Discussion in 'Belief and Spirituality' started by IowaGuy, Sep 20, 2011.
I do have an idea concerning what you wrote I didn't.
I see it simply as the grace of God, the goodness of God, even if I don't understand. The name John means "the grace of God", or "God is Grace".
Allelyah, are you the drivel of a puter program? Who operates your code?
Who knows? But I can tell you this . . . it's very annoying and ruins every single thread, I'm getting fed up with it, personally. You can't have an intelligent discussion anywhere on this forum.
"Add to Ignore List"
True . . . I think I will, the only problem is that I'm nosey and want to read what everyone posts! LOL!!
Ahhhhhh...... busybody Etu Malku just can't help himself.
He actually has very good insights, but of course your reaction is to be expected since he goes on calling existence "God". He is using this word to convey something, however, I do not think he is meaning the Christian notion of Father - Father is merely the personification of the unmanifest, where the Son is the personification of the manifest; he discusses a non-duality much as I have, a realization that the seeming opposites are actually not separate at all.
I will again direct you toward a favorite Sufi analogy, one which explains the Trinity in a more useful way I think:
Beloved - Lover - Love
Object - Subject - Oneness
Outer - Inner - Whole
Father - Son - Holy Spirit
In each case, the first two list a duality, the third is a transcendence, the truth of things. Mind divides, it wishes to sort everything so that it can understand it, it will not permit the two to be considered as an organic unity. We can use mind to aid in this realization, but we will be leading our way to that very transcendence with our devices, contemplations. If we can continue beyond where mind decides it is sure of things, if we can arrive at a point where mind knows that it knows absolutely nothing... then there is a pause, time stands still, the veil is lifted and the real is glimpsed.
This is what I mean by mind must die, it is necessary for your resurrection into truth.
No, my reaction is to be expected because I communicate through the use of proper and accepted grammar and English, there is nothing but mayhem with Allelyah's posts.
But, I rectified my problem by placing Allelyah on "ignore" . . . threads are much better without reading Bot comments.
Certainly, he should take a moment to ensure what is intended is conveyed in a more comprehensive manner. Then, I cannot name many Bodhi's that are well educated, so it is hardly unexpected. What must be remembered is that in the past, no Bodhi has ever written anything. They have talked, and their disciples have later tried to convey what the Master has said so as to preserve it. This very desire to keep it shows they have not become Enlightened themselves, and yet a tradition has sprung up around it. It is difficult to write about truth, if it were otherwise the whole world would be awakened. The only true conveyance is that of silence, however, as in the case of the Flower Sermon.
I am not saying he is a Buddha, I think that he is close, but still mind is coming in trying to discern what has happened. He still clings to things, such as God, this is still maya - illusion - so he has a little more to go, I feel. There is certainly a reason you dislike the concept of a God, and it is utterly valid. Existence itself is the Master, we are merely waves resulting from its tide. He seems to have let-go into the current, but still he is in his boat, not paddling against it but not yet ready to plunge.
He needs to learn that it is not useful to convey the experience, that alone means it has passed and now he reports on it. He must concentrate on how it has happened - if indeed he speaks the truth - and try to convey that. Words are futile, only guiding them to that place will they understand.
In that understanding, though, words are no longer necessary.
LOL . . . so Buddha is a Bot?
Allelyah is not a bot, he is stuggling to convey the unconveyable - quite an absurd predicument... and yet, how to share it without discussing it?
It is an old problem, one that Buddha has expertly danced around. He simply refuses to discuss anything about it unless it directly relates to knowing it for yourself. This is why he is the greatest teacher to ever live, and yet still we must shuffle through nonsense to find what is important...
The whole Dharmapada would be far more useful if it simply said "drop the world, all that you know and everything you think you are, observe mind for its protests and see what is the nature of it so that it too can be dropped. Watch feelings and know that they are distinct from you, and watch the body as it functions without you. Once there is absolutely nothing, what is left is who you truly are... find that"
Who will want to though? Ego will be utterly against it unless you already trust Buddha... what is strange is that in Buddha's method there is the most reward at the end - there is a sublime contrast in it. Through the way of other religions, your love grows and grows until you dissolve into it - then you are no more. Buddha takes you the exact opposite direction... he gradually picks away everything until you are nothing, then you explode in love.
Two sides of the same coin.
Sounds like over complicating very simple ideas. Communication is one of our greatest achievements, use it.
Communication is the epitome of duality, how can it convey something contrary to its very nature? Also, if you say I have overcomplicated something, you should try reading Buddha's sutta's
The "saying portion" of the Holy Spirit is the manifest, the Son. What is Always is what is referenced as the Father, the unmanifest. The Holy Spirit is the unity of this seeming duality, what many will call Truth.
Of course, in saying this, we show an identification with Christianity - how many priests will agree with Truth?
True . . . I've always had a general disdain for aphorism.
With Buddha's method, you learn about the different components of the mind, and how to discern between them. You have different tools for different problems--to open the innumerable dhamma doors.
Why will you go around opening every door when any one will allow you to enter inside? You can enter and then leave to see if another door is superior, but enter and marinate inside for a time first. There is a skeleton key inside, it will not be difficult at all to try the others when you have it.
Buddha is absolutely not about pointint out the components of mind, he is not a brain surgeon at all. He simply observes the tricks of the mind and walks you through them all, it can all be boiled down to "enjoy but do not become involved, remain detached". By the by, as you learn to remain distanced and watch the thoughts, so they will begin to stop coming. There will be nothing at all for them to cling to after a time, and then between them... the glimpses. The longer the gaps, the longer the glimpses until it is simply the case.
Always, when a thought arises, look into from where it has arisen. Have you originated it or have you simply become identified with it once it is already there and ran with it? Who is observing the thought? It becomes more and more obvious as you create the distance between yourself and the thoughts. When it is obvious, now simply go into this observer, can it too be observed? In this, you become a pure mirror of awareness itself - a mirror mirroring itself.
Here lies my problem with Buddhism.
Whereas I think Buddhism is certainly one of the lesser evils in the world of Belief Systems, unfortunately it shares with other religions a very basic elemental flaw: A belief that the universe is in some fashion set up for our sake -- or at least set up in a manner conducive to our needs.
In Buddhism, it is expressed in the belief that there are cosmic laws that exist solely to process our "karma" and make it possible for us to "advance" in some fashion. This is one of the most fundamental problems with religions -- pretty much all religions.
People are falsely taught that there is something in or above the universe that has picked them out for special protection and consideration. Our existence is a product of luck, not divine intervention, and any improvements we achieve will be due to our own hard work, not cosmic process or karma.
But what troubles me most about Buddhism is its implication that detachment from ordinary life is the surest route to salvation. Buddha's first step toward enlightenment was his abandonment of his wife and child. It seems legitimate to ask whether a path that turns away from aspects of life as essential as sexuality and parenthood is truly spiritual.
The very concept of enlightenment begins to look anti-spiritual, it suggests that life is a problem that can be solved, and should be, escaped. Buddhism holds that enlightenment makes you morally infallible.
Buddhism claims that perceiving yourself as in some sense unreal will make you happier and more compassionate. When you embrace your essential selflessness, "guilt, shame, embarrassment, self-doubt, and fear of failure ebb away and you become, contrary to expectation, a better neighbor." But most people are distressed by sensations of unreality.
Google up "Bodhisattva Vows"
Separate names with a comma.