Two Views on suffering

[Vajradhara]

Partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil--the fruit being conditioned patterns (karma) of attachment to what we perceive as good and aversion to what we see as evil.

Namaste Seattlegal,

the Buddha defines karma as intention. nothing more and nothing less. it is not the action but the intention behind the action which creates kamma. so, in your example, it wouldn't be the taking of the fruit that was an issue it would be the initial intention to take the fruit that would produce the beings kamma.

metta,

`v

 

[Netti-Netti]

i think this difficulty is due to your a priori notions regarding deities and creator deities in particular.

I think you are reasonable to suggest that someone may wish to reinterpret Buddhism in light of the religious tradition they were brought up with. Perceived similarities are not aways imagined, though.

In terms of their supportive role vis a vis humans, it would appear that Buddhist deities (devas and Brahmas) are similar to sacred entities we find in the Christian tradition and the angelic beings we find in the Judaic tradition. In fact, I would say that the major difference between the Buddhist deities and the JudeoChristian counterparts is that the Buddhist entities lack absolute power (including powers to create the universe).

A secondary focus for me here is to sort out here is how a nontheistic Buddhism became wedded to a polytheistic Bon Po religion. As you know, Tibetan Buddhism is "theistic" in the sense that it involves prayer to various deities. If the Buddha had wanted to make a point of distinguishing Buddhism from Hinduism (and other theistic religions) as being non-theistic, and if this nontheism is so central to Buddhism, one might wonder how did Tibetan Buddhism ever come about?

In short, I am trying to sort out the theistic elements that would lend themselves to Buddhism being imported into Tibet so that it would end up becoming fully integrated with the polytheistic tradition that was Tibet's pre-existing Bon Po religion.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste netti-netti,

thank you for the post.

I think you are reasonable to suggest that someone may wish to reinterpret Buddhism in light of the religious tradition they were bought up with. Perceived similarities are not aways imagined, though.

indeed, that is so.

In terms of their supportive role vis a vis humans, it would appear that Buddhist deities like the devas and Brahmas are similar to sacred entities we find in the Christian tradition and angelic beings we find in the Judaic tradition. In fact, I would say that the major difference between the Buddhist deities and the JudeoChristian counterparts is that the Buddhist entities lack absolute power.

i would suggest the major difference is that the devas and Brahmas will all die and take rebirth based on their kamma whereas most traditions that recognize deities suggest that the deities do not die and are not bound by kamma.

A secondary focus here is to sort out here is how a nontheistic Buddhism became wedded to a polytheistic Bon Po religion. As you know, Tibetan Buddhism is "theistic" in the sense that it involves prayer to various deities. If the Buddha had wanted to make a point of distinguishing Buddhism from Hinduism (and other theistic religions) as being non-theistic, and if this nontheism is so central to Buddhism, one might wonder how did Tibetan Buddhism ever come about?

Padmasambhava.

i'm happy to discuss the developments of Buddha Dharma in the Land of Snows, what the Vajrayana is (the tradition of Buddha Dharma in Tibet), it's schools of practice and its philosophical structure. that does, however, seem somewhat outside the scope of this thread.

In short, I am trying to sort out the theistic elements that would lend themselves to Buddhism being imported into Tibet so that it would end up becoming fully integrated with the polytheistic tradition that was Tibet's pre-existing Bon Po religion.

oh.. i think that a more productive area of endeavor would be to investigate the Tibetans and why they, with a fully functioning religious system, would invite the Buddha Dharma to be spread in Tibet. it's a fascinating socio-political drama that unfolds in the mists of time in a remote part of the world that is ingrained into the collective consciousness of the West as a land of mysteries.

completely unrelated to this thread or our topic.. i once saw a demonstration from some Tibetan monks where they used sound to levitate a boulder. it was pretty amazing. of course i have to bear in mind that what one sees isn't always what is going on but nevertheless. i've scoured the internet for any other references to such a thing and only found a few that described the same scene but with a larger boulder and moving it to the top of a cliff for a construction project.

metta,

~v

 

[seattlegal]

Namaste Seattlegal,

the Buddha defines karma as intention. nothing more and nothing less. it is not the action but the intention behind the action which creates kamma. so, in your example, it wouldn't be the taking of the fruit that was an issue it would be the initial intention to take the fruit that would produce the beings kamma.

metta,

`v

Unmindful actions or actions you think are good don't produce karma? They certainly can produce suffering.

 

[Nick_A]

Namaste Nick,

thank you for the post.



i think that you are saying that you haven't read any Suttas which would cause you to come to this view.



the blissful feelings are concomitant with Nibbana and the teachings are quite specific of the obstacles that becoming attached to the blissful feelings of the jhanas and Nibbana can pose.

of course i don't think that suffering is an independent sentient entity so it, suffering, cannot use anything let alone humans. the benefit of suffering is that it impels one to practice.

[/size][/font]

well.. it's up to you, of course, though such an approach is only going to lead to invalid conclusions regarding the Buddha Dharma.

metta,

~v

Hi Vaj

i think that you are saying that you haven't read any Suttas which would cause you to come to this view.

Quite true. I haven't read all the Sutras but familiar enough to know that some Buddhists understand vertical cosmology and how it relates to purity and defilement. It is the basis of my beliefs. Buddhism may have its own take but I prefer the straight forward view of cosmological levels being an expression of the universal "law of octaves" as expressed by Pythagoras. Taken vertically one level exists within the other as described in the Buddhahood Sutta.

Since Buddhism in the West is becoming increasingly secular, it is not surprising that the evolutionary implications of vertical cosmology is ignored. But it is still known.

Buddhist cosmology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

of course i don't think that suffering is an independent sentient entity so it, suffering, cannot use anything let alone humans. the benefit of suffering is that it impels one to practice.

Yes we practice REACTING. Simone is referring to the value of becoming able to ACT

well.. it's up to you, of course, though such an approach is only going to lead to invalid conclusions regarding the Buddha Dharma.

From what I've seen, the Buddha Dharma is degenerating and becoming secularized just as with Christianity. The rapid living tempo of Western life just makes the process of secularization faster.

How can Christendom or secularized Buddhism represent the truth of it if devolution creates partial truths and invalid conclusions? The sincere searcher has to become like a salmon and swim upstream back to the transcendent source of the teachings

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Nick,

thank you for the post

Quite true. I haven't read all the Sutras but familiar enough to know that some Buddhists understand vertical cosmology and how it relates to purity and defilement.

wouldn't you think it unwise to form a conclusion of what the Buddha Dharma teaches without reading any Suttas which support your view?

It is the basis of my beliefs. Buddhism may have its own take but I prefer the straight forward view of cosmological levels being an expression of the universal "law of octaves" as expressed by Pythagoras.

naturally we prefer our own views. i'm not sure of the value of imposing our beliefs upon another paradigm which is grounded in a radically different ontology but your mileage may vary.

Taken vertically one level exists within the other as described in the Buddhahood Sutta.

Since Buddhism in the West is becoming increasingly secular, it is not surprising that the evolutionary implications of vertical cosmology is ignored. But it is still known.

i suppose that i would disagree on the characterization that Buddha Dharma is becoming secular, it has always had such a feature, which we can see in some schools of Ch'an Buddha Dharma.

Yes we practice REACTING. Simone is referring to the value of becoming able to ACT

i mean to indicate the practice of the Buddha Dharma, sorry for the confusion.

From what I've seen, the Buddha Dharma is degenerating and becoming secularized just as with Christianity. The rapid living tempo of Western life just makes the process of secularization faster.

i would encourage you to consider that Western culture, as much as it is prevelant, is not the only culture on the planet nor, for that matter, one which would be a good indication of the state of the Buddha Dharma throughout the world. nevertheless, the Buddha Dharma will decline and eventually we'll enter the time of the Sembalence Dharma and such will continue in phases until the Buddha Dharma is gone from this world system.

How can Christendom or secularized Buddhism represent the truth of it if devolution creates partial truths and invalid conclusions? The sincere searcher has to become like a salmon and swim upstream back to the transcendent source of the teachings

there is no transcendent source of the Buddha Dharma but then i suppose it depends on what you mean by transcendent. i would, of course, always recommend reading the Suttas to see what they have to say and save the commentaries to help clarify the Sutta. many beings that are not Buddhists read commentaries, excerpts and the like and form views of the Buddha Dharma which are not consistent with the Dharma. i cannot see much value in such an approach but, apparently, other beings do.

metta,

~v

 

[taijasi]

Wow ... that's a pretty bleak view, the notion that the Buddha Dharma will utterly cease in this, or any other world system. Cyclically, I can buy it ... but this is precisely why additional Buddhas, Buddha after Buddha, comes - both as an incarnation of the Dhyani Buddha, and as a human or manushya (having attained Enlightenment in the same way as our future-selves). Following Maitreya, assuming we are living in well enough harmony with our nurturing environment by then, will be another Buddha ... and so on.

A world system wherein the Buddha Dharma had passed out completely, just as one in which Armageddon came to result in the true "end times" of misinterpreted western traditions, would be a failure, at least in the short-term. The incarnation of the Dhyanis was and is surely not in vain. This concept of a bleak and dying world ... if it should be considered at all, in the material sense, needs to be understood against the backdrop of the Celestial worlds that support it (and the Triumph, the Splendor, that increasingly reigns supreme in these worlds).

And there is always Adi Buddha. In my understanding, this is indeed a primordial Source. Much as folks like to anthropomorphize, Adi Buddha isn't so much a Who as a `what.' A what, however, with the qualities of Self-Consciousness, Divine Awareness or what is sometimes called mindfulness, if not something far, far transcendent of that. Transcendent, by definition being beyond our current abilities to experience or encounter ... yet quite possibly being a realm wherein the merest attributes of a Dhyani -- are everything that we understand as Bliss, Understanding (Consciousness) or even Being.

Loving, Compassionate, and certainly powerful, as in some sense representing the very ROOT of power. This idea would be inherent even in a very exoteric presentation - whether Buddhist or Hindu - of even the human energy centers (chakras, or khorlos - "wheels"). So, with Shamballa itself - the Kalachakra of Tibetan Buddhism being precisely such a planetary wheel, another scale of being is entered entirely. Have we approached the toenail yet of Adi Buddha?

Hmmm, maybe just.

Is this a nice philosphy? Something to ponder, debate or occupy our attention? I guess. Is it REAL?

I think that's something worth thinking about.

Buddhas, Buddhas everywhere, and all the boards ... wait

I guess it's a bit -- humbling -- to acknowledge that the Truth does not beam forth, boldly, from every rooftop, like a banner, but there are sometimes consequences for speaking or expressing it. And then, there is also karma. Why were we about to, or trying to?

Hmmm.

Shakyamuni could hold up a single flower, yet his karma was revealing too much ... out of his compassion for every sentient being. COMPASSION was his motivation. An interesting contemplation, how that could yet create its own unbalanced karma. How many (other) world systems do we suppose he was also benefitting, as he also sought to be of benefit to ours? Not so easy to balance, I suppose.

When does the effort and assistance of even one, lofty Buddha become unproportional to the true needs of a world system in question, or the choice to remain become outweighed by a higher calling in the Celestrial realms, where work continues?



Suffering, like all else, has a purpose, and a place. To be able to balance this, with even a rather theistic notion of Deity may be a challenge, yet if we cannot make any headway, why might that be?

“If God created us in His image we have certainly returned the compliment.” (--Voltaire)​

 

[Nick_A]

Namaste Nick,

thank you for the post



wouldn't you think it unwise to form a conclusion of what the Buddha Dharma teaches without reading any Suttas which support your view?



naturally we prefer our own views. i'm not sure of the value of imposing our beliefs upon another paradigm which is grounded in a radically different ontology but your mileage may vary.



i suppose that i would disagree on the characterization that Buddha Dharma is becoming secular, it has always had such a feature, which we can see in some schools of Ch'an Buddha Dharma.



i mean to indicate the practice of the Buddha Dharma, sorry for the confusion.



i would encourage you to consider that Western culture, as much as it is prevelant, is not the only culture on the planet nor, for that matter, one which would be a good indication of the state of the Buddha Dharma throughout the world. nevertheless, the Buddha Dharma will decline and eventually we'll enter the time of the Sembalence Dharma and such will continue in phases until the Buddha Dharma is gone from this world system.



there is no transcendent source of the Buddha Dharma but then i suppose it depends on what you mean by transcendent. i would, of course, always recommend reading the Suttas to see what they have to say and save the commentaries to help clarify the Sutta. many beings that are not Buddhists read commentaries, excerpts and the like and form views of the Buddha Dharma which are not consistent with the Dharma. i cannot see much value in such an approach but, apparently, other beings do.

metta,

~v

wouldn't you think it unwise to form a conclusion of what the Buddha Dharma teaches without reading any Suttas which support your view?

Vertical Cosmology as a conception of levels of reality is either true or it isn't. It cannot be a typical New Age "Create your own Realty" issue. Like 3=2=5, it is true in quantity for both Christianity and Buddhism. I believe it to be true which means it must be true for Buddhism as well. If I'm wrong then it doesn't exist in either Christianity or Buddhism.

i suppose that i would disagree on the characterization that Buddha Dharma is becoming secular, it has always had such a feature, which we can see in some schools of Ch'an Buddha Dharma.

Christianity at one time had a balanced esoteric and exoteric existence. It is no longer the case and I believe from what I've seen, the same is happening with Buddhism.

i would encourage you to consider that Western culture, as much as it is prevelant, is not the only culture on the planet nor, for that matter, one which would be a good indication of the state of the Buddha Dharma throughout the world. nevertheless, the Buddha Dharma will decline and eventually we'll enter the time of the Sembalence Dharma and such will continue in phases until the Buddha Dharma is gone from this world system.

The same idea exists in Christianity and defined as the end of an eon at which time the cycle begin again.

there is no transcendent source of the Buddha Dharma but then i suppose it depends on what you mean by transcendent. i would, of course, always recommend reading the Suttas to see what they have to say and save the commentaries to help clarify the Sutta. many beings that are not Buddhists read commentaries, excerpts and the like and form views of the Buddha Dharma which are not consistent with the Dharma. i cannot see much value in such an approach but, apparently, other beings do.

It is the same with Christianity. We have our trouble with "experts" as well. They produce things like "Jesus Seminars" and people like Bishop Spong. Then you have the actions of groups out to secularize it as with Secular Judaism and its unconscious attempt to make Jesus into a secular political Rabbi that got strung up

The fact that people don't understand it never enters their head. I know my knowledge of Buddhism is limited but sinceI believe that levels of reality is an objective reality, it must exist in Buddhism and I've read that it does. When I read the following it makes perfect sense to me because the void is the conscious source within which everything exists in potential and manifests as lawful fractions of wholeness at lower levels of reality. The reality of a fraction can only be appreciated in the context of the whole within which it is a lawful potential.

Interdependence in Buddhism

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste seattlegal,

thank you for the post.

Unmindful actions or actions you think are good don't produce karma? They certainly can produce suffering.

karma is only produced by intentions, so actions without intention, say an accident, does not produce karma. now.. regarding the think it's good bit... if our intentional actions, thoughts and words come arise with a sense of compassion for all beings and the like we generate what is called "bright" or positive karma. intentional actions, thoughts and words which arise from avarice, jealousy and such produce "dark" or negative karma.

indeed, unintentional actions, thoughts and words can produce dukkha.

metta,

~v

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Nick,

thank you for the post.

Vertical Cosmology as a conception of levels of reality is either true or it isn't.

it would appear that we have a different ontological view of reality, you are positing a bivalent one whereas i posit a multivalent one. we will, naturally, disagree on subjects such as this.

I believe it to be true which means it must be true for Buddhism as well. If I'm wrong then it doesn't exist in either Christianity or Buddhism.

i'm not sure i follow. are you suggesting that if your belief is wrong that would some how implicate either of those two religious paradigms as being incorrect regarding one of their teachings? have you considered that you may have a mistaken belief?

The same idea exists in Christianity and defined as the end of an eon at which time the cycle begin again.

in the Buddhist sense after this dispensation of the Dharma has disappeared, the next Turning of the Wheel will come when the world is peace and humans have an exceedingly long lifespan and several other factors. this particular world system will see somewhere on the order of 18 total Buddhas arise and we've had, iirc, 5 so far.

It is the same with Christianity. We have our trouble with "experts" as well. They produce things like "Jesus Seminars" and people like Bishop Spong. Then you have the actions of groups out to secularize it as with Secular Judaism and its unconscious attempt to make Jesus into a secular political Rabbi that got strung up

whilst i appreciate the point that's not really what i meant i meant that there is no substitute for reading the Suttas themselves. i found the Jesus Seminar material to be quite fascinating, fwiw.

The fact that people don't understand it never enters their head. I know my knowledge of Buddhism is limited but sinceI believe that levels of reality is an objective reality, it must exist in Buddhism and I've read that it does. When I read the following it makes perfect sense to me because the void is the conscious source within which everything exists in potential and manifests as lawful fractions of wholeness at lower levels of reality. The reality of a fraction can only be appreciated in the context of the whole within which it is a lawful potential.

Interdependence in Buddhism

the Buddhist teaching of Pratityasamutpada (interdependent co-arising) doesn't teach monism nor that emptiness (sunya) is conscious. i presume that you are using the term "void" to be indicative of the Buddhist term "sunya/sunyata" which is typically rendered into English as "emptiness" though i have seen it rendered as "the void" in some older transliterations.

what this term means is that all phenomena and noumena lack any inherent characteristics, they are empty of them. it's not describing, to quote Paul Tillich, a Ground of Being or source from which all phenomena and noumena arise. there would be little difference between such a view and ascribing such to a creator deity.

in the Suttas the term sunya is used in three primary ways, to indicate a meditative state, a property of objects and an awareness-release. here's the Sutta called Maha-sunnata or Greater Discourse on Emptiness: MN 122: Maha-suññata Sutta

metta,

~v

 

[Netti-Netti]

karma is only produced by intentions, so actions without intention, say an accident, does not produce karma.

Karma is not always related to a moral choice, which is why it's tricky to try to relate it to eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Many actions have no inherent moral properties. In fact, most of what we do has no moral significance at all and does not generate conditions for rebirth.

it is not the action but the intention behind the action which creates kamma. so, in your example, it wouldn't be the taking of the fruit that was an issue it would be the initial intention to take the fruit that would produce the beings kamma.

Ok, so how was the intention to partake of the Tree of Knowledge any different from the intention to take a piece of fruit from the bowl that's sitting on the kitchen table?

It is unclear whether evil was an issue in partaking of the Tree of Knowledge. Likewise, it is unclear whether the Eden situation gave Adam and Eve a chance to act in a way that would produce positive or negative karma. For one thing, Adam and Eve did not knowingly choose evil. They couldn't have because they didn't find out what evil was until after the fact. One might reasonably speculate that they would not have partaken of the fruit if they had been able to fully anticipate the consequences - i.e., getting banished from the Garden.

For Adam and Eve the fruit was a perceived good - something that would make them like God. Recall that Eve believed the serpent, who told her "...your eyes will be opened, and you will be like G-d, knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3:5) Note that the serpent did not deceive Eve when he told her "your eyes will be opened." It was an eye-opener - a valuable learning experience, albeit a costly one!

It appears Adam and Eve were doing what we all do: we try to improve on our situation by expanding the range of our capabilities. Is the wish to expand's one's personal powers inherently immoral? How is that a moral issue?

Perhaps Adam and Eve were merely acting out of curiosity. Again, how could they have made a moral choice if they didn't know the difference between good and evil until after they experienced the repercussions for their action? They didn't know that disobeying G-d would be a bad choice without those repercussions.

if our intentional actions, thoughts and words come arise with a sense of compassion for all beings and the like we generate what is called "bright" or positive karma

The Buddhist idea of compassion toward others is often construed as a desire for others' happiness. Compassion toward oneself can be seen as wanting happiness for onself. Accordingly, insofar that Adam and Eve intended their own happiness by partaking of the fruit, their action served to produce "bright" or positive karma. Yet they were punished with spiritual and physical death, among other things.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Nick A,

You said,

"Better yet,we should deal directly with the psychologial damage that has occured The question is how to do it."

--> I have seen Gestalt Therapy do wonders, and I highly recommend it. I am also writing a book on being needy, and I have come up with several ideas on how to make progress in the entire area of dealing with psychological damage. Also, a great psychic (who was near Enlightnment) once told me that we must deal with all of our emotional issues before we can enter Nirvana, and that makes a lot of sense to me.

"I agree the fall was necessary and original sin began as an inherited trait after the fall as a normal consequence of the loss of conscious inner unity."

--> I agree, but I see no reason to refer to it as any kind of sin.

"What Karmic action did we perform to warrant being on the wheel of samsara to begin with. If we can free ourselves of it why are we in it to begin with?"

--> Karma did not cause us to "be on the wheel of samsara to begin with." Rather, Karma is the result of us beginning our journey through samsara, and not knowing what we are doing.

"I'm not sure what you mean by Triple Logos and why it differs from the what the Holy Trinity represents."

--> I am only too glad to clear up the distinction. The Holy Trinity refers to the concept taught by Christianity. The Triple Logos refers to The Holy Trinity, but gives it a whole different set of characteristics. For example, in this theory, The Son is the Second Logos (not the Third Logos) and refers to our universe. Take a look at these Buddhist and Christian pictures, which refer to the very same thing:

The first picture is the Buddhist deity called Avalokiteshvara, also known as Kwan Yin. The second picture is the Christian deity called the Blessed Virgin Mary. Please note the similarities between the two pictures. Also, note that Kwan Yin is pouring water from a vase, while the Blessed Virgin Mary is holding Baby Jesus. It has been said that both water and Baby Jesus symbolize the same thing — our physical universe. Both pictures refer to the very same cosmic principles. Both Avalokiteshvara and the Blessed Virgin Mary symbolize the Second Logos.

"The trouble now is that the Trinity is out of fashion so any attempt to understand universal structure and human meaning and purpose must wait until fashion changes as it always does."

--> You may rest assured that some people understand the ‘structure’ of the Triple Logos, although there is not a large number of such people.

"If triple logos means what I think it does which is the relationship of three elemental forces, then it exists both within man and in the external world."

--> I agree. But I would say the Triple Logos is within us but it is still in a state of being developed.

"The wheat is what is real within us and the tares is acquired imagination or what you call the psychological crap."

--> That is one way to look at it. I have witnessed psychotherapy clients deal with painful memories from their childhood, and I have never heard of painful memories of child abuse referred to as "acquired imagination."

"There is the secular way and the transcendent way to get in touch with our emotions. Which do you prefer?"

--> A lot of people think we can use religious meditation to deal with the psychological damage they suffered as children. I disagree. I believe people have to deal with them in a more direct ("secular") way, through such things as therapy and assertiveness training, and I have seen these techniques do wonders.

"Our emotions and our intelligence are already united. The separation is between our conscious potential and the physical which our emotions keep separate."

--> Omigosh, I disagree. People who suffered abuse as children are nowhere near ready to unite their emotions and intelligence. I think most of us have yet to fully to unite our emotions and intelligence.

"Have you ever been exposed to Christianity or are you referring to Christendom?"

--> What is the difference between Christianity and Christendom?

"If one can come to the conscious experience of the self, that is all that is necessary."

--> I think that doing such a thing is impossible while we are still living in human bodies.

"The Christian God is ineffable. I believe that the Buddhist void is also the ineffable…."

--> That may be so, but I see the two as being quite different. The Christian God is said to be ‘mutable,’ that is, He can undergo changes. (In the Bible, God gets angry, which means he changes from a state of non-anger to a state of anger. I could never believe in a God that is mutable.) . The Buddhist void is said to be immutable, that is, it does not change (which makes a lot more sense to me).

"Christianity is unrelated to secular Judaism and its personal God."

--> Do you reject stories in Genesis, for example, where God creates Adam and Eve, then curses Eve because she is a woman, etc.?

 

[Netti-Netti]

The first picture is the Buddhist deity called Avalokiteshvara, also known as Kwan Yin. The second picture is the Christian deity called the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Please note the similarities between the two pictures. Also, note that Kwan Yin is pouring water from a vase, while the Blessed Virgin Mary is holding Baby Jesus. It has been said that both water and Baby Jesus symbolize the same thing — our physical universe. Both pictures refer to the very same cosmic principles. Both Avalokiteshvara and the Blessed Virgin Mary symbolize the Second Logos.

Avalokiteshvara is probably not anyone recognized in the original Buddhist teachings.

A lot of people think we can use meditation to deal with the psychological damage they suffered as children. I disagree. I believe people have to deal with them in a more direct ("secular") way, through such things as therapy and assertive training, and I have seen these techniques do wonders.

People don't take action unless they recognize and confront a problem. Meditation is a possible means to uncover issues to be addressed. Repression and lack of awareness is associated with blindly "acting out" and primitive psychological defenses like projection-denial, splitting, etc. which in turn lead to interpersonal conflict and other dysfunctions.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Netti-Netti,

You said,

"Avalokiteshvara is probably not anyone recognized in the original Buddhist teachings."

--> In what way? I agree that Avalokiteshvara is an anthropomorphised symbolization of a cosmic principle (just as Mary is), if that is what you mean.

 

[Netti-Netti]

"Avalokiteshvara is probably not anyone recognized in the original Buddhist teachings."

In what way? I agree that Avalokiteshvara is an anthropomorphised symbolization of a cosmic principle (just as Mary is), if that is what you mean.

It's appears to be from Tibetan Buddhism - which is arguably well outside the Buddha's teachings.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Netti-Netti,

I used to live at a Viet Namese Buddhist monastery in Hawai'i. They had a large statue of Kwan Yin in the courtyard. I also remember the Chinese Kwan Yin temple in downtown Honolulu. I suppose it is possible they got the idea of Kwan Yin from Tibetan Buddhism, but I doubt it.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Netti-Netti,

I used to live at a Viet Namese Buddhist monastery in Hawai'i. They had a large statue of Kwan Yin in the courtyard. I also remember the Chinese Kwan Yin temple in downtown Honolulu. I suppose it is possible they got the idea of Kwan Yin from Tibetan Buddhism, but I doubt it.

I dare say that most SE Asian, Japanese, and Chinese Buddhism is Mahayana - which was evolving principally during midieval times - long after Siddhartha.

I took the beliefnet test and supposedly I'm 100% Mahayana Buddhist. I'm interested in it and value it. But I appreciate that these teachings are not the original Buddha teachings and that they are separated by 1500 years.

 

[Nick_A]

Nick A,

You said,

"Better yet,we should deal directly with the psychologial damage that has occured The question is how to do it."

--> I have seen Gestalt Therapy do wonders, and I highly recommend it. I am also writing a book on being needy, and I have come up with several ideas on how to make progress in the entire area of dealing with psychological damage. Also, a great psychic (who was near Enlightnment) once told me that we must deal with all of our emotional issues before we can enter Nirvana, and that makes a lot of sense to me.

"I agree the fall was necessary and original sin began as an inherited trait after the fall as a normal consequence of the loss of conscious inner unity."

--> I agree, but I see no reason to refer to it as any kind of sin.

"What Karmic action did we perform to warrant being on the wheel of samsara to begin with. If we can free ourselves of it why are we in it to begin with?"

--> Karma did not cause us to "be on the wheel of samsara to begin with." Rather, Karma is the result of us beginning our journey through samsara, and not knowing what we are doing.

"I'm not sure what you mean by Triple Logos and why it differs from the what the Holy Trinity represents."

--> I am only too glad to clear up the distinction. The Holy Trinity refers to the concept taught by Christianity. The Triple Logos refers to The Holy Trinity, but gives it a whole different set of characteristics. For example, in this theory, The Son is the Second Logos (not the Third Logos) and refers to our universe. Take a look at these Buddhist and Christian pictures, which refer to the very same thing:

The first picture is the Buddhist deity called Avalokiteshvara, also known as Kwan Yin. The second picture is the Christian deity called the Blessed Virgin Mary. Please note the similarities between the two pictures. Also, note that Kwan Yin is pouring water from a vase, while the Blessed Virgin Mary is holding Baby Jesus. It has been said that both water and Baby Jesus symbolize the same thing — our physical universe. Both pictures refer to the very same cosmic principles. Both Avalokiteshvara and the Blessed Virgin Mary symbolize the Second Logos.

"The trouble now is that the Trinity is out of fashion so any attempt to understand universal structure and human meaning and purpose must wait until fashion changes as it always does."

--> You may rest assured that some people understand the ‘structure’ of the Triple Logos, although there is not a large number of such people.

"If triple logos means what I think it does which is the relationship of three elemental forces, then it exists both within man and in the external world."

--> I agree. But I would say the Triple Logos is within us but it is still in a state of being developed.

"The wheat is what is real within us and the tares is acquired imagination or what you call the psychological crap."

--> That is one way to look at it. I have witnessed psychotherapy clients deal with painful memories from their childhood, and I have never heard of painful memories of child abuse referred to as "acquired imagination."

"There is the secular way and the transcendent way to get in touch with our emotions. Which do you prefer?"

--> A lot of people think we can use religious meditation to deal with the psychological damage they suffered as children. I disagree. I believe people have to deal with them in a more direct ("secular") way, through such things as therapy and assertiveness training, and I have seen these techniques do wonders.

"Our emotions and our intelligence are already united. The separation is between our conscious potential and the physical which our emotions keep separate."

--> Omigosh, I disagree. People who suffered abuse as children are nowhere near ready to unite their emotions and intelligence. I think most of us have yet to fully to unite our emotions and intelligence.

"Have you ever been exposed to Christianity or are you referring to Christendom?"

--> What is the difference between Christianity and Christendom?

"If one can come to the conscious experience of the self, that is all that is necessary."

--> I think that doing such a thing is impossible while we are still living in human bodies.

"The Christian God is ineffable. I believe that the Buddhist void is also the ineffable…."

--> That may be so, but I see the two as being quite different. The Christian God is said to be ‘mutable,’ that is, He can undergo changes. (In the Bible, God gets angry, which means he changes from a state of non-anger to a state of anger. I could never believe in a God that is mutable.) . The Buddhist void is said to be immutable, that is, it does not change (which makes a lot more sense to me).

"Christianity is unrelated to secular Judaism and its personal God."

--> Do you reject stories in Genesis, for example, where God creates Adam and Eve, then curses Eve because she is a woman, etc.?

Nick the Pilot

I have seen Gestalt Therapy do wonders, and I highly recommend it. I am also writing a book on being needy, and I have come up with several ideas on how to make progress in the entire area of dealing with psychological damage. Also, a great psychic (who was near Enlightnment) once told me that we must deal with all of our emotional issues before we can enter Nirvana, and that makes a lot of sense to me.

Do you read any truth in what Simone Weil expresses in the following:

"Grace fills empty spaces, but it can only enter where there is a void to receive it We must continually suspend the work of the imagination in filling the void within ourselves."
"In no matter what circumstances, if the imagination is stopped from pouring itself out, we have a void (the poor in spirit). In no matter what circumstances... imagination can fill the void. This is why the average human beings can become prisoners, slaves, prostitutes, and pass thru no matter what suffering without being purified."

Gestalt Therapy has the potential IMO to allow for a temporary state free of imagination. I say potential because knowing "experts" as I do, they will find a way to turn it into its opposite.

--> I agree, but I see no reason to refer to it as any kind of sin.

What is so offensive about the concept of sin? It means "missing the mark." If ones intent is to follow the teaching in pursuit of the greater good and takes a wrong turn, they are missing the mark. What is so bad about admitting the obvious?

Karma did not cause us to "be on the wheel of samsara to begin with." Rather, Karma is the result of us beginning our journey through samsara, and not knowing what we are doing.

But why begin a journey through samsara if they've reached the goal of Buddhism? What is it that begins the journey if we don't have a soul?

--> I am only too glad to clear up the distinction. The Holy Trinity refers to the concept taught by Christianity. The Triple Logos refers to The Holy Trinity, but gives it a whole different set of characteristics. For example, in this theory, The Son is the Second Logos (not the Third Logos) and refers to our universe. Take a look at these Buddhist and Christian pictures, which refer to the very same.

I see this as an essential mistake since the Holy spirit is not mentioned. Cosmology makes it much easier for me to understand the Spirit. Within creation the Father is outside time and space while the son is within creation. They are connected by the Spirit.

Within Creation, the Son becomes the Father in relation to Man and they are connected by the spirit. As fallen Man, we lack this connection. the whole purpose of Christianity is to re-establish this relationship and build on it.

--> That is one way to look at it. I have witnessed psychotherapy clients deal with painful memories from their childhood, and I have never heard of painful memories of child abuse referred to as "acquired imagination."

But regardless, it is what it is.

A lot of people think we can use religious meditation to deal with the psychological damage they suffered as children. I disagree. I believe people have to deal with them in a more direct ("secular") way, through such things as therapy and assertiveness training, and I have seen these techniques do wonders.

I agree but that is not to say that for people capable of what Christianity describes as "apatheia" and the ability through conscious self knowledge to see the block for what it is that it couldn't be cleared. For the vast majority incapable of this, I agree that the secular is the way to go.

Omigosh, I disagree. People who suffered abuse as children are nowhere near ready to unite their emotions and intelligence. I think most of us have yet to fully to unite our emotions and intelligence.

You don't seem to discriminate between consciousness and how we define intelligence so we are really referring to different things. Our intelligence can be built on inner lies but consciousness is direct affirmation. When inner lies are dominant, we cannot have presence. Our intelligence is partially determined by our negative emotions.

--> What is the difference between Christianity and Christendom?

Christendom is man made Christianity and uses a different quality of energy normal for the earth. Father Sylvan expresses it well:

"Christianity does not work with either mechanical or psychic energy, but with a different level of force to which the name 'spirit' or 'spiritual energy' is given. The same is true of all god given teachings. Christianity becomes Christendom when it begins to revolve around psychic, biological and mechanical energies, no matter how much it retains the language and forms which were originally created to channel spiritual energy."

It is safe to say that within society we only know Christendom and Christianity, if it exists, is hidden as it must to preserve its purity for those making the efforts to find it.

That may be so, but I see the two as being quite different. The Christian God is said to be ‘mutable,’ that is, He can undergo changes. (In the Bible, God gets angry, which means he changes from a state of non-anger to a state of anger. I could never believe in a God that is mutable.) . The Buddhist void is said to be immutable, that is, it does not change (which makes a lot more sense to me).

How can the ineffable be mutable? If we detect change, it is no longer ineffable.

Do you reject stories in Genesis, for example, where God creates Adam and Eve, then curses Eve because she is a woman, etc.?

The old Testament is often karma with a face on it. I forget the amount but I do know that there are a great deal of Hebrew names for God all describing a function. Describing something by function is really expressing karmic relationships.

The universe is also partially maintained by demiurge and the story of Adam and Eve IMO is a description of a necessary demiurgic influence

 

[seattlegal]

Namaste seattlegal,

thank you for the post.



karma is only produced by intentions, so actions without intention, say an accident, does not produce karma. now.. regarding the think it's good bit... if our intentional actions, thoughts and words come arise with a sense of compassion for all beings and the like we generate what is called "bright" or positive karma. intentional actions, thoughts and words which arise from avarice, jealousy and such produce "dark" or negative karma.

indeed, unintentional actions, thoughts and words can produce dukkha.

metta,

~v

OK, this is starting to make some sense. Thich Nhat Hanh related mindfulness with being filled with the Holy Spirit in Living Buddha, Living Christ. (This makes sense from both a Zen standpoint and a Quaker standpoint.) When you look at it from this standpoint, then karma would be analogous to Christianity's 'sinning against the Spirit.'

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Nick A,

You asked,

"Do you read any truth in what Simone Weil expresses in the following: 'Grace fills empty spaces, but it can only enter where there is a void to receive it...."

--> No, for two reasons.

(1) The word "Grace" does not exist within my belief system. The closest thing to it would be "Buddha-nature." However, the two do not mean the same thing.

(2) There is no void that does not already contain Buddha-nature. The idea that Grace seeks to 'fill empty spaces,' while Buddha-nature does not is a key difference between my belief system and yours.

"This is why the average human beings can become prisoners, slaves, prostitutes, and pass through no matter what suffering without being purified."

--> I have the same viewpoint in my belief system. However, there is a difference in my belief system, in that such people are benefiting from burning off bad karma, while in your belief system they do not. I like my belief system because it makes sense to me.

"Gestalt Therapy has the potential IMO to allow for a temporary state free of imagination."

--> I have watched Gestalt Therapy make some pretty permanent changes, changes for the better. I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this one.

"What is so offensive about the concept of sin? It means "missing the mark."

--> I have three responses.

(1) Sin is what happens when God gets mad at people -- sorry, the idea that all woman born after Eve are cursed just because they had the 'misfortune' (ha) to be born female just does not make sense to me.

(2) Original Sin is something bad I did a long time ago, and we are basically bad until we make ourselves good -- another concept I cannot accept because I believe we are basically good not bad.

(3) Sin is what happens when people hear about Jesus but choose not to follow him -- this says that Hitler went to Heaven and Mahatma Gandhi went to Hell, something that makes no sense to me.

"If ones intent is to follow the teaching in pursuit of the greater good and takes a wrong turn, they are missing the mark."

--> This is similar to what I believe. When someone goes out and intentionally does a bad thing, they have delayed themselves progress along the path to Enlightenment. More correctly, they have caused themselves to lose progress along the Path. I think you and I agree on this one, we just label our concepts with different names.

"But why begin a journey through samsara if they've reached the goal of Buddhism?"

--> Because the only way to get to Nirvana is through Samsara. There is no other way. It is not a system I am fond of, but it is the only system we have.

"What is it that begins the journey if we don't have a soul?"

--> I believe we have a soul. (I am not a Buddhist. The Buddhist concept of no-soul forced me to stop calling myself a Buddhist a long time ago.)

"I see this as an essential mistake since the Holy spirit is not mentioned."

--> My Triple Logos makes sense to me because it is Father-Mother-Son, not Father-Son-Spirit. Father is spirit, Mother is matter, and together they create the Son, which is our physical universe. The way I see it, the Mother has to come before the Son (which it does, in my belief system).

"Within creation the Father is outside time and space while the son is within creation."

--> I agree, although I would say the Son (our universe) is creation. The Father and Mother have had other Sons -- there are been other universes, and there will be other universes after this one.

"They are connected by the Spirit."

--> No, they are connected by the Mother. Father is Spirit.

"Within Creation, the Son becomes the Father in relation to Man and they are connected by the spirit. As fallen Man, we lack this connection. the whole purpose of Christianity is to re-establish this relationship and build on it."

--> That is a fascinating way to look at it.

(1) Why do you consider such a situation to be a sin and bad? It sounds like the process you describe is a good thing, not a bad thing.

(2) I disagree with your idea, because it assumes that we are not the Son. In my belief system, we are the Son. In my belief sytem. we have been intentionally separated from Spirit, and that act of separation was a good thing, not a bad thing, a "sin." The purpose is to reestablish connection with Spirit, which is the Father, not the Son.

"...consciousness is direct affirmation."

--> This is exactly the process that Gestalt Therapy uses.

"When inner lies are dominant, we cannot have presence."

--> I agree.

"How can the ineffable be mutable? If we detect change, it is no longer ineffable."

--> Then God is not ineffable.

"The old Testament is often karma with a face on it."

--> So all women are cursed to be born female, because it is their bad karma? Such a curse is "a function of karmic relationships?"