A question about buddhism...

[Michael19682]

If qwerty does not exist, then forgiveness of qwerty does not exist either.

People can forgive. Karma cannot. Think along the lines of: “Oh gravity, please forgive me, for I have jumped off a high cliff without a parachute and I am falling fast.”

Whoa! You acknowledged miracles!

Christian sin is an offence against God. Since God is offended, He can forgive. Karma is not God. Karma is not offended, any more than gravity is offended. Gravity cannot forgive; nor can karma.

It is ultimate consequences I was talking about, at least in part. Jesus’ forgiveness simply means that you may still choose Heaven at the end of your life.

He didn’t. It can affect the forgiver’s karma. Affecting the forgivee’s karma is getting into the difficult theoretical area of ‘Transfer of Merit’. Forgiveness can have indirect effects as well:
The student Shichiri was reciting the sutras when a robber entered his room, put a knife to his back, and demanded his money. “Over there in the box,” said Shichiri, going on with his recitation.

As the robber was leaving, Shichiri said, “Leave me some for my taxes; they are coming around tomorrow to collect.” So the robber put back some of the money and started to leave.

“Don’t you thank someone who makes you a gift?” asked Shichiri. So the robber thanked him, and went off.

A few days later the robber was caught; and among other confessions, he said he had robbed Shichiri. But Shichiri refused
to testify against him. “I made him a gift of some money,” he said. “And he thanked me for it. That was all.”

The robber served a prison term. When he was freed, he went directly to Shichiri. “Will you be my teacher?” he said.

Yours is but one example of the temporal consequences of sin. I could have cited an example where the robber would have been freed without jail. But, to work with your example, it looked me like the robbers decision to seek out the teacher after prison was a result, at least indirectly, of a choice made due to that teacher’s forgiveness. That to me looks like an affect on his karma.

With all due respect to your answers, I think we together are getting stuck on Time in forgiveness. Jesus forgave us the ultimate consequences of our sin. We can go directly to paradise at the end of our life. Even the Buddhists, with their concept of Bardo and their descriptions on the moving from one life to the next, acknowledge that death is a crucial time for the spirit.

MIchael

 

[rossum]

Whoa! You acknowledged miracles!

Of course. Vimalakirti feeding 80,000 people from a single bowl of rice was a miracle. Buddhists have miracles in scripture as well.

It is ultimate consequences I was talking about, at least in part. Jesus’ forgiveness simply means that you may still choose Heaven at the end of your life.

Buddhists have no choice, we get nirvana eventually. It may take a large number of lifetimes to get there, though.

Yours is but one example of the temporal consequences of sin.

Karma may act in the same life in which the triggering act was done; this is instant karma (yes, I know, John Lennon sang about it). Delayed karma gets you in a subsequent life. That may involve one of the heavens or one of the hells.

That to me looks like an affect on his karma.

His karma was to rob Shichiri; when he entered the house he didn’t know who lived there. It was his own choice to study as Shichiri’s pupil. Karma offered him an opportunity. It was his own action to sieze that opportunity.

rossum

 

[Lisa44]

Hi Lisa: I understand what you’re saying now. While tradition most often holds that He went to the desert to fast and pray, the Gospel only says that He fasted. I don’t see where it says He prayed. Now that you mention it, that brings up another question. Unless there was a chronicler following Him everywhere, how did they know that He ran into the Devil out there in the desert. Did He come back and say, “hey guys, you’ll never guess who I ran into out in the desert…”

Anyway, I see your point.

Your friend
Sufjon

We have to assume that he told people after his 40 days in the wilderness that he ran into the devil, and that he told them what the devil said to him, and what he replied back to the devil. This is possible. Since they would have surely asked him what he did for those 40 days.

The bible says that Jesus prayed in the garden of Gethsemane. But he prays alone, and he instructs others to pray alone and in private (Matthew 6:6). Therefore it is doubtful that he would pray in private and then go and tell someone what he prayed in private. Then when he returns from praying he finds his disciples asleep, which makes you wonder again how they know what he was doing while they were sleeping. It was at this time he was arrested. So there was not even time for him to tell the disciples what he had been doing when they were asleep.
There are some textual problems with this account of his praying. That is all I meant to point out. I am not convinced that Jesus would need to pray as he is God. But, I don’t know for certain that he did not pray.

 

[Sufjon]

We have to assume that he told people after his 40 days in the wilderness that he ran into the devil, and that he told them what the devil said to him, and what he replied back to the devil. This is possible. Since they would have surely asked him what he did for those 40 days.

The bible says that Jesus prayed in the garden of Gethsemane. But he prays alone, and he instructs others to pray alone and in private (Matthew 6:6). Therefore it is doubtful that he would pray in private and then go and tell someone what he prayed in private. Then when he returns from praying he finds his disciples asleep, which makes you wonder again how they know what he was doing while they were sleeping. It was at this time he was arrested. So there was not even time for him to tell the disciples what he had been doing when they were asleep.
There are some textual problems with this account of his praying. That is all I meant to point out. I am not convinced that Jesus would need to pray as he is God. But, I don’t know for certain that he did not pray.

Hi Lisa: Can I ask how long you’ve been trying to figure this out, and my follow on question is to ask what your findings on this matter will do for you. It seems like you’ve given it a lot of thought, and I only think a lot about things that I’m really convinced are of some import. I honestly am wondering if you’re onto something that might be of benefit to me to find out as well, or if you just think a lot about random things. Either way is fine - I’m just curious now.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Lisa44]

Hi Lisa: Can I ask how long you’ve been trying to figure this out, and my follow on question is to ask what your findings on this matter will do for you. It seems like you’ve given it a lot of thought, and I only think a lot about things that I’m really convinced are of some import. I honestly am wondering if you’re onto something that might be of benefit to me to find out as well, or if you just think a lot about random things. Either way is fine - I’m just curious now.

Your friend
Sufjon

Not that long. I believe Jesus is God, therefore when I read the bible I don’t assume that he was a weak human, which some people like to say that he was weak and needy. Or they project that neediness on to Jesus. I do not think that human / God are compatible. One is all powerful, one is weak and needy. How can a thing be all powerful, and at the same time weak and needy? So when I see that people want to see Jesus as weak and needy then I rather think they are projecting their human nature onto God. I can’t explain what it was like for God to be in a human body. So I just don’t know how he experienced being in a body.
For example, a human cannot not eat and drink for 40 days, they would die. A human can go 2 weeks without food, and 3 days without water.

 

[Sufjon]

Not that long. I believe Jesus is God, therefore when I read the bible I don’t assume that he was a weak human, which some people like to say that he was weak and needy. Or they project that neediness on to Jesus. I do not think that human / God are compatible. One is all powerful, one is weak and needy. How can a thing be all powerful, and at the same time weak and needy? So when I see that people want to see Jesus as weak and needy then I rather think they are projecting their human nature onto God. I can’t explain what it was like for God to be in a human body. So I just don’t know how he experienced being in a body.
For example, a human cannot not eat and drink for 40 days, they would die. A human can go 2 weeks without food, and 3 days without water.

Thanks Lisa: I suppose if we think of ourselves as weak and needy, then we will certainly be weak and needy. I don’t think prayer is a sign of weakness, but I suppose that all depends on what you consider to be prayer.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Lisa44]

Thanks Lisa: I suppose if we think of ourselves as weak and needy, then we will certainly be weak and needy. I don’t think prayer is a sign of weakness, but I suppose that all depends on what you consider to be prayer.

Your friend
Sufjon

Where did I say “prayer is a sign of weakness”? I said humans were weak and needy. That is why we have to eat and drink water to survive.
If you don’t need food or water and can survive on air then please let us know. That is news people want to hear.

Ie: humans are not God but need God, that is why we pray.

 

[Lisa44]

Not that long. I believe Jesus is God, therefore when I read the bible I don’t assume that he was a weak human, which some people like to say that he was weak and needy. Or they project that neediness on to Jesus. I do not think that human / God are compatible. One is all powerful, one is weak and needy. How can a thing be all powerful, and at the same time weak and needy? So when I see that people want to see Jesus as weak and needy then I rather think they are projecting their human nature onto God. I can’t explain what it was like for God to be in a human body. So I just don’t know how he experienced being in a body.
For example, a human cannot not eat and drink for 40 days, they would die. A human can go 2 weeks without food, and 3 days without water.

No where did I say “prayer was a sign of weakness”.

 

[Lisa44]

Thanks Lisa: I suppose if we think of ourselves as weak and needy, then we will certainly be weak and needy. I don’t think prayer is a sign of weakness, but I suppose that all depends on what you consider to be prayer.

Your friend
Sufjon

No Sufjon, sometimes people are needy because of circumstances beyond their control like poverty.

 

[Sufjon]

No Sufjon, sometimes people are needy because of circumstances beyond their control like poverty.

That’s weak and needy in material ways. I thought we were talking about the state of our being in a spiritual capacity. Although I am now one of the one percenters economically, I was born into abject poverty. I lacked even the essentials like a winter coat or proper shoes, a predicament that nearly cost me my life from pneumonia the year I went to kindergarten. I shared a mattress with two brothers and two sisters with no frame, no box spring and no sheets. But I was never weak or needy. I was certainly very vulnerable in a material and physical sense, and was quite aware of the predatory nature of many people when they perceive that they have an advantage over you. It was amazing how cruel even grown ups could be when everyone could tell your dilemma just by looking at you. But the world inside of me was something different altogether. If it weren’t for my unfortunate circumstances, I might never have seen it.

I pray, and always have, but not because I’m weak. In my faith, prayer is not a matter of crawling, asking, or begging or thanksgiving. It’s a state of union, where the inner light helps you to move past what you lack or what you want. When your will has been surrendered to the will of God, it is then that your will is done, and at that point there is nothing to ask for. When you have nothing to defend and nothing to lose is when you are in the greatest position of strength.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Lisa44]

That’s weak and needy in material ways. I thought we were talking about the state of our being in a spiritual capacity. Although I am now one of the one percenters economically, I was born into abject poverty. I lacked even the essentials like a winter coat or proper shoes, a predicament that nearly cost me my life from pneumonia the year I went to kindergarten. I shared a mattress with two brothers and two sisters with no frame, no box spring and no sheets. But I was never weak or needy. I was certainly very vulnerable in a material and physical sense, and was quite aware of the predatory nature of many people when they perceive that they have an advantage over you. It was amazing how cruel even grown ups could be when everyone could tell your dilemma just by looking at you. But the world inside of me was something different altogether. If it weren’t for my unfortunate circumstances, I might never have seen it.

I pray, and always have, but not because I’m weak. In my faith, prayer is not a matter of crawling, asking, or begging or thanksgiving. It’s a state of union, where the inner light helps you to move past what you lack or what you want. When your will has been surrendered to the will of God, it is then that your will is done, and at that point there is nothing to ask for. When you have nothing to defend and nothing to lose is when you are in the greatest position of strength.

Your friend
Sufjon

Christianity teaches that spiritually we need God’s grace, and physically, we need to care for one another so that no man is without the physical necessities in life.

 

[Sufjon]

Christianity teaches that spiritually we need God’s grace, and physically, we need to care for one another so that no man is without the physical necessities in life.

Hi Lisa: I wouldn’t disagree with you, except that I think we inherently have God’s grace, and therefore, the only work to be done is seeing it. I can’t help but see God’s grace as being akin to the light from a bonfire. It shines equally on all things, however, it is incumbent on each of us to simply turn around, see it, and move into it. It doesn’t distinguish between good and bad. It knows that there are good people who do bad things and bad people who do good things. It doesn’t discriminate or do any sorting. It simply emanates from without and from within. Once we see it in ourselves, then we can see it in others, and this positions us properly to help others. Otherwise, we’re just going through the motions in regards to doing the right thing by others.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Lisa44]

Hi Lisa: I wouldn’t disagree with you, except that I think we inherently have God’s grace, and therefore, the only work to be done is seeing it. I can’t help but see God’s grace as being akin to the light from a bonfire. It shines equally on all things, however, it is incumbent on each of us to simply turn around, see it, and move into it. It doesn’t distinguish between good and bad. It knows that there are good people who do bad things and bad people who do good things. It doesn’t discriminate or do any sorting. It simply emanates from without and from within. Once we see it in ourselves, then we can see it in others, and this positions us properly to help others. Otherwise, we’re just going through the motions in regards to doing the right thing by others.

Your friend
Sufjon

I would be inclined to think that everyone in the above scenario did *not have God’s grace.
Why would I say that? Because you said good people do bad things and bad people do good things. To me, that is all bad. If you have a good glass of water, and you only put a couple drops of bad poison into it, it turns all the water bad. So that you can no longer drink it. A good vessel cannot have both good and bad in it or it is bad.

When we do not have God’s grace we are slaves to sin. When we receive God’s grace we become slaves to righteousness. But we can’t be both a slave to sin and a slave to righteousness.

 

[sinscriven]

So, I’ve been reading up on buddhism, just out of curiosity, and have come upon a stumbling block. The problem I face is to figure out how there is no self. None. How is there no self? Just a collection of parts?

So, how is there no such thing as a self to a buddhist?

Thanks in advance!

We exist, it’s just that the perception of ourselves does not exist. The way you perceive yourself is a self made delusion because that perception isn’t the actuality of what really is you. Its alot like how you think your voice sounds one way, but sounds completely different to other people. The point is that eventually realization will come that once you realize that your ego, and perception of yourself being an individual separate entity in the universe, that you realize that you are a part of everything and everything is a part of you.

This is especially important when it comes to interacting and living with others. In Buddhism to have pity for others is a bad thing, and is an enemy of compassion. When you pity people you are separating yourself from them when you think in terms of “This guy is much worse off than me, I’ll give him a dollar.”; This is false compassion, and reinforcing your ego. True compassion comes when realizing that the homeless man is not a separate entity from me, and I suffer as he does. Doing what I can to ease their suffering and my own is an act of good Karma and makes the world suck a little less. Multiply that by the number of all people of all faiths doing acts of good Karma and exercising true compassion and the world sucks a whole lot less.

 

[Sufjon]

I

would be inclined to think that everyone in the above scenario did *not have God’s grace.
Why would I say that? Because you said good people do bad things and bad people do good things. To me, that is all bad.

Hi Lisa: To me, it’s not all bad and not all good. It’s all just people. No saint was probably good every minute of their lives and no sinner was probably bad every minute of their lives. It follows that every saint has a past and every sinner has a future. How you view them is very much a matter of what is within. What we perceive in the world around is largely a product of what is within us. We tend to see what we know, or what we are preoccupied with. Ever notice how when you’re thinking of buying a new car, and suddenly you start seeing that make and model everywhere? That’s how it works. Tune your radar to look for blips of goodness, and you’ll surely find it. If you’re tuned into the other stuff, it’s certainly there to be found. The problem is not what we see. The problem is what we look for. What we look for is a reflection of what is within. If we get the “within” straightened up, the rest will follow.

If you have a good glass of water, and you only put a couple drops of bad poison into it, it turns all the water bad. So that you can no longer drink it. A good vessel cannot have both good and bad in it or it is bad.

It is often the case with poisons that the very same base substance can also make medications that save lives. If, as I have described in the paragraph above, I am the sort of person who sees bad all around me, I might find applications for that substance that poisons people. If on the other hand, I tend to see good, this is a refection of what is in me, and therefore, I might be the sort of person who finds a miracle drug in the same substance. People are all of the same substance. If you see bad in yourself and in others, I would guess that you’ll bring out the bad in yourself and others, and then it would be hard to love oneself and others. If it’s hard to love oneself and others, then it must be very hard to properly love God.

When we do not have God’s grace we are slaves to sin. When we receive God’s grace we become slaves to righteousness. But we can’t be both a slave to sin and a slave to righteousness.

We are slaves to what we see, because what we see is what we set our sights on, and most often what we set our sights on is what we crave. If we see sin, then we crave sin and are slaves to sin. If we see God in others, we can be slaves to something good.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Lisa44]

I

Hi Lisa: To me, it’s not all bad and not all good. It’s all just people. No saint was probably good every minute of their lives and no sinner was probably bad every minute of their lives. It follows that every saint has a past and every sinner has a future. How you view them is very much a matter of what is within. What we perceive in the world around is largely a product of what is within us. We tend to see what we know, or what we are preoccupied with. Ever notice how when you’re thinking of buying a new car, and suddenly you start seeing that make and model everywhere? That’s how it works. Tune your radar to look for blips of goodness, and you’ll surely find it. If you’re tuned into the other stuff, it’s certainly there to be found. The problem is not what we see. The problem is what we look for. What we look for is a reflection of what is within. If we get the “within” straightened up, the rest will follow.

It is often the case with poisons that the very same base substance can also make medications that save lives. If, as I have described in the paragraph above, I am the sort of person who sees bad all around me, I might find applications for that substance that poisons people. If on the other hand, I tend to see good, this is a refection of what is in me, and therefore, I might be the sort of person who finds a miracle drug in the same substance. People are all of the same substance. If you see bad in yourself and in others, I would guess that you’ll bring out the bad in yourself and others, and then it would be hard to love oneself and others. If it’s hard to love oneself and others, then it must be very hard to properly love God.

We are slaves to what we see, because what we see is what we set our sights on, and most often what we set our sights on is what we crave. If we see sin, then we crave sin and are slaves to sin. If we see God in others, we can be slaves to something good.

Your friend
Sufjon

“Every sinner has a future and every saint has a past” demonstrates the opposite of what you are saying. It is not that the sinner is half saint and the saint is half sinner, which is what you are suggesting, but that the sinner became the saint. One was a slave to sin, the other a slave to righteousness.

What you are saying about a person choosing to view the world in a certain way, will then make the world the way the person who is viewing it decides it will be,… is not a philosophy that is found in Christianity.

Perhaps you can tell us where that idea comes from (ie: what philosophical or religious tradition).

 

[Sufjon]

"

Every sinner has a future and every saint has a past" demonstrates the opposite of what you are saying. It is not that the sinner is half saint and the saint is half sinner, which is what you are suggesting, but that the sinner became the saint. One was a slave to sin, the other a slave to righteousness.

 

[Sufjon]

"

Hi Lisa: Either I am not explaining this very well, or you are not reading what I am saying properly. To paraphrase myself simply, I am saying that each of us is a sacred creation of God. Inherently we are good. The extent to which we see badness around us and become tangled up in it is the extent to which we are deluded by the world of form or the physical world. WE are not of this world. We are passing through it. We are transcendent.

I am saying that if you view the world through the lens of sin, then sin is what you will find. YOU and I are not of this world. We are simply passing through it.

What I am saying is not consistent with what many mainstream Christians believe, but very consistent with mystics of all religious traditions, including Christians and some Jews. The faith tradition I come from happens to be pretty much all mystical. I sense from your profile that you are interested in poetry and literature. If that is the case, then my beliefs would be consistent with Thoreau and Emerson.

 

[Lisa44]

"

Hi Lisa: Either I am not explaining this very well, or you are not reading what I am saying properly. To paraphrase myself simply, I am saying that each of us is a sacred creation of God. Inherently we are good. The extent to which we see badness around us and become tangled up in it is the extent to which we are deluded by the world of form or the physical world. WE are not of this world. We are passing through it. We are transcendent.

I am saying that if you view the world through the lens of sin, then sin is what you will find

. YOU and I are not of this world. We are simply passing through it.

What I am saying is not consistent with what many mainstream Christians believe, but very consistent with mystics of all religious traditions, including Christians and some Jews. The faith tradition I come from happens to be pretty much all mystical. I sense from your profile that you are interested in poetry and literature. If that is the case, then my beliefs would be consistent with Thoreau and Emerson.

Your friend,
Sufjon

I do not believe that my eyes (viewpoint) determine how someone else will act. In fact, I think that what a person may find out about the world might be quite astonishing and might not meet our expectations or our desires of what it ought to be. I think many people are often astonished to find that things are not what they thought they were. And then changed their views according to the realities in the world, and not the other way around.

So I do not see eye to eye with mysticism. Sorry.

 

[Sufjon]

I do not believe that my eyes (viewpoint) determine how someone else will act.

That is part of the issue. It’s not all about you. Your eyes (viewpoint) determine how you see the world and how you act, but the same is true for everyone else. Once one sees how things are, one stops acting like everyone else. Such a person has an impact, small or large, on the people he or she comes in contact with.

In fact, I think that what a person may find out about the world might be quite astonishing and might not meet our expectations or our desires of what it ought to be.

Or, if we see clearly, we might find ourselves astonished that the world is great beyond all of our expectations, because it emanates from a Creator that is wonderful beyond all imagination. A world that is ugly and bad is not created by a good and wonderful God, therefore, one who sees a world that is ugly and full of unhappiness must indeed be a person who is improperly tuned in.

I think many people are often astonished to find that things are not what they thought they were. And then changed their views according to the realities in the world, and not the other way around.

There is only mutability and change in this world. The reality is within.

So I do not see eye to eye with mysticism.

I know. That’s okay. I’m not here to change anyone.

Your friend
Sufjon