Basic teachings of the buddha

[Wisdom]

One day, the Buddha sat down in the shade of a tree and noticed how beautiful the countryside was. Flowers were blooming and trees were putting on bright new leaves, but among all this beauty, he saw much unhappiness. A farmer beat his ox in the field. A bird pecked at an earthworm, and then an eagle swooped down on the bird. Deeply troubled, he asked, "Why does the farmer beat his ox? Why must one creature eat another to live?"

During his enlightenment, the Buddha found the answer to these questions. He discovered three great truths. He explained these truths in a simple way so that everyone could understand them.

1. Nothing is lost in the universe

The first truth is that nothing is lost in the universe. Matter turns into energy, energy turns into matter. A dead leaf turns into soil. A seed sprouts and becomes a new plant. Old solar systems disintegrate and turn into cosmic rays. We are born of our parents, our children are born of us.

We are the same as plants, as trees, as other people, as the rain that falls. We consist of that which is around us, we are the same as everything. If we destroy something around us, we destroy ourselves. If we cheat another, we cheat ourselves. Understanding this truth, the Buddha and his disciples never killed any animal.

2. Everything Changes

The second universal truth of the Buddha is that everything is continuously changing. Life is like a river flowing on and on, ever-changing. Sometimes it flows slowly and sometimes swiftly. It is smooth and gentle in some places, but later on snags and rocks crop up out of nowhere. As soon as we think we are safe, something unexpected happens.

Once dinosaurs, mammoths, and saber-toothed tigers roamed this earth. They all died out, yet this was not the end of life. Other life forms like smaller mammals appeared, and eventually humans, too. Now we can even see the Earth from space and understand the changes that have taken place on this planet. Our ideas about life also change. People once believed that the world was flat, but now we know that it is round.

3. Law of Cause and Effect

The third universal truth explained by the Buddha is that there is continuous changes due to the law of cause and effect. This is the same law of cause and effect found in every modern science textbook. In this way, science and Buddhism are alike.

The law of cause and effect is known as karma. Nothing ever happens to us unless we deserves it. We receive exactly what we earn, whether it is good or bad. We are the way we are now due to the things we have done in the past. Our thoughts and actions determine the kind of life we can have. If we do good things, in the future good things will happen to us. If we do bad things, in the future bad things will happen to us. Every moment we create new karma by what we say, do, and think. If we understand this, we do not need to fear karma. It becomes our friend. It teaches us to create a bright future.

[Seraph]

Might I elaborate on Karma.

Sometimes it's instant, but not always. I once gave someone some spare change when they asked me on the street when it was raining out and I had my guitar and no umbrella. Being quite far from home I was freaking out a little bit wondering what I was going to do to protect my guitar.
Soon after I had gifted the man with my offering to him, karma kicked in and my friend pulled up in his truck to give me a ride. I got home safe with my guitar and the man I helped got what he needed too. Hopefully it continued like a domino effect on the person who gave me a ride.

This does not always happen. Sometimes it takes YEARS to see the fruits of one's seed.
Karma works like a seed in that way. You plant it, water it, keep it safe and eventually it grows, depending on what kind of Karma you plant.

Why then do good things happen for bad people and vice versa?

The universe's idea of good and bad is not the same as popular thought or judicial law.
All altruistic actions are generally paid back quite quickly. Accidental kindness might take a little longer, and those of us who do good only for our own positive gain will likely receive bad Karma.

If someone you know who is a good person (you think) is running into a lot of problems well there's most likely something they're not telling you about and they may not be who they are on the surface in reality. Someone you see as a low life or a thief might have all the luck in some areas, but why is that? Maybe he's a robin hood. A diamond in the rough, we don't know, the universe does. When the universe distributes Karma, there's a certain way to it.
It's not about the actual do and say, but the energy put forth.

Karma works only on energy. When one puts forth type A energy they get type A Karma in return, how it is applied to their lives is up to those of us who are making the choices. A lot of people miss out on chances too. So there is no way to debunk Karma by saying bad things happen to good people. Because they're not really good people in the eyes of the universe now are they? ;)

[Wisdom]

Why do bad things happen to good people....
good book read it when I was 16....

[Seraph]

Why do good things happen to good people....
good book read it when I was 16....

There are all sorts of new books coming out talking about these things, like "The Secret" and "The Celestine Prophecy" when I look at them I think "Gee does no one listen to Buddha any more?" Or "Like I didn't already know that, I did study X religion and Y religion where you know, they've known about this stuff forever!"

[Soundbear]

"Buddhism's basic teaching discourages sex, and particularly condemns adultery, rape, non-consensual sex, and unsafe sex. This would seem to apply to same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples equally. However, some groups within Buddhism condemn homosexual sex because of cultural teachings that have merged with their religious beliefs."

Discuss.

[ArcticBlue]

"Buddhism's basic teaching discourages sex, and particularly condemns adultery, rape, non-consensual sex, and unsafe sex. This would seem to apply to same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples equally. However, some groups within Buddhism condemn homosexual sex because of cultural teachings that have merged with their religious beliefs."

Discuss.

And in that same article, it goes on to say...

"From the Theravada Buddhist standpoint, all relationships: gay, lesbian or straight, are often considered personal matters of mutual consent. If a relationship promotes the happiness and well-being of both parties, then it is positive and acceptable. Many Buddhists agree with most therapists, human sexuality researchers, religious liberals, etc. and believe that sexual orientation is beyond a person's control, as are race and gender. They feel that gays and lesbians should have the same civil rights and benefits as do all other persons."

This basis of discussion follows for quite some time in the article. Why only post one side of it? Is it because that is the only side that YOU agree with? Or better yet, that agrees with your religious beliefs?

Just for everyone else's interest, the article that Soundbear's quote was taken from can be found here:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_budd.htm

[Soundbear]

My apologies for not putting up the URL.

Found this interesting:

"In fact, STDs do occur among lesbians at a far lower rate than among heterosexuals."

Any ideas why??

[Upper Decker]

How come there is no speaking of Dharma? From what Ive learned there was Karma and Dharma, yet only one is ever spoken of? Karma also is greatly more complicated than " you do something now it bites you on the ass" .

[TheManInBlack]

Might I elaborate on Karma.

Sometimes it's instant, but not always. I once gave someone some spare change when they asked me on the street when it was raining out and I had my guitar and no umbrella. Being quite far from home I was freaking out a little bit wondering what I was going to do to protect my guitar.
Soon after I had gifted the man with my offering to him, karma kicked in and my friend pulled up in his truck to give me a ride. I got home safe with my guitar and the man I helped got what he needed too. Hopefully it continued like a domino effect on the person who gave me a ride.

This does not always happen. Sometimes it takes YEARS to see the fruits of one's seed.
Karma works like a seed in that way. You plant it, water it, keep it safe and eventually it grows, depending on what kind of Karma you plant.

Why then do good things happen for bad people and vice versa?

The universe's idea of good and bad is not the same as popular thought or judicial law.
All altruistic actions are generally paid back quite quickly. Accidental kindness might take a little longer, and those of us who do good only for our own positive gain will likely receive bad Karma.

If someone you know who is a good person (you think) is running into a lot of problems well there's most likely something they're not telling you about and they may not be who they are on the surface in reality. Someone you see as a low life or a thief might have all the luck in some areas, but why is that? Maybe he's a robin hood. A diamond in the rough, we don't know, the universe does. When the universe distributes Karma, there's a certain way to it.
It's not about the actual do and say, but the energy put forth.

Karma works only on energy. When one puts forth type A energy they get type A Karma in return, how it is applied to their lives is up to those of us who are making the choices. A lot of people miss out on chances too. So there is no way to debunk Karma by saying bad things happen to good people. Because they're not really good people in the eyes of the universe now are they? ;)

some people have not watched "my name in earl"

[Soundbear]

Why only post one side of it? Is it because that is the only side that YOU agree with? ]

You'll note that the teaching of Buddha are hardly clear and definitive on this topic.

[Seraph]

You'll note that the teaching of Buddha are hardly clear and definitive on this topic.

The teachings of the Buddha are VERY clear.
1. Do not kill
2. Do not steal
3. Do not indulge in sexual misconduct
4. Do not make false speech
5. Do not take intoxicants

In Buddhism EVERYTHING CHANGES CONSTANTLY.

SO what is Misconduct NOW and what is Misconduct 10 minutes from now is totally subjective!

Like right Now for me to go have sex with my partner would be bad, why? Because the kids are awake. Soon as they are not around then it's fine.
See
CHANGE.


If one person aged 30 or so wanted to have sex with someone who is 17 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes and 59 seconds old legally that would be sexual misconduct.

BLINK

No longer Misconduct!

[R W G R]

Do you think that is a beer belly on Buddha? Or does he just have a craving for Taco Bell?

[Seraph]

Do you think that is a beer belly on Buddha? Or does he just have a craving for Taco Bell?

That is only the Maiteya Buddha , who's big stomach is to represent tolerance.
He's also the Buddha of generosity and prosperity.

Like I said there are SEVERAL Buddhas.

[Clovis 888]

Awww this could have gotten interesting...

Wis why the hold up?

[Bluesky]

Looks like Seraph failed in that he gave in to DESIRE which caused him to suffer anger and frustration and thus got banned.
A very non-Buddhist way to go :)

Hey, I'm just kidding.

[Clovis 888]

Oh well Wisdom started the thread.

And it's not very (assuming you are Christian by that Latin stuff) Christian to tease!

(Pardon if I guessed wrong please!)

[Bluesky]

Is it wrong for a Christian (or anyone for that matter) to be a light hearted tease? But it is possibly wrong to not have a sense of humour! :)

Are you Buddhist?

[Clovis 888]

You're right! I bet Jesus told jokes and had a light heart too. Those old fuddy duddys in the robes and funny hats just didn't want us to know...but we know!

I don't know what I am, I'm just an observer. None of the major religions have proven to me that they're worth committing my eternal soul to, or that there is much difference between them besides.

[Soundbear]

You're right! I bet Jesus told jokes and had a light heart too. Those old fuddy duddys in the robes and funny hats just didn't want us to know...but we know!

I don't know what I am, I'm just an observer. None of the major religions have proven to me that they're worth committing my eternal soul to, or that there is much difference between them besides.

Since many jokes hurt someone, it doesn't seem likely that Jesus told many jokes. But laugh with His brothers?? Oh yeah.

And, none of the major religions have proven to me that they're worth committing my eternal soul to either. God, on the other hand....

[R W G R]

Since many jokes hurt someone, it doesn't seem likely that Jesus told many jokes.

.


OMG!!

LOL

Seriously, this is a joke, right??

[Clovis 888]

Yeah I totally get the God part.

But what Religion would God practice if he were here? I don't think he'd be able to chose either.

Here you have a great religion and this and that are great, the prospects and the community are close and then they ask you to believe what? Do What? WOAH. Ok No.

But then you get the ones that let you do whatever and believe whatever and they just have no morals or community ties so to heck with that noise right?

Anything that brings someone closer to God, including a little laughter (at no one else's expense) is a good thing imo.

[Bluesky]

You're right! I bet Jesus told jokes and had a light heart too. Those old fuddy duddys in the robes and funny hats just didn't want us to know...but we know!

I don't know what I am, I'm just an observer. None of the major religions have proven to me that they're worth committing my eternal soul to, or that there is much difference between them besides.

Somewhere you picked up that you have an eternal soul. Or did you misspeak?

[Clovis 888]

Somewhere you picked up that you have an eternal soul. Or did you misspeak?

I believe in some kind of God and some kind of soul.

Maybe I just watch the Simpsons too much!

[Soundbear]

I believe in some kind of God and some kind of soul.



Do you believe Jesus Christ is God??

[Clovis 888]

Do you believe Jesus Christ is God??

If I were Christian I'd believe that God sent his son but then Jesus would have some major multiple personality issues when he's talking to his father.

Jesus as Savior maybe but like I said I'm on the fence. Zeus could easily be God from where I'm sitting.

Too many items on the menu to pick just one perfect plate, and the world looks more like a buffet to me. Don't knock it til' you tried it and there isn't enough time in an evening to try everything!

[Bluesky]

You have mentioned Zeus. The problem I have with the Greco-Roman gods is that they are 'made in the image of man'. They are as immoral as man, and they get into all kinds of trouble (if you read the myths). It seems lilke they are made in man's image.

The Christian God, it is quite different. we are made in his image and He wants us to take on his qualities, like goodness and love and patience, etc.

So when you say of God that he may as well be Zeus, it is likely because you ahve not considered the qualitative difference there is between Him and any Greek or Roman god.

[Clovis 888]

Hercules...Jesus...different cultures and different sons of God.

You're not going to "Save" me, I'm really not in any trouble.

What a lot of people tend to forget is that it's the thought that counts and not the gift.

Following the ideals prescribed in a religion may have held social weight in the past like when a whole town believed in the same thing but today we are so diverse that the only important factor is being nice to one another.

The thought is to engage in a peaceful and loving lifestyle. All the best religions have that in common.

[Blue Lotus Rising]

Following the ideals prescribed in a religion may have held social weight in the past like when a whole town believed in the same thing but today we are so diverse that the only important factor is being nice to one another.

The thought is to engage in a peaceful and loving lifestyle. All the best religions have that in common.

Agreed. :)

[Bluesky]

Hercules...Jesus...different cultures and different sons of God.

Really? Serious? Forget the title Son of God for a moment. There is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ did exist. What about hercules?


You're not going to "Save" me, I'm really not in any trouble.No worries. I am not here to do that. :)


Following the ideals prescribed in a religion may have held social weight in the past like when a whole town believed in the same thing but today we are so diverse that the only important factor is being nice to one another.I think 'being nice to each other' is a 'nice' sentiment and has ALWAYS been an ideal in every civilization. But you brought up Zeus and Hercules. What were the ideals that they taught? What did devotees of the Greek and Roman pantheon actually believe?

I think many of us actually believe stuff that makes us comfortable, but in reality have very little knowledge about what we say we believe. I will include many Christians in that category.


The thought is to engage in a peaceful and loving lifestyle. All the best religions have that in common.So says Clovis. And you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

[Soundbear]

If I were Christian I'd believe that God sent his son but then Jesus would have some major multiple personality issues when he's talking to his father.,,,

Isn't that a human point of view??

[Soundbear]

...You're not going to "Save" me, I'm really not in any trouble. ..

First part true, second part not.

[NewCasa]

You have mentioned Zeus. The problem I have with the Greco-Roman gods is that they are 'made in the image of man'. They are as immoral as man, and they get into all kinds of trouble (if you read the myths). It seems lilke they are made in man's image.

The Christian God, it is quite different. we are made in his image and He wants us to take on his qualities, like goodness and love and patience, etc.

So when you say of God that he may as well be Zeus, it is likely because you ahve not considered the qualitative difference there is between Him and any Greek or Roman god.

(Numbers 14:17-18) Please, Lord, prove that your power is as great as you have claimed it to be. For you said, "The LORD is slow to anger and rich in unfailing love, forgiving every kind of sin and rebellion. Even so he does not leave sin unpunished, but he punishes the children for the sins of their parents to the third and fourth generations

[Bluesky]

I can only speculate that by quoting a singular passage, you are attempting to counter something I said? Please elucidate.

[NewCasa]

I can only speculate that by quoting a singular passage, you are attempting to counter something I said? Please elucidate.

I think it's self-explanatory. There's quite a few quotations in the old testament that speak to a 'vengeful God'. That seems to run a bit counter to your description, no?

[Bluesky]

One should always take the entire context into consideration. Pulling a text out of context, one can prove anything.

It is not a vengeful God that is being depicted here. It is a merciful God. At least, Moses is appealing to God;s mercy and thus he says, in essence the very thing I tried to say earlier..
(I am paraphrasing and I am adding some words just to show how Moses could possibly be thinking)
"You are not like those other (Egyptian) gods. You do justly, by letting the consequences of sin remain (only) to the 3rd or 4th generation, but you allow acts of rightesouenss to last for a thousand generations. What a good God you are" (OK, I added that last phrase).

Moses essentially asks God to FORGIVE the people their sin of idolatry. And God does forgive.

But to do this completely one should do a total comparison.
What is Greco-Roman god like side by side with What is the Biblical God like.

[NewCasa]

One should always take the entire context into consideration. Pulling a text out of context, one can prove anything.

It is not a vengeful God that is being depicted here. It is a merciful God. At least, Moses is appealing to God;s mercy and thus he says, in essence the very thing I tried to say earlier..
(I am paraphrasing and I am adding some words just to show how Moses could possibly be thinking)
"You are not like those other (Egyptian) gods. You do justly, by letting the consequences of sin remain (only) to the 3rd or 4th generation, but you allow acts of rightesouenss to last for a thousand generations. What a good God you are" (OK, I added that last phrase).

Moses essentially asks God to FORGIVE the people their sin of idolatry. And God does forgive.

But to do this completely one should do a total comparison.
What is Greco-Roman god like side by side with What is the Biblical God like.

I dunno Blue. I think the world would be a much different place if all it was about was kindness and goodness.

[Soundbear]

I dunno Blue. I think the world would be a much different place if all it was about was kindness and goodness.

If it isn't, it ain't God's fault.

[Bluesky]

I dunno Blue. I think the world would be a much different place if all it was about was kindness and goodness.

I agree. And one day it will be. But it cannot become that with our present condition of irreconciliation with one another or lack of atonement with our Creator. And the good news is that there is an atonement, and there is a path of reconciliation. But to explain that I would be preaching..

[verotik66]

It's refreshing to see other beliefs being discussed here instead of the same old tired horses.

[verotik66]

Yeah I totally get the God part.

But what Religion would God practice if he were here? I don't think he'd be able to chose either.

Here you have a great religion and this and that are great, the prospects and the community are close and then they ask you to believe what? Do What? WOAH. Ok No.

But then you get the ones that let you do whatever and believe whatever and they just have no morals or community ties so to heck with that noise right?

Anything that brings someone closer to God, including a little laughter (at no one else's expense) is a good thing imo.

God would be a catholic because he would get your 10% income

[Soundbear]

God would be a catholic because he would get your 10% income

Wrong.

[NewCasa]

I agree. And one day it will be. But it cannot become that with our present condition of irreconciliation with one another or lack of atonement with our Creator. And the good news is that there is an atonement, and there is a path of reconciliation. But to explain that I would be preaching..

So, is atoning pretty much the same as working off karma?


Oh, and no, I wouldn't say explaining your viewpoint would be preaching. Continually hammering on it, regardless of the actual subject of the thread would be though. Something like this post:

"Buddhism's basic teaching discourages sex, and particularly condemns adultery, rape, non-consensual sex, and unsafe sex. This would seem to apply to same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples equally. However, some groups within Buddhism condemn homosexual sex because of cultural teachings that have merged with their religious beliefs."

Discuss.

[Bluesky]

So, is atoning pretty much the same as working off karma?


Does atonement = karma?

Not if I understand karma rightly.
In a nutshell, karma means I must, somewhere along the many cycles of life pay for the negative in order to get ahead of 'breaking even' so that I can ascend on the path to enlightenment. Do I have that right?

So a prostitute who was forced into prostitution in India and is now dying of AIDS would be told that everything that is happening to her right now is the fruit of the seeds that she herself has sown in a past life. Every act, every word and deed must be paid for by the person him/herself. I suppose payment means doing enough good deeds to outweigh the bad. I have never read a clear explanation of exactly how the negative is counterbalanced.

For this reason, I have never understood the appeal of classical Buddhism. It seems so hopeless. Frankly, left to my own devices, I am afraid my negative karma would rapidly outpace the good if I am brutally honest with myself and you.

And if I am reborn into another cycle of consciousness, who is keeping the ledger re the debt? And I clearly have no memory of any past life or consciousness, so how can I be held responsible for any debt? And who holds me responsible? WHo is in charge, throwing the switches?

Atonement is a once-for all payment made by someone who is qualified to make that payment.

In short, we believe that Jesus Christ took all of our moral debt upon Himself, and paid for it with His life. Based on the infinite price that He paid, He now offers us forgiveness; a full and free pardon of all our 'bad karma' if you will. We call it the guilt of sin.

The atonement is the greatest and single central factor about the Christian faith that has recharged me and set me on the road that I am on now. I do not have to worry about any kind of 'settling of the accounts'. ANd of course, the resurrection confirms that it's all quite real (and true.:)

[NewCasa]

So what is pennance then?

[Bluesky]

Penance is a uniqely Roman Catholic teaching. They view the atonemenet in a different light. here is how one catholic explains penance:


Penance is sort of a broad word. It's a means to make up for sins, but it has different specific meanings.

On one level, it's the assignment a priest gives you after Confession; you do the penance to make up for the sin. Priests very kindly make these things very easy to do: a few Our Fathers or things like that.

Fasting is also a part of penance; we do it to make up for our sins.

Mortifying ourselves is also a part of penance. I've been reading a book about Fatima, and Mary told them about the importance of penance, to make up for the sins of others.

Penance is also a means of obtaining a grace from God. The Gospels tell us this; Fatima, too, had the message that we need to fast and mortify ourselves for the sakes of others who have no one else to pray for them.

The reformation repudiated penance. We find no such doctrine in the Scriptures.

[NewCasa]

I agree. And one day it will be. But it cannot become that with our present condition of irreconciliation with one another or lack of atonement with our Creator. And the good news is that there is an atonement, and there is a path of reconciliation. But to explain that I would be preaching..

Ok so in this context I don't understand your comment about 'lack of atonement with our Creator'?

[Clovis 888]

So says Clovis. And you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

Thanks for that, all I need!

[Clovis 888]

First part true, second part not.

I guess Christians are better than humans now? I'm not in any trouble. I don't have a religion to disobey.

[Clovis 888]

Anyone ever watch cartoons? There's this adult 3D cartoon on 45 at night called "Tripping the Rift"

In one episode the two main characters accidentally kill God.

Everything turns out awesome until the two main characters who know evil teach it to everyone else.

Moral of the story, evil is what we are taught.

You can think sex is evil all you want, but it feels good.

Once you get rid of all the cultural clutter and nonsense, just being a good person and following the golden rule is all we need.

[Bluesky]

Ok so in this context I don't understand your comment about 'lack of atonement with our Creator'?

I said this in response to this comment

I dunno Blue. I think the world would be a much different place if all it was about was kindness and goodness.

I said that in our present condition, it is impossible to achieve 'kindness and goodness'.
It cannot be achieved (at least in a Christian worldview) without atonement. How does one get to only kindness and goodness without forgiveness, forbearance, love, patience, freedom from guilt, etc? A lot of that comes as a result of the atonement; a work of grace in our hearts. Internal transformation is needed to consistently practice kindness and goodness.

[NewCasa]

But what I don't get here is that you said Jesus died to atone for everyone's sins right? So why does everyone still need to atone?

[Bluesky]

But what I don't get here is that you said Jesus died to atone for everyone's sins right? So why does everyone still need to atone?

I don't think I said WE need to atone.
We need to believe in the atonement of Christ in order to appropriate it.
His atonement made it possible for everyone to be forgiven. But actually being forgiven involves a personal coming to faith in Him.

Think of it this way. I lay down a credit card with an infinite credit limit at Sears. I run an ad in the paper stating that everyone who believes that I ahve done so can go and get what they need at Sears. There is sufficient payment there foer everyone. But only those who act on their faith and Go will benefit by it.

That's why the Bible is full of statements like John 3:16

"whoever believes will not perish but have everlasting life."
OK, I'm preaching now.

[NewCasa]

Well, preaching or not, I finally got it. Thanks :)

[Clovis 888]

Hey so if I believe that there is no such thing as death I can run in front of a car and not die?
How much faith can you put in testing something like that?

See that's why I don't get the "Christian World View"

It's negative...and two wrongs never make a right.
Would rather follow the whole "All you need is Love" and "Do Onto Others" everything else is just getting in the way of world peace.

If Jesus atoned for our sins, why do we have to believe that we can get off the hook by putting all of our responsibilities on someone else?

We should take responsibility for our own actions and strive toward making choices in life that reflect the way we would like our lives to be. Everyone can agree it would be nice if we all got along, so the first step would not be bickering about religion, rather approaching religion (as I feel I have done) from the perspective of peace and unity through God rather than obeying written words.

[Soundbear]

...In one episode the two main characters accidentally kill God....

Use a small "g" in a sentence like that.

God cannot die.

[Soundbear]

I guess Christians are better than humans now? I'm not in any trouble. I don't have a religion to disobey.

Wish I knew what you meant.

BTW, Christians know they aren't better than anyone, they're just forgiven.

[Soundbear]

Hey so if I believe that there is no such thing as death I can run in front of a car and not die?
How much faith can you put in testing something like that?

See that's why I don't get the "Christian World View"

It's negative...and two wrongs never make a right.
Would rather follow the whole "All you need is Love" and "Do Onto Others" everything else is just getting in the way of world peace.

If Jesus atoned for our sins, why do we have to believe that we can get off the hook by putting all of our responsibilities on someone else?

We should take responsibility for our own actions and strive toward making choices in life that reflect the way we would like our lives to be. Everyone can agree it would be nice if we all got along, so the first step would not be bickering about religion, rather approaching religion (as I feel I have done) from the perspective of peace and unity through God rather than obeying written words.

That "someone else" is God. He says He's all I need. He says anything I do to make myself good enough ISN'T enough. Good enough for me.

[Clovis 888]

That "someone else" is God. He says He's all I need. He says anything I do to make myself good enough ISN'T enough. Good enough for me.

Sounds like a bad parent.

"You're not good enough, let me do your homework"

So you just give up making yourself a good person because you can never be good enough and your idea of God (which is just an idea because we're not good enough to really know God because to know God you have to be able to understand God, to understand God you have to have a level perspective) can just take the blame.

Sounds like a lazy cop out. At least Buddhists spend ages in meditation looking for enlightenment. It sounds like you just gave up.

That does not sound like Christianity to me, but that is how you made it sound.

[R W G R]

Sounds like a bad parent.

"You're not good enough, let me do your homework"

So you just give up making yourself a good person because you can never be good enough and your idea of God (which is just an idea because we're not good enough to really know God because to know God you have to be able to understand God, to understand God you have to have a level perspective) can just take the blame.

Sounds like a lazy cop out. At least Buddhists spend ages in meditation looking for enlightenment. It sounds like you just gave up.

That does not sound like Christianity to me, but that is how you made it sound.

Soundbear more or less described "Once saved, always saved" Christianity. It is not biblical, and he is not in the majority believing that stuff.

[Clovis 888]

Soundbear more or less described "Once saved, always saved" Christianity. It is not biblical, and he is not in the majority believing that stuff.

Could you then expand on your perspective of the topic?

Just give me some logical answers you seem to be a very strong poster with a good head on your shoulders Alpha.

[R W G R]

Could you then expand on your perspective of the topic?

Just give me some logical answers you seem to be a very strong poster with a good head on your shoulders Alpha.

Obviously you're a good judge of character.

Now what do you want me to explain?

[R W G R]

The reformation repudiated penance. We find no such doctrine in the Scriptures.

You're not really going there, are you?? ;)

[Bluesky]

BTW, AW, did you know that church father, Augustine taught that a genuine believer cannot lose his salvation? And that it was universally held by the church?

[Blue Lotus Rising]

BTW, AW, did you know that church father, Augustine taught that a genuine believer cannot lose his salvation? And that it was universally held by the church?

Getting back to Buddhism- I don't think His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama can either. Of course, His Holiness walks the walk he talks.

[R W G R]

BTW, AW, did you know that churrh father, Augustine taught that a genuine believer cannot lose his salvation? And that it was universally held by the church?

Yes, but it has nothing to do with once saved always saved. It has to do with "If he is indeed a genuine believer, how could he lose his salvation?"-type of comment. "Once Saved, Always Saved" says once you say "Yes, Jesus!", that's it...your saved...no matter what. No work needed after falling in front of Benny Hinn.

By the way, on "Coming Home" last week (EWTN show about Catholic converts), a former Protestant minister talked about how he and all his Prot cohorts in the past used to quote Augustine until the cows came home, believing he was indeed a friend to Protestantism. He said it was only when he truly read Church history, and not the 'data mining' quotes from Augustine that Protestantism clings to, did he realize just how wrong he was when younger.

So, yes, you came to mind quite frequently that night :)

[Bluesky]

Yes, but it has nothing to do with once saved always saved. It has to do with "If he is indeed a genuine believer, how could he lose his salvation?"-type of comment. "Once Saved, Always Saved" says once you say "Yes, Jesus!", that's it...your saved...no matter what. No work needed after falling in front of Benny Hinn.

AW, no one, absolutely NO ONE, not even SoundBear believes what you just said. That's why it is best that you let him represent himself in terms of what he believes.

And secondly, if I am not mistaken your church does believe that a genuine believer can lose his salvation, contrary to what Augustine believed and taught.

[NewCasa]

Wow. Talk about a thread highjack.

Looks to me like:

Christians 1: Buddhists 0

[Bluesky]

Sorry. I played along with the hijack. AW himself doesn't understand what he is arguing.

As you were. So did you want to JUST discuss Buddhism? Or did you want to continue to compare the two systems?

I have a great little book entitled The Lotus and the Cross: Jesus Talks With Buddha

[NewCasa]

Well, I dunno - it was Wisdom who started this one off and the opener was totally about Buddhism. Didn't actually look much to me like there was a comparison going on. Looked more like the usual Christian discussion. The last mention of Buddhism besides a plea to get back on topic was 10 posts ago and it was pretty much ignored in the flurry of 'my Christianity is better than yours is'. No offense intended, but that really is what you guys sound like sometimes. Read back and I hope you'll see what I mean.

And by the way, that book sounds interesting - just one question: Was it written by a devout Christian?

[Bluesky]

The book was written by Ravi Zacharias, a South Asian Christian who grew up in Chennai, India.

[Bluesky]

BTW, the only threads that ever stay on topic in this forum are the ones that have only one post.

[NewCasa]

BTW, the only threads that ever stay on topic in this forum are the ones that have only one post.

You've got a point.

[Wisdom]

Been busy....Good to be back....was visiting some First Nations up north....

[NewCasa]

Been busy....Good to be back....was visiting some First Nations up north....

Hey. Welcome back. Haven't missed a whole lot. How are things up north?

[Wisdom]

Hey. Welcome back. Haven't missed a whole lot. How are things up north?

Learned alot.....I sit and listen most of the time....I will be thinking about what they (elders) had to say for years....got to some ceremonies...spent time with ancestors....feel....more peaceful and focused....

[NewCasa]

Learned alot.....I sit and listen most of the time....I will be thinking about what they (elders) had to say for years....got to some ceremonies...spent time with ancestors....feel....more peaceful and focused....

That's a great opportunity. I've often thought it's something we (Europeans) miss. Despite how I feel about road tolls, etc. I honestly believe there is a very valuable culture there. A good deal of wisdom that is quite foreign to us. One of my favourite quotes is by Chief Albert Saddleman (Okanagan): "Some of the old people talk about the water and it is really nice to hear them talk about the whole cycle of water, where it all starts and where it all ends up."

To me, the biggest difference between native thought and European thought is that Europeans are objective driven - there must be an outcome or something is not worth doing. To the Native mind, this is foolish, the outcome IS the doing. Like I said, very foreign to us.

[Bluesky]

NoCasa said:

To me, the biggest difference between native thought and European thought is that Europeans are objective driven - there must be an outcome or something is not worth doing. To the Native mind, this is foolish, the outcome IS the doing. Like I said, very foreign to us.

I spent 4 years in Austria. I was always confronted with the objection, "You Americans (we are all Amis in their eyes) always think of the objective and the How To of getting there. We tend to think of the Why question."

I wonder if the management by objective style of thinking is not more North American, or a product of North American modernism?

[NewCasa]

NoCasa said:


I spent 4 years in Austria. I was always confronted with the objection, "You Americans (we are all Amis in their eyes) always think of the objective and the How To of getting there. We tend to think of the Why question."

I wonder if the management by objective style of thinking is not more North American, or a product of North American modernism?

That is quite probably true, now you mention it. Maybe it's some kind of an offshoot of the pioneer mentality in a way? Young, vital nation striving to show the world a thing or two maybe?

[Bluesky]

A short story of one of our many experiences there. (This was back in the 1980's)

we needed to get a phone installed. I was barraged by stories of having to wait for 6 months to up to 2 years before it would be my turn to get a phone. These horror stories were from most of my colleagues who were all American or Canadian. So I had a chat with my landlord. He said, "Leave it to me.. but I will need something from you. Get me a 2 litre bottle of wine, 500 shillings, and you will ahve your phone in 2 weeks."

I complied. Sure enough, one day the next week, FOUR GUYS showed up from the nationalized phone company, all uniformed. They piddled around for THREE HOURS (that's 12 man hours to run a line, connect it and mount a telephone..)

Then they hung around while my landlord passed out the drinks, and slipped each of them 100 shillings as a "tip".

My colleagues were horrified at my story, as they learned that I BRIBED officials. I had no idea at this point that bribery was a systemic problem in Austria. But I asked the question of my landlord. "Why does it take so long and why does it take four men 3 hours to install 1 telephjone?"

He looked at me like a deer in the headlights and asked incredulously.. "If we all did things quickly, we'd be out of a job!"
Austria is a country with a long histroy of socialism and between that and the guilds, and the many nationalized monopolies it is extremely difficult to get ahead there on inititiative alone.

[Wisdom]

That's a great opportunity. I've often thought it's something we (Europeans) miss. Despite how I feel about road tolls, etc. I honestly believe there is a very valuable culture there. A good deal of wisdom that is quite foreign to us. One of my favourite quotes is by Chief Albert Saddleman (Okanagan): "Some of the old people talk about the water and it is really nice to hear them talk about the whole cycle of water, where it all starts and where it all ends up."

To me, the biggest difference between native thought and European thought is that Europeans are objective driven - there must be an outcome or something is not worth doing. To the Native mind, this is foolish, the outcome IS the doing. Like I said, very foreign to us.

The road toll may not be the objective.....it may be the process....

An elder once told me "If we all walked on the same path, the road would get worn, we need to break new trail and we can't do that by following but leading...."

By engaging in my ceremonies, I get daily guidance...even if it is in a different direction.....its about balance, not efficiency...

[KDawg]

But I asked the question of my landlord. "Why does it take so long and why does it take four men 3 hours to install 1 telephjone?"

He looked at me like a deer in the headlights and asked incredulously.. "If we all did things quickly, we'd be out of a job!"
Austria is a country with a long histroy of socialism and between that and the guilds, and the many nationalized monopolies it is extremely difficult to get ahead there on inititiative alone.

Sounds like typical union mentality in Canada today. I worked with a field technician in Sudbury whose job took him to various mines in Ontario. This is a story he relayed to me.

Two young miners who ran heavy equipment for Inco had a bit of a rivalry going, and to compete with each other, they would see who could drill more on each shift, breaking drilling records in the process. Some union higher-ups got wind of this rivalry and promptly put a stop to this by threatening them with dismissal if they continued to make everyone else "look bad."

Unions have done their best to sap whatever pioneer mentality North Americans used to have -- that kind of story does little to dispell the stereotype that unions protect puppy-producers.

[Bluesky]

Sounds like typical union mentality in Canada today. I worked with a field technician in Sudbury whose job took him to various mines in Ontario. This is a story he relayed to me.

Two young miners who ran heavy equipment for Inco had a bit of a rivalry going, and to compete with each other, they would see who could drill more on each shift, breaking drilling records in the process. Some union higher-ups got wind of this rivalry and promptly put a stop to this by threatening them with dismissal if they continued to make everyone else "look bad."

Unions have done their best to sap whatever pioneer mentality North Americans used to have -- that kind of story does little to dispell the stereotype that unions protect puppy-producers.


Hey, that happened to me on my very first fulltime job in a factory. I was doing well, and felt so good about my job that I poured it on, just to see how much I could produce in a shift, and then I competed with myself, for several shifts in a row. The shop stewart took notice and told me in no uncertain terms to slow down because management would start expecting that kind of output from everyone!

Talk about putting out the fire of this young worker's passion. This same union went on a wildcat strike, the factory locked us out and threatened us with fines, and I decided then and there, that would be the last time I would be a part of a union. Well, that was impossible, but after one more lengthy job in a union shop that took me up to about 1973, I was able to keep that promise to myself. The mob rule and the way the union leaders exploited the baser motives in workers was a scary thing to behold.

[NewCasa]

Hey, that happened to me on my very first fulltime job in a factory. I was doing well, and felt so good about my job that I poured it on, just to see how much I could produce in a shift, and then I competed with myself, for several shifts in a row. The shop stewart took notice and told me in no uncertain terms to slow down because management would start expecting that kind of output from everyone!

Talk about putting out the fire of this young worker's passion. This same union went on a wildcat strike, the factory locked us out and threatened us with fines, and I decided then and there, that would be the last time I would be a part of a union. Well, that was impossible, but after one more lengthy job in a union shop that took me up to about 1973, I was able to keep that promise to myself. The mob rule and the way the union leaders exploited the baser motives in workers was a scary thing to behold.

Anyone wanna hear some nasty scumbag management stories on the Buddha teaching thread or are we just gonna be happy with bashing union workers????

[Bluesky]

Argghh! I did it again!!

[KDawg]

Anyone wanna hear some nasty scumbag management stories on the Buddha teaching thread or are we just gonna be happy with bashing union workers????

LOL

Good point NoCasa, but you started it.:smile:

[Wisdom]

Sometimes one creates a dynamic impression by saying something,
and sometimes one creates as significant an impression by remaining silent.

H.H. The 14th Dalai Lama

[Wisdom]

One of his students asked Buddha, "Are you the messiah?"
"No", answered Buddha.
"Then are you a healer?"
"No", Buddha replied.
"Then are you a teacher?" the student persisted.
"No, I am not a teacher."
"Then what are you?" asked the student, exasperated.
"I am awake", Buddha replied.

[ArcticBlue]

I found this rather interesting...

THE NOBLE EIGHTFOLD PATH

1. Right View. The right way to think about life is to see the world through the eyes of the Buddha--with wisdom and compassion.

2. Right Thought. We are what we think. Clear and kind thoughts build good, strong characters.

3. Right Speech. By speaking kind and helpful words, we are respected and trusted by everyone.

4. Right Conduct. No matter what we say, others know us from the way we behave. Before we criticize others, we should first see what we do ourselves.

5. Right Livelihood. This means choosing a job that does not hurt others. The Buddha said, "Do not earn your living by harming others. Do not seek happiness by making others unhappy."

6. Right Effort. A worthwhile life means doing our best at all times and having good will toward others. This also means not wasting effort on things that harm ourselves and others.

7. Right Mindfulness. This means being aware of our thoughts, words, and deeds.

8. Right Concentration. Focus on one thought or object at a time. By doing this, we can be quiet and attain true peace of mind.

Following the Noble Eightfold Path can be compared to cultivating a garden, but in Buddhism one cultivates one's wisdom. The mind is the ground and thoughts are seeds. Deeds are ways one cares for the garden. Our faults are weeds. Pulling them out is like weeding a garden. The harvest is real and lasting happiness.

Excerpt taken from : http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/footsteps.htm

IMO numbers 3, 4 and 7 seem that they could be the most relevant in relation to this BBS. Again, just my opinion.

[Bluesky]

One of the central aspects of BUddhism is the one I have the most trouble with, and that is that desire is the root of all suffering. Therefore try hard to delete desire. It seems a high price to pay to avoid suffering. And secondly, it seems somewhat self-centred to put elimination of suffering as a primary goal in life.

I have found there is a sharp difference to Buddhism as it is taught in the West and the East. In the East, this aspect is emphasized far more than the West.

[NewCasa]

One of the central aspects of BUddhism is the one I have the most trouble with, and that is that desire is the root of all suffering. Therefore try hard to delete desire. It seems a high price to pay to avoid suffering. And secondly, it seems somewhat self-centred to put elimination of suffering as a primary goal in life.

I have found there is a sharp difference to Buddhism as it is taught in the West and the East. In the East, this aspect is emphasized far more than the West.

Blue, if someone has told you that it's all about elimination of suffering I think they have it wrong. The goal of Buddhism is to attain and maintain peace at one's 'centre'. This can't be done if the centre is constantly assailed by suffering and desire. If I recall correctly, there was a school of Christian monasticism that was quite close to this. I can't recall the name, however I also know that at the core much of monasticism is really getting at the elimination of distractions in it's way when monks take their vows of poverty, silence and so forth, though I'm not sure they see it as such.

[Bluesky]

The way I learned it, the extinguishing of desire leads to cessation of suffering, which in turn brings that peace. So peace may be the ultimate, but I cannot conceive of a life without desire.
Elimination of desire and suffering are the first two Noble Truths. But I understand there are a lot of different types of Buddhism.
Here is how I learned Buddhism

Essentially the Buddha's teaching as we have it in the Tipitaka is nothing but the knowledge of what is what or the true nature of things — just that. Do keep to this definition. It is an adequate one and it is well to bear it in mind while one is in the course of practising We shall now demonstrate the validity of this definition by considering as an example the Four Noble Truths. The First Noble Truth, which points out that all things are suffering, tells us precisely what things are like. But we fail to realize that all things are a source of suffering and so we desire those things. If we recognized them as a source of suffering, not worth desiring, not worth grasping at and clinging to, not worth attaching ourselves to, we would be sure not to desire them. The Second Noble Truth points out that desire is the cause of suffering. People still don't know, don't see, don't understand, that desires are the cause of suffering. They all desire this, that and the other, simply because they don't understand the nature of desire. The Third Noble Truth points out that deliverance, freedom from suffering, Nirvana, consists in the complete extinguishing of desire. People don't realize at all that nirvana is something that may be attained at any time or place, that it can be arrived at just as soon as desire has been completely extinguished. So, not knowing the facts of life, people are not interested in extinguishing desire. They are not interested in nirvana because they don't know what it is.

http://www.buddhistelibrary.org/buddhism-online/bs-s07a.htm

There is no mention there of peace.

[ArcticBlue]

"More simply put, suffering exists; it has a cause; it has an end; and it has a cause to bring about its end. The notion of suffering is not intended to convey a negative world view, but rather, a pragmatic perspective that deals with the world as it is, and attempts to rectify it. The concept of pleasure is not denied, but acknowledged as fleeting. Pursuit of pleasure can only continue what is ultimately an unquenchable thirst. The same logic belies an understanding of happiness. In the end, only aging, sickness, and death are certain and unavoidable."

And the article goes on to state ...

"By desire, Buddhists refer to craving pleasure, material goods, and immortality, all of which are wants that can never be satisfied. As a result, desiring them can only bring suffering."

Therefore, the form of desire that you hold to be true, SkyBlue, is not one and the same as that held by a Buddhist.

Source: http://www.pbs.org/edens/thailand/buddhism.htm

[ArcticBlue]

The way I learned it, the extinguishing of desire leads to cessation of suffering, which in turn brings that peace. So peace may be the ultimate, but I cannot conceive of a life without desire.
Elimination of desire and suffering are the first two Noble Truths. But I understand there are a lot of different types of Buddhism.
Here is how I learned Buddhism

Essentially the Buddha's teaching as we have it in the Tipitaka is nothing but the knowledge of what is what or the true nature of things — just that. Do keep to this definition. It is an adequate one and it is well to bear it in mind while one is in the course of practising We shall now demonstrate the validity of this definition by considering as an example the Four Noble Truths. The First Noble Truth, which points out that all things are suffering, tells us precisely what things are like. But we fail to realize that all things are a source of suffering and so we desire those things. If we recognized them as a source of suffering, not worth desiring, not worth grasping at and clinging to, not worth attaching ourselves to, we would be sure not to desire them. The Second Noble Truth points out that desire is the cause of suffering. People still don't know, don't see, don't understand, that desires are the cause of suffering. They all desire this, that and the other, simply because they don't understand the nature of desire. The Third Noble Truth points out that deliverance, freedom from suffering, Nirvana, consists in the complete extinguishing of desire. People don't realize at all that nirvana is something that may be attained at any time or place, that it can be arrived at just as soon as desire has been completely extinguished. So, not knowing the facts of life, people are not interested in extinguishing desire. They are not interested in nirvana because they don't know what it is.

http://www.buddhistelibrary.org/buddhism-online/bs-s07a.htm

There is no mention there of peace.



"In reality, the Buddha preached a doctrine which demands an in depth analysis of suffering and its causes as a means of bringing about suffering's end and, therefore, of ushering in a new and lasting peace, tranquility and insightfulness."
Source: http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma6/peace.html

[NewCasa]

Nirvanna is that moment of absolute peace that you can have only a few times in a lifetime.

Have you ever felt that?

[ArcticBlue]

Well, if you are asking me NoCasa, I can honestly say that "No, I have never felt that". I can only hope that one day I will be able to be absolutely at peace, and if I only have the opportunity to feel it once, then I will revel in it and be thankful for having had such opportunity.

[NewCasa]

I have felt it 2 times in my life. I can only recall what drew me out of it one of those times. There was this pretty girl.... ;)

[ArcticBlue]

Well, I personally think that being in a moment of absolute peace is something that, although more difficult for some than for others, is a positive life goal to work towards. Becoming a better person is definitely not an easy task and thus requires a lot of time and effort and soul searching. I can only hope to become a better, more tolerant, person. In doing so, I can also only hope to achieve that moment of utter peace. Afterall, being at peace with myself should ultimately make me regard others with that same peace.

[Bluesky]

Being at peace with yourself is the struggle of life...

[ArcticBlue]

Being at peace with yourself is the struggle of life...

How very Buddhist of you! :tongue:

[Bluesky]

Heh :)
That would be an false assumption. Buddhism and Christianity may share some similar goals and might recognize similar struggles in life, but our worldviews and the answers to those struggles are quite different.

[ArcticBlue]

Tonight's mantra will be for you SkyBlue :teeth:

[NewCasa]

Being at peace with yourself is the struggle of life...

Peace isn't permanent. Not any more than anger or happiness is. It is just more rare and takes more effort to attain.

[Bluesky]

Well, I think you and I have a divergence of opinion on that score because I believe it extends to the after-life (or what I prefer to see as REAL life. This life is the preparatory stage. My personal experience is that the WAY of peace IS permanent but I do not always walk or live IN the realization of it. But this thread is about Buddhism and it's ways.. so I digress.

[Soundbear]

Real life indeed.

This isn't the land of the living, it's the land of the dying.

[Bluesky]

Peace isn't permanent. Not any more than anger or happiness is. It is just more rare and takes more effort to attain.

I was just reading up on an old philosphy and wondered if Epicurus came across Buddhism in his day. here is a quick summary of Epicurianism. (Speaking of tranquility)..

The Epicurean judged the value of an action or thing in terms of the pleasure or pain it brought—a position called hedonism. It was egoistic hedonism because the person sought his own pleasure rather than the pleasure of others. This description can bring to mind the image of an irresponsible glutton or lover of wild parties, but this image, encouraged by the modern sense of the word “epicurean,” is misleading. Epicurus rejected just such behavior. He realized that momentary pleasure can lead to enduring pain and that some pain can be beneficial. He viewed pleasure more as a quality of life than a series of thrills. What he sought is better called happiness. Basing his counsel on experience, he urged moderation, calm, friendship, a simple life. He avoided feasting, sexual passion, and strife. In fact, he avoided pain more than he sought pleasure. The pleasure of tranquillity, of peace, could be found in the absence of pain, and this was his aim. To ensure tranquillity, a man must tend to his stomach, but he must also attend to his mind, directing it toward wisdom.

[Bluesky]

Tonight's mantra will be for you SkyBlue :teeth:

I felt the vibes.. ;)

[NewCasa]

And what are your thoughts on the quote provided?

[Bluesky]

I am thinking it sounds very much llike Buddhism. But still self interest is at the centre, which I think in the end is futile, or sterile. Love, an outward moving energy towards the best interests of others does not seem to be in the picture. After all, the objects of love are temporary and the loss of what is loved will result in suffering.

[NewCasa]

I am thinking it sounds very much llike Buddhism. But still self interest is at the centre, which I think in the end is futile, or sterile. Love, an outward moving energy towards the best interests of others does not seem to be in the picture. After all, the objects of love are temporary and the loss of what is loved will result in suffering.

Read on. Buddhism doesn't preclude love at all. It's not love that causes pain. It's attachment. Love doesn't have to result in attachment.

[Bluesky]

Didn't the Buddha himself leave his wife and child in his pursuit?
If you understand the term attachment as 'dependence', then I agree that love is not precluded. Whether that is how original Buddhist thought intended it, is the real question.

[NewCasa]

Didn't the Buddha himself leave his wife and child in his pursuit?
If you understand the term attachment as 'dependence', then I agree that love is not precluded. Whether that is how original Buddhist thought intended it, is the real question.

Yes he did. Your point?

[Bluesky]

My point is in the second sentence in the above post. He regarded his love for his wife and son as a point of attachment from which he wanted to be free in order to achieve Nirvana. Is love truly possible without attachment?

Love is inextricably bound up in desire, desire brings suffering, therefore eliminate all source of suffering.

Persnally, I desire passionately to be with the loves of my life. I accept that it will bring suffering in the end. I do not accept the impermanence of everything. I regard suffering as impermanent.

[NewCasa]

My point is in the second sentence in the above post. He regarded his love for his wife and son as a point of attachment from which he wanted to be free in order to achieve Nirvana. Is love truly possible without attachment?

Love is inextricably bound up in desire, desire brings suffering, therefore eliminate all source of suffering.

Persnally, I desire passionately to be with the loves of my life. I accept that it will bring suffering in the end. I do not accept the impermanence of everything. I regard suffering as impermanent.

I'm going to read behind this for a minute. I think you are faulting him for leaving his wife and child. If that is what you are doing you are judging him by western, modern values. Remember - he was a prince in Nepal over 2500 years ago. As you've pointed out many times in Christian discussions - context is everything.

To say that love is inextricably bound up in desire is an assumption.

To say that it is impossible to love truly without attachment is an extension of the above assumption.

Know that overused saying? 'If you love something, set it free. If it comes back it is yours. If it doesn't it was never yours to begin with.' Sometimes, the answers are staring you right in the face. In order to truly love, you must be willing to let go.

I will give you an example from my own life: When my oldest son went away to University, he went to southern Ontario, like so many do. For the next two months, I was utterly miserable. I felt lost and abandoned. I was angry, hurt and sometimes irrational. It was a very difficult time for me. Over the next four years, I learned to feel less and less pain each time he left to go back after a visit. When he graduated, he decided to go to Korea for a year to teach English in order to save money toward a further degree. I felt very little pain, if any when he left. When we talk, I still enjoy our conversations greatly, but in a larger sense, I don't 'miss' him as I used to. Do I love him any less? Of course not. But the attachment is gone.

In order to understand Buddhism, you need to get a 'feel' for the concept of attachment. To my mind, that is the key to the discipline, not freedom from desire and pain. Those are the objectives along the way to peace, freedom from attachment is how you reach them. And it is not nearly as sterile and cold as you might think.

[Bluesky]

I wasn't faulting him. I was looking to understand his motive in leaving his wife and child. In your illustration, your child left you. I understand the process of detaching. I learned it as a young child when I lost my mother. It was the beginning of my becoming somewhat stoic. Which is not the same as what the Buddha did. He chose to leave. However, there are points of similarity to Christ's teachings, that's for sure.

[Soundbear]

Buddhism doesn't much resemble the servant heart of Christ or a Christian.

[Bluesky]

What do you or do you not see about the 'servant heart' of a Buddhist that makes you say that?

[ArcticBlue]

Buddhism doesn't much resemble the servant heart of Christ or a Christian.

And this is bad why? Oh wait, never mind - your response has been plastered all over this board already - same ol' same ol'

[Soundbear]

What do you or do you not see about the 'servant heart' of a Buddhist that makes you say that?

If we aren't servants to our wives and children, I don't know what.

[Soundbear]

And this is bad why? Oh wait, never mind - your response has been plastered all over this board already - same ol' same ol'

Not really. I don't use the kind of language that best describes a man who leaves his children.

[Wisdom]

Not really. I don't use the kind of language that best describes a man who leaves his children.

just black and white eh?

[NewCasa]

Not really. I don't use the kind of language that best describes a man who leaves his children.

That's ok. You don't need to say much. Your sanctimonious attitude speaks for itself.

[Soundbear]

just black and white eh?

I'd be more than pleased for you guys to justify this action.

I wonder how many of you even HAVE children.

[Soundbear]

That's ok. You don't need to say much. Your sanctimonious attitude speaks for itself.

And I'm sure you've seen this quote from me before: "All true wealth is biological."

If that is sanctimonious, I gladly accept the badge.

[NewCasa]

Buddhism doesn't much resemble the servant heart of Christ or a Christian.


If we aren't servants to our wives and children, I don't know what.


Not really. I don't use the kind of language that best describes a man who leaves his children.


I'd be more than pleased for you guys to justify this action.

I wonder how many of you even HAVE children.


And I'm sure you've seen this quote from me before: "All true wealth is biological."

If that is sanctimonious, I gladly accept the badge.

SB, the badge is all yours. And fyi - I have two children whom I love very much and whom return that love in many ways. Both of them are very secure in that love.

As for justifying the actions of Siddhartha, read up - I've already given an explaination. If you'd cared to try to understand rather than always being so quick to judge others you might have read and thought about it a bit.

[Soundbear]

"...I've already given an explaination."

Where, please.

[Bluesky]

I'd be more than pleased for you guys to justify this action.

I wonder how many of you even HAVE children.

OK, I'm going to make you work for this one.
How many Christians have turned their backs on family for the cause of Christ?
Did Jesus himself teach us to do that?

But now you have also managed to turn this thread into what NC did not want to see happen.

[Soundbear]

"Did Jesus himself teach us to do that?"

NO!!!! Not the same way.

[ArcticBlue]

But now you have also managed to turn this thread into what NC did not want to see happen.

As is the norm in this section. It's a shame people can't have a different conversation on the topic of religion. No wonder there are so few responses as late.

I'm done now....

[Bluesky]

As is the norm in this section. It's a shame people can't have a different conversation on the topic of religion. No wonder there are so few responses as late.

I'm done now....

Truth be told, it happens in every section. And I still say the fights are more civil here than in the Soapbox. Here at least we don't fight over who makes the best pizza ;)

[ArcticBlue]

Pizza? God? What's the difference? It's all a matter of opinion anyhow.

[Bluesky]

Pizza? God? What's the difference? It's all a matter of opinion anyhow.

well, it's my opinion that .. oops. I'd be going off topic if I shared my opinion.
Back on track.
What's the sound of one hand clapping?

[Wisdom]

well, it's my opinion that .. oops. I'd be going off topic if I shared my opinion.
Back on track.
What's the sound of one hand clapping?

don't know.... never had the clap.....

[R W G R]

I just ordered a big, honkin' pizza, full of all the fixins'.

Guilt can come tomorrow.

[NewCasa]

"...I've already given an explaination."

Where, please.

Read upwards in the thread. I'm not your secretary.

[NewCasa]

What's the sound of one hand clapping?

The same sound as half a bible slamming shut.....

[Soundbear]

Read upwards in the thread. I'm not your secretary.

I DID. Both current threads. I'll look again.

[NewCasa]

I'm going to read behind this for a minute. I think you are faulting him for leaving his wife and child. If that is what you are doing you are judging him by western, modern values. Remember - he was a prince in Nepal over 2500 years ago. As you've pointed out many times in Christian discussions - context is everything.

To say that love is inextricably bound up in desire is an assumption.

To say that it is impossible to love truly without attachment is an extension of the above assumption.

Know that overused saying? 'If you love something, set it free. If it comes back it is yours. If it doesn't it was never yours to begin with.' Sometimes, the answers are staring you right in the face. In order to truly love, you must be willing to let go.

I will give you an example from my own life: When my oldest son went away to University, he went to southern Ontario, like so many do. For the next two months, I was utterly miserable. I felt lost and abandoned. I was angry, hurt and sometimes irrational. It was a very difficult time for me. Over the next four years, I learned to feel less and less pain each time he left to go back after a visit. When he graduated, he decided to go to Korea for a year to teach English in order to save money toward a further degree. I felt very little pain, if any when he left. When we talk, I still enjoy our conversations greatly, but in a larger sense, I don't 'miss' him as I used to. Do I love him any less? Of course not. But the attachment is gone.

In order to understand Buddhism, you need to get a 'feel' for the concept of attachment. To my mind, that is the key to the discipline, not freedom from desire and pain. Those are the objectives along the way to peace, freedom from attachment is how you reach them. And it is not nearly as sterile and cold as you might think.

SB - here's where I explained the Buddha leaving his family. There's more to it, but basically he wasn't leaving them high and dry - they would be well taken care of since his son was a prince. Also, please remember you are judging his actions through the lens of your modern experience. This all happened in around 500bc. A totally different world then.

[Blue Lotus Rising]

Well, Buddha lived 500 year before the birth of Jesus, so I guess people were just heathens at that point in time. No wonder he up and left his family simply to attain enlightenment- He must have not known any better.

I wonder if Columbus or any of the other great explorers realized that they had committed such great sin by leaving their families because they wanted to conquer new lands for their countries. Oh right, they did that for money, it was their job to leave their families, sometimes not to return.

The teachings the Buddha gave this world far outweigh that which his family suffered in their palace while he was gone.

[Bluesky]

Can you point me to a website that contains a good summary of his teachings? Something that goes beyond the 4 truths and the eight pillars. I'd like to see what it is about his teaachings that you regard highly.

[Clovis 888]

I am thinking it sounds very much llike Buddhism. But still self interest is at the centre, which I think in the end is futile, or sterile. Love, an outward moving energy towards the best interests of others does not seem to be in the picture. After all, the objects of love are temporary and the loss of what is loved will result in suffering.

Love, real love is not based on objects, but in sensation ;)
That is why desire and want are the root of suffering.
Because you think a "thing" could make you happy. When you get that "thing" you're not happy so you want another "thing" that does not make you happy but you're driven toward getting that "thing"

Satisfaction comes when you are happy with what you have.

"A man who gives way to pleasure will be swept away by craving and his thoughts will make him suffer, like waves."
The whole point of this is that you need to look at what matters, not at matter. Having the latest cell phone does not matter. Really you don't even need one at all. But getting one will make you falsely happy for how long?

That is where it becomes fleeting. If you're just happy with what you have, then you don't feel you need to get. You're not distracted by getting, and you're not stepping on people to get what you want.

Rather desire can turn into something amazing if what you desire is to give. That way you're happy making other people happy and they're happy with you, you're happy that they are happy and none of you are suffering even if it's stone soup.

A whole community bringing together what little they have so that all may have what really matters, not the soup. The brotherhood.

What really matters is human unity. Not human possession or individual success. We're a tribal species. We run in packs and families. We need to be together with other humans all the time. We actually go insane and start rocking and humming when people are isolated for long periods of time without human interaction. That's insanity.

If you want to then take Wisdom's native roots into this, what NoCasa said about the European perspective where it's goal driven, opposed to the native idea that it's about process. Then apply this, don't think about getting "things" think about right now and doing the best to promote health and happiness for all now. Sometimes that means just shutting your mouth until you have something nice to say, or not making everything about you.

I read the Celestine Prophecy a while back, it's a good read. A lot of Buddhist ideas in there.

[Clovis 888]

Can you point me to a website that contains a good summary of his teachings? Something that goes beyond the 4 truths and the eight pillars. I'd like to see what it is about his teaachings that you regard highly.

I had an AWESOME book years ago. "Be A Light Unto Yourself" that was the best Buddhist book I've ever read.

Why? Well it was not someone's take or opinion on the Buddha, it was his writings each one on a little page with a picture starting with a brief Buddha biography.
I got it at Hilltribe when they were first in the Station Mall...must have been at least 6 years ago but if you can find it read it!
If you want I'll look for something similar for you online because there are a few other hmmm. Ok I think I know where to look.


Told you I was good OK just had to remember what it was called
http://www.serve.com/cmtan/Dhammapada/

Here's a brief thing here emm from the page :)
The Dhammapada consists of 423 verses in Pali uttered by the Buddha on some 305 occasions for the benefit of a wide range of human beings. These sayings were selected and compiled into one book as being worthy of special note on account of their beauty and relevance for moulding the lives of future generations of Buddhists. They are divided into 26 chapters and the stanzas are arranged according to subject matter.

BAM there you go Sky!

[Blue Lotus Rising]

Can you point me to a website that contains a good summary of his teachings? Something that goes beyond the 4 truths and the eight pillars. I'd like to see what it is about his teaachings that you regard highly.

Buddhism teaches us personal responsibility, simply being compassionate and honest in our actions. With this discipline, there is no need for mercy. If you don't act poorly, you don't need forgiveness.

[Bluesky]

Buddhism teaches us personal responsibility, simply being compassionate and honest in our actions. With this discipline, there is no need for mercy. If you don't act poorly, you don't need forgiveness.

But I have acted poorly. Many times. So have you and everyone else I know. It is one thing to be told to be perfect. It is another to attain perfection. So is there nothing except Kharma that deals with what happens when I do act poorly?

[Bluesky]

Told you I was good OK...


Hmm, the only other person on this board that told me how good he/she was got banned. Could it be...?

[Blue Lotus Rising]

But I have acted poorly. Many times. So have you and everyone else I know. It is one thing to be told to be perfect. It is another to attain perfection. So is there nothing except Kharma that deals with what happens when I do act poorly?

Hopefully when one acts poorly, they take a lesson from their actions and act differently the next time. Enlightenment!

[Blue Lotus Rising]

Hmm, the only other person on this board that told me how good he/she was got banned. Could it be...?

Of course it is. Funny how they picked right up on threads where he left off with the same exact ideology.

[NewCasa]

But I have acted poorly. Many times. So have you and everyone else I know. It is one thing to be told to be perfect. It is another to attain perfection. So is there nothing except Kharma that deals with what happens when I do act poorly?

The pattern is quite similar to Christianity. Try, fail, learn, improve. Try, fail, learn, improve. A life-long cycle, but Bhuddhists believe it to be a 'lives long' cycle.

People are not perfect, they make mistakes. That is part of the reason that I said peace is not permanent. I believe that the reality of Bhuddhism is that Nirvanna is transitory, though it as a person's karma improves they will live closer and closer to Nirvanna.

The reason for the elimination of suffering is that is distracts us from the attainment of Nirvanna. But the definition of suffering may throw you. Suffering is defined in Buddhism as not getting what you desire. This can cover some extremes, right? One could suffer if they are living in poverty, seeing their family starving around them. Sure, that would be suffering, obviously. But one could also suffer by not getting a bag of chips they've got a craving for. The difference is degree only. Each is a distraction from peace.

[Bluesky]

Hopefully when one acts poorly, they take a lesson from their actions and act differently the next time. Enlightenment!

The problem is (and it is a massive one) I cannot carry the memory of those lessons learned into the next life. (I am arguing theoretically.. because as you know, I am not Buddhist. :)

[NewCasa]

The problem is (and it is a massive one) I cannot carry the memory of those lessons learned into the next life. (I am arguing theoretically.. because as you know, I am not Buddhist. :)

Why do you believe you can't? Do you not believe in the subconsious mind? Ever notice how much wisdom it sometimes has?

[Blue Lotus Rising]

(I am arguing theoretically.. because as you know, I am not Buddhist. :)

You aren't?
*gasp

[Blue Lotus Rising]

Told you I was good OK just had to remember what it was called

I like this the best: "Conquer the angry man by love; conquer the ill-natured man by goodness; conquer the miser with generosity; conquer the liar with truth.

http://www.serve.com/cmtan/Dhammapada/anger.html

[Soundbear]

You aren't?
*gasp

:) :) :)

[Soundbear]

SB - here's where I explained the Buddha leaving his family. There's more to it, but basically he wasn't leaving them high and dry - they would be well taken care of since his son was a prince. Also, please remember you are judging his actions through the lens of your modern experience. This all happened in around 500bc. A totally different world then.

Thank you for the re-post.

I continue to disagree, especially in the light of Christianity.

Family is VERY important in Christianity, and, in the ancient world, Jewish culture. In fact, as I have pointed out several times, our RELATIONSHIP, with God, just as in family, is the most important aspect of true Christianity.

I don't believe for a second that Buddhas children were properly cared for. To lose one's father is damaging, and I don't care what culture you are in. You say that, because he was a prince, his family would be taken care of. Does that mean the rich are justified in persuing anything they want if their kids are fed?? Does that mean if you win the lottery, you will be free to leave your wife and children with half, and go your merry way??

My attachment to my children is no less because they are away, so I disagree there too.

No where in Scripture is it proper for men to leave there families behind, abandoned. We are to follow Christ realizing the relative eternal value of following Him as opposed to staying with family, but NEVER are we told to let them fend for themselves.

[Soundbear]

Well, Buddha lived 500 year before the birth of Jesus, so I guess people were just heathens at that point in time. No wonder he up and left his family simply to attain enlightenment- He must have not known any better.

I wonder if Columbus or any of the other great explorers realized that they had committed such great sin by leaving their families because they wanted to conquer new lands for their countries. Oh right, they did that for money, it was their job to leave their families, sometimes not to return.

The teachings the Buddha gave this world far outweigh that which his family suffered in their palace while he was gone.

Men have gone, sometimes forever, and left their families, because of duty or war. Different story.

"Buddha gave the world.."???? At the expense of the suffering of his family?? That's ironic, considering what he said about suffering. I doubt his children followed his ways.

[NewCasa]

Thank you for the re-post.

I continue to disagree, especially in the light of Christianity.

Family is VERY important in Christianity, and, in the ancient world, Jewish culture. In fact, as I have pointed out several times, our RELATIONSHIP, with God, just as in family, is the most important aspect of true Christianity.

I don't believe for a second that Buddhas children were properly cared for. To lose one's father is damaging, and I don't care what culture you are in. You say that, because he was a prince, his family would be taken care of. Does that mean the rich are justified in persuing anything they want if their kids are fed?? Does that mean if you win the lottery, you will be free to leave your wife and children with half, and go your merry way??

My attachment to my children is no less because they are away, so I disagree there too.

No where in Scripture is it proper for men to leave there families behind, abandoned. We are to follow Christ realizing the relative eternal value of following Him as opposed to staying with family, but NEVER are we told to let them fend for themselves.

SB - you're talking about Christianity - a religion that wasn't even thought of when Buddha left his wife and child to go out in the world. And who is to say exactly how he left them? Who is to say he didn't go back on weekends? The story is very old - older than your bible. You really need to at least make an attempt to think outside the box sometimes.

[NewCasa]

Men have gone, sometimes forever, and left their families, because of duty or war. Different story.

"Buddha gave the world.."???? At the expense of the suffering of his family?? That's ironic, considering what he said about suffering. I doubt his children followed his ways.

Again SB - try to think outside the box just a little. Buddha gave the world a new way of thought. A philosophy and spirituality that has brought joy and comfort to millions upon millions. Would you say going away to war would take priority over that? I really think you people are on shaky ground when you want to keep picking at this point. After all, Jesus didn't leave a family - he denied children to the world because he didn't have any. Shall we pick away at how selfish that was?

[Soundbear]

SB - you're talking about Christianity - a religion that wasn't even thought of when Buddha left his wife and child to go out in the world. And who is to say exactly how he left them? Who is to say he didn't go back on weekends? The story is very old - older than your bible. You really need to at least make an attempt to think outside the box sometimes.

The foundations of Christianity go back to Genesis.

Who is to say?? Buddha, of course. He taught it, did he not?? Back on weekends?? Is that desire?? Attachment??

Older than the bible?? No.

As to thinking outside the box, you have no idea!! :) :) :) Look around. Not too many other Jesus people here!!

[Soundbear]

Again SB - try to think outside the box just a little. Buddha gave the world a new way of thought. A philosophy and spirituality that has brought joy and comfort to millions upon millions. Would you say going away to war would take priority over that? I really think you people are on shaky ground when you want to keep picking at this point. After all, Jesus didn't leave a family - he denied children to the world because he didn't have any. Shall we pick away at how selfish that was?

Re war: Let me quote something you probably never heard, but can find if you try.

"Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!"

Joy and comfort can't be had without men who defend it.

Sorry, can't/won't speak about the "selfishness" of Jesus Christ, God Incarnate.

Soory about going off topic.

edit: On the other hand, learning that Buddha left his family certainly puts a big hole in the "Basic teachings of Buddha" for me.

[NewCasa]

The foundations of Christianity go back to Genesis.

Who is to say?? Buddha, of course. He taught it, did he not?? Back on weekends?? Is that desire?? Attachment??

Older than the bible?? No.

As to thinking outside the box, you have no idea!! :) :) :) Look around. Not too many other Jesus people here!!

My knowledge of the old testament is a tad light, but my recollection is that it's not to much about family values.

I stand corrected - Buddhism is older than the new testament, which is the real foundation and basis for your religion since without it your religion would be Judaism.

I used back on weekends as a possibility. Attachment? I wouldn't mistake attachment for kindness and doing what is right.

As for thinking outside the box try this: There was a time, not so long ago in a historical sense where there was no Christianity. Wican beliefs are MUCH older than Christianity and their origins are much older still. Buddhism is older than Christianity. So are many other belief systems. So try imagining a world where there was no Christianity. I'm betting you can't do it. But if you could maybe you would gain some empathy for others.

[Soundbear]

I'm not as smooth as Skyblue, or as diplomatic. But empathy??

Consider this:
John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I have empathy because of what comes after:


John 3:17-18
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Buddha taught many good things. But there's no eternal life, no real everlasting peace, or even, it seems, genuine concern for anything but self.

Sorry.

[NewCasa]

Re war: Let me quote something you probably never heard, but can find if you try.

"Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!"

Joy and comfort can't be had without men who defend it.

Sorry, can't/won't speak about the "selfishness" of Jesus Christ, God Incarnate.
But it's just ok to speak of the 'selfishness' of the Buddha. Good old Christian hypocrisy at it's finest.

Soory about going off topic.

Not really off topic at all. You Christians have been subject to many digressions that have asked you to defend your beliefs. Fair is fair.

And yeah, I've heard the American national anthem before. Like most Canadians, I probably know the words better than many Americans. Nice quote. Still doesn't prove that one soldier's contributions are greater than the Buddha.

[ArcticBlue]

History Timeline of World Religions and its Founders

2,085 BC. Judaism-Abraham

1,500 BC. Hinduism- no specific founder

560 BC. Buddhism- Gautama Buddha

550 BC. Taoism - Lao Tzu

599 BC. Jainism, Mahavira

30 AD. Christianity –Jesus Christ

50-100 AD. Gnosticism-

And the list goes on ....

Source: http://www.letusreason.org/Cult11.htm

Another source where this can be found: http://www.avesta.org/timeline.htm