C
- Status
B
billcu1
Guest
Why on earth would you believe a Catholic priest is an authority on Buddhism, medicine, ec cetra and anything that they tell you? They are to give the sacraments. Iāve heard priest say very foolish things. Calling kids who like music āSatanistsā. I donāt know if they donāt understand show business or what. Now on matters of the church, thatās different. Priests arenāt Buddhist masters. No one person can be an expert on everything. They believed at times before if you weight more than the Bible your a witch doctors and midwives are in league with the devil, silliness. So on. They sometimes donāt know when to stop. I just ignore them. But they can be sometimes annoying.
B
billcu1
Guest
Why is that? Are you using Asian or Western terms?You seem to be contradicting your statement that āthe ultimate truth is that there is no truthā.
Even though there is nothing intrinsic in phonemes it doesnāt follow that they are meaningless.
In that case you cannot believe everything is an illusion. Both āyouā and āenlightenmentā are real.
Illusions imply the existence of reality. Otherwise illusions are an illusion!
B
billcu1
Guest
B
billcu1
Guest
No you study it. Since you know nothing about it compared to you he is an authority. What youāre doing is inhumility. Thirty years makes someone an authority.
Why is the priest an authority How does he know anything about Buddhism? Church matters cannon law yes but Buddhism
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
G
Grym
Guest
Please guys.
I claim no authority whatsoever in Buddhist knowleadge. I was merely trying to explain why I think Aiken is mistaken. ( Hey that rimes
)
If anybody (say like Charlemagne III) want to ask an Authority on buddhism about the contents of the mentioned text I would suggest writing someone they seem fit in the Sangha (the body of Monastics) in say Sri Lanka or Thailand or another buddhist country and not post the question on a Catholic forum.
On the forum for Dhamma Wheel for instance there are some learned buddhist monks that can and will answer questions like that.
But no Authority whatsoever is going to be able to, in words, give anybody true insight into codependent origination and emptiness.
That is a path you must walk alone.
Cheers.
/Victor
I claim no authority whatsoever in Buddhist knowleadge. I was merely trying to explain why I think Aiken is mistaken. ( Hey that rimes
)If anybody (say like Charlemagne III) want to ask an Authority on buddhism about the contents of the mentioned text I would suggest writing someone they seem fit in the Sangha (the body of Monastics) in say Sri Lanka or Thailand or another buddhist country and not post the question on a Catholic forum.
On the forum for Dhamma Wheel for instance there are some learned buddhist monks that can and will answer questions like that.
But no Authority whatsoever is going to be able to, in words, give anybody true insight into codependent origination and emptiness.
That is a path you must walk alone.
Cheers.
/Victor
G
Grym
Guest
That is just your belief. You have no way to prove it is so. Your God is meaningless to me as my gods apparently are meaningless to you. Your God is not really God. I donāt know what to call him, but the nearest metaphor in Buddhism would be Brahma. So let us by all means be conflating God with gods. In the *true * meaning of the words of course.
As an Buddhist I must say you really have a serious problem with attachment to words. Let it go dude.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Thank you for that reference. The supposition that various numbers have spiritual meanings needs justificationā¦
T
tonyrey
Guest
The meaning is universally understood - like your question! Unless of course it is altered to fit into a specific ideology but then the meaning becomes like plasticine, i.e. arbitrary.
G
Grym
Guest
I do agree that the best correspondance of the lower gods in my termonology would be angels in yours.
But in Buddhism there are numerous Creator Gods and other Gods that trancede these in mental developmnet.
Just so you know that I am not *only * fooling around.
/Victor
R
rossum
Guest
That is not my statement. Please check my sig again.
They are not meaningless, but they are not ultimate. Phonemes have meaning, but their meaning is conventional, not ultimate.
No, I am not ultimately real because there are too many of me. Which of the uncountable versions of me is the real me? All of those versions of me existed for an instant and then disappeared. They were there once, but have now disappeared. Which one was the real one?
Illusions imply the existence of illusions only. It is the impermanence of the illusions that is important. If they were permanent then they could not be dispelled.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
A common error. There are gods, but they can safely be ignored. A Buddhist may be an atheist, but it is not required. Atheist Buddhists are more common in the west than in the east.
There are gods, but since most of them are unenlightened we cannot always trust what they say. The unenlightened may make errors.
The Buddha was enlightened and did not make errors after his enlightenment. However, we do not have the Buddha here today, so the Tripitaka may contain errors. Hence the Buddhaās instructions:
Kalamas, when you yourselves know: āThese things are good; these things are not blameable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,ā enter on and abide in them."
ā Kalama sutta, Anguttara Nikaya, 3.65
We look at the Tripitaka and the words of our teachers, āpraised by the wiseā. We then undertake and observe those practices. If they ālead to benefit and happinessā then we continue to follow them. If they do not lead to benefit and happiness then we cease those practices. āBy their fruits shall you know them.ā
rossum
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Then they are not gods. They arenāt even demons. Whatever they are, you havenāt explained.
Even the Greek and Roman pagans would have been contemptuous of them, as you yourself seem to be.
G
Grym
Guest
Nope not sarcastic. Truthful. And I am never feeble. I have practised Budo for 25 years and weigh around 100 kilos of pure muscle and bone.Another feeble attempt at sarcasm?
Well, if thatās what makes your day, pile on!
Im ninja for real bro. :nunchuk:
G
Grym
Guest
According th the Dhamma. They are beings that are higher up the karma chain. In case of the christian god much higher up.Then they are not gods. They arenāt even demons. Whatever they are, you havenāt explained.
Even the Greek and Roman pagans would have been contemptuous of them, as you yourself seem to be.
Nothing more nothing less.
/Victor
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
How do you know this for a fact? I mean, where is this said other than out of your own mouth?
Please cite author and source.
B
billcu1
Guest
There is nothing to study out there. What does he study? Catholic works. He can only say what the church allows. He canāt go against the church. Your not exactly getting an unbiased opinion or facts here. Things are taught from lama (priest) in my case directly from teacher to student. It isnāt published in books and much is mind to mind. I donāt know what he can study. Priest are very busy teaching Catholicism not Buddhism. What youāre saying is impossible.
- Status