Made in God's Image?

[Sochi]

Where Buddhism falls short is that they think that the ultimate enlightenment is the utter denial of the self into “the One” where the person no longer exists. They claim that is the final journey of mysticism.

Christian mysticism says that to deny one’s self wholly to God is the only possible way to truly be the individual which God created you as. Christian mysticism was/is never about the annihilation of the person but the liberation of the person from sin. That when a person, by the subjection of his passions to his intellect and will, loves God and his neighbors as himself he will then be truly able to love himself as he loves God and his neighbors. That everything we give to God in order to deny ourselves, and which God takes with His left, He will return ten-fold with His right, and eternal life along with it.

That is why Buddhism is an inferior system. It may contain some lights, but it is nothing compared to the fullness of light and truth.

It might be useful here to understand that christianism is thought of as an “ascending” mode, and as primarily religion, while Buddhism is considered a “descending” form and primarily philosophy.
It is not useful to try to intellectually “understand” Buddhism, in terms of “self” as we understand that term in the West, though this is slightly beginning to change for the better.

In fact, it is not a question of the “person” no loner existing at all. It is, though not possible to delineate, because in the end it is experiential, more about a final Clarity of what constitutes the “person” relative to, for the sake of this audience, God. From that understanding the nature of the created person is pellucidly clear, understood, and transparent to Divinity, and unhampered by thoughts about It.

But even this explication is rather misleading. As I said before, the closest it might come to being said is how one of my favorite Catholics put it: “As long as you think you are a person, you will have a personal God.” She, and others like her, ultimately come to the same conclusion. It isn’t about what religion you think you are starting out as practicing, or lack of it. That isn’t what it is about.

In any case, this is only to say that really, you ought not present yourself as knowing a wit about Buddhism, save for an intellectual, dim, and unfocused, wet and faded ripped up snapshot that you have picked out from the trash and put together with old scotch tape, the kind you can’t see through so easily. I’m not so sure you are very clear on “Catholic” mysticism either, especially why it looks the way it does, as if such a thing could be, in the end, categorized under such misleading labels.

But effort is key in this; I suggest you step it up by about a thousand times. You have to appreciate your loneliness among the sleeping to know that you truly have the desire to wake up. You are way too comfortable in the sense of security belief gives you. Mysticism, Buddhist, or Catholic, or accidental, only looks like it is about belief in the beginning.

 

[hazcompat]

It might be useful here to understand that christianism is thought of as an “ascending” mode, and as primarily religion, while Buddhism is considered a “descending” form and primarily philosophy.
It is not useful to try to intellectually “understand” Buddhism, in terms of “self” as we understand that term in the West, though this is slightly beginning to change for the better.

In fact, it is not a question of the “person” no loner existing at all. It is, though not possible to delineate, because in the end it is experiential, more about a final Clarity of what constitutes the “person” relative to, for the sake of this audience, God. From that understanding the nature of the created person is pellucidly clear, understood, and transparent to Divinity, and unhampered by thoughts about It.

But even this explication is rather misleading. As I said before, the closest it might come to being said is how one of my favorite Catholics put it: “As long as you think you are a person, you will have a personal God.” She, and others like her, ultimately come to the same conclusion. It isn’t about what religion you think you are starting out as practicing, or lack of it. That isn’t what it is about.

In any case, this is only to say that really, you ought not present yourself as knowing a wit about Buddhism, save for an intellectual, dim, and unfocused, wet and faded ripped up snapshot that you have picked out from the trash and put together with old scotch tape, the kind you can’t see through so easily. I’m not so sure you are very clear on “Catholic” mysticism either, especially why it looks the way it does, as if such a thing could be, in the end, categorized under such misleading labels.

But effort is key in this; I suggest you step it up by about a thousand times. You have to appreciate your loneliness among the sleeping to know that you truly have the desire to wake up. You are way too comfortable in the sense of security belief gives you. Mysticism, Buddhist, or Catholic, or accidental, only looks like it is about belief in the beginning.

I am only slowing to help you catch up. It is our Father’s will. You perceive Him near. You have missed the hidden mountain. I passed that way long ago. Be not afraid Our Loving Father will use everything for your good.

"Belief in fate is mistaken from the beginniug. All consideration in terms of process is merely an orderiug of pure " having become “, of the separated world-event, of objectivity as though it were history ; the presence of the Thou, the becoming out of solid connexion, is inaccessible to it. It does not know the reality of spirit ; its scheme is not valid for spirit. Prediction from objectivity is valid only for the man who does not know presentness. He who is overcome by the world of It is bound to see, in the dogma of immutable process, a truth that clears a way through the exuberant growth ; in very truth this dogma enslaves him only the more deeply to the world of It.”

“But the world of Thou is not closed. He who goes out to it with concentrated being and risen power to enter into relation becomes aware of freedom. And to be freed from belief that there is no freedom is indeed to be free.” (Buber-Ich Du)

"Man is the priest of all creation; he speaks in its name, but only insofar as he is guided by the Spirit. In order to understand profoundly the meaning of prayer, one should meditate for a long time on the following passage from the Letter to the Romans: “For creation awaits with eager expectation the revelation of the children of God; for creation was made subject to futility, not of its own accord but because of the one who subjected it, in hope that creation itself would be set free from slavery to corruption and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God.” (Blessed John Paul II Crossing the threshold of hope).

Romans 8:14 For those who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God. 15 For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you received a spirit of adoption, through which we cry, “Abba,* Father!”

Peace

 

[hazcompat]

THROUGH THREE THINGS A MAN BECOMES GOD-SEEING
Further, you must know that if this ghostly man would now become a God-seeing man, he needs must have three other things. The first is the feeling that the foundation of his being is abysmal, and he should possess it in this manner; the second is that his inward exercise should be wayless; the third is that his indwelling should be a divine fruition.
Now understand, you who would live in the spirit, for I am speaking to no one else. The union with God which a spiritual man feels, when the union is revealed to the spirit as being abysmal—that is, measureless depth, measureless height, measureless length and measureless breadth—in this manifestation the spirit perceives that through love it has plunged itself into the depth and has ascended into the height and escaped into the length; and it feels itself to be wandering in the breadth, and to dwell in a knowledge which is ignorance. And through this intimate feeling of union, it feels itself to be melting into the Unity; and, through dying to all things, into the life of God. And there it feels itself to be one life with God. And this is the foundation, and the first point, of the God-seeing life.
And from this there arises the second point, which is an exercise above reason and without condition: for the Divine Unity, of which every God-seeing spirit has entered into possession in love, eternally draws and invites the Divine Persons and all loving spirits into its self. And this inward drawing is felt by each lover, more or less, according to the measure of his love and the manner of his exercise. And whosoever yields himself to this indrawing, and keeps himself therein, cannot fall into mortal sin. But the God-seeing man who has forsaken self and all things, and does not feel himself drawn away because he no longer possesses anything as his own, but stands empty of all, he can always enter, naked and unencumbered with images, into the inmost part of his spirit. There he finds revealed an Eternal Light, and in this light, he feels the eternal demand of the Divine Unity; and he feels himself to be an eternal fire of love, which craves above all else to be one with God.
The more he yields to this indrawing or demand, the more he feels it. And the more he feels it, the more he craves to be one with God; for it urges him to pay the debt which is demanded of him by God. This eternal demand of the Divine Unity kindles within the spirit an eternal fire of love; and though the spirit incessantly pays the debt, an eternal burning continues within it. For, in the transformation within the Unity, all spirits fail in their own activity, and feel nothing else but a burning up of themselves in the simple Unity of God. This simple Unity of God none can feel or possess save he who maintains himself in the immeasurable radiance, and in the love which is above reason and wayless. In this transcendent state the spirit feels in itself the eternal fire of love; and in this fire of love it finds neither beginning nor end, and it feels itself one with this fire of love.
The spirit for ever continues to burn in itself, for its love is eternal; and it feels itself ever more and more to be burnt up in love, for it is drawn and transformed into the Unity of God, where the spirit burns in love. If it observes itself, it finds a distinction and an otherness between itself and God; but where it is burnt up it is undifferentiated and without distinction, and therefore it feels nothing but unity; for the flame of the Love of God consumes and devours all that it can enfold in its Self.
And thus you may see that the indrawing Unity of God is nought else than the fathomless Love, which lovingly draws inward, in eternal fruition, the Father and the Son and all that lives in Them. And in this Love we shall burn and be burnt up without end, throughout eternity; for herein lies the blessedness of all spirits. And therefore we must all found our lives upon a fathomless abyss; that we may eternally plunge into Love, and sink down in the fathomless Depth.
And with that same Love, we shall ascend, and transcend ourselves, in the incomprehensible Height. And in that Love which is wayless, we shall wander and stray, and it shall lead us and lose us in the immeasurable Breadth of the Love of God. And herein we shall flee forth and flee out of ourselves, into the unknown raptures of the Goodness and Riches of God. And therein we shall melt and be melted away, and shall eternally wander and sojourn within the Glory of God. Behold! by each of these images, I show forth to God-seeing men their being and their exercise, but none else can understand them. For the contemplative life cannot be taught. But where the Eternal Truth reveals Itself within the spirit all that is needful is taught and learnt.

Blessed John Ruysbroeck
The Sparkling Stone

Peace

 

[Amandil]

It might be useful here to understand that christianism is thought of as an “ascending” mode, and as primarily religion, while Buddhism is considered a “descending” form and primarily philosophy.

It is not useful to try to intellectually “understand” Buddhism, in terms of “self” as we understand that term in the West, though this is slightly beginning to change for the better.

If its not useful to intellectually “understand” Buddhism(since the whole means of understanding anything is through reason and the rational mind), then what is the point of it being, or even calling it, a philosophy?

In fact, it is not a question of the “person” no loner existing at all. It is, though not possible to delineate, because in the end it is experiential, more about a final Clarity of what constitutes the “person” relative to, for the sake of this audience, God.

So basically your just begging the question and arguing in a circle.

From that understanding the nature of the created person is pellucidly clear, understood, and transparent to Divinity, and unhampered by thoughts about It.

You statement seems to suggest that there is some point at which the “divinity” is obscured by what it has created. What sort of “divinity” would not know the created person clearly?

But even this explication is rather misleading. As I said before, the closest it might come to being said is how one of my favorite Catholics put it: “As long as you think you are a person, you will have a personal God.”

Subjectivism again…

Personhood isn’t dependent upon personal opinion.

She, and others like her, ultimately come to the same conclusion. It isn’t about what religion you think you are starting out as practicing, or lack of it. That isn’t what it is about.

In any case, this is only to say that really, you ought not present yourself as knowing a wit about Buddhism, save for an intellectual, dim, and unfocused, wet and faded ripped up snapshot that you have picked out from the trash and put together with old scotch tape, the kind you can’t see through so easily. I’m not so sure you are very clear on “Catholic” mysticism either, especially why it looks the way it does, as if such a thing could be, in the end, categorized under such misleading labels.

Wow, someone is slightly sensitive intellectually.

Well, whatever you say. The ego that you’re trying to stroke here says volumes.

But effort is key in this; I suggest you step it up by about a thousand times. You have to appreciate your loneliness among the sleeping to know that you truly have the desire to wake up. You are way too comfortable in the sense of security belief gives you. Mysticism, Buddhist, or Catholic, or accidental, only looks like it is about belief in the beginning.

Well, if you say so, then it must be true…

I proved my point against your above assertion, and that’s all that was necessary.

 

[grannymh]

It seems to me that the title of this thread presents two axioms.

1. God exists as Creator.
2. As Creator, God can interact with His creation.

From there, one can assume that there is a difference between Creator and creature. Difference, being a simple truth, can explain the necessity for the creature to be in the image of the Creator which is not the same as being THE Creator.

 

[orang]

In prayer the will is surrendered to the divine understandings. A decided and reasoned out act of the will, consciously acknowledging a contrast between creature and creator, or being in prayer.

In the general meditation, which would be a spiritual acknowledging and intentional act of the will, the mind is stripped mechanically in its surrender to the divine understandings.

The Spiritual experience in prayer would have its experience or solace at the mechanism of the divine, where the general spiritual meditation, would have its experience or solace in the divine, although by way of what could be an immediate demand, in the mechanics. So it could seem to be a control matter or frame of reference from the outset…in general. I don’t think yuh can put all this in a box so to say.

 

[grannymh]

It seems to me that the title of this thread presents two axioms based on the deductive method of reasoning to a truth.

1. God exists as the sole, completely spiritual, omnipotent Creator.
2. As Creator, God interacts with His creation, including humans as individuals.

From there, one can assume that there is a difference between Creator and creature. Difference, being a simple truth, can explain the necessity for the creature to be in the image of the Creator which is not the same
as being THE Creator.

Thus, there is a third axiom deduced from the first two axioms.

1. In order for the human creature to personally interact with the Creator, this creature needs an active spiritual principle related to the Creator’s Divine nature; that is, human nature, per se, must be in the “image” of the spiritual Creator God.

 

[tonyrey]

Where Buddhism falls short is that they think that the ultimate enlightenment is the utter denial of the self into “the One” where the person no longer exists. They claim that is the final journey of mysticism.

Christian mysticism says that to deny one’s self wholly to God is the only possible way to truly be the individual which God created you as. Christian mysticism was/is never about the annihilation of the person but the liberation of the person from sin. That when a person, by the subjection of his passions to his intellect and will, loves God and his neighbors as himself he will then be truly able to love himself as he loves God and his neighbors. That everything we give to God in order to deny ourselves, and which God takes with His left, He will return ten-fold with His right, and eternal life along with it.

That is why Buddhism is an inferior system. It may contain some lights, but it is nothing compared to the fullness of light and truth.

To imagine everyone shares the same fate of extinction regardless of how they have lived is a mockery of belief in justice…

 

[orang]

It would seem Buddhism in general is being charged with having no morals in a philosophy forum, where’s the explanation?

 

[Sochi]

To imagine everyone shares the same fate of extinction regardless of how they have lived is a mockery of belief in justice…

How do you understand what the different varieties of Buddhism understand as “extinction?” And since yo claim that justice is a belief, how do you know or understand that it is not a false one? Who is imagining what here?

 

[Amandil]

It would seem Buddhism in general is being charged with having no morals in a philosophy forum, where’s the explanation?

Not explicitly, no.

Where precisely did you get that idea?

 

[Amandil]

How do you understand what the different varieties of Buddhism understand as “extinction?” And since yo claim that justice is a belief, how do you know or understand that it is not a false one? Who is imagining what here?

Just because someone says they believe in justice doesn’t necessarily mean that justice is merely a “belief” according to your perspective.

Justice is very much an objective fact of the moral law. In fact the Buddhist idea of karma wouldn’t have any foundational basis without recognizing the idea that recompense must be paid for both good and bad deeds done in life, which is precisely what justice is.

 

[orang]

Not explicitly, no.

Where precisely did you get that idea?

Oh good and thanks,

If its not being fully expressed that a Buddhist would have no morals or be subject to morality, then what is being fully expressed ?

For example, if an individual is born Buddhist, learns of Christianity and cannot in all good conscience abandon Buddhism,

is it being suggested but not fully said or expressed the circumstance would be dis-agreeable to God, and away from God?

In other words, I don’t think Buddhism persecutes Christianity, does Christianity or Catholicism persecute Buddhism ?

 

[Amandil]

Oh good and thanks,

If its not being fully expressed that a Buddhist would have no morals or be subject to morality, then what is being fully expressed ?

I’ve wondered since I looked into Buddhism about 10 years ago that if truth is subjective and all paths lead to enlightenment(thus denying the law of non-contradiction) precisely what foundation do they base any morality on?

For example, if an individual is born Buddhist, learns of Christianity and cannot in all good conscience abandon Buddhism, is it being suggested but not fully said or expressed the circumstance would be dis-agreeable to God, and away from God?

The question here is a little too vague and circumstantial to answer accurately.

What we know is that if anyone is saved they are saved by God’s grace alone through faith in Christ.

What we know is that everyone is given sufficient grace to choose either for God or against Him.

Beyond that is His domain.

In other words, I don’t think Buddhism persecutes Christianity, does Christianity or Catholicism persecute Buddhism ?

What do you mean by “persecute”? The word itself seems rather emotionally charged.

Christianity distinguishes itself over and above any other religion in that it maintains that it is true. It makes truth claims that necessarily correspond to reality. It necessarily discriminates against any other belief system which are inferior to it.

That does not mean that it creates prejudice or systems of violence against other philosophies such as Buddhism, it just maintains that the philosophy of Buddha is inferior to the teachings of Christ. And it leaves those who follow Buddhism to make up their own minds given that they must be held responsible for the decision they make in accord with God’s grace given to them.

As Christians we pray for their salvation, as we do the salvation of the whole world.

 

[Grym]

I’ve wondered since I looked into Buddhism about 10 years ago that if truth is subjective and all paths lead to enlightenment(thus denying the law of non-contradiction) precisely what foundation do they base any morality on?

Buddhism does have a absolute truth, Nibbana. It is absolute through its definition. Neither do buddhits believ that all paths lead to nibbana. This is a misconception. Where did you get this idea?

Obviously for instance the Path to God does not lead to nibbana. But it is true that there are several paths to nibbana. Does not mean that the Nibbana is subjective.

Good and bad are discriminated using nibbana. Every thing leading to nibbana is good all else is bad.

What we know is that everyone is given sufficient grace to choose either for God or against Him.

You do know that there are people on this earth that has no clue that there is anything called Christianity or God? How about them? How do you choose for God if you do not know who God is or what he represents?

As Christians we pray for their salvation, as we do the salvation of the whole world.

Thank you. Very kind of you.
Many Buddhist pray for the enlightenment of the Christians too and of course all the world.

/Victor

 

[Grym]

Oh good and thanks,

If its not being fully expressed that a Buddhist would have no morals or be subject to morality, then what is being fully expressed ?

For example, if an individual is born Buddhist, learns of Christianity and cannot in all good conscience abandon Buddhism,

is it being suggested but not fully said or expressed the circumstance would be dis-agreeable to God, and away from God?

In other words, I don’t think Buddhism persecutes Christianity, does Christianity or Catholicism persecute Buddhism ?

Neither Buddhism nor Christianity persecutes people. People persecutes people. It is easy to forget.

Neither Buddha nor Jesus would approve any nonsense like that if they were alive.

/Victor

 

[Grym]

Where Buddhism falls short is that they think that the ultimate enlightenment is the utter denial of the self into “the One” where the person no longer exists. They claim that is the final journey of mysticism.

Eeer This is totally false. Where do you get your information?

Buddhism does not deny the self. It explaines the way the self works.

** In fact it is explicitly stated in the old texts that denying the self is a false view.**

Do you want a reference?

I think you need to check your facts about buddhism. Seems you got them from some invalid source. I am happy to oblige if there is anything else you wish to know.

/Victor

 

[Grym]

Every thing leading to nibbana is good all else is bad.

I misswrote.

Every thing leading to nibbana is good all leading away is bad.

 

[orang]

I’ve wondered since I looked into Buddhism about 10 years ago that if truth is subjective and all paths lead to enlightenment(thus denying the law of non-contradiction) precisely what foundation do they base any morality on?

The question here is a little too vague and circumstantial to answer accurately.

What we know is that if anyone is saved they are saved by God’s grace alone through faith in Christ.

What we know is that everyone is given sufficient grace to choose either for God or against Him.

Beyond that is His domain.

What do you mean by “persecute”? The word itself seems rather emotionally charged.

Christianity distinguishes itself over and above any other religion in that it maintains that it is true. It makes truth claims that necessarily correspond to reality. It necessarily discriminates against any other belief system which are inferior to it.

That does not mean that it creates prejudice or systems of violence against other philosophies such as Buddhism, it just maintains that the philosophy of Buddha is inferior to the teachings of Christ. And it leaves those who follow Buddhism to make up their own minds given that they must be held responsible for the decision they make in accord with God’s grace given to them.

As Christians we pray for their salvation, as we do the salvation of the whole world.

Well alright but I donno how the question which is exact can be answered with more circumstance’s saying its too vague, and at the same time answered and emphasized to be God’s domain .

 

[Grym]

It would seem Buddhism in general is being charged with having no morals in a philosophy forum, where’s the explanation?

Simple answer. The one claiming that is either deceived into believing that or is lying.


/Victor