Darfius ...
I see. So would I be fair in stating that Buddhism doesn't offer "the" answer, but rather "an" answer?
That would be accurate. Buddhism has had its share of intellectual elitists who believe it to be the most superior of all religions, but generally speaking it discourages any sort of absolutism in terms of defining itself as "the only way". Buddha did not present himself as a god or divine incarnation (although later on, Hindus tried to portray him that way, as an incarnation of the Hindu god Vishnu, but Buddha denied this).
Again, very interesting, but I was hoping for more of a debate than a history lesson.
I think it's important to lay out some basic groundwork. Clearly, this discussion forum is heavily preoccupied with the Christian tradition, either for it or against it; if something like Buddhism it to be discussed, we have to understand the basics of what we are talking about.
I see. So are we all born with this blindness to reality? Is that how objectivity is explained?
Buddhism postulates that human beings are born into "vidya" (ignorance), and that this ignorance is the effect of many causes and factors. Some are
-- gradual identification with the body (believing that we are a body, and nothing more)
-- gradual identification with the mind (beleiving that we are thoughts, feelings, etc., and nothing more)
-- gradual identification with culture, nation, etc. (see above).
In all of these forms of identifications, we lose touch with our natural core, and come to fall asleep into what Buddhists call the "dream world of Maya". "Maya" is an interesting word that means both "illusion" and "measure". It's related to the idea that the very process of conceptualization that we learn from a young age leads to the obscuring of our natural clarity and natural wisdom.
Hmm, Christians believe time is an illusion as well. We believe God created time to make things make sense for us. I'm not sure how Buddhism "explains it better", since it doesn't address how our "consciousness" came into being and what would have happened had Buddha not had that free time.
Actually, Buddhism does address how consciousness "comes into being", via its teachings on cause and effect (interdependence) and shunyata (emptiness).
Briefly (and this is really a book length matter), cause and effect is the notion (as understood in Buddhism) that all things are caused to exist, and therefore, no things exist absolutely or inherently *on their own*. Because everything that shows up in manifest existence has been caused to exist, the very idea of trying to understand how any "one thing" came about is barking up the wrong tree.
In other words, the problem is not with the universe, or its ontology or origin point, the problem is with the way that we are perceiving it and trying to understand it.
In the Zen Buddhist "koan", for example, the Zen practitioner attempts to resolve a question that has no apparent logical answer. The resolution of it happens not in the "answering" of the question, but more properly in the deconstructing of the question. That is, the question is resolved via insight, which is more akin to profound intuition than logical deduction. That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with logic, in fact, clear logic takes us right up to the doorway of ultimate truth -- but it can't quite enter the doorway. Something else is needed to enter the doorway, and this something else is a radical and direct insight into what consciousness actually is. In other words, the resolution of the ultimate Zen koan -- "Who am I?" In Buddhism, the idea is that the answer to "Who am I?" is a direct spiritual experience that best translates as "emptiness" because it is *beyond form*. Anything that has *form* is caused to exist, and is therefore finite and mortal. Our real nature is formless, or "empty of form". It is therefore also beyond time, being unborn and undying.
Are these realms anything more than conjecture? Did Buddha reveal them or were they later "discovered"? Who was the very first soul to be reincarnated?
These realms were penetrated and explored by Buddhist mystics who had the ability to "return" to our world and relay what they'd understood and seen. That's the traditional view. A more symbolic view is that these levels represent levels of the psyche as we mature in our undestandings. Many see them as being both symbolic and actual.
Who was the first soul to reincarnate?
This question assumes that linearity of time is real in an absolute sense. Buddhism rejects this and therefore the question has no real meaning. It is a "mind question" that is formulated by the mind when still working from a belief in the absolute reality of time.
So once you reach Nirvana, can you elect to stop the journey? Or are you forced to earn it again? Is any of this eternal? In other words, if a huge asteroid hit the earth, would this process continue somehow?
In Buddhist teaching, a being who enters into the condition of Nirvana -- remember, Nirvana is a *condition*, not a place -- is now free and able to move as they please, whether in dimensions of form, or in pure formlessness. If they choose to remain human through many lives, they are known as a "Bodhisattva", that is, one who places the welfare of others before the significance of their own enlightenment. This is an important ideal in Tibetan and Zen Buddhism.
Bit short of time at the moment, I'll respond to your last few questions later tonight time permitting.
edit -- getting the hang of this boldfaced codes...
Darfius, finishing up from previous questions....
I believe in consciousness beyond the body as well. Do you have any idea what you would be doing? Especially once you reach Nirvana, any plans?
Nirvana, as an ideal is the state of consciousness free of any attachments. From such a condition one functions only with the intent of helping others. There is nothing left over but wisdom and compassion, at that point. No more ego agendas. The literal translation of "Nirvana" is "extinction", meaning the extinction of ego-based identity. Put another way, all sense of separation is lost, and what is left over is a direct awareness of the connectedness of all things. If all things are One under their appearances, then it is kind of silly to harm anything. This is the basic idea of karma, as well as the Golden Rule, expressed in the Bible as "as you sow, so shall you reap".
If you would, please elaborate on these "out of body" experiences. What did you do? How did you feel? How did you reach this point?
These experiences were largely undertaken in my youth, about 25 years ago. Over time, my spirituality became more grounded in practicality and the so-called "ordinary" events of life. But in my earlier years, my spiritual practices resulted in many spectacular experiences of altered states of consciousness and the navigation of paranormal levels of reality. I rarely discuss these experiences anymore because over time I came to see the basic futility of attempting to justify to others one's subjective processes via words. At any rate, what matters is wisdom and compassion as it expresses and is experienced in the here and now, I would say.
Incidentally my mystical experiences also included a subjective interest in Christ, which led to travels I undertook to the Muslim "tomb of Christ" in Kashmir (northern India, where some Muslims, in accordance with the Koran, believe Christ died and was buried) as well as to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (formerly Golgotha) in Jerusalem. My outlook was always one of attempting to see and understand the essential universality of all spiritual experience. I chose not to be defined by the sectarianism so commonplace in mainstream religion.
If not, then what is the point of being Buddhist?
A good question. Indeed, what is the point in following any religion? It seems to be due to many factors, often beyond the control of the individual. For example, Buddha lived about 500 years before Christ. The option to be a "Christian" did not exist at this time. Likewise, Krishna (of Hinduism) is estimated to have lived about 1,000 BC, or possibly earlier. During his time, Buddhism did not exist and thus there was no possibility of being a Buddhist. And so on.
After Buddha or Christ was born, countless millions have lived on this Earth who never had the slightest awareness of their existence, again due to many factors beyond their personal control. Therefore, to assume that all beings have "free will" when it comes to choosing their spiritual path would seem to be an incomplete understanding. There is a higher reality going on here, a kind of cosmic drama being played out, if you will, in which our destiny is shaped and molded by many forces difficult to understand. However, once we *do* become aware of the possibility of a legitimate spiritual path that involves personal subjective transformation, than certainly choices are possible. So from that point of view, the "point of being a Buddhist" would be in accordance with the Buddha's stated aim in founding his religion, which he said was "simply to offer a way out of suffering, and a way toward wisdom."
Speaking of Jesus, He also talked extensively about Heaven and Hell. He said He was the only way to reach Heaven, and that if you ignored Him, you would go to Hell. Is He a liar? Crazy? How do Buddhists address this fact and still call Him a spiritual master?
I cannot speak for all Buddhists, but I do call Christ a spiritual master. The Sermon on the Mount alone qualifies him for this, in my opinion, being very similar to the essence of Buddha's "Dhammapada". But I do not believe that Jesus actually preached about a literal Hell that was eternal (and not just remedial) in nature. I believe these words to be doctrinal distortions implanted by later generations of priesthood, possibly the same ones who rejected the Gnostic scriptures.
Incidentally, I do not believe everything in the Buddhist scriptures is historically accurate either. I believe that there is plenty of embellishment there as well, especially in the recountings of the Buddha's more spectacular miracles (flying through the air, conversing with gods, walking on water -- yes, there is a Buddhist scripture describing that -- etc.).
Originally posted by MetamorphosisWell, despite the "book lengthiness" of it, maybe you should cover this in more detail (perhaps a new thread). I think it might prove helpfull in providing enlightenment on some science/etc. Vs. religion debates.
Actually, Buddhism does address how consciousness "comes into being", via its teachings on cause and effect (interdependence) and shunyata (emptiness).
Briefly (and this is really a book length matter), cause and effect is the no ...[text shortened]... and how any "one thing" came about is barking up the wrong tree.
You seem to know the formal teachings so well and it might be quite fun for a fair number of people to discuss something other than christian beliefs for a while 🙂
MÅ¥HÅRM
Edit - what am I saying...it already is more fun to be reading something other than cristian beliefs 🙄
Originally posted by Metamorphosisby Thomas Paine Paris, May 12, 1797
Darfius, finishing up from previous questions....
[b]I believe in consciousness beyond the body as well. Do you have any idea what you would be doing? Especially once you reach Nirvana, any plans?
Nirvana, as an ideal is the ...[text shortened]... er -- yes, there is a Buddhist scripture describing that -- etc.).[/b]
In your letter of the twentieth of March, you give me several quotations from the Bible, which you call the Word of God, to show me that my opinions on religion are wrong, and I could give you as many, from the same book to show that yours are not right; consequently, then, the Bible decides nothing, because it decides any way, and every way, one chooses to make it.
But by what authority do you call the Bible the Word of God? for this is the first point to be settled. It is not your calling it so that makes it so, any more than the Mahometans calling the Koran the Word of God makes the Koran to be so. The Popish Councils of Nice and Laodicea, about 350 years after the time the person called Jesus Christ is said to have lived, voted the books that now compose what is called the New Testament to be the Word of God. This was done by yeas and nays, as we now vote a law.
The Pharisees of the second temple, after the Jews returned from captivity in Babylon, did the same by the books that now compose the Old Testament, and this is all the authority there is, which to me is no authority at all. I am as capable of judging for myself as they were, and I think more so, because, as they made a living by their religion, they had a self-interest in the vote they gave.
You may have an opinion that a man is inspired, but you cannot prove it, nor can you have any proof of it yourself, because you cannot see into his mind in order to know how he comes by his thoughts; and the same is the case with the word revelation. There can be no evidence of such a thing, for you can no more prove revelation than you can prove what another man dreams of, neither can he prove it himself.
It is often said in the Bible that God spake unto Moses, but how do you know that God spake unto Moses? Because, you will say, the Bible says so. The Koran says, that God spake unto Mahomet, do you believe that too? No.
Why not? Because, you will say, you do not believe it; and so because you do, and because you don't is all the reason you can give for believing or disbelieving except that you will say that Mahomet was an impostor. And how do you know Moses was not an impostor?
note* Paine's Deist beliefs follow here*
For my own part, I believe that all are impostors who pretend to hold verbal communication with the Deity. It is the way by which the world has been imposed upon; but if you think otherwise you have the same right to your opinion that I have to mine, and must answer for it in the same manner. But all this does not settle the point, whether the Bible be the Word of God, or not. It is therefore necessary to go a step further. The case then is: -
You form your opinion of God from the account given of Him in the Bible; and I form my opinion of the Bible from the wisdom and goodness of God manifested in the structure of the universe, and in all works of creation. The result in these two cases will be, that you, by taking the Bible for your standard, will have a bad opinion of God; and I, by taking God for my standard, shall have a bad opinion of the Bible.
The Bible represents God to be a changeable, passionate, vindictive being; making a world and then drowning it, afterwards repenting of what he had done, and promising not to do so again. Setting one nation to cut the throats of another, and stopping the course of the sun till the butchery should be done. But the works of God in the creation preach to us another doctrine. In that vast volume we see nothing to give us the idea of a changeable, passionate, vindictive God; everything we there behold impresses us with a contrary idea - that of unchangeableness and of eternal order, harmony, and goodness.
The sun and the seasons return at their appointed time, and everything in the creation claims that God is unchangeable. Now, which am I to believe, a book that any impostor might make and call the Word of God, or the creation itself which none but an Almighty Power could make? For the Bible says one thing, and the creation says the contrary. The Bible represents God with all the passions of a mortal, and the creation proclaims him with all the attributes of a God.
It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine, and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man. That bloodthirsty man, called the prophet Samuel, makes God to say, (I Sam. xv. 3) `Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'
That Samuel or some other impostor might say this, is what, at this distance of time, can neither be proved nor disproved, but in my opinion it is blasphemy to say, or to believe, that God said it. All our ideas of the justice and goodness of God revolt at the impious cruelty of the Bible. It is not a God, just and good, but a devil, under the name of God, that the Bible describes
What makes this pretended order to destroy the Amalekites appear the worse, is the reason given for it. The Amalekites, four hundred years before, according to the account in Exodus xvii. (but which has the appearance of fable from the magical account it gives of Moses holding up his hands), had opposed the Israelites coming into their country, and this the Amalekites had a right to do, because the Israelites were the invaders, as the Spaniards were the invaders of Mexico. This opposition by the Amalekites, at that time, is given as a reason, that the men, women, infants and sucklings, sheep and oxen, camels and asses, that were born four hundred years afterward, should be put to death; and to complete the horror, Samuel hewed Agag, the chief of the Amalekites, in pieces, as you would hew a stick of wood. I will bestow a few observations on this case
In the first place, nobody knows who the author, or writer, of the book of Samuel was, and, therefore, the fact itself has no other proof than anonymous or hearsay evidence, which is no evidence at all. In the second place, this anonymous book says, that this slaughter was done by the express command of God: but all our ideas of the justice and goodness of God give the lie to the book, and as I never will believe any book that ascribes cruelty and injustice to God, I therefore reject the Bible as unworthy of credit.
As I have now given you my reasons for believing that the Bible is not the Word of God, that it is a falsehood, I have a right to ask you your reasons for believing the contrary; but I know you can give me none, except that you were educated to believe the Bible; and as the Turks give the same reason for believing the Koran, it is evident that education makes all the difference, and that reason and truth have nothing to do in the case.
You believe in the Bible from the accident of birth, and the Turks believe in the Koran from the same accident, and each calls the other infidel. But leaving the prejudice of education out of the case, the unprejudiced truth is, that all are infidels who believe falsely of God, whether they draw their creed from the Bible, or from the Koran, from the Old Testament, or from the New.
When you have examined the Bible with the attention that I have done (for I do not think you know much about it), and permit yourself to have just ideas of God, you will most probably believe as I do. But I wish you to know that this answer to your letter is not written for the purpose of changing your opinion. It is written to satisfy you, and some other friends whom I esteem, that my disbelief of the Bible is founded on a pure and religious belief in God; for in my opinion the Bible is a gross libel against the justice and goodness of God, in almost every part of it.
Originally posted by frogstompTom Paine is so cool. Thanks for that post.
by Thomas Paine Paris, May 12, 1797
In your letter of the twentieth of March, you give me several quotations from the Bible, which you call the Word of God, to show me that my opinions on religion are wrong, and I could give you as many, from the same book to show that yours are not right; consequently, then, the Bible decides nothing, because it ...[text shortened]... the Bible is a gross libel against the justice and goodness of God, in almost every part of it.
Originally posted by frogstompThis is a famous letter, brilliantly constructed and ahead of its time.
by Thomas Paine Paris, May 12, 1797
In your letter of the twentieth of March, you give me several quotations from the Bible, which you call the Word of God, to show me that my opinions on religion are wrong, and I could give you as many, from the same book to show that yours are not right; consequently, then, the Bible decides nothing, because it ...[text shortened]... the Bible is a gross libel against the justice and goodness of God, in almost every part of it.
It was this sort of freedom of speech (for which he had fought so
hard to protect) that caused people to drive him from this country.
It is at least doubly ironic, to say the least.
Nemesio
"`The true law is right reason, conformable to the nature of things, constant, eternal, diffused through all, which calls us to duty by commanding, deters us from sin by forbidding; which never loses it influence with the good, nor ever preserves it with the wicked. This law cannot be over-ruled by any other, nor abrogated in whole or in part; nor can we be absolved from it either by the senate or by the people; nor are we to seek any other comment or interpreter of it but Himself; nor can there be one law at Rome and another at Athens; one now and another hereafter; but the same eternal immutable law comprehends all nations at all times, under one common master and governor of all - GOD. He is the inventor, propounder, enacter of this law; and whoever will not obey it must first renounce himself, and throw off the nature of man; by doing which, he will suffer the greatest punishments though he should escape all the other torments which are commonly believed to be prepared for the wicked.' ---- Cicero
We cannot serve the Deity in the manner we serve those who cannot do without that service. He needs no service from us. We can add nothing to eternity. But it is in our power to render a service acceptable to Him, and that is not by praying, but by endeavoring to make his creatures happy. ..... Thomas Paine----- excerpt from a correspondence with Samuel Adams
"In the next verses, Paul gets himself into what in vulgar life is called a hobble, and he tries to get out of it by nonsense and sophistry; for having committed himself by saying that 'God hath mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth,' he felt the difficulty he was in, and the
objections that would be made, which he anticipates by saying, 'Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth He (God) yet find fault? for who hath resisted His will? Nay, but, O man, who art thou, that repliest against God!'
This is neither answering the question, nor explaining the case. It is downright quibbling and shuffling off the question, and the proper retort upon him would have been, 'Nay, but who art thou, presumptuous Paul, that puttest thyself in God's place?'---Thomas Paine
Originally posted by frogstompActually one must be very careful when quoting the bible. There are many different translations of it. Each translation reflects what the translators deem correct and true, we must remember that the translators selection of the meanings of words from Hebrew in the Old Testament or Greek in the New Testament are effected by religious ideas, traditions, teachings that the translator has experienced.
by Thomas Paine Paris, May 12, 1797
In your letter of the twentieth of March, you give me several quotations from the Bible, which you call the Word of God, to show me that my opinions on religion are wrong, and I could give you as many, from the same book to show that yours are not right; consequently, then, the Bible decides nothing, because it ...[text shortened]... the Bible is a gross libel against the justice and goodness of God, in almost every part of it.
Literal translations of the Bible, that being, words by word interpretations is the best. Many new translation do not do so, rather they translate by ideas, which of course are based upon the translator's ideas not necessarily what the intent of the original author was.
The example used is 1 SAM 15:3
This passage from Young's Literal Translation reads:
1 Samuel 15
1And Samuel saith unto Saul, `Me did Jehovah send to anoint thee for king over His people, over Israel; and now, hearken to the voice of the words of Jehovah:
2`Thus said Jehovah of Hosts, I have looked after that which Amalek did to Israel, that which he laid for him in the way in his going up out of Egypt.
3Now, go, and thou hast smitten Amalek, and devoted all that it hath, and thou hast no pity on it, and hast put to death from man unto woman, from infant unto suckling, from ox unto sheep, from camel unto ass.
Notice that Young has correctly translated the correct tense of the verb. "3Now, go, and thou hast smitten Amalek,"
"hast smitten Amalek," A completed action in the past.
"and devoted" An action completed in the past
"and hast put to death" Again, completed and accomplished.
Observe this translation as presented in this message:
`Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass'
The above translation leads the reader to think God told Saul to go and smite, the truth is Saul had all ready done so.
Now look at the passage from the New Living Translation
1 Samuel 15:3 (New Living Translation)
New Living Translation (NLT)
Holy Bible. New Living Translation copyright © 1996 by Tyndale Charitable Trust. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers.
3Now go and completely destroy[a] the entire Amalekite nation--men, women, children, babies, cattle, sheep, camels, and donkeys.' "
Footnotes:
1 Samuel 15:3 The Hebrew term (destroy) used here refers to the complete consecration of things or people to the LORD, either by destroying them or by giving them as an offering;
Why was the word "destroy" selected rather than "consecrate"? I don't know either.
Our languages over the past 2000 years have changed dramatically. It is difficult to apply a modern day term or idea to a first century man or situation. Translations which use the literal meanings of the words are always the best and provide clearest idea of what the author intended. I have found when reading the Bible there are translations which do not reflect God's nature, which is merciful, is compassionate and loving. Our religious ideas, traditions and teachings do not always reveal God's true nature.
A doctrine of Demons as I call it has polluted our perception of who God is. Christ came to reveal the very nature of God, in fact Jesus says:
John 14:9 Jesus saith to him, `So long time am I with you, and thou hast not known me, Philip? he who hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how dost thou say, Shew to us the Father?
Any scripture which you read which does not reveal Christ as the loving God who was willing to die upon the cross for you bears further investigation.
Originally posted by UnaEven back then they were a little hesitant to apply the word "consecrate " to the act of slaughtering women and children.
Actually one must be very careful when quoting the bible. There are many different translations of it. Each translation reflects what the translators deem correct and true, we must remember that the translators selection of the meanings of wo ...[text shortened]... upon the cross for you bears further investigation.
Because no translator has disputed the act,,, and neither did a God that could order it and much more of it in Jerhico , Ai and the rest of Canaan.
Originally posted by frogstompHe may have been a deist, but the quote was aimed at christianity. Had you not told me, I might have thought he was agnostic/atheist, which darfius in his opening post also requested not be debated.
I quote a Thomas Paine , a Deist and im not sure but I dont think Cicero was a christian either.
and my own post was only abou the OT
All I'm saying is I'm seeing arguments that have been played out over other threads many times before, while the intention of this thread (as I understood it) was to get away from some of those.
It doesn't look like there's going to be any more non-christian stuff, so dont let me stop you or anything...
MÅ¥HÅRM