A question about buddhism...

[Sufjon]

What is trans personal, universal consciousness? And how does it relate to sensory experience?

Hi Lisa: We would say that It is God. Pure Consciousness. Pure Spirit. It experiences what it creates through that which It creates. You might imagine if you would, a vast ocean of pure consciousness, of which we are a part. On the surface, there is much activity, and this includes both beauty and disturbance. Waves and such appear temporarily on the surface, and for a time, establish an identity as something in and of themselves - in this case, a wave. But waves eventually recede back into the whole, revealing their oneness with the whole, and indeed, they were never separate. In the same way, droplets of water may get drawn by the sun into vapor that forms a cloud, and then falls somewhere else in creation as rain. From there it may become part of a glacier and melt into a river, but at some point it finds it’s way back to the ocean. And then what is there? A drop of water, or only ocean? They have always been one in the same. And beneath the surface of endless activity and tumult, there is stillness and unity.

In the same way, our very beings are inextricably part of the whole, and since the whole emanates from, and is of that which is sacred and holy, so are all things sacred and holy. Regardless of the activity and endless dramas playing out on the surface, the reality is still in the depths. Our challenge is to see past the passing dramas and come to the realization of our inherent oneness with that from which we come. We can never in actuality be apart from it. We can only be deluded into identification with that which is only transient.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Michael19682]

Perhaps we should repeal the laws against arson and vandalism? When someone burns down a church they are not actually destroying any of the atoms that make up the church, so they have not really committed a crime?

An interesting approach to jurisprudence.

rossum

?

 

[kbf1970060]

… The problem I face is to figure out how there is no self. None. How is there no self? …

I’m not certain of what I will say, but when at a Bible Study, I began to think: prior to Jesus – no one went to Heaven – Jews accepted oblivion as their end. The promise of The Messiah existed. After Jesus, it may be reasoned the first person to enter Heaven is The Blessed Virgin Mary, The Holy Queen.

Thoughts in this light, force thoughts about other religions, both Hinduism, and Buddhism, existed at least, a thousand years before Christ. Although, I found a reference in one book, of Bishop Fulton Sheen, which he commented, that The Lord Maitraya identified as a “savior” by Buddha, to Fulton Sheen this may have been Jesus. Although Judaism has thought of God, always as a Father, either Hindus, or Buddhists, or both Hindus, and Buddhists, at some point in their histories, thought of Buddha, and others, as “god(s)” – what word may be more appropriate – this would force a personal aspect on their “religion”, or philosophy as it may more appropriately be recognized; still, their view of God, if a God at all, excluded The Godhead, and God in general, as personal.

Though The Afterlife may have been oblivion, as among Jews, Creation viewed by either Buddhists, or Hindus, or both Hindus, and Buddhists, may reflect their view of God, as impersonal. How then would a person after death, be a person: when in The Afterlife, God is impersonal, and we may assume, fairly, that adherents both to Hinduism, and Buddhism, would care to be with God.

 

[kbf1970060]

When you have an ocean, and it is regarded to be of what, we are made – think about Genesis, and God’s Creation of the waters, before the sun, stars, and planets were made – then naturally it seems reasonable to think, that we are created from this ocean. When upon death, we shed this mortal coil, to merge again into what we originated, the ocean.

Now we know, Niels Bohr, when in his native Denmark, it is said, he reflected upon the ocean, and noticed the tension of the water, the surface, and elasticity of it. The spray – we may imagine – lifted by the wind, and misting his face in tiny droplets, perhaps brought relief to a current physics problem. His theory gave way to the atom. Although, water may be more molecular, as particles go, we have understood, that much of matter, gold for instance, even at the atomic level, will maintain all the properties of gold.

There is this view, too, that though a drop from an ocean may return to the ocean, the identity once created: it will persist.

When we think about Buddhism, then we think as well about The Chain of Being. Whatever essence originated from the ocean, it is given birth as a plant. Its life in a plant, passes, and it moves into the body of a beatle, not Ringo Star, but the insect with the beat, a grasshopper. The body of it dies, and so-on, and so-forth, until it is born as a person. Then it is opportune for it, to seek, and know the ocean. However, the body of a person has a will to move differently throughout both the plant, and animal kingdoms.

Cause and effect reign supreme. It is an inviolable law. Murder has consequences. A consequent after the human body, may mean, again, the body of a beatle, or vicious animal like a tiger. It is a “poetic” sense of justice.

What then might salvation mean: it could mean a great deal of work, suffering, still it is will, that will save a person. What the ocean will do: it will call, and pull, and attract, those whom it gave origin.

 

[Lisa44]

Hi Lisa: We would say that It is God. Pure Consciousness. Pure Spirit. It experiences what it creates through that which It creates. You might imagine if you would, a vast ocean of pure consciousness, of which we are a part. On the surface, there is much activity, and this includes both beauty and disturbance. Waves and such appear temporarily on the surface, and for a time, establish an identity as something in and of themselves - in this case, a wave. But waves eventually recede back into the whole, revealing their oneness with the whole, and indeed, they were never separate. In the same way, droplets of water may get drawn by the sun into vapor that forms a cloud, and then falls somewhere else in creation as rain. From there it may become part of a glacier and melt into a river, but at some point it finds it’s way back to the ocean. And then what is there? A drop of water, or only ocean? They have always been one in the same. And beneath the surface of endless activity and tumult, there is stillness and unity.

In the same way, our very beings are inextricably part of the whole, and since the whole emanates from, and is of that which is sacred and holy, so are all things sacred and holy. Regardless of the activity and endless dramas playing out on the surface, the reality is still in the depths. Our challenge is to see past the passing dramas and come to the realization of our inherent oneness with that from which we come. We can never in actuality be apart from it. We can only be deluded into identification with that which is only transient.

Your friend
Sufjon

I erased my response because I’m not sure you want my response.
If that is what you believe then there is probably nothing I can do to change it.
However, I would like you to read the bible.

 

[Sufjon]

I erased my response because I’m not sure you want my response.
If that is what you believe then there is probably nothing I can do to change it.
However, I would like you to read the bible.

Hi Lisa: I did see your reply, but I can’t recall all that was in it, so I can’t really reply all that well. You are always welcome to tell me whatever you like. I have read the bible many times, but I don’t claim to be an expert on it though.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Whadyamean]

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!

It is not that there is “no self.” It is a question of discovering what constiutes the actual Self, which is synonymous with Soul. In the highest forms of that realm of thought, Advaita, or non dualism, recommends the practice of asking “who am I.” The point of that practice is what I interpret as the actual meaning of “poverty.” In other words, the practice of negation of identity with sensory objects eventually leads to the discovery that what we think we are as persons is actually a sort of add-on to what constitutes the Source of awareness. Once this bit of information is experienced, one is “in this world but not of it” as they function more in accordance with Reality as distinct from the illusion of paradigms learned mostly due to local situations including family and culture, and is based more on what is Universally and timelessly True.

 

[Whadyamean]

Religious buddhism is a fusion of contradicting terms.

The philosophy of buddhism is that to rely on others is to be led away from the truth.

This is WAY simplistic and very misleading.

 

[Whadyamean]

Buddhism analyses a person into five parts: form, feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness. None of the five is permanent. All of the five change. For ordinary purposes, we have an obvious ‘self’ as a convenient description of the five parts. A deeper analysis shows us that the five parts are all that there is. We like to think that there is more, but that is just an illusion. What we think of as our ‘true self’ actually isn’t.

Our illusion of having a ‘self’ is one of the things we have to leave behind is we want to achieve enlightenment.

Might it be clearer to distinguish the false sense of self called “personality” or “person” from the idea of Self as Conscious/Awareness/Being?

 

[Whadyamean]

I’m not a Buddhist but have studied it on and off for many years.

There is no self in Buddhism…no “self”, “I” or “individual” that exists…

as a discreet entity…

All you have are the 5 parts mentioned by Rossum that have a dependency on one another in that they interact in a circular state. Nothing remains the same, everything is in a constant state of flux or change. Since everything is in a constant state of change there nothing “Permanent”…everything is impermanent…

As far as the manifest. The Unmainfest is Being, or the Potential of Allness which supports and enables the seemingly seperate but integral manifest.One of the problems I have had with this in studying Buddhism is that for a cycle to begin it must have something to give it that jumpstart. But according to Buddhists there is nothing…no “starter” of the jumpstart. This is just one of the major obstacles I have encountered in studying Buddhism.The problem might very well be that English presupposes causation as a structure of its grammer. This may not be so as far a the Allness of God. Remember, your perspective as a human may be a tad smaller than that of Deity.

 

[Sufjon]

When you have an ocean, and it is regarded to be of what, we are made – think about Genesis, and God’s Creation of the waters, before the sun, stars, and planets were made – then naturally it seems reasonable to think, that we are created from this ocean. When upon death, we shed this mortal coil, to merge again into what we originated, the ocean.

Now we know, Niels Bohr, when in his native Denmark, it is said, he reflected upon the ocean, and noticed the tension of the water, the surface, and elasticity of it. The spray – we may imagine – lifted by the wind, and misting his face in tiny droplets, perhaps brought relief to a current physics problem. His theory gave way to the atom. Although, water may be more molecular, as particles go, we have understood, that much of matter, gold for instance, even at the atomic level, will maintain all the properties of gold.

There is this view, too, that though a drop from an ocean may return to the ocean, the identity once created: it will persist.

When we think about Buddhism, then we think as well about The Chain of Being. Whatever essence originated from the ocean, it is given birth as a plant. Its life in a plant, passes, and it moves into the body of a beatle, not Ringo Star, but the insect with the beat, a grasshopper. The body of it dies, and so-on, and so-forth, until it is born as a person. Then it is opportune for it, to seek, and know the ocean. However, the body of a person has a will to move differently throughout both the plant, and animal kingdoms.

Cause and effect reign supreme. It is an inviolable law. Murder has consequences. A consequent after the human body, may mean, again, the body of a beatle, or vicious animal like a tiger. It is a “poetic” sense of justice.

What then might salvation mean: it could mean a great deal of work, suffering, still it is will, that will save a person. What the ocean will do: it will call, and pull, and attract, those whom it gave origin.

Great post!

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[Lisa44]

Hi Lisa: I did see your reply, but I can’t recall all that was in it, so I can’t really reply all that well. You are always welcome to tell me whatever you like. I have read the bible many times, but I don’t claim to be an expert on it though.

Your friend
Sufjon

Ok. So you have read it, but you reject Jesus as your Lord and savior?

 

[kbf1970060]

Great post! Your friend, Sufjon

Thank you!

 

[Sufjon]

Ok. So you have read it, but you reject Jesus as your Lord and savior?

Hi Lisa: Seeing the message of Jesus and the meaning of His life differently does not mean rejection of Jesus or of God. I simply take Jesus at His word, and His word alone insofar as the Bible is concerned. I can be more specific. If you study the words of Christ in the New Testament, what He says agrees with what can be viewed as a continuum that includes many of the world’s religious texts. In other words, I see a good deal of continuity between my own Eastern religious background and the words of Jesus, and of course I think this would make sense. This is because since there is but one God, the experiences of the encounters with God shared by various cultures throughout the ages should share common threads. It does not make sense to me that God should be reduced to something of a provincial overlord of the Hebrew people, and this is where perhaps much of the self-centric inclinations of mainstream Christianity originate. In other words, I do not believe in one chosen people and one encounter with God. I believe that God is present in all of creation, cares for all of creation and can be encountered throughout creation. Moreover, I would say that He is the fabric of all creation, into which the threads of individual experience are woven. There is no such thing as a life separate from God. There are only the perceptions of separation and aloneness, and this of course is the cause of all suffering. Without “I, Me and Mine” there can be no suffering, and without a false sense of “Self” there can be no “I, Me and Mine.” This is why Jesus implores His followers to give up what they own. He is not talking about giving away your car and your house. He is talking about not having a sense of ownership, because whatever you perceive yourself as owning becomes something you must carry around through life, and with so many things to carry around (in your head at least), there is no freedom and there is no peace. So why try to carry all these things around through life? They are just baggage. Part of that baggage is ego or the sense of self. This sense of self is the spoiler to all that Jesus taught. Who has not come home to see fire trucks in their neighborhood and said “please don’t let it be my house.” That means that in reality you are asking for it to be your neighbors house instead, because in this case, it’s either your house or theirs, isn’t it? This means that we do not love our neighbors as ourselves. It is our sense of self and subsequently ownership that makes us this way. This is why Jesus says to drop it or you can’t follow Him.

So back to your original point, I take Jesus and His words and actions as genuine manifestations of God among us. I do not, however, care much about how people with limited cultural backgrounds were able to place these into their own context. This means that I do not recognize canonical writings as being more legitimate than non-canonical, nor do I recognize the legitimacy of any councils or founders who might have conferred their approval on one vs. the other, or imposed their understandings on these writings. It is my view that most of them were clearly ignorant of the broader context of human experience into which the Jesus episode was enmeshed. When the broader scope of human interaction with God is taken into account, a fuller meaning ignites the words of Jesus with an effulgence far greater than that which these people ascribed to it. It must be taken into account though, that the people who injected their interpretations into the mix were closer to Neanderthals than to 21st century humans in regards to what they knew or comprehended, and it’s incumbent on us to use what reasoning capabilities we have been given. This background having been covered, the answer to your question is yes, I fully embrace Jesus as God among us. I simply see Him in a broader context, and my understanding of Him is very different than yours. But you have what you believe and should not be overly concerned with what I believe. Your path will do fine for you.

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[Whadyamean]

Hi Lisa: Seeing the message of Jesus and the meaning of His life differently does not mean rejection of Jesus or of God. I simply take Jesus at His word, and His word alone insofar as the Bible is concerned. I can be more specific. If you study the words of Christ in the New Testament, what He says agrees with what can be viewed as a continuum that includes many of the world’s religious texts. In other words, I see a good deal of continuity between my own Eastern religious background and the words of Jesus, and of course I think this would make sense. This is because since there is but one God, the experiences of the encounters with God shared by various cultures throughout the ages should share common threads. It does not make sense to me that God should be reduced to something of a provincial overlord of the Hebrew people, and this is where perhaps much of the self-centric inclinations of mainstream Christianity originate. In other words, I do not believe in one chosen people and one encounter with God. I believe that God is present in all of creation, cares for all of creation and can be encountered throughout creation. Moreover, I would say that He is the fabric of all creation, into which the threads of individual experience are woven. There is no such thing as a life separate from God. There are only the perceptions of separation and aloneness, and this of course is the cause of all suffering. Without “I, Me and Mine” there can be no suffering, and without a false sense of “Self” there can be no “I, Me and Mine.” This is why Jesus implores His followers to give up what they own. He is not talking about giving away your car and your house. He is talking about not having a sense of ownership, because whatever you perceive yourself as owning becomes something you must carry around through life, and with so many things to carry around (in your head at least), there is no freedom and there is no peace. So why try to carry all these things around through life? They are just baggage. Part of that baggage is ego or the sense of self. This sense of self is the spoiler to all that Jesus taught. Who has not come home to see fire trucks in their neighborhood and said “please don’t let it be my house.” That means that in reality you are asking for it to be your neighbors house instead, because in this case, it’s either your house or theirs, isn’t it? This means that we do not love our neighbors as ourselves. It is our sense of self and subsequently ownership that makes us this way. This is why Jesus says to drop it or you can’t follow Him.

So back to your original point, I take Jesus and His words and actions as genuine manifestations of God among us. I do not, however, care much about how people with limited cultural backgrounds were able to place these into their own context. This means that I do not recognize canonical writings as being more legitimate than non-canonical, nor do I recognize the legitimacy of any councils or founders who might have conferred their approval on one vs. the other, or imposed their understandings on these writings. It is my view that most of them were clearly ignorant of the broader context of human experience into which the Jesus episode was enmeshed. When the broader scope of human interaction with God is taken into account, a fuller meaning ignites the words of Jesus with an effulgence far greater than that which these people ascribed to it. It must be taken into account though, that the people who injected their interpretations into the mix were closer to Neanderthals than to 21st century humans in regards to what they knew or comprehended, and it’s incumbent on us to use what reasoning capabilities we have been given. This background having been covered, the answer to your question is yes, I fully embrace Jesus as God among us. I simply see Him in a broader context, and my understanding of Him is very different than yours. But you have what you believe and should not be overly concerned with what I believe. Your path will do fine for you.

Your friend,
Sufjon

This is well written, and as far as I can tell, accurate in all its aspects. I particularly enjoyed your passage about “…Jesus imploring his disciples to give up all they own.” Of course He didn’t mean possession, but the attachment to them, including the possession an individual experiences at the hands of ego, or false self image. If there is a “demon” to be cast out, this is it. and that is what the meaning, the actual and practical meaning of the vow of poverty is. You can be a billionaire and still have no attachment to the sense of a material personality being “real.” But mistaking personality or ego as being actual, other than a mental construct, that is the reason for a vow of poverty, so one can free oneself from a false sense of who and what one is.

 

[Sufjon]

This is well written, and as far as I can tell, accurate in all its aspects. I particularly enjoyed your passage about “…Jesus imploring his disciples to give up all they own.” Of course He didn’t mean possession, but the attachment to them, including the possession an individual experiences at the hands of ego, or false self image. If there is a “demon” to be cast out, this is it. and that is what the meaning, the actual and practical meaning of the vow of poverty is. You can be a billionaire and still have no attachment to the sense of a material personality being “real.” But mistaking personality or ego as being actual, other than a mental construct, that is the reason for a vow of poverty, so one can free oneself from a false sense of who and what one is.

Hi Whadyamean: Thanks for the reply. I had never thought of the idea of the false self or ego as being a demon to be cast out, but now that you mention it, it’s a very interesting idea. I’ll sure be thinking about that for a while to come.

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[Lisa44]

Hi Lisa: Seeing the message of Jesus and the meaning of His life differently does not mean rejection of Jesus or of God. I simply take Jesus at His word, and His word alone insofar as the Bible is concerned. I can be more specific. If you study the words of Christ in the New Testament, what He says agrees with what can be viewed as a continuum that includes many of the world’s religious texts. In other words, I see a good deal of continuity between my own Eastern religious background and the words of Jesus, and of course I think this would make sense. This is because since there is but one God, the experiences of the encounters with God shared by various cultures throughout the ages should share common threads. It does not make sense to me that God should be reduced to something of a provincial overlord of the Hebrew people, and this is where perhaps much of the self-centric inclinations of mainstream Christianity originate. In other words, I do not believe in one chosen people and one encounter with God. I believe that God is present in all of creation, cares for all of creation and can be encountered throughout creation. Moreover, I would say that He is the fabric of all creation, into which the threads of individual experience are woven. There is no such thing as a life separate from God. There are only the perceptions of separation and aloneness, and this of course is the cause of all suffering. **Without “I, Me and Mine” there can be no suffering, and without a false sense of “Self” there can be no “I, Me and Mine.” ** This is why Jesus implores His followers to give up what they own. He is not talking about giving away your car and your house. He is talking about not having a sense of ownership, because whatever you perceive yourself as owning becomes something you must carry around through life, and with so many things to carry around (in your head at least), there is no freedom and there is no peace. So why try to carry all these things around through life? They are just baggage. Part of that baggage is ego or the sense of self. This sense of self is the spoiler to all that Jesus taught. Who has not come home to see fire trucks in their neighborhood and said “please don’t let it be my house.” That means that in reality you are asking for it to be your neighbors house instead, because in this case, it’s either your house or theirs, isn’t it? This means that we do not love our neighbors as ourselves. It is our sense of self and subsequently ownership that makes us this way. This is why Jesus says to drop it or you can’t follow Him.

So back to your original point, I take Jesus and His words and actions as genuine manifestations of God among us. I do not, however, care much about how people with limited cultural backgrounds were able to place these into their own context. This means that I do not recognize canonical writings as being more legitimate than non-canonical, nor do I recognize the legitimacy of any councils or founders who might have conferred their approval on one vs. the other, or imposed their understandings on these writings. It is my view that most of them were clearly ignorant of the broader context of human experience into which the Jesus episode was enmeshed. When the broader scope of human interaction with God is taken into account, a fuller meaning ignites the words of Jesus with an effulgence far greater than that which these people ascribed to it. It must be taken into account though, that the people who injected their interpretations into the mix were closer to Neanderthals than to 21st century humans in regards to what they knew or comprehended, and it’s incumbent on us to use what reasoning capabilities we have been given. This background having been covered, the answer to your question is yes, I fully embrace Jesus as God among us. I simply see Him in a broader context, and my understanding of Him is very different than yours. But you have what you believe and should not be overly concerned with what I believe. Your path will do fine for you.

Your friend,
Sufjon

That is Buddhist teaching. Period. End of story. A religion that I rejected many years ago after practicing it for several years. That is NOT Christianity. And it is so dishonest of you to try and re-package Christianity to suit your preference for Buddhist teachings. Sooo dishonest.

You got half of it right, he persuades his disciples to give up what they own and do what?..What comes next Sufjon? You are so honest tell us what comes next?

To give up their possessions and FOLLOW HIM. Not Buddha. To follow Jesus as he said he is the ONLY way to salvation.

Why do you leave that part out Sufjon?

I am amazed by you. For someone who speaks about ego you have a lot of nerve LYING about what Jesus taught and trying to say he taught the same thing that the Buddha taught.

I was a Buddhist for many years as are some of my family members today and I can tell you that THEY WOULD BE FLOORED BY YOUR STATEMENTS.

I would have a TON more respect for you if you just said you were a Buddhist. But wow!

Do NOT! I repeat, Do NOT make up lies about Jesus and try and peddle them here to Catholics and Christians. It is shameful.

I wouldn’t dream of going into a Buddhist forum and re-packaging the Buddhist teachings.

That is so disrespectful. You have no idea what ego is do you? You have no idea what it is to be humble.

 

[Lisa44]

Hi Whadyamean: Thanks for the reply. I had never thought of the idea of the false self or ego as being a demon to be cast out, but now that you mention it, it’s a very interesting idea. I’ll sure be thinking about that for a while to come.

Your friend,
Sufjon

Demons can only be cast out in Jesus’s name.

Oh right, the bible is wrong, Sufjon is right, meditation on the “self” is the way to cast out demons.

 

[Lisa44]

Hi Lisa: Seeing the message of Jesus and the meaning of His life differently does not mean rejection of Jesus or of God. I simply take Jesus at His word, and His word alone insofar as the Bible is concerned. I can be more specific. If you study the words of Christ in the New Testament, what He says agrees with what can be viewed as a continuum that includes many of the world’s religious texts. In other words, I see a good deal of continuity between my own Eastern religious background and the words of Jesus, and of course I think this would make sense. This is because since there is but one God, the experiences of the encounters with God shared by various cultures throughout the ages should share common threads. It does not make sense to me that God should be reduced to something of a provincial overlord of the Hebrew people, and this is where perhaps much of the self-centric inclinations of mainstream Christianity originate. In other words, I do not believe in one chosen people and one encounter with God. I believe that God is present in all of creation, cares for all of creation and can be encountered throughout creation. Moreover, I would say that He is the fabric of all creation, into which the threads of individual experience are woven. There is no such thing as a life separate from God. **There are only the perceptions of separation and aloneness, and this of course is the cause of all suffering. Without “I, Me and Mine” there can be no suffering, and without a false sense of “Self” there can be no “I, Me and Mine.” ** This is why Jesus implores His followers to give up what they own. He is not talking about giving away your car and your house. He is talking about not having a sense of ownership, because whatever you perceive yourself as owning becomes something you must carry around through life, and with so many things to carry around (in your head at least), there is no freedom and there is no peace. So why try to carry all these things around through life? They are just baggage. Part of that baggage is ego or the sense of self. This sense of self is the spoiler to all that Jesus taught. Who has not come home to see fire trucks in their neighborhood and said “please don’t let it be my house.” That means that in reality you are asking for it to be your neighbors house instead, because in this case, it’s either your house or theirs, isn’t it? This means that we do not love our neighbors as ourselves. It is our sense of self and subsequently ownership that makes us this way. This is why Jesus says to drop it or you can’t follow Him.

…

Your friend,
Sufjon

This is well written, and as far as I can tell, accurate in all its aspects. I particularly enjoyed your passage about “…Jesus imploring his disciples to give up all they own.” Of course He didn’t mean possession, but the attachment to them, including the possession an individual experiences at the hands of ego, or false self image. If there is a “demon” to be cast out, this is it. and that is what the meaning, the actual and practical meaning of the vow of poverty is. You can be a billionaire and still have no attachment to the sense of a material personality being “real.” But mistaking personality or ego as being actual, other than a mental construct, that is the reason for a vow of poverty, so one can free oneself from a false sense of who and what one is.

“Self-centric” - You would know all about that, making up your own religion is the epitome of self-centric.
Have you read the bible Wadyamean? If you have not read it then I encourage you to do so.

“I do not believe in chosen people or one encounter with God.” - Jesus is God and he is the ONLY encounter people have had with God outside of the prophets in the O.T.

“There is no such thing as a life separate from God” - YES, there is. If you are not for Jesus you are against him.

Matthew 12:30 Anyone who is not with me is against me, and anyone who does not gather with me scatters.

“There are only perceptions…” No, there are not only perceptions, that is a Buddhist teaching. Suffering does not come from a false sense of “self” that is also a Buddhist teaching.

Jesus did not tell people to embrace poverty because of a misguided sense of self. He wanted them to TRUST that HE would provide for them.

Peace, does not come from detachment from self, that is a Buddhist teaching. Peace comes from God by the Holy Spirit.

“The sense of self” is** NOT** the spoiler to all that Jesus taught? What bible did you read??? The “spoiler” to all that Jesus taught is this: take notes: write it down:

Not believing that Jesus is your Lord and Savior.

 

[Xuan]

Hi Lisa: Seeing the message of Jesus and the meaning of His life differently does not mean rejection of Jesus or of God. I simply take Jesus at His word, and His word alone insofar as the Bible is concerned. I can be more specific. If you study the words of Christ in the New Testament, what He says agrees with what can be viewed as a continuum that includes many of the world’s religious texts. In other words, I see a good deal of continuity between my own Eastern religious background and the words of Jesus, and of course I think this would make sense. This is because since there is but one God, the experiences of the encounters with God shared by various cultures throughout the ages should share common threads. It does not make sense to me that God should be reduced to something of a provincial overlord of the Hebrew people, and this is where perhaps much of the self-centric inclinations of mainstream Christianity originate. In other words, I do not believe in one chosen people and one encounter with God. I believe that God is present in all of creation, cares for all of creation and can be encountered throughout creation. Moreover, I would say that He is the fabric of all creation, into which the threads of individual experience are woven. There is no such thing as a life separate from God. There are only the perceptions of separation and aloneness, and this of course is the cause of all suffering. Without “I, Me and Mine” there can be no suffering, and without a false sense of “Self” there can be no “I, Me and Mine.” This is why Jesus implores His followers to give up what they own. He is not talking about giving away your car and your house. He is talking about not having a sense of ownership, because whatever you perceive yourself as owning becomes something you must carry around through life, and with so many things to carry around (in your head at least), there is no freedom and there is no peace. So why try to carry all these things around through life? They are just baggage. Part of that baggage is ego or the sense of self. This sense of self is the spoiler to all that Jesus taught. Who has not come home to see fire trucks in their neighborhood and said “please don’t let it be my house.” That means that in reality you are asking for it to be your neighbors house instead, because in this case, it’s either your house or theirs, isn’t it? This means that we do not love our neighbors as ourselves. It is our sense of self and subsequently ownership that makes us this way. This is why Jesus says to drop it or you can’t follow Him.

So back to your original point, I take Jesus and His words and actions as genuine manifestations of God among us. I do not, however, care much about how people with limited cultural backgrounds were able to place these into their own context. This means that I do not recognize canonical writings as being more legitimate than non-canonical, nor do I recognize the legitimacy of any councils or founders who might have conferred their approval on one vs. the other, or imposed their understandings on these writings. It is my view that most of them were clearly ignorant of the broader context of human experience into which the Jesus episode was enmeshed. When the broader scope of human interaction with God is taken into account, a fuller meaning ignites the words of Jesus with an effulgence far greater than that which these people ascribed to it. It must be taken into account though, that the people who injected their interpretations into the mix were closer to Neanderthals than to 21st century humans in regards to what they knew or comprehended, and it’s incumbent on us to use what reasoning capabilities we have been given. This background having been covered, the answer to your question is yes, I fully embrace Jesus as God among us. I simply see Him in a broader context, and my understanding of Him is very different than yours. But you have what you believe and should not be overly concerned with what I believe. Your path will do fine for you.

Your friend,
Sufjon

Hi Sufjon,

Beautifully put, as usual. I really appreciate it when you flesh-out some of your ideas like this.

On a side note, a couple of months ago I started saying the rosary every day. I’m sure you’re totally unaware of it, but you were influential in my making that decision. Thank you.

Your friend,
Xuan