Salvation and Belief

CobblersApprentice said:
Obviously not deeply enough to know it is a "sutta" rather than a "suffa"......:) Typo?
Click to expand...

:oops: I need to get new glasses. Obviously I am not familiar with the term "sutta".

CobblersApprentice said:
If you are interested I will try to explain any "technical" terms you are having trouble with. During my own reading of countless texts, holy or not, inspired by G!d or not, I have often come up against "technical terms". There are now many ways of looking them up, if we are at all interested. Interested in INTER-FAITH dialogue that is..
Click to expand...

If I wasn't interested in interfaith dialogue, I wouldn't be here :)
So far, your posts have not particularly inspired me, but I intend to carry on reading them.
It is difficult to be interested in other people's beliefs, if they can't explain in a simple manner their reasons for, and intentions behind what they follow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
CobblersApprentice said:
Hi Ahanu, no, I did not say you did say that about human consciousness.
Click to expand...

That's how I understand the following:

CobblersApprentice said:
"When consciousness ends in the skull, how can joy exist?" asks the Blue Cliff Record, a zen compendium of koans.
Click to expand...

CobblersApprentice said:
For is it not an extraordinary act of human hubris - literally a hubris of cosmic proportions - to assume that the exclusive source of ALL MEANING AND PURPOSE IN THE UNIVERSE is ultimately centered in the human mind, which is therefore absolutely unique and special and in this sense superior to the entire cosmos? To assume that the universe utterly lacks.........what we human beings conspicuously possess? To assume that the part somehow radically differs from and transcends the whole?

"Whoever told people that 'Mind' means thoughts, opinions, ideas, and concepts? Mind means trees, fence posts, tiles and grasses"
(Dogen)
Click to expand...
 
muhammad_isa said:
:oops: I need to get new glasses. Obviously I am not familiar with the term "sutta".



If I wasn't interested in interfaith dialogue, I wouldn't be here :)
So far, your posts have not particularly inspired me, but I intend to carry on reading them.
It is difficult to be interested in other people's beliefs, if they can't explain in a simple manner their reasons for, and intentions behind what they follow.
Click to expand...

Really I am not seeking to inspire anyone. As I have posted many times, I write primarily to clarify my own mind.

However, I have also posted many times, in simple language, that my primary Faith is in Grace. Trust. All flows from that.

I am sorry if you find that difficult to comprehend.
 
Ahanu said:
I think Dogen's words are throwing me off here in combination with the other quotes, like the koan. I am really not sure about his meaning.
Click to expand...

Join the club, however I do see all the quotes as illuminating each other, and as being relevant to your original post.
 
muhammad_isa said:
It is difficult to be interested in other people's beliefs, if they can't explain in a simple manner their reasons for, and intentions behind what they follow.
Click to expand...

Reason:- I experience Dukkha......stress.........anguish.......suffering.

Next:- the Buddha states many times throughout the various Texts :- "I teach this and this alone, dukkha and the ending of dukkha"

Next:- this gains my interest. I have the intention to live "the holy life", to walk the path.

Next:- I learn from various sources that the Dharma (i.e. in this context, The Buddhist Teachings as a whole) are described by the Pali word ehipassiko, often translated as "come and see (for oneself)"

Next:- I have gone to see, for myself.

Result:- I now experience Faith/Trust from which all flows.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ahanu said:
Yet there's a qualitative gulf between the facts of neurophysiology and your own subjective experience . .
Click to expand...

If subjective experience is what is meant by "consciousness", which I'm in full agreement with, then I still don't see how that would lead to intersubjective, cosmic consciousness.

Ahanu said:
In other words, how can a part of the whole (our capacity for self-reflection) possess a quality the whole (the universe) lacks? How can inanimate and aimless matter be changed into the opposite of what atheists tell us matter is?
Click to expand...

The particles which make up my body have properties which my body lacks, for example, my body can not instantly jump from one location to another, but the electrons in my body do that all the time when they change energy states.

I'm not into materialistic reductionism, as I said I am very much interested in subjective experience.

Still, I believe you may be underestimating matter when you call it inanimate and aimless. What little I know about matter and the processes it engages in, it is highly creative and able to organize into systems which are capable of self-reflection, like ourselves.
 
To @Ahanu :- I was just a little preoccupied previously trying to cook our Sunday Dinner under the express instructions and dictat of She Who Must Be Obeyed. However, I now have more time.

To begin, you posted (and asked) "how can a part of the whole possess a quality the whole lacks".

I agreed with what I understood to be your own conclusion. i.e. It cannot. I thus "liked" your post.

I then sought to illuminate both our conclusions by the quotes I posted.

To me, that of Richard Tarnas is perfectly intelligible in this context.

The quote from the Blue Cliff Record is again, for me, virtually self-explanatory. If the "part", our reflective self-consciousness (mind) exists only in our own skull then how can joy exist? Thus, there being "joy", the "part" asserted to is part of the whole.

The Dogen quote for me, in this instance (although I find his thought complex and often beyond me) substantiates the self same viewpoint i.e. that in fact, "part" and "whole" are in some sense "one". As within, so without. That our mind is not simply restricted to "thoughts/concepts" (within only) but is in fact inter-twined with all Reality.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CobblersApprentice said:
Reason:- I experience Dukkha......stress.........anguish.......suffering.
...
Result:- I now experience Faith/Trust from which all flows.
Click to expand...

Thankyou for your reply.
You are not alone .. I also experience stress & suffering.
Does my religion help? Yes .. but it doesn't eliminate it.
I find it hard to get a balance between withdrawing from the world and being part of it.

I blame the world more than anything else ;)
 
CobblersApprentice said:
..The quote from the Blue Cliff Record is again, for me, virtually self-explanatory. If the "part", our reflective self-consciousness (mind) exists only in our own skull then how can joy exist? Thus, there being "joy", the "part" asserted to is part of the whole.

The Dogen quote for me, in this instance (although I find his thought complex and often beyond me) substantiates the self same viewpoint i.e. that in fact, "part" and "whole" are in some sense "one". As within, so without. That our mind is not simply restricted to "thoughts/concepts" (within only) but is in fact inter-twined with all Reality.
Click to expand...

Indeed .. How's about "Within you without you - by The Beatles"
You see .. I am human ;)
 
muhammad_isa said:
Thankyou for your reply.
You are not alone .. I also experience stress & suffering.
Does my religion help? Yes .. but it doesn't eliminate it.
I find it hard to get a balance between withdrawing from the world and being part of it.

I blame the world more than anything else ;)
Click to expand...

I would just say that as I now understand Buddhism, it is not so much about eliminating suffering as of understanding it. This because dukkha is not one side of life, with joy and pleasure on the other side, but more the underlying reality of all life. Thus the ending of it does not lead to any "opposite" then becoming the only reality, but in fact leads to a "transcending", a no-position - the Buddhist "middle way" (This not a position between two extremes)

"Be not conformed to this world". Yet we must love it, as being part of it. IMO.
 
Arif Ghamiq said:
I think the divisions of the Muslims are un-Islamic
Click to expand...
Have you heard about this headline?

Why Are Some Muslim Countries Standing in Solidarity With China ...
https://www.vice.com/.../why-are-some-muslim-countries-standing-in-solidarity-with-...2 days ago - Political power and economic motivations are compelling reasons for Muslim nations to continue their support, despite China's persecution of ...

Muslim nations are defending China as it cracks down on Muslims ...
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/17/asia/uyghurs-muslim-countries-china-intl/index.html 4 days ago - Last week, a number of Muslim-majority countries praised China's human rights record, dismissing reports of a widespread crackdown on ...

China Thanks 37 Countries, Including Islamic States, for Praising Its ...
https://www.cnsnews.com/.../china-thanks-37-countries-including-islamic-states-praisi...6 days ago - China Thanks 37 Countries, Including Islamic States, for Praising Its ... countries had signed a letter supporting China's policies in Xinjiang.

China: 22 states slam Muslim oppression; Islamic nations don't join ...
https://www.businessinsider.com/china-joint-letter-condemn-muslim-oppression-no-isl...Jul 12, 2019 - 22 countries signed an 'unprecedented' letter condemning China's .... but would certainly like to have seen support from the Muslim world." ...


Very confusing.
 
CobblersApprentice said:
I would just say that as I now understand Buddhism, it is not so much about eliminating suffering as of understanding it. This because dukkha is not one side of life, with joy and pleasure on the other side, but more the underlying reality of all life. Thus the ending of it does not lead to any "opposite" then becoming the only reality, but in fact leads to a "transcending", a no-position - the Buddhist "middle way" (This not a position between two extremes)

"Be not conformed to this world". Yet we must love it, as being part of it. IMO.
Click to expand...

As some tell me that I am often not understood, a few more words. I do post to clarify my own mind, I do not seek to teach or "inspire".

But to try to make the above post clearer:-

In Christianity, so I am told, we "sin because we are sinners", we are not "sinners because we sin". I hope others do see the difference. I'm not really that bright and I can. The consequence is that we cannot overcome being "sinners" by doing a good deed. We cannot "justify" ourselves. The only acceptable good deeds (to G!d) are those "done in Christ", when the self has surrendered and lives by Grace, the "work" of G!d in us.

Just so, in Buddhism, we are not free of dukkha when we enjoy a drink or experience moments of pleasure. Dukkha is what we are, what we are in all our seeing; dukkha is that in which we live and move and have our being. In Buddhism our "seeing" must be in/with "wisdom" ("wisdom" defined as "the mind/heart, thirsting for emancipation, seeing direct into the heart of reality") just as a Christian must be "in Christ". For Buddhism, the Mahayana phrase is "Samsara (this world of birth and death) is nirvana." Easily misunderstood. But IMO it has to do with "suffering" (dukkha) not so much ending as being understood. In that understanding is the transformation.

IMO there are correspondences here. This is what Inter-faith dialogue is all about, we are seeking to learn and understand from each other.

To finish, IMO, this all involves pure acceptance which, in my own limited experience, leads not to a passive state, but is the catalyst of genuine transformation. Pure acceptance = grace.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CobblersApprentice said:
IMO there are correspondences here. This is what Inter-faith dialogue is all about, we are seeking to learn and understand from each other.
Click to expand...
Communication is not something that can be done passively. Where there is greater distance between understanding, there needs to be a quicker feedback loop from both/all sides. Gathering our experiences into the written word is hard work!
 
A Cup Of Tea said:
Communication is not something that can be done passively. Where there is greater distance between understanding, there needs to be a quicker feedback loop from both/all sides. Gathering our experiences into the written word is hard work!
Click to expand...

To be honest, more often than not I just begin waffling with very little, if anything, pre-planned. Sometimes I have more time than others. "Gathering my experiences into the written word" at that level is quite easy - at least I find it so. Clarity, if there finally is any, comes later for me in small moments.... "Glimpses" as I think you called them.

And as I have said, in a sense I am talking to myself. What form of communication is that?

I may as well end with yet another quote, again from Thomas Merton, which in a way I can identify with:-

I have tried to learn in my writing a monastic lesson I could probably have not learned otherwise: to let go of my idea of myself, to take myself with more than one grain of salt................In religious terms, this is simply a matter of accepting life, and everything in life as a gift, and clinging to none of it, as far as you are able. You give some of it to others, if you can. Yet one should be able to share things with others without bothering too much about how they like it, either, or how they accept it. Assume they will accept it, if they need it. And if they don't need it, why should they accept it? That is their business. Let me accept what is mine and give them all their share, and go my way.
All life tends to grow like this, in mystery inscaped with paradox and contradiction, yet centered in its very heart, on the divine mercy.........."
 
The other side of the coin, the posts of others, I try to read every word of any thread I am involved in and, ideally, make no judgement of any kind as I do so. This is where "no-calculation" comes in. Sometimes a phrase or an idea will reverberate at some level later.

But seriously, my only practice is the Nembutsu....thank you, thank you, thank you. Trust. Thanks. Grace.
 
muhammad_isa said:
I wouldn't put it like that..
I would say that our deeds are unacceptable without sincerity of intention.
Click to expand...

Well, I was seeking to give my understanding of the general Christian theological position.

As I have explained elsewhere, for Pure Landers "sincerity" is bestowed by Amida, even Faith itself.

Faith does not arise
Within oneself
The entrusting heart is itself
Given by the Other Power

(Rennyo)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top