Discussion in 'Belief and Spirituality' started by CobblersApprentice, Jul 6, 2019.
Perhaps another take on this is non-duality?
What are you driving at?
Yes, there are many "flavours" of Abrahamic religion. The vast majority though, believe Jesus and Muhammad, peace be with them, as being actual men in history.
As I say, religions with their philosophical principles evolve, and they necessarily have to come from somewhere
I would say that their source was very important indeed. Believing we are enlightened, when we are in fact being duped (like the Bhagwan example), achieves .. what exactly???
Christ seemed to think the only sin that was 'unforgivable' was the rejection of the love of God, the Spirit of Forgiveness (cf Matthew 12:31-32)
Yes, acceptance of the above.
OTOH, what does believing that we are saved, achieve?
Also, there is a bit of ... disagreement ... among the various traditions that trace their lineage back to Abraham the Patriarch, as to which later figures are authentic and which ones were out to dupe people, regardless of their historicity.
Jesus does not measure up as Messiah to Jews.
Mohammad does not measure up as the Comforter to Christians.
There is disagreement regarding the rightly guided Caliphs, Ali, and so on, among Muslims.
Is Guru Nanak to be counted into the tradition at all?
All the contenders for being the Mahdi... the Bab, Baha'u'llah and the Baha'is, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, who founded the Ahmadiyya...
Joseph Smith and his revelation which got he Mormons going, Mary Baker Eddy and Christian Science...
All venerable Abrahamic traditions in their own right. And they all have stuff going on at the fringes, where people might be getting duped.
I'm more interested in exploring what they all have to say about themselves and God and the Last Things and so on, rather than what grudges they hold against each other.
Sorry, but I cannot see exactly what you are driving at.
You first assert/imply that Buddhism and its various flavours originate from 5th century Nepal, a man simply in history, and nothing more. Now you tell me that Jesus and Muhammad were "actual men in history". Yes, of course. Please could you go back and reread. I might be missing something.
As far as "original enlightenment" is concerned, there is the doctrine/belief, and then there is the understanding. I myself have often questioned the "enlightenment" of those known to have driven cars into brick walls while in a drunken stupor - and never been satisfied with the answer "who are we to question the enlightened?"
Others here are speaking of "desire", of the "will of Allah" and apparently contrasting submission to such "will" with those who may simply be pleasing themselves. If others are not suggesting this, I apologise.
Buddhism in many flavours asserts that the "work" towards enlightenment is within all of Reality-as-is. Of the fertility of the earth itself, and the wondrous, healing, natural power of creation, of the phenomenal world; of the "liberative qualities of spatiality and temporality". Impartial. This has to do with the Mahayana Buddhist teaching of "upaya", (expedient means) where the Dharma (teachings) are geared towards the uniqueness of each particular human being. This expressed in various Sutras......
The Lord speaks with but one voice, but all beings, each according to their kind, gain understanding, each thinking that the Lord speaks their own language. This is a special quality of the Buddha. The Lord speaks with but one voice, but all beings, each according to their own ability, act upon it, and each derives the appropriate benefit. This is a special quality of the Buddha.
Just as the nature of the earth is one
While beings each live separately,
And the earth has no thought of oneness or difference,
So is the truth of all Buddhas.
Just as the ocean is one
With millions of different waves,
Yet the water is no different:
So is the truth of all Buddhas.
Just as the element earth, while one,
Can produce various sprouts,
Yet it's not that the earth is diverse:
So is the truth of all Buddhas.
I bring fullness and satisfaction to the world,
like rain that spreads its moisture everywhere.
Eminent and lowly, superior and inferior,
observers of precepts, violators of precepts,
those fully endowed with proper demeanor,
those not fully endowed,
those of correct views, of erroneous views,
of keen capacity, of dull capacity -
I cause the Dharma rain to rain on all equally,
never lax or neglectful.
When all the various living beings
hear my Law,
they receive it according to their power,
dwelling in their different environments.....
..The Law of the Buddhas
is constantly of a single flavour,
causing the many worlds
to attain full satisfaction everywhere;
by practicing gradually and stage by stage,
all beings can gain the fruits of the way.
(The Lotus Sutra, Parable of the Dharma Rain)
Well, yes, such can lead to "take what you need and leave the rest", then morph into taking only whatever pleases our desires. Of course. Admitted. Acknowledged. But - and this without seeking to hurt - in my own reading of history, and in my own experience of devotees of the various Faiths, simply to acclaim "Allah knows best" or "submit to the will of God" does not necessarily address the fundamental problem.
but that would come under comparative religions I should think
Or interfaith dialogue.
Who is "the Lord"?
Of course .. saying "Allah knows best" means different things to different people.
What is "Allah"? What is God?
Some people imagine God as a person who rewards and punishes. While this might lead one to modfiying their behaviour, it does not make it so.
What is Allah to you, then? What is God to you?
As has been said, many "flavours". It's all in the translation.
"Different things to different people"
Does "the Lord" know his own?
I remember way back on another forum where I quoted from the Bodhicaryavatara (Shantideva), a quote that included the word "sin", someone objected to the use of the word in a Buddhist work. They insisted that a "sin" could only be between a created being and a Creator, the created breaking the Creator's "law" - "sin" as such could therefore not exist within Buddhism, being non-theistic. Well, OK, all in the definitions.
I would say that as far as Buddhism is concerned, and speaking generally, "desire" as the cause of dukkha (suffering) is very much related to ignorance (understanding the world falsely), therefore enlightenment would be associated with the eradication of ignorance.
Though Buddhism is often seen as a pessimistic Religion/Faith/Philosophy, as I see it the above suggests a very optimistic outlook - the world, if seen truly, without "ignorance", but with "wisdom", would be one free of dukkha.
(Wisdom......I quite like the definition of Edward Conze....." The mind/heart, thirsting for emancipation, seeing direct into the heart of reality")
I once read the book "Into That Darkness" by Gitta Sereny, based upon 60 or so hours of interviews with Franz Stangl, the Commandant of the Treblinka extermination camp. In it, a few conversations with his children were recorded. What got me was that they said - without as I saw it seeking to exonerate their father, or seeking to deceive - that they could not have had a more loving father. I often reflect upon this.
Maybe most can "love" with a degree of partiality. The love of the "divine", as I would see it, is totally impartial. And such we must become. Which relates to forgiveness. "Mutual forgiveness of each vice, opens the gates to paradise" is a great William Blake couplet, I think from "Auguries of Innocence".
Certainly not a person
He is nether male or female .. does not have relatives, such as uncles, mother, father, sons and daughters.
He is unique. He is responsible for the creation of space-time i.e. the universe, and is never weary of maintaining it.
..so I would say that deists are not alone in their comprehension of deity .. they just don't like rules
Well a lot of us feel we have a lot to learn from other peoples insights. Some people appear to be very insightful to me.
This, like any relationship can, of course, be abused. I don't think that a realistic solution for such abuse is to not seek advice and... Sigh... enlightenment from others.
Are you being sarcastic?
Rules seem ubiquitous within the realm of Religion, written explicitly on tablets of stone and various "holy books" or derived from the latter by those called "theologians" or whoever.
What seems important to me, in respect of "salvation" and/or "enlightenment" is for the Golden Rule to be "written upon human hearts", or in effect, become a spontaneous response of the heart in each and every moment.
In Buddhism such "awakening" is seen as a function of the nature of reality, and as an exponent of Dogen's thought says :- "intimately connected with the dynamic support of the earth, space itself, and a multidimensional view of the movements of time." All reality has "liberative qualities" and such qualities are not - in this view - restricted to adherence to any "rules" derived from particular books, however venerated.
While a book, such as the Bible, can be believed to be THE revelation, and reveal the story of Jesus, as I see it, the actual work of Christ - of the reconciliation of all things - can potentially be found anywhere, in anyone.
How do you mean?
My understanding of G-d is as I wrote
Indeed .. that seems to be a major problem with the world these days, regardless of religion.
People are becoming more divided and less caring about others.
Of course, the ultimate distrust of others is war.
I have a love & hate relationship with the world. I like to withdraw from others and tread a path of what makes sense to me..
..and yet .. there is no "pure land" without being part of society. Life sometimes seems like walking a tight-rope
Separate names with a comma.