The Buddha a Catholic Saint... - Page 3

BlaznFattyz · 09-28-2006, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by taijasi

Oh my goodness, I hadn't noticed which Dallas! I'm in Greensboro. We should meet for coffee or something! And if you have those wonderful books, I'd love to have them! I don't own copies, although I have quite a few of Thich Nhat Hanh's other books. He's the first Buddhist author I ever read ... about 17 years ago.

Oh, I dunno. I find that part of the Sacred Music, Sacred Dance tour the most enjoyable. It's the Purification of the Environment with dungchen (longhorns), and overtone chanting, that scares most people.

Okay, but can you tie this in with the canonization of the Buddha as a Saint?

Namaskar,

taijasi

buddha as a saint is an invention of man, but because god has already come in the flesh there is nothing we should direct our attention to other than christ jesus.

taijasi · 09-28-2006, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlaznFattyz

buddha as a saint is an invention of man, but because god has already come in the flesh there is nothing we should direct our attention to other than christ jesus.

Yep. I think you've pretty well summarized the chief reason I'm not a Christian.

andrew

bodhi_mindisfree · 09-28-2006, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Oh my goodness, I hadn't noticed which Dallas!

Dallas, NC near Charlotte

soma · 09-29-2006, 12:04 AM

I would say Buddha is higher than a saint. A catholic saint is elected. Buddha is a realized being. The greatness of realized individuals is beyond description. They could be saints and they could have been rejected by the electorate which is not realized because they are free from the dark misery of the materialistic mind which is responsible for the cruelty in the system of things we are experiencing today. These realized saints are free because they are unattached and have never hardened their minds to the physical world. They do respond though without delay to the trembling nerves they might encounter and to all the problems and questions, spoken and unspoken. Their desire is to remove the causes of sorrow whether they are physical, mental or spiritual because they prevent the unfortunate people in this world from happiness. Compared with true bliss nothing is of any importance because fame, health and success are nothing compared to the happiness experienced in their higher minds. The happiness evoked in the higher layers of the Mind is not the same thing as excitement or pleasure experienced in the lower layers, it is a deep flowing calm, a satisfaction that mounts up at times into ecstasy and is to be shared with others.
http://thinkunity.com

BlaznFattyz · 09-29-2006, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soma

A catholic saint is elected. Buddha is a realized being.

a christian saint is a follower of jesus christ. jesus being the way, the truth, and the life.

Terrence · 09-29-2006, 02:20 AM

I never really understood Buddhism, even before when I liked it in my pre-Christian years. This religion (I know...I know, its not a "religion") seems to be narcissistic to me. I mean, its all about I in that relgion/way/path or whatever you want to call it. Look at me, I'm so humble, I dont eat animals, I love the earth, I meditate and wear nice robs and stay away from women and practice zen and ti chi. Sorry, but I must be honest. I believe the people who seek after buddhism are existentialist who do everything for themselves...even really good things. Here's my little Christian segway here: This is why the God of the Bible likens our good works "filthy mensration rags" - they're all done out of selfish motives and for the wrong reasons - they're never pure.

cyberpi · 09-29-2006, 03:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by taijasi

Hmmm, I'm not sure I understand what you mean? As for what the Buddha says, you might try looking at the thread on the Dhammapada.

I meant, I think faith = work directed by another person. I also meant I am ignorant of what Buddha says about faith. I'll review the thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by taijasi

"All we are, is the result of what we have thought." Or as my good (Christian) friend puts it, What we do today determines our tomorrow.

I reject the first because I place faith in others.

I reject the second because today I chose what to do and the people who called me also helped choose my day today. I have not decided or I don't know what will determine tomorrow. I can take clay and mold it, change its shape. Will its shape tomorrow be determined by its shape today? Maybe, or maybe tomorrow I'll just flatten it and start over... try something completely new. Yesterday did not determine today, and I haven't decided if I'll let today determine tomorrow. I'll let you know tomorrow though.

I hope those are not core principles of Buddhism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by taijasi

And if you haven't seen Tibetan monks debating - you're missing out!

Where do I sign up?

taijasi · 09-29-2006, 05:10 AM

Cyberpi,

Other people definitely influence our lives, and vice versa. However, this is part of the result (!) ... of our own (and others') earlier actions! When the person on the highway cuts you off, you are still in control - if you so choose. Even if that person causes you to swerve, and wreck, and become terribly hurt ... EVEN THEN, YOU are the one who determines your reaction/response. That person may have to pay the medical bills, but it's up to you to make him or her a sworn enemy, prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, or perhaps forgive them - and accept that it was not intentional.

When the meteor falls and destroys your home, it's easy to say, "I'm a victim!" And in terms of natural disaster, yes. But what YOU DO NEXT, is up to you.

If you win the lottery, do you really think it's random? Did that really just happen because "they" drew your lucky number? And why did you decide to buy a ticket that day, when you NEVER play the lottery? Why did your friend decide to give you the ticket, since of course, you'd NEVER buy one for yourself. Or ... of all the HUNDREDS of lottery tickets you buy, why do you think it was THIS one, and not the first one, that was lucky? There are answers to these kind of questions. They are hypothetical, but life is not without meaning, purpose, order, guidance, rhythm, balance, and a beauty unto itself.

Buddhism is about Causality. Assert that the world we live in is random and arbitrary, and you negative the teachings of the Buddhas. Invoke the man in the sky, and start talking about reward and punishment, and all you've done is perpetuate the need to be taken care of ... and evaded ultimate responsibility for yourself. Can we in fact take, or claim such responsibility? Yes, we can. And that doesn't eliminate God, either. Nor does it mean we cease to be Christian. Just kinda depends on how narrowly we've come to define and understand the teachings of Christ.

For Sacred Music, Sacred Dance (Mystical Arts of Tibet), consult this webpage. Schedule of performances is listed.

As for the answer to the thread topic, thanks soma. I believe you've pretty well summed it up!

Namaskar,

taijasi

soma · 09-29-2006, 03:50 PM

One thing we can learn from Buddhist is they never put Christianity down to make themselves feel better. I have met Buddhist who are better Christians than the Christians in name only who condemn and are afraid.

cavalier · 09-29-2006, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soma

One thing we can learn from Buddhist is they never put Christianity down to make themselves feel better. I have met Buddhist who are better Christians than the Christians in name only who condemn and are afraid.

Hold on, I've met Buddhists who have put down and sneered at Christianity.

seattlegal · 09-29-2006, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cavalier

Hold on, I've met Buddhists who have put down and sneered at Christianity.

Intolerance has no religion.

cavalier · 09-29-2006, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Intolerance has no religion.

"Intolerance" seems a little harsh, at least, it does for the people I was referring to.

soma · 09-29-2006, 05:25 PM

We have Christians acting like Buddhist and Buddhist acting like Christians so I guess we are all the same at least in God's eyes we are.

seattlegal · 09-29-2006, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cavalier

"Intolerance" seems a little harsh, at least, it does for the people I was referring to.

Hmm, how about "derision," or "partiality?"

cavalier · 09-29-2006, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Hmm, how about "derision," or "partiality?"

so then, derision has no religion/partiality has no religion.
Can I ask what exactly you mean by that?