Famous Quotes on Reincarnation

[Snoopy]

Snoopy,

I agree. Hinduism teaches the Atma, while Christianity teaches the soul. There is a big difference between the two. Theosophy teaches both concepts, and distinguishes the two.

You said,

"I'm not sure how the 'every Buddhist in the world' disagreeing bit comes about?"

--> This may just be a confusion of terms. Almost every Buddhist in the world disagrees with the idea of a soul/Atman, and fundamentally (as in dogmatically) rejects it. I agreed with you that Buddha did teach the idea of Atman.

(Atman is the dictionary form, Atma is the bound form.)

Hi,

yes I think we're clear now!!

s.

 

[lunamoth]

Big questions Nick! I'm looking forward to answering them, although I don't have time right now to address them fully. A couple of comments:

Luna,

You asked,

"What's unfortunate about it?"

--> It is unfortunate because Theosophy rejects a great deal of orthodox Chrisitian teachings — the more we disagree, the more difficulty there is for the two of us to communicate.

I don't see that this needs to be a barrier to communication if we accept that there these different religions are, as Vaj says, "valid spiritual refuges," or perhaps different vehicles is a better analogy. I like the airplane analogy myself. There are certain basic features required to get it off the ground, but there are also differences between different models. You may be able to find one-to-one correlation between some parts so that they are interchangelable, but there are many parts that just won't work in the other models. But, you use the right parts for the right model and it flies.

At present, the gap between the two sets of teachings is huge.

I don't see it as a gap that requires filling, but I can understand how theosophy might view it that way.

"I'm close to Eastern Orthodox in much of my interpretation of these things, and EO does not accept original sin."

--> Please explain your belief regarding Original Sin.

I'll return to this, perhaps in a new thread.

luna

 

[Thomas]

Hi Earl, and all –

If you can, Earl, try and get hold of "The Sword of Gnosis", edited by Jacob Needleman. Among the essays are a collection by Marco Pallis which are germain to the discussion of Grace, especially in Buddhism:

'Discovering the Interior Life', 'Is the a Problem of Evil', 'Living One's Karma' and 'Is There Room for Grace in Buddhism?' - to which the answer was a 'yes', and then an explanation of 'grace' in a Buddhist context.

Marco Pallis was a Greek convert to Tibetan Buddhism, and held no little authority for his commentaries. When the Dalai Lama was unable to deliver a lecture (the first in the essays above), he asked that Pallis act in his stead.

+++

Hang on ... Tariki and I discussed this:
http://www.comparative-religion.com...ce-4961.html?highlight=marco+pallis#post58786

The list is worth a look, but I've extracted a comment:

Pallis demonstrates, however, the centrality of grace in Buddhism despite its non-personalist and non-theist perspective. He relates grace to enlightenment and shows how the attractive influence of enlightenment strikes the consciousness of human beings who stand on the axis of Buddha-hood as at once invitation to enlightenment, companionship of enlightenment, and reminders of enlightenment. In connection with the latter, he discusses the incredible spiritual presence of the sacred image of the Buddha and the role of traditional Buddhist art, especially in its iconic form, in transmitting a sacred presence which cannot be called anything but grace.
(Emphasis mine - Thomas)


+++

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Hi Nick –

An interesting but much wider point, draws from when you say:
"Unfortunately (for Christians), this flies right in the face of the forgeiveness of sins. Both forgiveness and karma just cannot happen...."

Which I would say stems from a Theosophist perspective at odds with a Christian understanding, founded on Scripture (which lies at the heart of all Christian/Theosophist dispute):

Matthew 9:6:
But that you may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins...

Mark 2:7:
But that you may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins...

Luke 5:24:
But that you may know that the Son of man hath the power on earth to forgive sins...

The agreement of the text in all three gospels signifies their origin from an original, proto-gospel text, be it the so-called Q document, or my own favour, an Aramaic Matthew no longer extant.

This presents the miracle workings of Christ in a specific context: not mere demonstrations of power, but rather that the miracles performed make a point, the forgiveness of sin being one in particular, and the identity of Jesus Christ in general. In short, the miracles confirm the words, and the words explain the miracles ... that God can do as He wills.

Thomas

 

[lunamoth]

Hi Nick, If you'll permit, just a quick comment:

--> Technically, no. When something unexpectedly good happens to someone, you call it Grace. I call it the ripening of good karma.

This is not how I understand grace.

Grace is unconditional love, and it is a state in which we live, not just those good things that happen to us. Grace is still operative when we are suffering, in fact this is when it can help us the most, when we are at the end of our rope. Granted, all that we have is from God, Providence, but that's a little different from grace.

2 c,
luna

 

[Thomas]

Hi all –

I do fear we are rather side-tracking Nick's original intention in this thread, and put my hands up to his point that I am, to some part, responsible for shifting the gound of debate onto one that suits me, rather than the original intention.

Perhaps we should open a new thread on Grace?

Thomas

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Re: eR

Luna,

You said,

"I'll return to [Original Sin], perhaps in a new thread."

--> Please do it in a Comparative Religions Section, not a Christian Section. (I do not go into Christian Sections and discuss non-Christian ideas — out of respect.)

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,

Actually, I think we have Grace covered. It is not a Theosophical concept, nor a (non-Pureland) Buddhist concept.

You said,

"...Which I would say stems from a Theosophist perspective at odds with a Christian understanding, founded on Scripture (which lies at the heart of all Christian/Theosophist dispute)...."

--> On this, we agree.

 

[lunamoth]

Re: eR

Luna,

You said,

"I'll return to [Original Sin], perhaps in a new thread."

--> Please do it in a Comparative Religions Section, not a Christian Section. (I do not go into Christian Sections and discuss non-Christian ideas — out of respect.)

OK. I actually just bounced this idea off Thomas...he's got a lot on his plate but is interested in presenting the Catholic view to get us started.

luna