S
Sacredstar
Guest
{Duplicate content removed - see next post for Sacredstar's edited post}
Last edited by a moderator:
Vajradhara said:with the slight exception that any of the Pure Lands are quite different than what is commonly viewed as Heaven or what have you... the Pure Lands, themselves, are really more like monastaries and nunneries where practice is unimpeded... but the Pure Land is not the goal.. it is a temporary respite along the path.... so i suppose that i could be a temporary goal, if one is so inclined.
the Vajrayana Buddhist path teaches, essentially, the same thing... awakening is immediately available right here and now. it's a matter of being able to recognize it, stablize it and maintain it, in our view. this is where the practice aspects of our tradition come in... so that we can maintain this view throughout our daily activities and actions.
hmm..."wholeness"? i'm not really sure what that may mean.. do you mean to indicate a view wherein all beings and objects are seen as essentially the same?Sacredstar said:The only difference as I see it is that where you might use the word practise I would use the word integrate and in integration we can achieve wholeness.
Does wholeness come into your spirituality? And if so by what terminology?
being love
kim xx
Agreeso... if we had to choose an emotive reponse, i would suspect that most Buddhists would choose Compassion as the emotion that binds the community together
Postmaster said:Agree
I think that enlightenment doesn't necessarily only occur from meditating.
In fact I personally believe that there is a level of God that be achieved which Buddhism does not let reach.
Suffering is a way of reaching a state closer to God, not from suffering intentionally, but by the path that person takes in life, in which could be hard work, passion, devotion and sacrifice. Although I acknowledge Buddhism recognises these ways to help promote enlightenment, there preferred method is meditating of which I personally believe is a way of reaching a higher state of mind. However might not promote higher state of soul?
in our view, compassion is an emotive response as well. it's actually one of the few emotive responses that Buddhists try to cultivate. like any endeavor, one can become a bit obsessed, which is where the Buddhist concern lies. it's not so much that emotion and all of that sort of thing are prohibited or frowned upon, rather, it is obsessive attachment to these emotional states which is what we are going on about. obsessive attachment to anything, in our view, is not likely to help one along the path, thus, we strive to lessen our attachments as a whole.Sacredstar said:Interesting Vajradhara that you would link emotion and compassion together I experience unconditional love and compassion as beyond emotion, surely Buddhists would view emotion is created by attachment?
being love
Kim xx
do you recall which one?Knowledge said:I once read a Philosophy book
how.... unusual.that said - "Enlightenment is the emergence of man from his self imposed infancy."
does it provide you with any value? if not, i'd say that you should, to borrow a term "flush your RAM" and get this out of your head. personally, i'm not all that keen on retaining information that is not beneficial to me.I liked the qoute so much, that for days, I repeated it until it was imbedded in my memory. It is because of that mantra style practice that I actually remember that qoute today.
let's say that you see "a" truth. whilst it may be "the" truth, our subjectively oriented thinking processes wouldn't be able to really get to the "the" non-subjective truth.The funny thing however, is, I no longer adhear to that qoute. You see, as a born again Christian, who is aided with the help of the Holy Spirit, I see the truth.
we'd probably have to define those terms just a bit more before we could answer them. for instance. i have real knowledge of Windows file systems. i mean by "real" and "knowledge" that i can demonstrate certain aspects of the file system upon request, thus it is "real" in that you can see it and it is "knowledge" in that it's something that is learned.The truth is this: Who has real knowledge, wisdom, or real understand? Who is truely enlightened?
ah... ok.. so you are defining enlightenment to be the equilivent of knowledge of phenomena. typically, this is not how the term is viewed... it's usually a bit more esoteric than that... especially in the traditional exegesis where the term is Awake.The answer is that none of us know 1% of ALL the truth that there is to know. If there is 99% of truth out there for us to find, how then can we say that we're enlightened?
well... i can see that as a monotheist, one may come to this view. naturally, i would disagree with nearly all aspects of the premis.The truth is, there is none wise, but God!
within the traditional exegesis of Buddhism, Buddhas, too, possess the trait of omniscience.. however, not in the same way as a God, which simply knows all without discernment. within the paradigm of Buddhsim, Buddhas know what they turn their attention to know.Only he knows all that there is to know.
perhaps.. perhaps not. it is difficult to really say that one "knows" a being that is, essentially, posited as beyond human conception and thought. typically, i have the feeling that the term is meant to signify some type of emotional connection or response felt in the mind stream of the individual.And, those that know him, know truth.
As a strange kind of monotheist, I would agree with you here. When I say I "know" God, what I mean is that I have an emotional and spiritual connection to the glimmers of God that I experience. Personally, I do not mean that I know God the same way I know, for example, how the science of archaeology operates. That is why I try to avoid using the word "know" and instead say that I "experience" God, and always try to remember that God is far greater than I can comprehend. I can only get glimmers of the Divine. If I claimed to know 100% truth, or 100% of what God is, then I would be saying that I am equal to God in understanding.Vajradhara said:perhaps.. perhaps not. it is difficult to really say that one "knows" a being that is, essentially, posited as beyond human conception and thought. typically, i have the feeling that the term is meant to signify some type of emotional connection or response felt in the mind stream of the individual.