toldailytopic: Buddhism.

[sonicdrifter]

Of course Buddhism doesn't automatically bring joy or enlightenment; only God can do that. Buddhism is correct according to its own purview, but if we broaden the scope we see that these truths are but a part of a much more comprehensive whole.

One good way to see this is to see that Buddhism focuses on rules. It makes rules the supreme thing and says if you follow those rules or recommendations then you will achieve happiness. But when we think about it, the idea that a static, impersonal, unsupported, ungiven (no lawgiver) rule resides as the key to life makes no sense. A rule does not exist on its own. And how silly it is to say that a rule rises above true being, true life, and true Love. No, the minimization of suffering and the attainment of an ecstatic state is not what life is about; it is about something far greater.

:e4e:

Buddhism does have rules, or rather precepts, that are meant to be followed, and a measure of inner peace and freedom from karma comes from following those rules. But this is not the heart of the process, it is commitment to the process of meditation, wherein the three poisons of the mind come to an end, with the illusion of an isolated separate self penetrated and dissolved, so that a deeper self, in unity with the living compassion, intelligence, and creative energy of life is discovered, the unborn, the unchanging, and the undying.

I do not think you can get that following rules is the supreme thing in Buddhism from studying Buddhism or learning about it. If you study some of the discourses, Buddha spends only a small time on following rules, and expects this to be established fairly quickly in the lives of students, and then gives much longer discourses on the practice of meditation and what can be realized through meditation. It is not merely an ecstatic state, it is not like taking drugs and getting high, or getting fired up by a sermon. Those are transitory states that come and go. The unborn, unchanging, and undying is always there, is eternal, and therefore when one joins with it, then it endures and gives lasting peace. It also allows a person to live a life of compassion towards all sentient beings, including animals, and including homosexuals, who it seems are the focus of some undeserved prejudiced wrath by at least a number of Christian factions.

 

[zippy2006]

Buddhism does have rules, or rather precepts, that are meant to be followed, and a measure of inner peace and freedom from karma comes from following those rules. But this is not the heart of the process, it is commitment to the process of meditation, wherein the three poisons of the mind come to an end, with the illusion of an isolated separate self penetrated and dissolved, so that a deeper self, in unity with the living compassion, intelligence, and creative energy of life is discovered, the unborn, the unchanging, and the undying.

I do not think you can get that following rules is the supreme thing in Buddhism from studying Buddhism or learning about it. If you study some of the discourses, Buddha spends only a small time on following rules, and expects this to be established fairly quickly in the lives of students, and then gives much longer discourses on the practice of meditation and what can be realized through meditation. It is not merely an ecstatic state, it is not like taking drugs and getting high, or getting fired up by a sermon. Those are transitory states that come and go. The unborn, unchanging, and undying is always there, is eternal, and therefore when one joins with it, then it endures and gives lasting peace. It also allows a person to live a life of compassion towards all sentient beings, including animals, and including homosexuals, who it seems are the focus of some undeserved prejudiced wrath by at least a number of Christian factions.

I consider "discourses on how to achieve meditative states" nothing more than 'rules'. You do a bunch of things in order to make yourself feel a certain way. :idunno:

At the end of the Buddha's days he has achieved a vague "enlightenment." He is at the top, he has won, he has conquered samsara. What exactly does any of this mean? No one really knows :idunno:. He just knew that suffering wasn't any fun and now he has risen above it. Apparently he was thrown into a world of suffering for no apparent reason, and now he has conquered that suffering and all is well... It's like being thrown into a game and learning how to win it. But now we're done with the game: so now what? After endless karmic cycles the summit has finally been reached. Apparently all that experience and suffering was a negative, a problem to be fixed, a sort of mistake, but now that it has been remedied.... Is that the end? Was the ego really illusory? Will I dissipate into nothing?

Smart Buddhists will always struggle with the contradictions. The world is illusory, I am illusory, my ego is illusory, and yet I need to free myself from illusion? Who is to be freed? An illusory identity? There is a similar problem trying to resolve a belief in non-duality with a duty to be compassionate. A vow against attachment with the need to care for and help each (illusory) person towards enlightenment.

I claim that smart Buddhists will see the folly of non-duality and the illusory ego. As a Christian I believe that we have a true identity, a true self made in the image of God. This soul is real, not illusory, and therefore we must care for it and those of our fellow humans! And Reality is not indifferent or non-dual, it is grounded in Love. That is exactly what creation is: an act of love. Compassion and love are necessary because they are what Reality is, what God is. We are not less than we think we are, we are more. And True Reality isn't impersonal and below us, it is super-personal and above us! And yet we are fallen: we have willingly moved away from the God who made us. This is why the Buddhas teachings on ego are partially true: because of the reality of the fall. We have become proud, seeking God's place for ourselves, and this has inflated our ego and let us lose sight of our true home. But there is a core that is good and necessary; our whole identity isn't illusory, for that would be a contradiction.

And after thinking about that, it is good to recognize that the Buddha explicitly stated that he was a man: no different from any of us. The Buddha was a climber on the rope like anyone else, but Christ was the True rope, sent down to us from Heaven. Genesis 28:12

:e4e:

 

[sonicdrifter]

I consider "discourses on how to achieve meditative states" nothing more than 'rules'. You do a bunch of things in order to make yourself feel a certain way. :idunno:

At the end of the Buddha's days he has achieved a vague "enlightenment." He is at the top, he has won, he has conquered samsara. What exactly does any of this mean? No one really knows :idunno:. He just knew that suffering wasn't any fun and now he has risen above it. Apparently he was thrown into a world of suffering for no apparent reason, and now he has conquered that suffering and all is well... It's like being thrown into a game and learning how to win it. But now we're done with the game: so now what? After endless karmic cycles the summit has finally been reached. Apparently all that experience and suffering was a negative, a problem to be fixed, a sort of mistake, but now that it has been remedied.... Is that the end? Was the ego really illusory? Will I dissipate into nothing?

Smart Buddhists will always struggle with the contradictions. The world is illusory, I am illusory, my ego is illusory, and yet I need to free myself from illusion? Who is to be freed? An illusory identity? There is a similar problem trying to resolve a belief in non-duality with a duty to be compassionate. A vow against attachment with the need to care for and help each (illusory) person towards enlightenment.

I claim that smart Buddhists will see the folly of non-duality and the illusory ego. As a Christian I believe that we have a true identity, a true self made in the image of God. This soul is real, not illusory, and therefore we must care for it and those of our fellow humans! And Reality is not indifferent or non-dual, it is grounded in Love. That is exactly what creation is: an act of love. Compassion and love are necessary because they are what Reality is, what God is. We are not less than we think we are, we are more. And True Reality isn't impersonal and below us, it is super-personal and above us! And yet we are fallen: we have willingly moved away from the God who made us. This is why the Buddhas teachings on ego are partially true: because of the reality of the fall. We have become proud, seeking God's place for ourselves, and this has inflated our ego and let us lose sight of our true home. But there is a core that is good and necessary; our whole identity isn't illusory, for that would be a contradiction.

And after thinking about that, it is good to recognize that the Buddha explicitly stated that he was a man: no different from any of us. The Buddha was a climber on the rope like anyone else, but Christ was the True rope, sent down to us from Heaven. Genesis 28:12

:e4e:

The enlightenment of the Buddha is not a vague thing. When you transcend thought and have direct experience/perception there is something that is clearly realized and it ends sorrow. Vagueness is usually an outcome of words and fuzzy understandings. The Buddha mapped out the chain reaction of sorrow in a lot of psychological detail and also showed where this chain reaction could come to an end. Meditation is not about merely sitting around following rules. Granted there are instructions that you follow, but merely following instructions is only part of meditation. You may as well say that sailing a boat is about following rules, just because it has instructions. But to see it that way is to miss the entire point of both.

After Buddha became enlightened, he taught others to awaken beyond sorrow in the same way, to live a life of compassion towards others, and to help make this planet a place of peace, where everyone can have the causes of happiness flourish in their lives.

Just for reference, the Buddha actually said that he was not a human anymore, because in the process of becoming enlightened he had evolved beyond the causes and conditions that make humans what they presently are. When you merge with the unborn, the unchanging, and the undying, form a conscious presence within this energy, it profoundly changes you. Something turns on inside that never turns off and the entire body, heart, and mind change under its radiance. It is about compassion, about kindness, about empathy for the sorrow of others, about feeling of the joy of others as our own joy, and about an inner peace that the world cannot shake.

I do feel that Jesus underwent a similar change and it was through prayer (aka meditation) as well. Jesus also talked about oneness in John 17 and prayed that all his disciples would enter into the same unity with the Divine that he had. I like when he talked one time of "peace, not as the world gives" and that "be of good cheer" because "I have overcome the world". I think this overcoming means touching the core of life that is beyond those sorrows and learning to rest there. Jesus did not speak or teach in the methodical and scientific way that Buddha did, but he has some potent one liners that I have found valuable in my meditation process.

 

[sonicdrifter]

One of the first things on the path to realization is that all relationships meet their inevitable end; love ends either by death, betrayal, or indifference. Intuitively everyone realize this as a brute fact, yet many fail to accept it..therefore they cling to an ideal, irrational form of "eternal", "perfect" love, such as that purported from god. The Buddhist's answer is not to forgo love, rather embrace your love in every moment of life with the complete realization of the precious, precarious and temporal nature of existing love.

Yes, I do find that when transitoriness is understood that love becomes more precious. You do not take it for granted that the one who is loved will be present in your life the next moment.

In reading a lot of the thread, I would like to clarify that Buddhism is not against "attachment" in the sense of emotionally bonding with someone, especially in a romantic partnership. The fourth behavioral precept considers it necessary for "not misusing sexual energy" (at least in some versions of Buddhism). It is actually not against any attachment, but simply states that attachments formed through clinging and addictive craving will lead to sorrow and are filled with a subtle sorrow even before the object of addictive craving is lost. This can be psychologically observed, it does not require any special kind of faith to believe. Addictive craving is "wisely contemplated and wisely abandoned" by a Buddhist, though it takes a little time to "get it" in personal experience.

What I do observe is that merely being a born again saved Christian does not mean that such addictions merely fall away, and since they are causes of sorrow, it means that being born again does not automatically make one "saved" (liberated, enlightened) in the Buddhist sense. As humans, there is a lot of sort out here.

 

[Nick M]

Funny, I could say the same thing about Christianity.

Agreed. "Christianity" is a mess.

Every time I claim to know something about Buddhism, someone comes along and says, "No, that's not right."

So, I'm going to sit here and learn what it is the Buddhists believe.

I thought there was a girl here who was buddist. Then decided the gospel is true. But I am also wondering what they think.

 

[freelight]

I thought there was a girl here who was buddist. Then decided the gospel is true. But I am also wondering what they think.

You might be referring to bodhigirlsmiles,....I also linked a few of her threads on Buddhism earlier (post #39) - She got busy with other things and hasnt posted for a long time (last post was June, 2009),....so not sure of her current 'status' of faith as a 'Christian' or where her walk has led her thus far.


pj

 

[sonicdrifter]

An interesting religion, I served in a Buddhist country (Cambodia) on my mission and had many interesting conversations with Buddhist Monks.

I have noted after coming home that while the core principles are the same I think each region adds it's own traditions and beliefs to the mix ( which is not incompatible with what the Buddha taught) so that each variant of Buddhism you encounter is slightly different.

The missionary style of Christianity has been "your religion is wrong, ours is right" conversion with the requirement that the convert forsake their previous religion. Buddhism has had tolerance for other religions and their style is "Keep what you already believe and learn the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path". In other words, you add Buddhism to what has already been learned and believed. Hence Tibetan Buddhism has the Shamanic flavor of Bonn added to it, Chinese Buddhism has some of the naturalistic flavor of Taoism with Zen arising as a kind of synthesis. Sometimes the previous religion does need some revision and certain beliefs are questioned and dropped away, but it is not automatically assumed that the previous religion is totally false. I do find, though, that apart from the coloration and some difference in beliefs, there is an essential core that is the same in all the versions of Buddhism. The Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path define this core well. Where the Buddhist traditions differ is in the skillful means, the meditation methods, that are used to help enlighten individuals.

I think where I see the most confusion understanding Buddhism is in the teaching of "no self". The Buddha did say that "Unless the teaching of no self is understood, there is no end to sorrow." So it is important to understand this correctly. He did not negate some fundamental individual identity, but what may be called the "personality self" which is created by our identification with transitory thoughts, emotions, reactions, and sensations. The teaching is meant to used in meditation to look within and see that our thoughts, emotions, sensations, and reactions have "no self" that they are transitory phenomena that do not define us. As we negate these things, they dissolve away. Once all those things are negated, then there is something clear, lucid, and obvious what who and what we really are. The Buddha was generally reluctant to give it a name, because he did not want people to identify with yet another mental concept, like soul, Buddha Nature, Atman, etc. It does not mean he negated the idea that humans had a soul, a self, an Atman, etc. He just did not want people to attach to any idea at all and let it define them. Buddhism is not about settling for any belief, because believing in anything, even a soul, even god, even all the vast number of beliefs that compose nearly all religions, does not end sorrow and does not allow one to experience eternity/enlightenment/divinity.

If one wants to understand Buddhism, one would really need to spend some time practicing meditation. Books are helpful and there are a lot of good ones. In terms of the Eightfold Path, the last three precepts are about meditation. The middle three are about some basic ethics. The first two have to do with "right understanding" and "right commitment". Right understanding relates to the teaching of the 12 interdependent causes of sorrow and where the chain reaction of sorrow can be stopped. This teaching is meant to outline a psychological process that is meant to be observed in meditation. This is foundational to understand how to end karma, how to meditate, and what we are meant to commit to in order to become enlightened. The sense of a separate self with its sorrow dissolves away and the deeper identity is felt to be more real. This shift, called "paravritti" (a deep revolution in the innermost consciousness, somewhat like the Christian idea of "metanoia"), changes one very deeply. If it is a very thoroughgoing enlightenment, sorrow never comes back and compassion radiates freely from such a being. If a person only gets a glimpse, one feels something eternal and beyond sorrow inside oneself, feels freedom and compassion, but may have more to process. This is called "nirvana with residue".

 

[sonicdrifter]

And yet the question of whether Buddhism believes in an eternal source is largely an open question. Buddhist concepts such as "Nothingness," "the deathless element," "Buddha nature," and "Nirvana" are all strangely similar to an eternal, lasting concept.

:e4e:

This is something I feel is a controversy among Buddhists. My sense is that there is something eternal, unborn, unchanging, and undying that is Nirvana and realization and direct experience of this gives one peace, freedom, radiating compassion, and eternality. This is spoken of in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra which for some Buddhists represents the final, definitive, and nonprovisional teachings of the Buddha. The key thing, though, is that the Buddha did not want people to settle for a belief or a concept, but a direct and living experience. He often negated concepts to get them out of the way. The Nothingness (sunyata) is actually something very positive, called the Great Affirmation in Zen Buddhism. What is negated is conceptual grasping and sunyata asserts that "nothing" can be grasped conceptually and ultimately through concepts or through attachment to anything. Realizing the emptiness of anything is realizing its nongraspability. This leads to letting go and, in a sense, falling into and resting in Nirvana.

 

[freelight]

This is something I feel is a controversy among Buddhists. My sense is that there is something eternal, unborn, unchanging, and undying that is Nirvana and realization and direct experience of this gives one peace, freedom, radiating compassion, and eternality. This is spoken of in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra which for some Buddhists represents the final, definitive, and nonprovisional teachings of the Buddha. The key thing, though, is that the Buddha did not want people to settle for a belief or a concept, but a direct and living experience. He often negated concepts to get them out of the way. The Nothingness (sunyata) is actually something very positive, called the Great Affirmation in Zen Buddhism. What is negated is conceptual grasping and sunyata asserts that "nothing" can be grasped conceptually and ultimately through concepts or through attachment to anything. Realizing the emptiness of anything is realizing its nongraspability. This leads to letting go and, in a sense, falling into and resting in Nirvana.

:thumb:

and to the rest.............



pj

 

[zippy2006]

This is something I feel is a controversy among Buddhists. My sense is that there is something eternal, unborn, unchanging, and undying that is Nirvana and realization and direct experience of this gives one peace, freedom, radiating compassion, and eternality. This is spoken of in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra which for some Buddhists represents the final, definitive, and nonprovisional teachings of the Buddha. The key thing, though, is that the Buddha did not want people to settle for a belief or a concept, but a direct and living experience. He often negated concepts to get them out of the way. The Nothingness (sunyata) is actually something very positive, called the Great Affirmation in Zen Buddhism. What is negated is conceptual grasping and sunyata asserts that "nothing" can be grasped conceptually and ultimately through concepts or through attachment to anything. Realizing the emptiness of anything is realizing its nongraspability. This leads to letting go and, in a sense, falling into and resting in Nirvana.

:thumb: And now a great similarity begins to emerge. Christians are to cling to God rather than anything in this world. True happiness lies in God, nothing else will satisfy our hearts which were made for Him.

Our hearts are restless until they find their rest in Thee -Augustine

:e4e:

 

[freelight]

:thumb: And now a great similarity begins to emerge. Christians are to cling to God rather than anything in this world. True happiness lies in God, nothing else will satisfy our hearts which were made for Him.

Our hearts are restless until they find their rest in Thee -Augustine

:e4e:

Buddhists agree, however dont reference the 'unborn, undying, unchanging' reality as 'God' of course...being mostly non-theistic in orientation,...but this is just how the internal structure philosophicallly bases and concludes itself, without a 'god-concept'. Therefore it could be argued what system is more 'effective' or 'practical' on whatever level or context, its 'means' and 'end'. And of course, that will depend on who you ask. If the proof is in the 'pudding', then both religious traditions have examples of persons who have reached beyond the conditional world and realized what some call 'God'.


Om namah brahman,




pj

 

[zippy2006]

Buddhists agree, however dont reference the 'unborn, undying, unchanging' reality as 'God' of course...being mostly non-theistic in orientation,...but this is just how the internal structure philosophicallly bases and concludes itself, without a 'god-concept'. Therefore it could be argued what system is more 'effective' or 'practical' on whatever level or context, its 'means' and 'end'. And of course, that will depend on who you ask. If the proof is in the 'pudding', then both religious traditions have examples of persons who have reached beyond the conditional world and realized what some call 'God'.


Om namah brahman,




pj

But they've realized different things: impersonal vs personal.

 

[sonicdrifter]

:thumb: And now a great similarity begins to emerge. Christians are to cling to God rather than anything in this world. True happiness lies in God, nothing else will satisfy our hearts which were made for Him.

Our hearts are restless until they find their rest in Thee -Augustine

:e4e:

Yes, I do think that there is a similarity. The language is different, but I suspect the core experience is the same. I have always been fond of the Christian mystics, like Meister Eckhart and Saint Julian of Norwich. I was involved with the Benedictines before I became a Buddhist (and I am still welcome there). There are a lot of commonalities with Christian contemplatives and Buddhist meditators, both try to go beyond words, beyond beliefs, to commune with the Real.

I would say, to be psychologically more precise, that one does not even cling to God, but rather lets go and entrusts oneself to God. I found the best metaphor was letting water hold you up when you are floating on the ocean. I feel this is what Jesus did when he released his breath (spirit, pneuma) and says, "Into Your hands, I commend my breath," on the cross. The breath pierces the veil of separation in the temple and enters into communion with the Divine. It is like, rather than holding on to God, one entrusts to God holding us.

I do find it interesting that Jesus releases his breath and enters into oneness with the Divine, and Buddha uses a word for exhale (Nirvana, nir=out, vana=wind) to describe his final release into Peace.

The personal versus impersonal understanding of the Divine is interesting. Buddhists do tend to use impersonal language and do not see God as a big personality ruling the universe. This would make sense, because Buddhists tend to deconstruct the human personality self to fall into a deeper identity that is radiant awareness. They would assume that the Divine has no illusory personality either. But what I would say is that when I did meditate into Nirvana, I saw/felt that the entire universe was saturated in unconditional love and this feeling is still with me to this very day.

 

[sonicdrifter]

Buddhists agree, however dont reference the 'unborn, undying, unchanging' reality as 'God' of course...being mostly non-theistic in orientation,...but this is just how the internal structure philosophicallly bases and concludes itself, without a 'god-concept'. Therefore it could be argued what system is more 'effective' or 'practical' on whatever level or context, its 'means' and 'end'. And of course, that will depend on who you ask. If the proof is in the 'pudding', then both religious traditions have examples of persons who have reached beyond the conditional world and realized what some call 'God'.


Om namah brahman,




pj

The question of which methodology is better to attain Nirvana or the Kingdom of Heaven is an interesting one. This would presuppose that Christianity, Buddhism, and all the religions, on some level, are after the same thing. There is some truth to this, since there are mystics of every religion and even natural mystics of no religion who have some spiritual experience that is described in similar ways, and usually through prayer or meditation, or even just some moment of "letting go". There was a case where a Czech was taken into a concentration camp during WWII and was protesting. A Nazi hit him hard with a rifle butt and he just completely surrendered and gave up. When he did, he exploded into the universe and felt one with everything in bliss. After the war was over, he never forgot this experience and it stayed with him his whole life. There is a knowing about life within those experiences that allows an inner peace, as Jesus says, "not as the world gives".

Buddhism, in its original form, is a very stripped down religion that focuses only on the attainment of Nirvana through living a way of life that has eight basic precepts. Much of its teachings are found in other religions. I do think that it is a very efficient form of practice and should, at the most, take about two years of daily meditation to attain at least a glimpse of Nirvana. Many people get a glimpse (kensho) during a week long Vipassana retreat or a weekend Zen intensive.

From this standpoint, Buddhism has some advantages over conventional Christianity, because the mental obscurations are seen and cut through very directly. One of the obscurations is religious thought, religious belief, or religious dogma. It can be a mass of thoughts that prevents one from directly experiencing the Divine, especially if one settles for just believing. The Diamond Sutra talks about even Buddhist thoughts being a barrier to realization. It is much rarer for Christians to question all their beliefs as beliefs, though Meister Eckhart did when he said the paradoxical prayer, "I pray to God I might get rid of 'god'." In the Gospel according to Saint John, Jesus uses "Aletheia" (Koine Greek) for "Truth" which seems to imply a direct experience beyond words, fully revealing the truth. It has the meaning of removing forgetfulness (obscuration, "lethe"). I say "seems", because the scholarship about this word still seems a little mixed. This would fit in with "blessed are those who have eyes to see, and ear to hear" being the most repeated verse in the NT and with "revelation" coming from a word which means "removing of the scales from the eyes". Or Saint Paul's "looking through a mirror dimly" but then "face to face".

 

[freelight]

But they've realized different things: impersonal vs personal.

Wouldn't the origin of all that exists be the source for both? ...and that both are included in the totality?


pj

 

[sonicdrifter]

Wouldn't the origin of all that exists be the source for both? ...and that both are included in the totality?


pj

I do find the personal and impersonal divinity question to seem to arise more within the prophetic religions than in the traditions based on meditation. It seems related to conventional prayer being about talking to god in words and expecting god to be personal enough to be able to hear in words what is said. In the meditative traditions, thoughts and words are usually seen as obscurations which prevent a direct seeing of what is real. Part of the definition of what is real in the meditative traditions is that something is only real if it is not transitory. If an experience comes and goes, undergoes both creation and destruction, then it cannot be fundamentally real. Hence the "unborn, unchanging, and undying" is real and eternal and the ordinary world, which is undergoing constant change is not real. It is not unreal in the same sense as "maya" or "illusion". Most early Buddhist philosophical schools were "materialist" in the sense the material universe was not merely a projection of consciousness but had something existent about it. But this kind of existence, not being eternal, could not be real in an absolute sense.

There is a paradox in this kind of intellectual inquiry in Buddhism, because ultimately even the tool of reasoning with concepts is abandoned in favor of direct experience. The concepts of "personal" and "impersonal" are looked at and abandoned too. There is a kind of personality projection on to the divine in the personal view that seems to reinforce one illusion and another kind of projection of something dry and abstract behind the impersonal view. Some writers have proposed the word "transpersonal" for the divine to point to something beyond both, to point to something beyond being merely a big personality and beyond being merely an abstract absolute.

In the second turning of the wheel of the Dharma, the Madyamika Buddhists kept negating every concept in an effort to cut through every obscuration, including all religious concepts. Behind all this is still "the great affirmation" that there is something supreme, wonderful and positive that is realized through this. The negation of every concept, both personal and impersonal, gives it more of an impersonal flavor (though technically this would be a "wrong understanding of emptiness").

In the third turning of the wheel of the Dharma, words are introduced back, as pointers to a living experience. Postive terms like "Buddha nature", "Primordial Presence", and "Radiant Awareness" are used. The presupposition is that, having passed through the systematic cutting down of all obscuring concepts and having moved into direct experience, words can be used without becoming conceptual traps and without becoming items believed for their own sake and therefore substitutes for direct experience. Inside Buddha Nature are "all the virtues of the Buddha", namely open generous hearted love (dana), patience, humility, endurance (ksanti), devotion, concentration, enthusiasm (virya), discipline, ethical idealism, precision (sila), meditation, free attention, alive experience (dhyana), creativity, skillfulness, adaptiveness (upaya), surrender, letting go, flowing (pranidana), faith, miraculous power, manifesting whatever is imagined (bali), luminous wise unity with all enlightened beings (dharma megha samadhi), calm abiding in bliss, eternity, freedom, presence (buddha), and creative oneness with the totality (siddha). The virtues are really considered infinite pure qualities and this is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but this list is how those qualities feel and unfold inside humans who meditatively merge with primordial presence and who are transformed from glory to glory through radiance of the divine into their lives. It feels very personal, warm, loving, and luminous.

 

[freelight]

Urantia Book commentary on Buddhism

Urantia Book commentary on Buddhism

In the third turning of the wheel of the Dharma, words are introduced back, as pointers to a living experience. Postive terms like "Buddha nature", "Primordial Presence", and "Radiant Awareness" are used. The presupposition is that, having passed through the systematic cutting down of all obscuring concepts and having moved into direct experience, words can be used without becoming conceptual traps and without becoming items believed for their own sake and therefore substitutes for direct experience. Inside Buddha Nature are "all the virtues of the Buddha", namely open generous hearted love (dana), patience, humility, endurance (ksanti), devotion, concentration, enthusiasm (virya), discipline, ethical idealism, precision (sila), meditation, free attention, alive experience (dhyana), creativity, skillfulness, adaptiveness (upaya), surrender, letting go, flowing (pranidana), faith, miraculous power, manifesting whatever is imagined (bali), luminous wise unity with all enlightened beings (dharma megha samadhi), calm abiding in bliss, eternity, freedom, presence (buddha), and creative oneness with the totality (siddha). The virtues are really considered infinite pure qualities and this is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but this list is how those qualities feel and unfold inside humans who meditatively merge with primordial presence and who are transformed from glory to glory through radiance of the divine into their lives. It feels very personal, warm, loving, and luminous.

Superlative.

The Urantia Papers sometimes use the term 'pre-personal' or 'super-personal' to describes various aspects of relationships with 'personality'. I'd be interested in your analysis of the Papers treatment of the "Melchizedek teaching in the Orient", commentary on 'Buddhism' in the lower half of the page - Here

Also later.... Ganid made a compiled synopsis of the worlds religious traditions Here (See Buddhism).

Om shanti,


pj

 

[sonicdrifter]

Superlative.

The Urantia Papers sometimes use the term 'pre-personal' or 'super-personal' to describes various aspects of relationships with 'personality'. I'd be interested in your analysis of the Papers treatment of the "Melchizedek teaching in the Orient", commentary on 'Buddhism' in the lower half of the page - Here

Also later.... Ganid made a compiled synopsis of the worlds religious traditions Here (See Buddhism).

Om shanti,


pj

I read the entries in the first article and found some minor historical discrepancies, like his search through the teachers of India being six years, rather than seven years. I found some other inaccuracies which do seem to plague a lot of inquiry into Buddhism in this culture. Buddhism does believe in the transmigration of the individual essence from lifetime to lifetime and the rebirths are determined by the law of karma. The Jataka tales, for instance, talk about the various lifetimes of the Buddha before he became the enlightened one, including a lifetime as an elephant. It is partly for this reason that Buddhism originally taught vegetarianism. There is also a belief that there are heaven worlds and that the Buddha experience many of them when he was deep meditation. However, being reborn in a heaven world is not considered enlightenment and is considered transitory. When the good karma that caused rebirth in a heaven world is exhausted, then one is reborn in a lesser world that allows one to finish with any remaining bad karma. Enlightenment is related to realizing the true nature of the mind, that its deepest layer is infused with bliss, eternity, true self, and freedom, and learning to rest there, rather than seeking and attaching to anything external at all, even if it is rebirth in a heaven world. The lack of belief in a "soul" is related to the insight that the Buddha that people are attached to a certain idea of who they are, composed by thoughts and beliefs, that is illusory, and which obscures the true nature of the mind. When one observes the transitory nature of all the thoughts, emotions, sensation, intentions, and body identification that construct this feeling of self, notice that all these things are transitory and do not define who and what we are, then we "fall" to a deeper place inside ourselves, like looking at a river from a mountain top, and feel ourselves within luminosity and are at peace. If you call the part of oneself that is able to be in the luminosity by the name "soul" that would be okay, as long as it is a real experience. One does not really save oneself by effort in the sense of earning salvation, it is more that meditation requires some effort and discipline to do, and that it leads to a direct experience of a part of oneself that was never really lost and a letting go of a self that one never really was. There is also an idea of divine grace, emanating from Amida Buddha, the aspect of the luminosity that radiates karma burning love as light into the world and allows all karma to finish without the need to attract bad karma experiences to oneself to complete them. But this would be another big subject for another entry...