Ask A Buddhist II

[Lodro]

I would disagree that everything is emptiness. God, for example, is overflowing with mercy and forgiveness…

I think emptiness is also one of those charged words that is easily misunderstood. The definitions and synonyms for emptiness are many, but you would probably be better off thinking of “free from concept” or “without nature of its own”. From that perspective it could just as easily be seen as “fullness”. In the Third Turning of the wheel of dharma, it is always bound to “luminosity”. These are terms that are essentially antidotes to human misunderstanding about the inherent nature of phenomenon. Hope that helps clarify things somewhat…

 

[JoeBowen7]

I think emptiness is also one of those charged words that is easily misunderstood. The definitions and synonyms for emptiness are many, but you would probably be better off thinking of “free from concept” or “without nature of its own”. From that perspective it could just as easily be seen as “fullness”. In the Third Turning of the wheel of dharma, it is always bound to “luminosity”. These are terms that are essentially antidotes to human misunderstanding about the inherent nature of phenomenon. Hope that helps clarify things somewhat…

Well, if everything is taken poetically, then I can understand it. However, there comes a certain point at which we have to take a stand and not get trapped into too much vagueness and uncertainty.

 

[Bakmoon]

Well, if everything is taken poetically, then I can understand it. However, there comes a certain point at which we have to take a stand and not get trapped into too much vagueness and uncertainty.

It’s kind of an interesting story of how the term ‘emptiness’ came to be used in Buddhist circles. It is tied to the founding of Madhyamika philosophy by the sage known as Nagarjuna. In his day, Mayahana Buddhism wasn’t a sect or school of Buddhism, but a movement that cut across the sectarian divisions of the day. Among the Sarvastrivadins, their collection of Abhidharmic texts insisted that all phenomena posses existence in and of themselves. In otherwords, they believed that all phenomena posses inherent existance.

Nagarjuna believed that this teaching was incompatible with the teaching that all phenomena arise only as the result of causes and conditions, and so in his philosophical works, he used the term Shunyata (meaning ‘emptiness’) quite intentionally to emphasize that all phenomena are void of inherent existence, which was the view of the Sarvastrivadins who were his contemporaries.

In this context, the word choice makes sense.

 

[JoeBowen7]

It’s kind of an interesting story of how the term ‘emptiness’ came to be used in Buddhist circles. It is tied to the founding of Madhyamika philosophy by the sage known as Nagarjuna. In his day, Mayahana Buddhism wasn’t a sect or school of Buddhism, but a movement that cut across the sectarian divisions of the day. Among the Sarvastrivadins, their collection of Abhidharmic texts insisted that all phenomena posses existence in and of themselves. In otherwords, they believed that all phenomena posses inherent existance.

Nagarjuna believed that this teaching was incompatible with the teaching that all phenomena arise only as the result of causes and conditions, and so in his philosophical works, he used the term Shunyata (meaning ‘emptiness’) quite intentionally to emphasize that all phenomena are void of inherent existence, which was the view of the Sarvastrivadins who were his contemporaries.

In this context, the word choice makes sense.

I am not sure, but perhaps in western philosophy, a related expression would be the contingency of existence of natural phenomena.

 

[Lodro]

However, there comes a certain point at which we have to take a stand and not get trapped into too much vagueness and uncertainty.

The actual textual descriptions are not at all vague, in fact they can go into excruciatingly great depth and detail. A text may for example present a number of different analogies for what emptiness is. Other texts may respond in different ways. And according to the teachings, emptiness is inseparable from compassion and from Buddha Nature. In fact, I guess you could say that the meaning of emptiness is the central issue in buddhist philosophical systems.

But yes, it is by nature uncertain in the realm of language. But interestingly, it is not at all uncertain in the realm of experience.

Perhaps you highlight a key distinction between our two traditions. Buddhism emphasizes individual experience over received wisdom and demands that we embrace uncertainty. On reflection though, I’m not sure that that is that so different from the practice of many Catholics…?

In any case, I’m only sharing my own tradition’s teachings at everyone’s kind invitation – the last thing I want to do is to convince you that this view is correct. In fact, I think that exploring the distinctions and similarities of our belief systems actually sharpens our own faith. And beyond semantics, I can appreciate the deeper meaning and wisdom of what you’re saying.

 

[patrick457]

patrick457,

Was soma used other than as a sacrificial wine? Did laypeople use it as an intoxicant?

How did Rudra become Indra. Are they both worshipped today or does only Indra remain?

What sacrificial “wine” is used today in ceremonies?

Soma was AFAIK used mainly for ritual purposes: it was one of those oblations thrown into the sacrificial fire, and was consumed mainly in a ceremonial context. Nowadays, in the absence of true soma, substitute plants are used (there are a number of them, but the general principle seems to be that any plant can be used provided that it is yellow) accompanied by expiatory prayers to the gods apologizing for the use of a substitute. I don’t know if they even make a drink out of it today. I believe Zoroastrians now also use substitutes for the related haoma.

As for Rudra: in the post-Vedic period Rudra assumed characteristics from different sources. For one, by this time, Rudra was often identified with different gods like Soma (now increasingly identified with the moon; see below) or Agni (i.e. the destructive aspect of fire); in fact an important early text on etymology called the Nirukta says, “Agni is called Rudra also.”

As mentioned, Rudra the archer was originally a god so terrible that he is not so much beloved and worshipped as feared and appeased. Hence he is sometimes not addressed by name but given epithets: Shiva ‘auspicious’ happen to be one of them.

To Tryambaka = the Three-eyed] we make offering,
The fragrant, increaser of prosperity;
Like a cucumber from its stem,
From death may I be loosened, not from immortality.

====

Homage to thy wrath, O Rudra,
To thine arrow homage also;
Homage to thy bow,
And homage to thine arms.
With thy most kindly arrow,
And kindly bow,
With thy kindly missile,
Be gentle to us, O Rudra.
That body of thine, O Rudra, which is kindly,
Not dread, (aghora) with auspicious look,
With that body, most potent to heal,
O haunter of the mountains, do thou look on us.
The arrow which, O haunter of mountains,
In thy hand thou bearest to shoot,
That make thou kindly, O guardian of mountains;
Harm not the world of men.
With kindly utterance thee
We address, O dweller on the mountains,
That all our folk
Be free from sickness and of good cheer.
The advocate hath spoken in advocacy,
The first divine leech,
Confounding all the serpents
And all sorceries.
The dusky, the ruddy,
The brown, the auspicious,
And the Rudras which in thousands
Lie around this (earth) in the quarters,
Their wrath do we deprecate.

…]

Homage to Bhava = the Fortunate] and to Rudra.
Homage to Sharva = the Archer] and to the lord of cattle. (pashupataye)
Homage to the blue-necked one, (nilagrivaya) and to the white-throated.
Homage to the wearer of braids, (kapardine) and to him of shaven hair.
Homage to him of a thousand eyes, and to him of a hundred bows.
Homage to him who haunteth the mountains, and to Shipivishta.
Homage to the most bountiful, and to the bearer of the arrow.

…]

Homage to Soma, and to Rudra.
Homage to the dusky one, and to the ruddy one.
Homage to the giver of weal, (shangaya) and to the lord of cattle.
Homage to the dread, (ugraya) and to the terrible.
Homage to him who slayeth in front, and to him who slayeth at a distance.
Homage to the slayer, and to the special slayer.
Homage to the trees with green tresses.
Homage to the deliverer.
Homage to the source of health, (shambhavaya) and to the source of delight (mayobhavaya).
Homage to the maker of health, (shankaraya) and to the maker of delight. (mayaskaraya)
Homage to the auspicious, (shivaya)** and to the more auspicious.** (shivataraya)

…]

O chaser, lord of the Soma plants,
O waster, red and blue,
Frighten not nor injure
(Any) of these people, of these cattle;
Be not one of these injured.
That auspicious form of thine, O Rudra, (ya te rudra shiva tanuh)
Auspicious and ever healing, (shiva vishvaha bhesaji)
Auspicious and healing (form of) Rudra, (shiva rudrasya bhesaji)
With that show mercy on us for life.
This prayer we offer up to the impetuous Rudra,
With plaited hair, destroyer of men, (kapardine kshayadviraya)
That health be for our bipeds and quadrupeds,
And that all in this village be prosperous and free from ill.

• Krishna Yajurveda (Taittiriya Samhita), i.8.6; iv.5.1.1-7, 5.1-7, 8.1-12, 10.1-3

In other words, the Vedic god Rudra by degrees became the Hindu god Shiva. We can see this at the Mahabharata:

Sanjaya said, "The son of Drona = Ashvatthaman], O monarch, having reflected thus, descended from the terrace of his car and stood, bending his head unto that supreme god. And he said, "I seek the protection of Him called Ugra, Sthanu, Shiva, Rudra, Sharva, Ishana, Ishvara, Girisha; and of that boon-giving god who is the Creator and Lord of the universe; of Him whose throat is blue, who is without birth, who is called Shakra, who destroyed the sacrifice of Daksha, and who is called Hara; of Him whose form is the universe, who hath three eyes, who is possessed of multifarious forms, and who is the lord of Uma; of Him who resides in crematoriums, who swells with energy, who is the lord of diverse tribes of ghostly beings, and who is the possessor of undecaying prosperity and power; of Him who wields the skull-topped club, who is called Rudra, who bears matted locks on his head, and who is a brahmacari. Purifying my soul that is so difficult to purify, and possessed as I am of small energy, I adore the Destroyer of the triple city, and offer myself as the victim. Hymned thou hast been, deserving art thou of hymns, and I hymn to thy glory!

“Thy purposes are never baffled. Thou art robed in skins; thou hast red hair on thy head; thou art blue-throated; thou art unbearable; thou art irresistible! Thou art pure; thou art the Creator of Brahman; thou art Brahma; thou art a brahmacari; thou art an observer of vows; thou art devoted to ascetic austerities; thou art infinite; thou art the refuge of all ascetics; thou art multiform; thou art the leader of diverse tribes of ghostly beings; thou art three-eyed; thou art fond of those beings called companions; thou art always seen by the Lord of treasures; thou art dear to Gauri’s heart; thou art the sire of Kumara; thou art tawny; thou hast for thy excellent bearer a bovine bull; thou art robed in a subtle attire; thou art most fierce; thou art eager to adorn Uma; thou art higher than all that is high; thou art higher than everything; there is nothing higher than thou; thou art the wielder of weapons; thou art immeasurable, and thou art the protector of all quarters; thou art cased in golden armour; thou art divine; thou hast the moon as an ornament on thy brow! With concentrated attention, I seek thy protection, O god! For success in getting over this dreadful distress that is so difficult to get over, I sacrifice unto thee, the purest of the pure, offering for thy acceptance the (five) elements of which my body is composed!”

 

[notself]

I’m beginning to understand how the Brahmins gained such power. With each group of gods covering specific things the rituals must have been quite challenging to memorize and perform. All the other castes had to be dependent on them.

It must have been quite a shock when the Buddha started ordaining all castes as equals including untouchables. Think of how dedicated to the dhamma a monk of the Brahmin class had to be to bow in respect to a senior monk who was of a lower caste or untouchable. One of the recommended grounds for meditation was graveyards. Again it must have been difficult for the monks.

The ordination of women caused quite a stir in society as well.

 

[patrick457]

I’m beginning to understand how the Brahmins gained such power. With each group of gods covering specific things the rituals must have been quite challenging to memorize and perform. All the other castes had to be dependent on them.

It must have been quite a shock when the Buddha started ordaining all castes as equals including untouchables. Think of how dedicated to the dhamma a monk of the Brahmin class had to be to bow in respect to a senior monk who was of a lower caste or untouchable. One of the recommended grounds for meditation was graveyards. Again it must have been difficult for the monks.

The ordination of women caused quite a stir in society as well.

I was just getting to that.

The sacrificial act (yajna) performed by expert brahman priests served as the core of the Aryan religion. Oblations included ghee (clarified butter), milk, grains, soma (although when it no longer became available, a substitute), and oftentimes meat (the early Indo-Aryans, unlike mmodern Hindus, performed animal sacrifice), which are cast into the sacrificial fire with the chanting of hymns.

So, who offers a yajna?

There was the presider known as the hotar, who recited invocations and litanies (which are preserved in the Rigveda, from richa ‘verse’), and his assistant, the adhvaryu, who performed the physical aspects of the sacrifice like building the altar, kindling the sacrificial fire and preparing the necessary implements and oblations. Each action was accompanied by supplicative or benedictive formulas (yajus, hence the Yajurveda). To this was soon added the udgatar, who chanted hymns (saman, hence the Samaveda) during the duration of the ritual. There was also an overall supervisor who watched the yajna closely: should there be any mistake during the course of the performance he ‘corrected’ it by means of supplementary invocations. When offering a yajna the priests (or at least the hotar/s) sat down before the altar upon strewn kusha grass (halfa grass; desmostachya bipinnata).

As for altars (vedi): before the temples of Hinduism existed, the altar in the Vedic tradition acquired an importance in itself and can be erected anywhere since it is related to no kind of cultic building. It is even provisional since it is erected from time to time as the need arises, and is abandoned or destroyed as soon as a sacrifice is completed. There are three main altars where Agni rests: in the east is the square-shaped offertorial pit or ahavaniya, which receives the holocaust; the round grihapatya or ‘householder’s fire’ in the west is reserved for the equally important function of cooking the offerings (the Indo-Aryans, somewhat oddly, first cooked the foodstuffs that they would later cast in the fire of the ahavaniya anyway - more on this later). The fire in the ahavaniya is kindled using the flaming pieces of firewood from the grihapatya. Occasionally a third fire pit in the shape of a half-moon is added for the cooking (usually of grain offerings) at the south or south-east of the grihapatya which is called anvaharyapachana or dakshinagni (‘southern fire’).

There was a huge stress on performing the ritual accurately - saying the words and doing the actions - to the point that elaborate systems of memorization were devised to ensure that the Vedic hymns could be transmitted with 100% fidelity by word of mouth alone, and also that there were a number of commentaries on the Vedas which also served as instruction manuals for conducting a sacrifice, called brahmanas. A good example of this is the Shatapatha Brahmana for the Shukla (‘White’) Yajurveda. (In contrast, the other version of the Yajurveda known as the Krishna (‘Black’) has the commentary integrated within the text itself, for example the recension used by the Taittiriya school known as the Taittiriya Samhita - although this particular school also has a brahmana of its own.) Eventually, it soon became the case that only professional priests could perform a yajna adequately. So whereas in the earliest times, the true sacrificer or the intended beneficiary of the rite directly participated, in Vedic times he was only a sponsor, the yajamana, with the hotar or the supervising brahman taking his stead in the ritual. The position of purohita (literally, “one who is placed in front”), a term originally designating a domestic chaplain, especially of a prince, became important because of this. It was not unusual for a purohita to serve as the hotar or brahman at a sacrifice for his master, besides conducting other more domestic (grihya) rituals for him also.

Hence, by the later Vedic period (1000-500 BC), when the Indo-Aryans moved further and further into the subcontinent and when a shift in lifestyle (sedentary, agricultural villages replacing the nomadic pastoralism of old) brought with it social changes (such as the division of the population into different castes and increasing misogynistic tendencies), the brahmans became the elite of Indo-Aryan society: financed by the wealthy and the pious, they in return conferred cultic legitimacy to their patrons by carrying out powerful sacrifices that ritually converted warriors to kings and granted immortality (not in a literal sense it seems). In one sense they are even higher than the ruling clansmen or the raja (ruler) of the clan/tribe/kingdom.

 

[Vouthon]

I just read a very good post by a Catholic on another thread, which might interest Buddhists. It gives a very good description of the three levels of prayer in Catholicism: Meditation (discursive), active contemplation (non-discursive, human effort) and passive contemplation (non-discursive and from the grace of God).

You see what many Buddhists refer to as “meditation”, Catholics would call “contemplation”. We could thus talk past each other because of our difference in terminology:

Eastern mediatation has nothing to do with “emptying the mind.” That is an unfortunate stereotype Buddhist mediation involves a great degree of awareness and has much to do with controlling and focusing the mind.

I assume you are speaking about Catholic meditation and contemplation, however. Meditation in Catholic spirituality refers primarily to discursive thought about a subject. For instance, one can read a short passage from Sacred Scripture and meditate on it, get into the context of the passage, what it means for you personally, etc. It can also mean focused thinking about a certain subject such as God’s eternal existence, the impermanence of material creation, the consequences of sin, etc. The purpose of mediation is to help one turn away from sin and to inspire love of God. Turning away from sin is the first step in the spiritual life. Such writers as St. John of the Cross and St. Theresa of Avila advised beginners to devote much time to discursive meditation which will often eventually lead to contemplation.

Contemplation generally refers to non-discursive meditation. Spiritual writers usually distinguish between active and passive contemplation. Active contemplation is often explained as actively seeking to quiet the mind by controlling one’s train of thought and “resting” in God’s presence. Passive contemplation is a grace from God that makes us aware of His presence in various ways and degrees. Passive contemplation is the highest form of prayer and at deeper levels it can involve a great degree of anguish and confusion as God’s revelation of Himself dispels our preconceptions and instills wisdom. With effort and diligence, active contemplation can become habitual, creating the environment for passive contemplation, although God can, and does at times bestow passive contemplation even upon sinners or those engaged in a very active life.

Most people do not progress to contemplation because of attachments to sin. This is why meditation is so important. Regular directed meditation is a great aid in overcoming vice and and other attachments that prevent one’s mind from focusing on God and becoming “pure of heart.” It stimulates the desire to love God, enlightens us as to our sins that we may not even be aware of, and fosters the courage and strength needed to abandon one’s sinful habits.

For a pretty comprehensive overview of Christian Spirituality I would recommend “The Three Ages of the Spiritual Life” by Fr. Reginald Garrigou-LaGrange, O.P.

Meditation and active contemplation both involve effort on the part of the person (ie “seek and ye shall find”) whereas passive contemplation cannot be attained through human effort but only through the grace of God.

It seems to me that Buddhist meditative techniques and practices could be useful as an attempt to calm, quiet and focus the mind during active contemplation?

The spiritual writer whom he recommends, LaGrange, is best known for his magnum opus “The Three Ages of the Interior Life”, in which he propounded the thesis that infused contemplation and the resulting mystical life are in the normal way of holiness of Christian perfection. This influenced the section entitled “Chapter V: The Universal Call to Holiness in the Church” in the Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium and its call for all Catholics, whether monastic, clerical or lay, to contemplate. He is thought to be the greatest Catholic Thomist of the 20th century and I have read portions of that wonderful book before.

The reforms implemented by the Second Vatican Council (ie the Universal Call to Holiness/Contemplation and collegiality), are still in the process of being implemented by the Church. Blessed Pope John Paul II was particularly committed to the Universal Call to Holiness which is why he beatified and canonized so many people from all walks of life during his pontificate.

A good description of infused contemplation (in a mystical itinerary of 9 levels):

Level 5: Infused Contemplation
One of the most important things to note about this level of prayer is this: every Christian is called to infused contemplation. It is a common belief that only contemplative nuns or monks are called to infused contemplation, but one of the corollaries of Vatican II’s emphasis on the universal call to holiness is the recognition that all followers of Christ can - and should - eventually be at this level of prayer.

What is infused contemplation? It is the experiential knowledge of God that is infused into the soul by God. In other words, it is the invasion of the soul by the supernatural. In this stage, the soul is permeated and penetrated by Someone else. Note that to reach this level, the soul must be in the state of sanctifying grace; someone in mortal sin is not a receptive vessel for the Holy Spirit. Also, the soul who reaches this level of prayer does not discontinue the practice of virtue or charity; in fact, it usually will intensify.

There are a number of characteristics of this level of prayer, including:

(a) The impossibility of producing this mystical experience by one’s own efforts. One cannot “turn on” infused contemplation or turn it off, for that matter.

(b) The soul is more passive than active. In the previous forms of prayer, the soul was actively reaching for God; in this stage, the soul reclines and waits to receive God.

(c) The knowledge gained through infused contemplation is indescribable. When reading the writings of a St. Theresa or St. John of the Cross, one often notes how these saints struggle to actually describe their mystical experiences. They use metaphors, but even these must fall far short of the mark.

(d) A dramatic new living of Christian virtue. At this stage, one can truly do what St. Paul so often writes about: live “in Christ.” It is truly “no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.”

Level 6: Prayer of Quiet
At this stage, one is still involved in infused contemplation, but it includes a special captivating of the will. It is “infused contemplation plus,” so to speak. This level of prayer brings great spiritual delight, as the soul is absorbed in contemplating the presence of God. Whereas level 5 has a special emphasis on the intellect (knowledge of divine things), this stage has a special emphasis on the will (love of divine things). There is an analogy between levels 5/6 and levels 2/3: levels 2 & 5 primarily work in the arena of the intellect, whereas levels 3 & 6 are involved in the arena of the will.

One of the great benefits of this level of prayer is that often it can be experienced while the intellect is otherwise occupied. For example, the farmer tending his garden can experience the prayer of quiet during his gardening. St. Theresa said that at this level, the person experiences such an interior peace and quiet that even speaking wearies it.

 

[Vouthon]

Here is an exercise on how to pray the “Jesus Prayer” from the “Way of the Pilgrim”, a 19th century Russian mystical text. Its not word-for-word from the text but rather a truncated summary (I’ll quote the actual one tommorrow). In this scene the pilgrim teaches a blind man how to pray:

The blind man asked how one is to descend into the heart. The pilgrim said to imagine his heart. Imagine seeing it. Listen to it.

Once you are accustomed to this, then say the Jesus Prayer:
On one heartbeat, say the word “Lord.”
On the next heartbeat, say the word “Jesus.”
On the next heartbeat, say: “Christ.”
On the next heartbeat, say: “have mercy.”
On the next heartbeat, say: “on me.”

The next step in continuous prayer is to direct the flow of the Jesus Prayer in the heart in harmony with your breathing:
While inhaling, say, “Lord Jesus Christ.”
While exhaling, say, “have mercy on me.”

“Practice this often. Soon there will arise a pleasant pain in the heart. It is a sort of warmth, and a sort of burning. If you do this, with God’s help you will attain to the delightful self-activating interior prayer of the heart. However, as you do all this, guard against mental imaginings.”

The blind man listened attentively to everything and then earnestly began to practise the specified method of prayer. He would spend an exceptionally long time on it at night. After five days of praying in these ways, the blind man experienced this intense warmth and joy in his heart, an indescribably pleasant sensation in his heart. From time to time he would begin to see light, though he discerned no visible things or objects in it. At other times it felt as though a candle was burning in his heart. Sometimes it felt that this inner light was illuminating his whole being.

Sometimes it gave him the ability to see faraway objects. Once, for example, he saw a burning church and fallen tower, even though they were miles away.

It leads to that inner “warmth” and feeling in the chest that the western Catholic mystic Richard Rolle spoke of so eloquently in my earlier post; then to light (nimita?) and then potentially to some kind of extra-sensory perception where place is transcended and one feels connected to reality and other people on a higher level beyond sense.

 

[rossum]

I would disagree that everything is emptiness. God, for example, is overflowing with mercy and forgiveness, and that is why Catholics celebrate Divine Mercy Sunday. And there are thousands of people who show charity, mercy and understanding toward their neighbor.

Thomas Merton was speaking in a Buddhist context, where ‘emptiness’ (śūnyatā) has a specific technical meaning. It means the absence of any inner permanent ‘essence’. There is no such thing as a “soul” or Thomist “substance”.

The emptiness of emptiness is the fact that not even emptiness exists ultimately, that it is also dependent, conventional, nominal, and in the end it is just the everydayness of the everyday. Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.

– Jay Garfield, “Empty words, Buddhist philosophy and cross-cultural interpretation.” OUP 2002.

rossum

 

[Nooj]

Buddhism emphasizes individual experience over received wisdom

I agree, but individual experience only goes so far.

The Buddha knew and experienced stuff that people who take refuge in the Buddha have to trust or accept on faith. Like the idea that one can experience past-lives, you just have to trust that the Buddha was speaking rightly about that until you yourself can actually do that.

 

[rinnie]

You got it right. That is the definition of true Metta, the desire for the happiness and well being of all people and creatures, regardless of who or what they are.

That sounds sensible to me. The only difference is that prayer is directed at God, or some other entity, whereas the Metta meditation is simply giving words to an aspiration.

I think this is a very good point. We as Christians believe that when we pray to God and ask for his help we know he will answer our prayer and give us the help we need. The hardest part of this for a Catholic is you hear Garth Brooks made a song of it, Its called unanswered prayers. I hate that saying, because there is no such thing for God. The truth is sometimes he says NO. Its as simple as that.

But tell me this when we pray God does not give us what we WANT he gives us what we NEED.

What does giving words to an aspiration change? Or do for you? Where is it getting divine help? You are on your own, alone, left alone in your own darkness do you not agree?

 

[Nooj]

What does giving words to an aspiration change? Or do for you? Where is it getting divine help? You are on your own, alone, left alone in your own darkness do you not agree?

Buddhism is DIY salvation, in large part.

 

[rinnie]

I’'d agree with that, but with reservations. Because individual experience only goes so far.

The Buddha knew and experienced stuff that people who take refuge in the Buddha have to trust or accept on faith. Like the idea that one can experience past-lives, you just have to trust that the Buddha was speaking rightly about that until you yourself can actually do that.

Another good point. I never thought about this but you are correct, It is all about faith. No matter how you look at it.

And another good point is for some reason people deny taking refuge in Buddha. Wonder why?

In the Christian faith we are up front and tell you we take refuge in Christ. That is the whole being of our faith.

Here is another thing, they knew, or believe they knew that Buddha experienced past lives, but the truth is how could he? Christ told us we are only born once. Once in the Spirit and Once in the body. Christ proved his point. He told us that if we believe and are baptised and obey his commands we can have eternal life and never die.

Where is his proof? He did just what he claimed. Thousands have testified he did indeed die, rise again, and took away death for us.

Buddha claimed he experience past lives. Where is his proof? Who ever testifed to his truth that he claims to have. That is something we should all think about.

 

[rinnie]

Buddhism is DIY salvation, in large part.

I totally agree. And in Christianity there is no Salvation apart from Jesus Christ:shrug:

 

[AdamP88]

I totally agree. And in Christianity there is no Salvation apart from Jesus Christ:shrug:

And in Christ there is not emptiness but love, mercy & the fullness of truth!

 

[rinnie]

Here is an exercise on how to pray the “Jesus Prayer” from the “Way of the Pilgrim”, a 19th century Russian mystical text. Its not word-for-word from the text but rather a truncated summary (I’ll quote the actual one tommorrow). In this scene the pilgrim teaches a blind man how to pray:

It leads to that inner “warmth” and feeling in the chest that the western Catholic mystic Richard Rolle spoke of so eloquently in my earlier post; then to light (nimita?) and then potentially to some kind of extra-sensory perception where place is transcended and one feels connected to reality and other people on a higher level beyond sense.

It is not the meditation that I do not agree with. I mean think about it, what did Jesus teach us? He said when you fast wash your face, comb your hair, do this all in silence. Do not stand on the streets like the hypocrites do. When Jesus went to pray was he not alone, and meditating.

Meditation is really just simply keeping you mind of one thing. For us its Christ when we pray. So meditation and pray with Christ is truly no different.

The only difference between pray and meditation or can I say deep prayer, is your mind set at the time. When you are alone and clear everyone and everything away and take that hour of time for intense prayer its the same thing. Rather or not you come away with complete happiness or peace right away or later in the day or week etc, has nothing to do with you or how your prayed, but Christ, And when and how he chooses to answer that prayer.

But on the same token Christ also told us we must take the time for intense prayer. Ask and you will receive. God wants us to come to him, and take time to spend with him. But we must take steps also.

Kinda like the Joke, God why did you not let me hit the lotto? God well you could have AT LEAST bought a ticket. (not that God would do that, but you get my point).

 

[rinnie]

And in Christ there is not emptiness but love, mercy & the fullness of truth!

Exactly, The only emptyiness that you can ever associate with Christ is 2 things.

He emptied himself on the cross for our sins, so we can have eternal life.

And when we go to him we are full! Full of sin, We confess, repent, and come away empty all right, empty of all sin. Sin is what causes everything that Buddhism meditation is trying to rid oneself of.

The problem is that cannot see that one cannot save themself. Only God can do this.

The more I think about it, IMO what Buddhism med, is, is simply trying to do a good confession without God. Thats why I see nothing to be gained in it.

 

[AdamP88]

Exactly, The only emptyiness that you can ever associate with Christ is 2 things.

He emptied himself on the cross for our sins, so we can have eternal life.

And when we go to him we are full! Full of sin, We confess, repent, and come away empty all right, empty of all sin. Sin is what causes everything that Buddhism meditation is trying to rid oneself of.

The problem is that cannot see that one cannot save themself. Only God can do this.

The more I think about it, IMO what Buddhism med, is, is simply trying to do a good confession without God. Thats why I see nothing to be gained in it.