My view on Buddha

[benedictus2]

Dear Joe Kelly: By the time He had reached enlightenment it would follow that He would have nothing to lose and nothing to gain. A state of no want. Freedom from the bondage of attachment.Therefore it cost Him nothing. He had reached a point where He could give freely and lose nothing. From abundance, abundance comes. Take fullness from fullness and fullness remains.

There is an infinite potential for goodness in God’s creation. Because of this, the good that the Buddha did on no way diminishes the good that Jesus did, so there is no need to compare or to worry about what is greater. Again, from abundance, abundance comes.

Your friend
Sufjon

And that is the beauty of Christian. We are not merely freed. We are freed for something or rather for Someone.

 

[benedictus2]

You are not the first to notice my sig. The original source is Mark Siderits, “Thinking on Empty: Madhyamika Anti-Realism and Canons of Rationality” in S Biderman and B.A. Schaufstein, eds, Rationality In Question (1989). Dordrecht: Brill.

I have not read Siderits but saw the quote in a piece on Nagarjuna. The “Madhyamika” in Siderits’ title refers to the religious and philosophical school of Buddhism that Nagarjuna founded. I have seen the same quote again in other places in reference to the Madhyamika and Nagarjuna - it seems quite popular. The quote is intentionally paradoxical; paradox is necessary to remind us that words are insufficient when trying to describe the fundamental nature of reality.

For a philosophical discussion of Nagarjuna and reality see the web article Nagarjuna and the Limits of Thought. The Siderits quote is at the end of section four of the article:
There is, then, no escape. Nagarjuna’s view is contradictory. The contradiction is, clearly a paradox of expressibility. Nagarjuna succeeds in saying the unsayable, just as much as the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus. We can think (and characterize) reality only subject to language, which is conventional, so the ontology of that reality is all conventional. It follows that the conventional objects of reality do not ultimately (non-conventionally) exist. It also follows that nothing we say of them is ultimately true. That is, all things are empty of ultimate existence; and this is their ultimate nature, and is an ultimate truth about them. They hence cannot be thought to have that nature; nor can we say that they do. But we have just done so. As Mark Siderits (1989) has put it, "the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth."rossum

And this explanation does nothing to counter oneGodoneChurch’s claim: that the statement is A LIE.

 

[benedictus2]

But what if God and Self are ultimately “One”, if Atman and Brahman are unified, if self and Tao are in union, if the individual attains Gnosis or is immersed in the Dharma?

For one thing, attaining Gnosis does not make a person God. I don’t know what being immerse in the Dharma is but that does not make one God either I think.

In such cases, is there not a real truth in saying that humanity does contain ultimate truth?

No. Because humanity does not become God. But of course in pantheistic belief that is everything is God. Which of course if false as reality shows us that humanity is far from being God.

Even if - through sin and ignorance - we may not be born into an awareness of our union with the ultimate, can we not recognize and admit that such union is the proper state of affairs, as 2 Peter says, that we are made “partakers in the divine nature”…?

That does not mean we become God. God is God. Transcendent.

Must ultimate truth always be merely an added-on, sheer gift from the Divine, wherein we can only be grateful spectators and recipients - “children by adoption”? Is it not possible that our nature at some point is part of the divine nature?

At the end of Theosis we becomes gods with a small G. We will be united to God but we will not be god.

That when God breathed his own breath into Adam, He was imparting a bit of Himself into human nature?

Indeed He was but having a part of God does not make one God. It is a partaking in God that God controls. We only participate.

 

[benedictus2]

If a paradox is a lie then a parable is also a lie. This particular paradox expresses a truth about reality and language.

Your statement is not a paradox. It is simply a lie. A cleverly crafted statement that at first glance looks true until you put it under the microscope of rational thinking.

 

[benedictus2]

You are comparing an apple and an orange. I also have never stated that all paradoxes would be lies, just this one.

It denies that there is a ultimate truth. (Which is God). Then it sets that denial up as a ultimate truth. It has nothing to do with reality and I really not sure about what is says about language other that it can be used to conveys half truths and confuse people.

Excellent

 

[benedictus2]

If God is unlimited then any words used to describe God limit Him. Is God omniscient? Then he can never learn anything new, something any of us can do easily.

And how is God’s omniscience supposed to limit Him. We learn because of need. For God there is no need.

Is God omnipresent? Then He can never move, because he can never leave His starting point and He is already at His destination. Again, something we can do easily He cannot.

We move precisely because we are limited. Also because you idea of presence is physical. Motion is physical it only pertains to space and time.

How can we use words, which are contingent, changeable etc. to describe God?

Our descriptions of God does not limit God. All it shows is that we have a limited vocabulary. We are therefore the ones limited.

If you see a glorious sunset and all you can say is glorious because words fail, it does not limit the sunset, it just shows that you are stumped for words.

 

[benedictus2]

This whole post goes to prove what I said earlier about language," I really not sure about what is says about language other that it can be used to conveys half truths and confuse people." It is nothing but double talk that neither expandes knowledge nor understanding.

 

[benedictus2]

If you say: “there is a ultimate truth which is God”, what in reality do you refer to as God the similar way I described a pencil? In reality, “God” is only exists in your mind, it is a concept in your thinking, an illusion, proposed by the religions (except Buddhism) as the solution for explaining the difficult-to-explain phenomena in life, the simple way but doubtful.

Only because you limit reality to physical reality.

Is your mind a reality? Is it a reality we can see and observes are protons,neutrons, etc.

Is your mind an illusion? If you love someone, is your love an illusion?

 

[benedictus2]

There is a good answer in Buddhism. The Buddha taught that there is a (cosmic) realm inhabited by a divine being similar to who you think as “God”. It is called Mahabrahma in the Brahma realm.

And is this realm verifiable? I think it is an illusion or maybe a delusion. Is this not just Buddha’s own illusions which you have bought into because you have been sucked into his illusion.

 

[benedictus2]

But I personally think comparing the Jesus’ teaching with the Buddha’s teaching is kinda funny. Why? Because they are the same, in the sense that Jesus taught what the Buddha had taught. In other words, Jesus has learned the Buddha’s teaching. The next question is, how could that be, or what is the prove? The explanation starts with a ultimate question, what was Jesus doing from the age of 12 to 30? Where was he? Why doesn’t it exist in the Bible? It is known as the lost years of Jesus. Many has come with their theories, but they lack supporting evidence. I would like to know about it directly from the Christians. What is your answer? I mean the answer that is the reality, the fact about the lost years, not a speculation or baseless claim. Unless you can provide the supporting evidence, it can not be considered as a fact.

From this Christian. Hogwash. There is not one iota of evidence that supports this. Another one of those Buddhist illusions that you were referring to.

Personally I agree with the theory which says that probably his father sent the young Jesus to study in the very famous ancient center of higher learning in India at that time, City of Nalanda, at the Nalanda University. It was destroyed by Muslim invaders

You agree with a theory that lacks any factual support? Another illusion?
. Buddhism (mainly the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, which is a Mahayana branch) was the greatest part of the curriculum besides many other fields of learning. Then the teen Jesus took adventure to the Himalayas for further learning of the Buddha’s teaching. Along the way he also learned from Hindu Brahmins, from where he got the ability to cure illnesses.
Then what is the supporting evidence of this theory?
Here’s the Christian perspective. The Eastern and pagan religions are all man’s attempts to know God. All incomplete until God chose to reveal Himself.

Buddha never claimed to be God. Jesus did. Buddha’s teaching about love came from God, from Jesus and when He became incarnate He made that love a reality.

 

[rossum]

Your statement is not a paradox. It is simply a lie. A cleverly crafted statement that at first glance looks true until you put it under the microscope of rational thinking.

So, the Bible contains a lie about the Prodigal Son because there was actually no such person and Jesus told a lie. What a narrow world you live in. My commiserations.

rossum

 

[benedictus2]

So, the Bible contains a lie about the Prodigal Son because there was actually no such person and Jesus told a lie. What a narrow world you live in. My commiserations.

rossum

Huh!

The Prodigal Son IS a parable. Your statement is NOT a paradox. What an illogical world you live in.

Your statement negates itself.

 

[Sufjon]

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

Hi Francis: Good one! I really like your analogy of the 5000 dog races. I wish more people could see that they are not at the only race on town.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[rossum]

The Prodigal Son IS a parable.

And a parable is a fictional story with a moral. The fact that the story is fictional ensures that, looked at narrowly, it is a lie. The fact that it is a lie is irrelevant to the moral.

Your statement is NOT a paradox. What an illogical world you live in.

You are obviously using a different meaning of ‘paradox’. Here is the one I use:a statement that contradicts itself; “`I always lie’ is a paradox because if it is true it must be false”
– wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
My paradox contains a moral. It appears that you are missing the point.

Your statement negates itself.

Which is both intentional and precisely the reason it is a paradox, ‘a statement that contradicts itself’. A paradox with a moral. You are getting hung up on the finger while ignoring the moon that it is pointing to.

rossum

 

[Sufjon]

From this Christian. Hogwash. There is not one iota of evidence that supports this. Another one of those Buddhist illusions that you were referring to.

You agree with a theory that lacks any factual support? Another illusion?

Here’s the Christian perspective. The Eastern and pagan religions are all man’s attempts to know God. All incomplete until God chose to reveal Himself.

Buddha never claimed to be God. Jesus did. Buddha’s teaching about love came from God, from Jesus and when He became incarnate He made that love a reality.

Hi Benedictus: Very little of anything Jesus said or did was very unique from the religions from the region that Rossum mentioned, and the ideas He expressed already existed before He came about. You mention God incarnate and God revealing Himself among humankind. This idea is not new or exclusive to Jesus either. This is true if you stick to what He actually said and did.

Christianity does take some unique twists and turns in it’s teachings post-Jesus, but that is probably due to the personal agendas and intents of the new religion’s handlers such as Paul, Irenaeus and the like.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[fhansen]

Hi Benedictus: Very little of anything Jesus said or did was very unique from the religions from the region that Rossum mentioned, and the ideas He expressed already existed before He came about. You mention God incarnate and God revealing Himself among humankind. This idea is not new or exclusive to Jesus either. This is true if you stick to what He actually said and did.

Christianity does take some unique twists and turns in it’s teachings post-Jesus, but that is probably due to the personal agendas and intents of the new religion’s handlers such as Paul, Irenaeus and the like.

Your friend
Sufjon

Yes, resurrections are so mundane-almost passe by the standards of truly enlightened ones. In fact, archaic and obscure references to such events are sprinkled here and there throughout various historical literature-I’m certain one is just as valid-or invalid -as another, pretty common place in any case.

 

[Sufjon]

Yes, resurrections are so mundane-almost passe by the standards of truly enlightened ones. In fact, archaic and obscure references to such events are sprinkled here and there throughout various historical literature-I’m certain one is just as valid-or invalid -as another, pretty common place in any case.

Well, yes, resurrections of the dead are pretty common place even in more recent times. Reports of these continue even in modern times in the stories of saints from eastern mystical religions. Some are probably valid and some probably are not. Like all of these, the resurrection of Jesus is a report, and like most of these, there were witnesses. Whether or not it is true, or an event of divine origin is a matter of faith. Of course faith is a gift I suppose, but I wonder who decides who gets it and who doesn’t. Most everyone would like to believe that the ego they have become so attached to will live forever, but in spite of that many can’t. I wonder what determines who gets it and who doesn’t.

My understanding is that ascensions are a bit unique. I am not aware of many of those. It provides a foundation for the idea of the resurrection of the bodies of all the faithful. I have had a hard time getting my head around what people will be doing with those bodies in a few billion years when the earth is gone. Our bodies are uniquely adapted to life on a planet that won’t be around forever, but according to the idea of resurrection of the body, our bodies will be around forever. Our lungs and circulatory systems are all contingent on not only oxygen, but oxygen at a pretty narrow range of acceptable density. Our feet and legs are designed to work in an environment with a particular range of gravity, and the lack of it causes bone loss at a pretty rapid rate. The human body is but a component of an ecosystem that exists for a fraction of a moment on a scale of forever. So where these bodies will be, and what they will be doing is both puzzling and fascinating to think on.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[fhansen]

Well, yes, resurrections of the dead are pretty common place even in more recent times. Reports of these continue even in modern times in the stories of saints from eastern mystical religions. Some are probably valid and some probably are not. Like all of these, the resurrection of Jesus is a report, and like most of these, there were witnesses. Whether or not it is true, or an event of divine origin is a matter of faith. Of course faith is a gift I suppose, but I wonder who decides who gets it and who doesn’t. Most everyone would like to believe that the ego they have become so attached to will live forever, but in spite of that many can’t. I wonder what determines who gets it and who doesn’t.

My understanding is that ascensions are a bit unique. I am not aware of many of those. It provides a foundation for the idea of the resurrection of the bodies of all the faithful. I have had a hard time getting my head around what people will be doing with those bodies in a few billion years when the earth is gone. Our bodies are uniquely adapted to life on a planet that won’t be around forever, but according to the idea of resurrection of the body, our bodies will be around forever. Our lungs and circulatory systems are all contingent on not only oxygen, but oxygen at a pretty narrow range of acceptable density. Our feet and legs are designed to work in an environment with a particular range of gravity, and the lack of it causes bone loss at a pretty rapid rate. The human body is but a component of an ecosystem that exists for a fraction of a moment on a scale of forever. So where these bodies will be, and what they will be doing is both puzzling and fascinating to think on.

Your friend
Sufjon

Well, if resurrections, which already defy the natural abilities of our bodies, are common place, then I suppose that some sort of supernaturally endowed physical body would be no big deal either. In any case somehow I think Gautama would’ve fainted dead away in the face of a real resurrection, mumbling something like, “My Lord and my God” on the way out. But you’re right, faith is a subjective experience that can’t be directly given to anyone, at least not by us human beings.

 

[Sufjon]

Well, if resurrections, which already defy the natural abilities of our bodies, are common place, then I suppose that some sort of supernaturally endowed physical body would be no big deal either.

Except that the components of such a body would be of no use. You wouldn’t need air, so all of the components of the body that introduce air into the system would be of no use. That makes the respiratory and circulatory systems present without a purpose. Without air there would be no food, so there goes the need for digestive organs. So without digestive, circulatory and respiratory organs, there is no longer a need for a skeletal system to hold them in place, or for lower limbs to transport them to and from sources of food and perhaps the pursuit of sense experience. Of course sense experience is a rather limited type of consciousness that may actually inhibit the ability to experience a higher level of consciousness, but that would be a scary thing to give up for most of us I suppose. In that case, it is very comforting to imagine my body living forever. Unfortunately, I don’t think that’s going to happen. I do think that what I am has always been and always will be. It’s just not likely to be a small and personal thing that I am. I have reasoned that it is a much larger and impersonal thing that I am, and that I have confused this body or temporary experiential device with somehow being what I am. What I am and what you are are probably the same thing, experiencing what it creates through the things it creates. That is why in my faith, rather than thanking God for our food, we tell Him to enjoy it as we experience it for Him. We give the experience to Him.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[GaryTaylor]

Except that the components of such a body would be of no use. You wouldn’t need air, so all of the components of the body that introduce air into the system would be of no use. That makes the respiratory and circulatory systems present without a purpose. Without air there would be no food, so there goes the need for digestive organs. So without digestive, circulatory and respiratory organs, there is no longer a need for a skeletal system to hold them in place, or for lower limbs to transport them to and from sources of food and perhaps the pursuit of sense experience. Of course sense experience is a rather limited type of consciousness that may actually inhibit the ability to experience a higher level of consciousness, but that would be a scary thing to give up for most of us I suppose. In that case, it is very comforting to imagine my body living forever. Unfortunately, I don’t think that’s going to happen. I do think that what I am has always been and always will be. It’s just not likely to be a small and personal thing that I am. I have reasoned that it is a much larger and impersonal thing that I am, and that I have confused this body or temporary experiential device with somehow being what I am. What I am and what you are are probably the same thing, experiencing what it creates through the things it creates. That is why in my faith, rather than thanking God for our food, we tell Him to enjoy it as we experience it for Him. We give the experience to Him.

Your friend
Sufjon

I think to a degree you are right Sufjon. If energy can’t be destroyed but only displaced, than it would be correct to believe the energy in a human must go somewhere upon death of the flesh, which only exists in unison with the energy. The body certainly isn’t needed for the energy to exist.

Then if we take the mind and how interects with the soul in trauma. The mind is without a doubt able to protect the soul even on an unconscious level. Its not protecting the body, but the soul. In fact it wouldn’t be able to protect the body. So the essense of self preservation is the Soul. So the only question that could remains? Is to what destiny?

At the point of consciousness the flesh has a control over the Soul. On an uncounscious level the mind will ultimately only protect not hurt the body thus soul. No doubt you may do whatever you chose, even if that is to self destruct. Its done daily as we see. And not always in the name of higher deity. Many times in pure over indulgence of toxins or some wanton act.

So in essense it becomes imperative to conquer the “self” and that would be the conscious self which is thinking in regards to many things, but that which it need be thinking of. Often in the realm of “wants”. What you need and what you want are two entirely different concepts. When the self ultimately wins its independence from its own madness or foolishness, for nothing else operates it, all will become clear, and time and space, which are products of action and thought, and are part of the dream, will then disappear

So no-matter how perfect one can perceive their insigificnt world to be. On the larger scale its utterly imperfect until the pure self is found. Yet one might say its a test. A test to conquer the self,and to raise the self to a higher existence is the only significant purpose of man. Which BTW he fails to grasp daily.

Easier said than done, but certainly not as hard as one might have you believe. Its a state of pure thinking, to see what actually exists, not what the mind perceives to exist. So man is held to be a pure on looker entirely unaffected. It is only on that account that he can truly see. Any other sort of seeing would affect the thing seen. Then the seeing of it, thus affected, would be wrong and always is. So anyway it becomes necessary to realize that the body is not conscious, but we are conscious of the body, also that the mind is not conscious but we are conscious of the mind.

Anyway

Harmony is the inlet of God into the mind, so that the mind acts in obedience to a law above mind which exists in the soul - and that law is unity. Unity is the Nature of God, and harmony is its expression in mind and in the works of the mind.