Two Views on suffering

Netti-Netti,

Buddhists are more than happy to admit that there may be a God. He may exist. Or He may not. The thing is, it is not important to Buddhists whether God exists or not.

What is your opinion of the concept of "Self"?
 
First comes the engagement ring,
then comes the wedding ring,
and then comes the ...suffer ring.:)

Are you all talking about the pain of physical want and infirmity, or existential angst?

The way to end suffering is to get well, get something to eat, have a more plush existence, and learn to enjoy and revel in life. Religion isn't teaching that. Religion makes a virtue of suffering. Why? Could it be it's because the peasantry needs to be pacified and kept in powerless poverty so as to serve the ends of the institutions of power, and the oligarchies and aristocracies that control them?

Chris
 
Netti-Netti,

Buddhists are more than happy to admit that there may be a God.

we are? that's news to me.

He may exist. Or He may not.

the Suttas teach that the being that thinks it is the creator is not, in fact, the creator.

The thing is, it is not important to Buddhists whether God exists or not.


that is certainly correct, any of the deities for that matter, not just creator ones.

metta,

~v
 
Position 1:
it is not important to Buddhists whether God exists or not.

Position 2:
that is certainly correct, any of the deities for that matter, not just creator ones....the Buddha specifically denied the concept of a creator deity and did so in no uncertain terms....of course as there are many concepts regarding a creator deity it is possible that the Buddhas discourses haven't covered someones concept of the creator but so far i've not seen any.

It appears that the Brahma world, which is inhabited by devas and other deities and sacred beings, was named after Brahma. Brahma is the Hindu creator g-d, part of the Hindu trinity that also includes Sheva and Vishnu. He's at the center of classic Indian Brahmanism (texts dated 1500-400 BC). Interestingly, Brahma is specifically mentioned in the "Two Brahmans" sutra.

In the "Two Brahmans" sutra, the Buddha is portrayed as having a discussion with two arhants. (In Buddhism, a Brahman is an one who is free of "fermentations" and who would be considered "awakened," that is, an arhant or one who attained nirvana. AN 4.36: Dona Sutta )


The Buddha points out that Brahma (the creator god) is within the realm of the inconceivable supersensible and therefore suspect (not verifiable). At one point in the discussion, there is a shift in the standard by which the existence of Brahma is to be accepted or challenged. Specifically, the Buddha defers to the authority of the Tathagata and affirms the validity of "union with Brahma" as an end goal:
Thus," replied the Buddha, "the Tathagata knows the straight path that leads to a union with Brahma. He knows it as one who has entered the world of Brahma and has been born in it. There can be no doubt in the Tathagata."
The two young Brahmans said: "If thou knowest the way show it to us."
And the Buddha said: "The Tathagata sees the universe face to face and understands its nature."
The Two Brahmans

It appears, then, that the Buddha is attesting to the existence of Brahma and recognizing the legitimacy of Brahminism's primary aim, namely, to merge with Brahma. Again, this is a very specific religious goal that centers on a creator G-d.

Needless to say, this is hard to reconcile to the position that it's not important to Buddhists whether G-d exists. The "Two Brahmans" sutra actually appears to be a straightforward endorsement of Brahminism.
 
Nick A,

You said,

"I don't believe in a personal God...."

--> I have the same type of belief system.

"As I see it, spiritual healing is psychological.... They try to retain an imaginary balance through inwardly hiding.... If they are not being bothered and secure in fantasy they believe they are spiritually healed."

--> I think you are talking more about people with emotional issues than religious issues. Would you agree? I have found that, when people finally start to deal with their emotinal issues, they really get down the root cause of many of their problems.

"Do you have a different conception of spiritual healing?"

--> I think emotional problems require emotional cures. Spiritual problems require spiritual cures. I have seen many people try to meditate away their personal problems. In my opinion, they are looking in the wrong place for an answer.

"Psychological wounds are the same. Yet the idea is somehow to consciously allow oneself to become open rather than recoil."

--> Better yet,we should deal directly with the psychologial damage that has occured.

"Man on earth is in a fallen state of being."

--> The funny thing is, that fall was necessary (and was not a sin, as Christians would have us think.) (I am not a Christian.)

"The only trouble with this is that if we don't know the cause of the original defilement, how is it possible? Without knowing the cause, how can we agree with the solution?"

--> I think I agree with you. But could you give an example?

"In the image simply means the reunification of the Trinity within Man."

--> I would phrase it differently: We are in the process of recognizing the Triple Logos within us, the Triple Logos that has been there all along. Many people make the mistake of looking for the Triple Logos outside of us instead of within us.

"Basically mindfulness in Buddhism is the unifying effort to consciously "know thyself."

--> I think mindfulness is more of a technique that allows us to cut out a lot of the psychological crap that we have picked up over the years.

"...the emotions are somewhere in-between...."

--> That is why I feel one of our biggest tasks in this life is to get in touch with our emotions.

"The body of the vertical being is also on the ground but it is now the emotions that can unite consciousness and the physical."

--> I am not sure what you are saying. Can you give an example?

"...our emotions are so consumed with imagination and negativity, it is impossible."

--> I think it is never impossible to unite our emotions with our intelligence. The more a person thinks this is impossible, the more they need to get some emotional work done.

"...Christianity is concerned with the "Attention of the Heart" It is the process that heals the heart.by gradually freeing it from the dominance of our normal negative emotions."

--> I can see why you feel this way. I just disagree.

"This is why the world must hate Christianity because it asserts our insignificance, the nothingness of our image."

--> I have two responses.

(1) Many of us non-Christians have various reasons to have a 'negative' view of Christianity, but this is not one of them.

(2) Buddhism asserts our insignificance in the very same way.

"To "Know thyself" requires being present for the conscious experience of oneself "NOW."

--> I think that it takes a heck of a lot more than that for us to 'know' ourselves. But that is a good first step.

"...Buddha didn't speak of God since for us it causes more harm than good."

--> This assumes there was a God for Buddha to speak of in the first place. Many of us do not make that assumption.

Hi Nick the Pilot

--> I think you are talking more about people with emotional issues than religious issues. Would you agree? I have found that, when people finally start to deal with their emotinal issues, they really get down the root cause of many of their problems.


Agreed. Emotional issues lead to a form of denial that denies objective religious understanding.

--> Better yet,we should deal directly with the psychologial damage that has occured

The question is how to do it.

The funny thing is, that fall was necessary (and was not a sin, as Christians would have us think.) (I am not a Christian.)

I agree the fall was necessary and original sin began as an inherited trait after the fall as a normal consequence of the loss of conscious inner unity

--> I think I agree with you. But could you give an example?

What Karmic action did we perform to warrant being on the wheel of samsara to begin with. If we can free ourselves of it why are we in it to begin with?

I would phrase it differently: We are in the process of recognizing the Triple Logos within us, the Triple Logos that has been there all along. Many people make the mistake of looking for the Triple Logos outside of us instead of within us.

I'm not sure what you mean by Triple Logos and why it differs from the what the Holy Trinity represents. The trouble now is that the Trinity is out of fashion so any attempt to understand universal structure and human meaning and purpose must wait until fashion changes as it always does.

If triple logos means what I think it does which is the relationship of three elemental forces, then it exists both within man and in the external world.

--> I think mindfulness is more of a technique that allows us to cut out a lot of the psychological crap that we have picked up over the years.

In Christianity it is separating the wheat from the tares within. The wheat is what is real within us and the tares is acquired imagination or what you call the psychological crap.

--> That is why I feel one of our biggest tasks in this life is to get in touch with our emotions.

There is the secular way and the transcendent way to get in touch with our emotions. Which do you prefer?

--> I think it is never impossible to unite our emotions with our intelligence. The more a person thinks this is impossible, the more they need to get some emotional work done.

Our emotions and our intelligence are already united. The separation is between our conscious potential and the physical which our emotions keep separate.

(1) Many of us non-Christians have various reasons to have a 'negative' view of Christianity, but this is not one of them.

Have you ever been exposed to Christianity or are you referring to Christendom?

--> I think that it takes a heck of a lot more than that for us to 'know' ourselves. But that is a good first step.

I disagree. If one can come to the conscious experience of the self, that is all that is necessary. The problem is in becoming able.

Christianity is unrelated to secular Judaism and its personal God. The Christian God is ineffable. I believe that the Buddhist void is also the ineffable. Is it any wonder then when people BS on these things and create beliefs that there is so much confusion?
 
I disagree here. In Christianity, the experience of brokenness is identified with humility before G-d, who offers the Gift by which the brokenness is alleviated. Being transformed into a Son or Daughter who partakes of the Glory is not so insignificant.

John 15:

18"If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.

The world is governed by egotism that glorifies the world. To question its significance inspires insult to the point of virtual hatred.
 
Namaste Nick,

thank you for the post.



i don't think this Sutta means what you think it does. further it seems that you've omitted most of the Sutta from your response. whilst i realize that picking a sentence or two out of a lenghty body of text is a method which many Christians use it will not lead to a proper cognition of the Dharma if such a method is employed.



the Buddha did, despite the many theist claims, speak directly regarding deities and creator deites in particular. you realize that the Buddhist canon is made up of 5,098 Suttas, some of them well over 100,000 words long. it is quite possible and indeed likely that you've not read a significant enough portion of the Buddhist canon to make a conclusion on what the Buddha spoke about or didn't.

the Buddha specifically denied the concept of a creator deity and did so in no uncertain terms. the Indian people had a well developed and sophisticated theological system and the concept of monotheism and a creator deity were well understood. with regards to deities (and there are several classes of deities) or Devas and Devatas in the tradition, there is absolutely no purpose in worshipping them as they are in every bit the same predicament as humans. by and large they are in a worse situation than humans as they cannot hear or practice the Dhamma. if they can hear it, and most of them cannot, they cannot or will not practice and thus they fall into a lower rebirth when their karmic energy is expended. this happens with the deity that thinks it is the creator deity as well.

of course as there are many concepts regarding a creator deity it is possible that the Buddhas discourses haven't covered someones concept of the creator but so far i've not seen any.



the word "buddha" is a title and not a proper name of a particular being. the being that you are, probably, referring to is the Buddha Shakyamuni. Buddha Shakyamuni was born into a small kingdom on the now border of Nepal and India. the word Buddha comes from the root bud which means to awaken or to wake up, with the suffix of "dha" added it denotes a being which has awoken or woken up. so, the title Buddha Shakyamuni means "The Awakened Sage of the Shakya Clan". if you are asking how did he Awaken and attain Liberation, he speaks directly of this very thing in the Suttas themselves.

metta,

~v

Hi Vaj

i don't think this Sutta means what you think it does. further it seems that you've omitted most of the Sutta from your response. whilst i realize that picking a sentence or two out of a lenghty body of text is a method which many Christians use it will not lead to a proper cognition of the Dharma if such a method is employed.

What does the passage mean to you if you think I'm wrong? How do you know what Christians do if you don't know any Christians?

the Buddha specifically denied the concept of a creator deity and did so in no uncertain terms. the Indian people had a well developed and sophisticated theological system and the concept of monotheism and a creator deity were well understood. with regards to deities (and there are several classes of deities) or Devas and Devatas in the tradition, there is absolutely no purpose in worshipping them as they are in every bit the same predicament as humans. by and large they are in a worse situation than humans as they cannot hear or practice the Dhamma. if they can hear it, and most of them cannot, they cannot or will not practice and thus they fall into a lower rebirth when their karmic energy is expended. this happens with the deity that thinks it is the creator deity as well.

Your argument then is with secular Judaism and its creator God. The Christian God is ineffable.

the word "buddha" is a title and not a proper name of a particular being. the being that you are, probably, referring to is the Buddha Shakyamuni. Buddha Shakyamuni was born into a small kingdom on the now border of Nepal and India. the word Buddha comes from the root bud which means to awaken or to wake up, with the suffix of "dha" added it denotes a being which has awoken or woken up. so, the title Buddha Shakyamuni means "The Awakened Sage of the Shakya Clan". if you are asking how did he Awaken and attain Liberation, he speaks directly of this very thing in the Suttas themselves.


You misunderstood. The question was not how a Buddha awakens but how does he leave samsara and then reemerge? When a Buddha is not re-birthing in samsara, where is he?
 
Position 1:

Position 2:

It appears that the Brahma world, which is inhabited by devas and other deities and sacred beings, was named after Brahma. Brahma is the Hindu creator g-d, part of the Hindu trinity that also includes Sheva and Vishnu. He's at the center of classic Indian Brahmanism (texts dated 1500-400 BC). Interestingly, Brahma is specifically mentioned in the "Two Brahmans" sutra.

In the "Two Brahmans" sutra, the Buddha is portrayed as having a discussion with two arhants. (In Buddhism, a Brahman is an one who is free of "fermentations" and who would be considered "awakened," that is, an arhant or one who attained nirvana. AN 4.36: Dona Sutta )



The Buddha points out that Brahma (the creator god) is within the realm of the inconceivable supersensible and therefore suspect (not verifiable). At one point in the discussion, there is a shift in the standard by which the existence of Brahma is to be accepted or challenged. Specifically, the Buddha defers to the authority of the Tathagata and affirms the validity of "union with Brahma" as an end goal:
Thus," replied the Buddha, "the Tathagata knows the straight path that leads to a union with Brahma. He knows it as one who has entered the world of Brahma and has been born in it. There can be no doubt in the Tathagata."
The two young Brahmans said: "If thou knowest the way show it to us."
And the Buddha said: "The Tathagata sees the universe face to face and understands its nature."
The Two Brahmans

It appears, then, that the Buddha is attesting to the existence of Brahma and recognizing the legitimacy of Brahminism's primary aim, namely, to merge with Brahma. Again, this is a very specific religious goal that centers on a creator G-d.

Needless to say, this is hard to reconcile to the position that it's not important to Buddhists whether G-d exists. The "Two Brahmans" sutra actually appears to be a straightforward endorsement of Brahminism.

Nice post Netti. I agree but also know why Buddha discourages such speculations. What has happened to Christianity as a result of all these speculations proves Buddha was right.
 
Namaste netti-netti,

thank you for the post.


Netti-Netti said:
It appears that the Brahma world, which is inhabited by devas and other deities and sacred beings, was named after Brahma.

indeed, it is called the Brahma Viyara and is the 14th of the 31 planes of existence. on the 13th and 12th places, respectively, are Brahmas ministers and retinue. there is more than one Brahma, there have been an endless succession of Brahmas who all appear in the same manner, when they take rebirth from one of the higher planes into a lower one and come to think that they are the creator.

Brahma is the Hindu creator g-d, part of the Hindu trinity that also includes Sheva and Vishnu. He's at the center of classic Indian Brahmanism (texts dated 1500-400 BC). Interestingly, Brahma is specifically mentioned in the "Two Brahmans" sutra.


technically speaking Brahma is the creator deity of a particular school of what in modern times is called Hinduism. the traditional name for this particular school of religion is called Sanatana Dharma in a similar fashion as my religion is called Buddha Dharma there is also the school called Jain Dharma which you may have heard of. the term "hindu" was actually a derogatory term when it was first used and denoted people "on the other side of the river" and thus included many disparate religious traditions within India. the modern Hindu religion is, for all intents and purposes Sanatana Dharma with a strong Vedanta influence.

within the context of Buddha Dharma the term "Brahma" refers to several classes of beings, those which reside on the fine material plane and those of the immaterial plane, it does not refer to one particular deity. when the Buddha means to talk of the deity that believes it is the creator he uses the term Maha Brahma though, again, it depends on the audience to whom he is speaking.

In the "Two Brahmans" sutra, the Buddha is portrayed as having a discussion with two arhants. (In Buddhism, a Brahman is an one who is free of "fermentations" and who would be considered "awakened," that is, an arhant or one who attained nirvana.


Brahmans are not arhants, they are priests of one of the many schools of Sanatana Dharma or Vedanta that predominated the region during this time. generally speaking the term is meant to denote one of the Vaharas, the priestly caste in ancient Indian culture. now, when Buddha Dharma was first spreading the Buddha chose to use the term 'brahman' to describe a being that embodied all the, in theory, praiseworthy characteristics of the priestly Brahman; a learned poet and sage. the Buddhas particular change to this term was to remove it from its ancestral connection, i.e. one is a Brahman through the development of moral and ethical discipline not by virtue of the caste in which a being arises. the title arhant is particular to the Buddha Dharma and a being that has attained this state could be referred to by either title, Brahmin or Arhant depending on the audience to whom the Buddha was speaking.

The Buddha points out that Brahma (the creator god) is within the realm of the inconceivable supersensible and therefore suspect (not verifiable). At one point in the discussion, there is a shift in the standard by which the existence of Brahma is to be accepted or challenged. Specifically, the Buddha defers to the authority of the Tathagata and affirms the validity of "union with Brahma" as an end goal:
Thus," replied the Buddha, "the Tathagata knows the straight path that leads to a union with Brahma. He knows it as one who has entered the world of Brahma and has been born in it. There can be no doubt in the Tathagata."
The two young Brahmans said: "If thou knowest the way show it to us."
And the Buddha said: "The Tathagata sees the universe face to face and understands its nature."
The Two Brahmans

Tathagata is another title of a Buddha, the title Buddha is one of 9 titles that a Buddha has. Tathagata can be parsed in one of two ways, Tatha-gata and Tath-agata, which mean "Thus Come One" and "Thus Gone One". union with a deity is not an end goal, it is what is termed a temporary expedient to help a being have a positive rebirth. Buddha Dharma has only one end goal, of course.

It appears, then, that the Buddha is attesting to the existence of Brahma and recognizing the legitimacy of Brahminism's primary aim, namely, to merge with Brahma. Again, this is a very specific religious goal that centers on a creator G-d.


if you read the Sutta you will see that the Buddha specifically critisizes the Brahmins approach in teaching about Brahma and explains to them that their method will not lead to union with Brahma.

The Blessed One continued:
"Then the Brahmans should say,
'We show you the way unto a union
of what we know not and what we have not seen'.
This being the substance of Brahman lore,
does it not follow that their task is vain?"




"It does follow," replied Bharadvaja.

interestingly enough i cannot find this Sutta in the Pali canon. I'll check the Mahayana Tibetan and Chinese canon and see what i can find unfortunately Paul Carus didn't indicate which Sutta this was taken from nor from which canon, so it may take some time. the preface to the book states that he changed Suttas, rearranged them and added wholly original material to this book which may mean that this isn't in the canon at all.

whilst it is true that Sanatana Dharma adherents viewed Brahma as the creator deity that is not the case for the Buddha, in a fairly famous Sutta Brahma instructs a monk, that had come seeking answers, that he didn't know and that the monk would have to ask the Buddha.

in the context of the Sutta above the Buddha explains that a union with Brahma is through the straight path that the Buddha teaches, namely the Noble Eightfold Path.

Needless to say, this is hard to reconcile to the position that it's not important to Buddhists whether G-d exists.


i think this difficulty is due to your a priori notions regarding deities and creator deities in particular. one of the other titles of a Buddha is
Sattha Devamanussanam which transliterates as "Teacher of Gods and men" and indicates, imo, clearly the relative position of the two, Gods come to the Buddha for teaching. on occasion the Buddha travels to the other realms to teach the devas in their natural state.

in the Brahmajala Sutta the Buddha explains how the current deity that thinks it is the creator came to the view that it has and how other beings come to the same view and, further, how such a view will bind a being to samsara. Maha Brahma (to be specific to the Brahma that thinks it's the creator) can bring a being to its plane for a short time but cannot ensure that a being takes rebirth there and thus there is absolutely no reason to ask that deity for such. there is one way to attain rebirth in the Brahma realms; the Noble Eightfold Path.

metta,

~v
 
Namaste Nick,

thank you for the post.

Nick_A said:
What does the passage mean to you if you think I'm wrong? How do you know what Christians do if you don't know any Christians?


i know many Christians. mainly this Sutra sets the foundation for the Madhyamika school of philosophy.

Your argument then is with secular Judaism and its creator God. The Christian God is ineffable.


be that as it may, the Suttas treat deities in the same manner irrespective of their ineffablity... indeed, this ineffability is present in many situations in life though we are not particularly plussed about it in other situations.

You misunderstood. The question was not how a Buddha awakens but how does he leave samsara and then reemerge? When a Buddha is not re-birthing in samsara, where is he?

Buddhas leave samsara the same way that you and i do, they die. a Buddha arises in a world system when they rightly self Awaken to the Dharma and set the Wheel in motion once more. our world system is a fortunate one in that we've had several previous Buddhas arise and will have many, many more. the next Buddha to arise in our world system, Buddha Maitreya, is currently in one of the fine material planes known as Tusita (delightful) we are here (plane number 5) and the next Buddha is there (plane number 9). planes 6-11 are collectively known as the Deva planes.

metta,

~v
 
Did you read and Suttas that compelled you to this view?

metta,

~v

Hi Vaj

The reason I consider myself a pre-Christian or one not yet able "to be" Christian is because it answers my questions on human meaning and purpose. The idea of Nirvana as "bliss" as is often suggested in the West seems to be a form of escapism. That is why I prefer Simone's Christian understanding as suggested in the OP that if suffering is the nature of things and it uses us, how can we use it and profit from it?

The Western scientific mind is attracted to understanding relationships or the essence of wisdom more than bliss. So when Simone wrote:

At fourteen I fell into one of those fits of bottomless despair that come with adolescence, and I seriously thought of dying because of the mediocrity of my natural faculties. The exceptional gifts of my brother, who had a childhood and youth comparable to those of Pascal, brought my own inferiority home to me. I did not mind having no visible successes, but what did grieve me was the idea of being excluded from that transcendent kingdom to which only the truly great have access and wherein truth abides. I preferred to die rather than live without that truth.

She is not looking for bliss but rather meaning and purpose. I am not pure like she was but still feel the attraction to human meaning and purpose as opposed to bliss.

I've found that the perception of "levels of reality" or the universe as a cosmological structure as that which allows the scientific mind if it becomes open, to become able to perceive the logic of spiritual truths and Man's meaning and purpose since it adds the vertical direction to science that by definition is based on dualistic relationships meaningless for comprehending inner reality..

Cosmology, is for me the means by which the eventual unification between science and religion will occur.

It is also what allows me to read that excerpt from the Buddhahood Sutra as I do since I'm now sensitive to the levels of reality it suggests.
 
What Karmic action did we perform to warrant being on the wheel of samsara to begin with. If we can free ourselves of it why are we in it to begin with?
Partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil--the fruit being conditioned patterns (karma) of attachment to what we perceive as good and aversion to what we see as evil.
 
Partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil--the fruit being conditioned patterns (karma) of attachment to what we perceive as good and aversion to what we see as evil.

Is this a Buddhist teaching or your own theory? Does this mean that all people who walk the earth did the same?
 
Partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil--the fruit being conditioned patterns (karma) of attachment to what we perceive as good and aversion to what we see as evil.
I see what you're saying here, SG, but is this what the symbolism of the Garden of Eden Myth actually indicates?

Fruit, I would think, is really the only part of the tree that we can usually ingest ... be it an apple tree, orange tree, pear tree, etc. Buddha only had to sit under the Bodhi tree to gain enlightenment, and the Yggdrasil or Tree of the Sephiroth seem to have a symbolism unto themselves ... but to tie in the Tree of EDEN I think it is the eating of the fruit which symbolizes our original descent into the worlds of form, or generation.

The misinterpretation of that story may be the very notion that we should never have done this to begin with. Esoterically, the warning not to taste the fruit conceals a portion of humanity's early history, but this has more to do with a time when the current relationship between Spirit, Soul and body was still literally being "worked out."

Without a descent into incarnation, literally the taking on of meat by our Heavenly Self of Soul, how could we possibly come to experience this portion of God's creation? To suggest that we didn't need to incarnate here to begin with is to imply that we were already perfect, and though created with the Divine Spark (or Spirit) ... even the Soul is Itself evolving.

Our own Soul, when understood as the conditionally immortal portion of ourself awaiting our return to the Heavenly "Estate," is pure and holy, yet until we have learned sufficiently and fulfilled our sacred DUTY here within the lower worlds, we hardly have a right to enter the Temple not made with human hands ... and be with God in the higher realms. We have a purpose for being on this planet, and storing up treasure in heaven might be a summary of that -- if we understand the symbolism of that phrase.

There is much about the worlds of form that does serve as fruit in the sense that, once having tasted life in these worlds, we want to return again and again and again ... but unlike the Energizer bunny, I think we might have lost the note (or chord) of the Drummer we were supposed to be following. This is samsara because Earth is a non-sacred planet, not considered -- not quite yet -- as one of the `Seven Spirits before the Throne of God.' That condition may be changing, yet until one human being can recognize and honor the incarnate Divinity within another human being, rather than kill him and take his oil, or kill him and somehow feel that something useful has been accomplished ... I'd say we have a bit of a ways to go. :eek:

Anyway, there's my 2 cents. We suffer unnecessarily at this point in our evolution, but there is help from the Buddhas, Christs and Nirmanakayas down to the humblest disciples and deva-lives ... to try and speed us along the way through this crisis in our planet's progress. Even a few hundred years into the future, suffering will not be removed just because we (might) survive the current crisis, but the removal of unnecessary suffering would result in an utterly transformed world, entirely.

It is the taking of a great Initiation ... the birth of something Universal, Whom and which "loves pure Light," yet which we often simply cannot resist naming, or fighting about -- THUS leading, to so, so much unnecessary human suffering.
 
Partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil--the fruit being conditioned patterns (karma) of attachment to what we perceive as good and aversion to what we see as evil.

This is an interesting view. My initial reaction is that I have a hard time with the part about "attachment to what we perceive as good and aversion to what we see as evil."

This seems a bit unrealistic. It overlooks the fact that people are often attached to what they know is not good for them and averse to what they know to be wholesome and valuable.

What about insulting the L-rd by refusing Grace? What about defying the Holy Spirit? It is totally possible for someone to be attached and fully committed to this such a course of action. They may actually be attached to their own self-destruction.

It is also possible to be attached to "Near Enemies" - things that appear to be wholesome and valuable but distract from the path.
http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/lesson-in-self-cherishing-the-4375-2.html#post156916
 
This is an interesting view. My initial reaction is that I have a hard time with the part about "attachment to what we perceive as good and aversion to what we see as evil."

This seems a bit unrealistic. It overlooks the fact that people are often attached to what they know is not good for them and averse to what they know to be wholesome and valuable.
Yes, you make a very good point there.

What about insulting the L-rd by refusing Grace? What about defying the Holy Spirit? It is totally possible for someone to be attached and fully committed to this such a course of action. They may actually be attached to their own self-destruction.
Another possibility. Possibly from clinging to this patterned conditioning?


It is also possible to be attached to "Near Enemies" - things that appear to be wholesome and valuable but distract from the path.
http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/lesson-in-self-cherishing-the-4375-2.html#post156916
This would seem to fit into being attracted to what we mistake as being good, without looking deeply into it.
 
Hi SG,

I wrote: "What about insulting the L-rd by refusing Grace? What about defying the Holy Spirit? It is totally possible for someone to be attached and fully committed to this such a course of action. They may actually be attached to their own self-destruction."

You responded:
Another possibility. Possibly from clinging to this patterned conditioning.

It seems like aversions and attachments are like acquired tastes. What reinforcing or "conditioning" experiences would lead someone to keep making the wrong choice - the choice that is incompatible with taking advantage of the offer of redemption through Grace and the empowerment by the Holy Spirit?
 
Namaste Nick,

thank you for the post.

Nick_A said:
The reason I consider myself a pre-Christian or one not yet able "to be" Christian is because it answers my questions on human meaning and purpose.


i think that you are saying that you haven't read any Suttas which would cause you to come to this view.

The idea of Nirvana as "bliss" as is often suggested in the West seems to be a form of escapism. That is why I prefer Simone's Christian understanding as suggested in the OP that if suffering is the nature of things and it uses us, how can we use it and profit from it?

the blissful feelings are concomitant with Nibbana and the teachings are quite specific of the obstacles that becoming attached to the blissful feelings of the jhanas and Nibbana can pose.

of course i don't think that suffering is an independent sentient entity so it, suffering, cannot use anything let alone humans. the benefit of suffering is that it impels one to practice.

Cosmology, is for me the means by which the eventual unification between science and religion will occur.

It is also what allows me to read that excerpt from the Buddhahood Sutra as I do since I'm now sensitive to the levels of reality it suggests.

well.. it's up to you, of course, though such an approach is only going to lead to invalid conclusions regarding the Buddha Dharma.

metta,

~v
 
Back
Top