudes of variety in application of it's principals, and never ending debate among laymen, but there is very little disagreement among language scholars and theologians as to what it says regarding the major doctrines and definitions it lays out. Even regarding peripheral issues like abortion, capital punishment, homosexuality, etc. it's stance is extremely clear. But because the context and language are both foreign, it's easy for people to make the scriptures appear vague, or to use them to advance their own philosophy or agenda. This is where I think Buddhism does itself a disservice by trying to buddy up to Jesus. He himself condemned any means of salvation outside of himself, well meaning or no. He was a pretty intolerant fundamentalist on that point. I also agree with C.S. Lewis - He was either a a) liar, b) a nutjob, or c) God. There is simply no middle ground with the guy. I'll take 'a' with a side of 'b'. You can't take part of what he said, reject the parts you don't like, and use them however you like. The beauty (and danger) of Christian theology is that you can't really reject part of it without rejecting all of it. Unfortunately the same is true for your acceptance of it.
But yeah, I've pretty much thrown out the whole thing because in all my experience I've never seen anything that can't be explained by natural or physiological causes. In all that, I still cannot accept the idea that truth is relative, which I understand to be a major tenet of Buddhism, Taoism, and Hinduism. I don't claim to know what the absolute truth is about anything, but I'm highly skeptical of the idea that truth is relative. Individuals interpretation of the truth may vary, but in the end, it's either one thing or the other, not both.
Papy on 23/12/2007 at 04:56
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
Thank you for debunking 2500 years of Buddhist teachings and practice.
You're welcome!
Epos Nix on 23/12/2007 at 04:58
Quote:
"No man comes to the Father except by me."
Well that still works with my interpretations:
If God is an ego-less
you and the Son is pure love, it makes sense that you can't reach God without a pure sense of loving compassion. I would say Love, Wisdom and non-Self are interconnected, interdependant entities that must exist to be truly blissful.
After all, Jesus had only one command: "Love each other"... did he not?
paloalto90 on 23/12/2007 at 05:37
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
Well that still works with my interpretations:
If God is an ego-less
you and the Son is pure love, it makes sense that you can't reach God without a pure sense of loving compassion. I would say Love, Wisdom and non-Self are interconnected, interdependant entities that must exist to be truly blissful.
After all, Jesus had only one command: "Love each other"... did he not?
This quote depends upon what Jesus meant by me.When Jesus says me it is a different state of consciousness than you or I.The Christ is a universal manifestation of consciousness that can be attained by everyone.Jesus embodied it during his Palestinian mission because he had balanced his karma from past lives.The breaking of the bread at the Last Supper symbolized the breaking of the "body" of Christ so that all would have access to it.The Christ is the west's compliment to the Bhuddic nature of the East.
ercles on 23/12/2007 at 05:40
I realise that I'm a bit late to the game here, but I'd just like to point out that fett's post one page back has to be one of the most fascinating I have spotted around here this year.
Epos Nix on 23/12/2007 at 05:44
Quote:
This quote depends upon what Jesus meant by me.
Again, it's just
my personal interpretation, and I'm only a layman so I'm probably wrong on all accounts.
But I attribute 'me' with 'love' because Christ's message consisted of many things but only the one command: that people love each other as he loved them.
edit:
Quote:
In all that, I still cannot accept the idea that truth is relative, which I understand to be a major tenet of Buddhism
I can't speak for Hinduism or other such religions, but Truth being a fixed entity is a primary tenet of Buddhism. How can we strive to uncover relative truths when we meditate? We
can't because there is only one Truth there to discover. As a matter of fact, the first step down the (
http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/eightfoldpath.html#Right_View) Eightfold Path is that of Right View. Before you can learn anything of yourself, you must purge yourself of external delusions and see the truth of reality.
