My view on Buddha

[LaymanX]

The culmination of Buddhism is not to “rid” oneself of suffering, either. That’s a common misconception. The culmination is the ending of “tanha”/“trishna” (or thirstful craving).

The path to the ending of tanha is a path that will involve lots of “suffering”, that is, lots of resistance from one’s long history of craving. The practice of meditation, compassion, and the development of wisdom is the practicing of “going against the stream”. This practice will involve tension, discomfort, pain, and even suffering. But this type of suffering is the suffering that leads to the end of tanha. The Buddha praised this sort of suffering.

Ah, so not suffering but the cause of suffering, which is desire. And usually desire necessitates a sense of an ego that is disconnected from others (i.e., lack of intersubjectivity). Solution is to empty oneself of such ego-centered conceptual frameworks. Therefore “rid” oneself of a dead mind, so to speak. Either way, the solution is epistemic (i.e., related to a particular knowledge or awareness gained through a reflective process). Jesus didn’t prescribe a process to achieve a particular kind of epistemic awareness. Jesus is Himself the metaphysical solution to a metaphysical problem. Some take a view of Jesus closer to the Buddhist view, but most would consider that view heretical. The first manifestation of that view was the Ebionites and all the others who deny Jesus’ divinity or Incarnation. They were considered heretical very early in the Christian movement.

Francis

 

[LaymanX]

If you can mention any (specific) name of other school which existed at that time (BC era), I’d like to know.

Your best argument for Buddhist influence on Jesus would be the School of Alexandria. This city was the metropolitan trade center during that time with people coming from the East along the Silk Road. Very speculative to think that Jesus studied here, but more reasonable that your theory. I would research into this area to prove your point. More fruitful.

cont.

 

[LaymanX]

Again, you know almost nothing about the Buddha and his teaching but you make a conclusion with mistaken understanding to support it. If you say the Buddha died to himself, you are mistaken. You are comparing by applying the concept that (you think) applies to Jesus, but not to the Buddha, since that’s not the case. In some previous comments someone said like comparing apple with orange. The Buddha didn’t die for anyone. He died normally, peacefully. Teaching others doesn’t mean he needs to die in order to do it. One’s sins can’t be paid by someone else, other people can only help to pay it yourself. That’s why Jesus taught love, the foundation to be able to pay your sins yourself.

But now you know nothing about what I said before and you are making conclusions with mistaken understanding to support it. I already said that you can’t talk about Buddha dying to himself because there is no ‘self.’ And I already mentioned that it would be difficult to compare the two with the same criteria of judgment. I gave an aesthetic opinion regarding what seemed intuitively more persuasive for me, given the two traditional symbols of each religions and how it relates to my understanding of suffering (i.e., Jesus on the Cross and Buddha sitting in Lotus position).

About the metaphysics aspect which you think exists in the Jesus teaching, it is another story. Don’t forget to consider the way of teaching, the influence of the monotheistic belief at that time, another factor from the metaphysics explanation (I mean the very-make-sense one, which I will come to it later below), yet mentioning the very possible manipulation of the truth (the teaching, the history) by someone (probably Paul) or by the Church (you might have known about the Church Conspiracy Theory.) People know todays Bible (or Christianity) contains many manipulations. It’s the nature of life, the tendency where false is easier to get than truth (real truth, not conventional one), as well as wrong and right, evil and good, negative and positive, delusion and ultimate reality. The Buddha knows the real true nature of all phenomena, that what his teaching is all about, so that others can overcome sufferings. The Jesus path is no different, your metaphysical belief made you think they are different paths, it poisons (deludes) his teaching.

I can’t even respond to this because it contains very non-compassionate accusations which I am certain Buddha would never do. You just shut the door on any reasonable dialogue with these statements.

cont.

 

[LaymanX]

-con’t-

Now talking about metaphysics in the context of your belief. You need to know the big picture. Anyway, it’s good for you to know another perspective. It is still related to my previous post. Divine beings (you used the word “God”), their food is not physical things like human (even though they have physical form, which is light). Its food is intangible, happy feelings which come from the devotion, praise, admiration, loyalty of the beings with lower divine capacity (ranking or level) including human. Just like human being, it also wants its food always available, sufficient, preserved. When its devotees died, the devotees’ next life if not lower than human, will be human. Memory from the previous life usually won’t be brought totally to the new life, so the devotion is likely become lesser (or even gone), which means less food. For you who tend to accept the belief in “God” is likely has some degree of the memory still remain, and the religion leaders probably have the largest. They might have been the right-hand of the so called “God”, and thus always try to re-cultivate the foods which they might have enjoyed too in the past, and inherently they want to enjoy it again in the future. Some divine beings can communicate directly with human. That’s why in some holly books you can find the record of such communication between a subject of devotion and the devotee, lord and servant.

The Buddha taught that there are many level of divine attainments can be reached above the level of “God” and even the highest. It starts from loving others as the main foundation. It wasn’t only the Buddha who could reach those higher divine attainments. His two former teachers (ancient Indian brahmins) each has reached a very high one in which the Buddha found after they died they are trapped there for a very very long lifespan compared to the lifespan in the “God” realm.
Such teachings are potential in making the food even more scarce. This is why the monotheistic followers at that time inherently didn’t like Jesus (since his teaching is similar to what Buddha taught.) When the Buddha was teaching others there were also some people who wanted him die. Even some deities also wanted to kill him, but none was successful, because the power of metta protected him. Instead of fighting back, with love he taught them, then they understood. Your sentence about the state of metaphysical chaos between God and human unintentionally supports all this explanations. Your belief that Jesus death is important is part of the hidden scenario, be careful, unless you want to be a never ending “slave”, only you can decide for yourself.

Next time please don’t use uncommon (or difficult) words, try to explain the phrase if you think there is no other words can be used, and an example or reference will make it even better.

Cheers,

sb

may all sentient beings can see things as they are

Your assessments regarding the ethical parallels between Jesus are correct. Both lived in times with great injustice and oppression. As for “past lives,” Jesus is silent. He only mentioned post-death life. Whether there is eternal repetition of beginning and end, or it was a one time, linear story is not mentioned in Bible. Most think it is a one-time thing. But maybe someone will make a good case for Christian reincarnation. I have yet to encounter a good theory. And finally, as for the various levels of attainment. Christian mysticism has different levels of existence. But there is nothing above God. Actually we can’t even say “above God” because God can’t be ascribed spatial-temporal attributes. There is only silence. Anyways, I hope these words weren’t uncommon. If so, sorry again.

Francis

 

[LaymanX]

I think this might fit this conversation perfectly. It calls into question the divisions that people somehow see between different faiths. This is in eleven parts, but in my opinion, it is very much worth the time for anyone who might care to view it. It is the only documentary I have ever been able to find that properly explains the views I have been taught in my faith regarding the interconnectedness we all share.

youtube.com/watch?v=hhef6wa2Mpc&feature=related

Your friend
Sufjon

Sorry, I stopped after watching first part. So I may be completely off target. But it seems to be that the video assumes that something has to be original to be exclusive. I personally think nothing under the sun is original. For example, when I write an essay using concepts and ideas from my culture, does that mean there is no unique truth to my essay? Surely, my language uses words and concepts borrowed from other countries and from past centuries even within my own country, but does that mean I can’t convey some sort of unique truth with the “borrowed” concepts I have been given from my surroundings?

Second, I never liked the story of the blindfolded people touching different parts of a single elephant. The person who tells this story is assuming a superior position from all the other blindfolded people. This is a very conceited position. The story-teller is basically saying the he or she has the view from heaven and all the other religions are blind people touching some part of an elephant that only the story teller can see. I’d prefer to say we are all touching different animals, and we should respect the radical varieties in all religions and the unique truths they claim.

Then again if your religion is a unique religion that uniquely believes that everyone is touching the same elephant. I guess I should respect your unique religion about there not being a unique religion, since I think all religions should be respected as unique. So please do keep to your unique position, since I don’t want to be conceited and accuse you of the same thing that I am doing. Did that make sense? lol.

Francis

 

[Sufjon]

Sorry, I stopped after watching first part. So I may be completely off target. But it seems to be that the video assumes that something has to be original to be exclusive. I personally think nothing under the sun is original. For example, when I write an essay using concepts and ideas from my culture, does that mean there is no unique truth to my essay? Surely, my language uses words and concepts borrowed from other countries and from past centuries even within my own country, but does that mean I can’t convey some sort of unique truth with the “borrowed” concepts I have been given from my surroundings?

Hi Francis: I didn’t intend to suggest that something had to be original to be exclusive. If you watched all 11 installments, I think the message one carries away is one of commonalty expressed in diverse experience.

Second, I never liked the story of the blindfolded people touching different parts of a single elephant. The person who tells this story is assuming a superior position from all the other blindfolded people. This is a very conceited position. The story-teller is basically saying the he or she has the view from heaven and all the other religions are blind people touching some part of an elephant that only the story teller can see. I’d prefer to say we are all touching different animals, and we should respect the radical varieties in all religions and the unique truths they claim.

I do not perceive the story teller is generally thought of as having a more profound view or a view from heaven as you suggest. The story teller is explaining that each person’s encounter with the elephant is unique as well as true, but none on it’s own contains a whole view of the elephant. The story teller is saying that it is fruitless for the one touching the tail to argue with the one touching the trunk, or the one touching the feet. Each is having a genuine experience of the same thing, albeit a different component of the same thing. The point is that each of them is correct and each of them becomes blind only when they deny the experience of the other.

Then again if your religion is a unique religion that uniquely believes that everyone is touching the same elephant. I guess I should respect your unique religion about there not being a unique religion, since I think all religions should be respected as unique. So please do keep to your unique position, since I don’t want to be conceited and accuse you of the same thing that I am doing. Did that make sense? lol.

Francis

Whether or not my religion is unique really depends on where you are I suppose. It would be unique in Arkansas, but not in the foothills of the Himalayas. I do believe that we are all touching smalls aspects of something that is larger than even the collective whole of what we are experiencing. This is why I do respect what you are touching and what you are seeing. If it works for you, then I’m happy

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m not sure “self-serving” would be an apt way to describe Siddhartha Gautama. Since he wasn’t exposed to Christianity really, we cannot hold him accountable to a Gospel standard. He lived in modern day Nepal and grew up in a Hindu caste system-based culture where the Brahmans had total control over the religion of his day. Gautama was quite the rebel to have the courage to go against the Brahmans of the time he lived in and allow anyone to join the Bhikkus, regardless of caste or background.

Siddhartha Gautama struggled to make sense of life and overcome the dukkha, frustrated and profound sadness that he felt when he realized the truths of the world he held dear were illusiory and empty. Dukkha is an empty realization that we all experience, according to Buddhism, when we seek to attach and form our peace and happiness from a desire to attach and feel the ego, the notion of Atman. The self is the illusion and suffering, from Buddhism’s vantage point.

I don’t think it’s a selfish religion in that it is highly-charitable and based on making merit by serving and loving others. And it is selfless in many ways in that a bhikku must give up next to everything. In Thailand monks eat once a day. When I was in Thailand I watched the morning meals and merit-making. It was quite an experience. They are humble, thoughtful, contemplative, and embrace the quiet life. So did the buddha himself. Had Siddhartha been self-serving, I think he would’ve remained a monarch’s son and grown to great power and wealth and wouldn’t have grown weary of the spoiled kid’s life. He wanted more. But the wanting ended up being the problem itself.

In declaring the “self” to be something that needs to be jettisoned and the perception of ego eliminated, Buddhism could be said to be the ultimate unselfish religion in all fairness to Buddhists.

 

[LaymanX]

I’m not sure “self-serving” would be an apt way to describe Siddhartha Gautama. Since he wasn’t exposed to Christianity really, we cannot hold him accountable to a Gospel standard. He lived in modern day Nepal and grew up in a Hindu caste system-based culture where the Brahmans had total control over the religion of his day. Gautama was quite the rebel to have the courage to go against the Brahmans of the time he lived in and allow anyone to join the Bhikkus, regardless of caste or background.

I agree that self-serving shouldn’t be applied to Buddha, since the idea of the ‘self’ is problematic in the first place within the Buddhism tradition. However, in so far as holding someone else “accountable to a Gospel standard” remains valid. Without standards we would be mindless jellies. Even your standard of “not having a standard” is a standard in and of itself. I could very well accuse you for using a oppressing standard of “not holding people accountable by a Gospel standard” to hold me accountable.

Why can’t I hold to the standard that “everything should be held accountable by the Gospel standard”? Why must you hold me accountable to your standard of “not holding others of accountable according to the Gospel standard”? I think your statement is problematic. Intolerance for intolerance is the worst of all intolerant religions, because it creates an intolerant religion of tolerance. I don’t think Buddha holds to such an intolerantly tolerant religion.

Everyone should hold to their respective standard and hold others accountable to their standard. However, there should be reasonable dialogue between people who hold to different standards in order to distinguish which standard is worse from another standard. There are universal standards of goodness, because there are universal things about human beings. Not all things are relative. We live, we die, we feel pain and hunger. We shouldn’t kill our own babies. We shouldn’t rape women and abuse them. We shouldn’t lie and deceive people. There are standards to which all human beings are held accountable. Any religion that hides behind the curtain of relativity to justify their inhumane laws and behaviors is just foul play. And lurking behind such ideas of relativity is some greedy old man wanting to fill his belly or some angry little boy who needs to get revenge on some stupid uncle who slapped him on the head some time in the distant past.

However, your positive affirmations on the good things of Buddhism are enlightening. I agree that Buddhism is not a selfish religion.

Francis

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I am thoroughly confused by this post, Layman? You are speaking as if I am a Buddhist and I am defending Buddhism and as if I am a moral relativist? I am none of the three. I am simply stating what THEY believe and I would say that Siddhartha Gautama was not a selfish egotist but a sincere seeker looking for the truth. I never said he found it. I happen to believe Christ is all Truth. But Siddhartha never knew Christ nor did he have the opportunity to. I think he had standards that were very explicit. You used the word “standards” in this post more than Obama said the word “jobs” in his state of the union. I got lost in this post, no offense. Please try to clean it up and clear it up for me. I’m not sure what your point is. Blessings, Layman.

I agree that self-serving shouldn’t be applied to Buddha, since the idea of the ‘self’ is problematic in the first place within the Buddhism tradition. However, in so far as holding someone else “accountable to a Gospel standard” remains valid. Without standards we would be mindless jellies. Even your standard of “not having a standard” is a standard in and of itself. I could very well accuse you for using a oppressing standard of “not holding people accountable by a Gospel standard” to hold me accountable.

Why can’t I hold to the standard that “everything should be held accountable by the Gospel standard”? Why must you hold me accountable to your standard of “not holding others of accountable according to the Gospel standard”? I think your statement is problematic. Intolerance for intolerance is the worst of all intolerant religions, because it creates an intolerant religion of tolerance. I don’t think Buddha holds to such an intolerantly tolerant religion.

Everyone should hold to their respective standard and hold others accountable to their standard. However, there should be reasonable dialogue between people who hold to different standards in order to distinguish which standard is worse from another standard. There are universal standards of goodness, because there are universal things about human beings. Not all things are relative. We live, we die, we feel pain and hunger. We shouldn’t kill our own babies. We shouldn’t rape women and abuse them. We shouldn’t lie and deceive people. There are standards to which all human beings are held accountable. Any religion that hides behind the curtain of relativity to justify their inhumane laws and behaviors is just foul play. And lurking behind such ideas of relativity is some greedy old man wanting to fill his belly or some angry little boy who needs to get revenge on some stupid uncle who slapped him on the head some time in the distant past.

Francis

 

[LaymanX]

I do not perceive the story teller is generally thought of as having a more profound view or a view from heaven as you suggest. The story teller is explaining that each person’s encounter with the elephant is unique as well as true, but none on it’s own contains a whole view of the elephant. The story teller is saying that it is fruitless for the one touching the tail to argue with the one touching the trunk, or the one touching the feet. Each is having a genuine experience of the same thing, albeit a different component of the same thing. The point is that each of them is correct and each of them becomes blind only when they deny the experience of the other.

How does the story teller know that they are touching the same elephant? How does the story teller know it is fruitless? How does the story teller know that everyone is having an experience of the same thing? How does the story teller know that each of them is correct? It seems to me that the story teller thinks he or she has a better view from the other people who blindly argue because they are fruitlessly arguing over the same thing (which only the story teller can see). I think the one touching the tail may be touching a lion, the one touching the trunk may be touching an elephant, and the one touching the feet may be touching a hippopotamus. I think no human being can be in the position of the story teller. Granted, the story teller may be right, but the story teller may also be completely wrong. I think it is okay for different people to discuss their different experiences of what may very well be radically different animals. In fact, I think the story teller could turn out to look very conceited because she thinks that somehow she is more special than the other “blind” people of the earth.

Whether or not my religion is unique really depends on where you are I suppose. It would be unique in Arkansas, but not in the foothills of the Himalayas. I do believe that we are all touching smalls aspects of something that is larger than even the collective whole of what we are experiencing. This is why I do respect what you are touching and what you are seeing. If it works for you, then I’m happy.

You see, the problem is that you can not really, truly respect what I am experiencing when you believe that we are all somehow “magically” touching the same, whole thing. Maybe we are, maybe we aren’t. If you cannot consider the possibility that there is no such thing as a “collective whole,” that there is no such thing as a “story teller,” then you are not truly respecting the belief of people who hold to exclusivity. You are sitting somewhere high above us “blind” folks touching different parts of the same elephant, fighting fruitlessly over insignificant matters. To you, we will always be silly, little blind men playing with shadows, when we could be outside the cave playing in the “real” world. I am sorry, but this is why I think religious pluralism is very demeaning to all the religions of the world.

Francis

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Francis, either you’re far too deep for the typical joe or this post makes no sense? It’s tripped-out, my friend!? I feel like I’m in a beatnick cafe trying to understand this, brutha?

How does the story teller know that they are touching the same elephant? How does the story teller know it is fruitless? How does the story teller know that everyone is having an experience of the same thing? How does the story teller know that each of them is correct? It seems to me that the story teller thinks he or she has a better view from the other people who blindly argue because they are fruitlessly arguing over the same thing (which only the story teller can see). I think the one touching the tail may be touching a lion, the one touching the trunk may be touching an elephant, and the one touching the feet may be touching a hippopotamus. I think no human being can be in the position of the story teller. Granted, the story teller may be right, but the story teller may also be completely wrong. I think it is okay for different people to discuss their different experiences of what may very well be radically different animals. In fact, I think the story teller could turn out to look very conceited because she thinks that somehow she is more special than the other “blind” people of the earth.

You see, the problem is that you can not really, truly respect what I am experiencing when you believe that we are all somehow “magically” touching the same, whole thing. Maybe we are, maybe we aren’t. If you cannot consider the possibility that there is no such thing as a “collective whole,” that there is no such thing as a “story teller,” then you are not truly respecting the belief of people who hold to exclusivity. You are sitting somewhere high above us “blind” folks touching different parts of the same elephant, fighting fruitlessly over insignificant matters. To you, we will always be silly, little blind men playing with shadows, when we could be outside the cave playing in the “real” world. I am sorry, but this is why I think religious pluralism is very demeaning to all the religions of the world.

Francis

 

[Sufjon]

How does the story teller know that they are touching the same elephant? How does the story teller know it is fruitless? How does the story teller know that everyone is having an experience of the same thing? How does the story teller know that each of them is correct? It seems to me that the story teller thinks he or she has a better view from the other people who blindly argue because they are fruitlessly arguing over the same thing (which only the story teller can see). I think the one touching the tail may be touching a lion, the one touching the trunk may be touching an elephant, and the one touching the feet may be touching a hippopotamus. I think no human being can be in the position of the story teller. Granted, the story teller may be right, but the story teller may also be completely wrong. I think it is okay for different people to discuss their different experiences of what may very well be radically different animals. In fact, I think the story teller could turn out to look very conceited because she thinks that somehow she is more special than the other “blind” people of the earth.

Hello Francis:

-The story is based on the idea that all of the characters are touching the same elephant.

-However, the components of an elephant about which the characters in the story are experiencing are common to just about any elephant.

-The participants in the story are blind and the story teller simply is able to see. The story teller is not superior.

-Seeing one person as superior or another inferior because of what one can or cannot do, has or does not have, perceives or does not perceive is perhaps a limiting view. Superiority and inferiority are measuring concepts of the mind. They do not exist in nature.

You see, the problem is that you can not really, truly respect what I am experiencing when you believe that we are all somehow “magically” touching the same, whole thing.

How so?

Maybe we are, maybe we aren’t. If you cannot consider the possibility that there is no such thing as a “collective whole,” that there is no such thing as a “story teller,” then you are not truly respecting the belief of people who hold to exclusivity.

I have not only considered the idea that there is no collective whole, I was raised in a religious tradition that did not care much about a collective whole. That would not have served their purposes well. They promoted a view of God as some stern and angry authoritarian figure, and ourselves as his trembling and unworthy miscreant creations. God was seen as separate from what God creates, and each soul floating alone on it’s own piece of human wreckage from the cataclysm of a creation gone wrong. Each one separate, each one alone, and each one trying to be rescued by the thing that set the wreck in motion in the first place. I escaped from that dark and ugly view of the world when I was 13. I do respect the people who hold that belief, and have a full appreciation for the suffering it can cause them.

You are sitting somewhere high above us “blind” folks touching different parts of the same elephant, fighting fruitlessly over insignificant matters.

Francis

Dear Friend Francis: I think you have missed my point completely. In my faith, we do not believe that I can attain a position that is higher or lower than yours. I do not believe that I am someone other than you. There is no low you can fall to that is not mine as well. There is no pinnacle you can reach that is not shared by me. Neither the highs or the lows we experience in any way diminishes or advances either of us.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Sufjon]

Francis, either you’re far too deep for the typical joe or this post makes no sense? It’s tripped-out, my friend!? I feel like I’m in a beatnick cafe trying to understand this, brutha?

Don’t blame Francis. That’s what happens when you hang out with me too long.

(Wild, man…like wild!)

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[fhansen]

It struck me that the Buddha was ultimately self-serving. He needed to reach enlightenment, and pursued it tirelessly. His entire philosophy was about bringing an end to his suffering.

Jesus was not so concerned about what he stood to gain when he performed his acts. If Jesus had thought more like the Buddha, I bet he wouldn’t have willingly gone to the cross for us.

Am I out of line in thinking this?

That’s an interesting point. Buddha, like the rest of us, was interested in ending his suffering. And this desire/need can turn one to God. Jesus, OTOH, came to end our suffering-caused by sin-by taking on suffering himself. And He had no need to pursue any enlightenment for this purpose.

 

[LaymanX]

-However, the components of an elephant about which the characters in the story are experiencing are common to just about any elephant.

Are they? Maybe, maybe not. Most mystics seem to think so. Most ethicist seem to think so. Many also think not. Just know that, those who think there is a “common” element are also a sect in and of themselves. So, it may be the case, that what they think is “common” is not so common.

-The participants in the story are blind and the story teller simply is able to see. The story teller is not superior.

How else would someone interpret this situation. The blind people obviously are handicapped and the story teller is not. The story teller must, in some sense, feel “sorry” for the blind folks. Perhaps ‘superior’ is a bad word because it implies the story teller intentionally belittles the blind folks. Nevertheless, it still assumes something is wrong with the blink folks (they are “blind”), while the story teller has reached some sort of enlightened or mature stage.

-Seeing one person as superior or another inferior because of what one can or cannot do, has or does not have, perceives or does not perceive is perhaps a limiting view. Superiority and inferiority are measuring concepts of the mind. They do not exist in nature.

If that is the case, I can turn the story around.

There is a story teller who sees a whole bunch of different animals in a large room. There are also a bunch of blind-folded people who think they are not blind-folded. They have been falsely told that they are all touching the same elephant. But in reality they are each touching different animals and have no idea what a real elephant looks like. In fact, there is no elephant in the room. The elephant was made up so that all the blind-folded people will think they all have something in common.

The story teller here is not superior in this situation?

Dear Friend Francis: I think you have missed my point completely. In my faith, we do not believe that I can attain a position that is higher or lower than yours. I do not believe that I am someone other than you. There is no low you can fall to that is not mine as well. There is no pinnacle you can reach that is not shared by me. Neither the highs or the lows we experience in any way diminishes or advances either of us.

If you don’t think the second story makes the story teller superior, then I will say the story teller in the first story is not superior. Have I missed the point?

I wish there was one story. There probably is. But I think it would be too earlier to identify it. Or even to think that all the different stories as we know it now are variations of the one story. More likely, some of us are closer to that one story than others. There is no equal story. But hopefully, with humility and patience, we will end up with that one story.

Regards,

Francis

 

[Sufjon]

Are they? Maybe, maybe not. Most mystics seem to think so. Most ethicist seem to think so. Many also think not. Just know that, those who think there is a “common” element are also a sect in and of themselves. So, it may be the case, that what they think is “common” is not so common.

How else would someone interpret this situation. The blind people obviously are handicapped and the story teller is not. The story teller must, in some sense, feel “sorry” for the blind folks. Perhaps ‘superior’ is a bad word because it implies the story teller intentionally belittles the blind folks. Nevertheless, it still assumes something is wrong with the blink folks (they are “blind”), while the story teller has reached some sort of enlightened or mature stage.

If that is the case, I can turn the story around.

There is a story teller who sees a whole bunch of different animals in a large room. There are also a bunch of blind-folded people who think they are not blind-folded. They have been falsely told that they are all touching the same elephant. But in reality they are each touching different animals and have no idea what a real elephant looks like. In fact, there is no elephant in the room. The elephant was made up so that all the blind-folded people will think they all have something in common.

The story teller here is not superior in this situation?

If you don’t think the second story makes the story teller superior, then I will say the story teller in the first story is not superior. Have I missed the point?

I wish there was one story. There probably is. But I think it would be too earlier to identify it. Or even to think that all the different stories as we know it now are variations of the one story. More likely, some of us are closer to that one story than others. There is no equal story. But hopefully, with humility and patience, we will end up with that one story.

Regards,

Francis

Francis, I think you are projecting things into the story that are not there. Anyway, the ability to see what another does not see, does not make one superior or the other inferior. Take the example of a horse race. The horse in the front cannot see which horse is in the back, but but the horse in the back can see who is in front. One is winning the race, while the other sees who is where. If I were at the horse race in the observation stands, I could tell the position of each horse in the race from first to last along with their numbers. And though I can assess the position of all of them, all of the horses are far faster than I. They are not superior to me and I am not superior to them. The horse in the front is not superior to the one in the back because he is in front and the one in the back is not superior because he sees what the one on the front cannot. Everyone and everything has it’s place. No place is greater and no place is lesser. My conviction is that the objective is to simply be fully present in the place you are in.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[LaymanX]

Francis, I think you are projecting things into the story that are not there. Anyway, the ability to see what another does not see, does not make one superior or the other inferior. Take the example of a horse race. The horse in the front cannot see which horse is in the back, but but the horse in the back can see who is in front. One is winning the race, while the other sees who is where. If I were at the horse race in the observation stands, I could tell the position of each horse in the race from first to last along with their numbers. And though I can assess the position of all of them, all of the horses are far faster than I. They are not superior to me and I am not superior to them. The horse in the front is not superior to the one in the back because he is in front and the one in the back is not superior because he sees what the one on the front cannot. Everyone and everything has it’s place. No place is greater and no place is lesser. My conviction is that the objective is to simply be fully present in the place you are in.

Okay, then I shall drop the word superior. Obviously, that concept is not getting us anywhere. And I will just make the story larger and say that there are 5000 stadiums in the city in which all these races are going on. You are on the last horse in merely one of the stadiums which happens to be in a horse race. You are correct that all the horses are in their various positions from your last position, but in reality the entire horse race is merely one position among the 5000 races that you will never be able to see. In fact, you don’t even realize that there are 5000 other stadiums with 5000 different kinds of animals. To you, there is only one “common” stadium of horses. Well, I’m not even in that horse race in “your” stadium. I’m actually in a dog hound race. There are no horses here!

Francis

 

[benedictus2]

It struck me that the Buddha was ultimately self-serving. He needed to reach enlightenment, and pursued it tirelessly. His entire philosophy was about bringing an end to his suffering.

Jesus was not so concerned about what he stood to gain when he performed his acts. If Jesus had thought more like the Buddha, I bet he wouldn’t have willingly gone to the cross for us.

Am I out of line in thinking this?

I tend to agree with you. That is why I don’t agree with meditation that is borrowed from Eastern practices. It is always about us transcending this life. To my mind it is a grasping after the divine in very much the same way that Adam and Eve did.

 

[benedictus2]

I really have no comment about the subject was just noticing the saying you have at the bottom of you post, “The ultimate truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth.” I have to ask how something can be an ultimate truth if there is no unltimate truth. And if that is the only ultimate truth then should it not more correctly be be there is but One ultimate truth which is there is but one ultimate truth.

the reason being “The ultimate truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth.” the second part of this keeps the first part from being true so that the whole thing is a lie.

Excellent point. If there is no ultimate truth then the statement there is no ultimate truth is also false.

 

[benedictus2]

The Buddha achieved the end of his suffering at age 35 when he became enlightened. He remained in the world teaching others until he died at the age of 80. For 45 years he compassionately taught others what he had learned for himself. He did not have to do that; he could have retired to a solitary life and refused to teach.

rossum

As Father Barron says, to his ultimate credit the Buddha never claimed to be God. Jesus did. Jesus always spoke in the Person of God.