A spiritual person is...

[earl]

"Right understanding" is simply being fully aware of the 3 "marks of existence:"
What Are The Three Marks Of Reality With Buddhism? earl

 

[seattlegal]

"wrong" itself is a perception, a view.

What does Buddha have to say about views?

OK, let's explore "perception" now.
(AN 9.16) Sañña Sutta: Perception
(entire sutta)

"Monks, these nine perceptions, when developed & pursued, are of great fruit, of great benefit. They gain a footing in the deathless and have the deathless as their final end. Which nine?
"The perception of unattractiveness (of the body), the perception of death, the perception of the foulness in food, the perception of no-delight in any world, the perception of inconstancy, the perception of stress in inconstancy, the perception of not-self in stress, the perception of abandoning, the perception of dispassion.
"These nine perceptions, when developed & pursued, are of great fruit, of great benefit. They gain a footing in the deathless and have the deathless as their final end."​

These perceptions are referred to as beneficial. It is not perceptions, but desire-passion in regards to perceptions which are considered as defilements of the mind and awareness.

Upakkilesa Samyutta: Defilements

SN 27.6: Sañña Sutta — Perception

At Savatthi. "Monks, any desire-passion with regard to perception (naming, labeling) of forms is a defilement of the mind. Any desire-passion with regard to perception of sounds... perception of aromas... perception of flavors... perception of tactile sensations... perception of ideas is a defilement of the mind. When, with regard to these six bases, the defilements of awareness are abandoned, then the mind is inclined to renunciation. The mind fostered by renunciation feels malleable for the direct knowing of those qualities worth realizing."​

 

[Thomas]

I have chosen my words for a reason, however you are correct, it would be ultimate selflessness in reality.

OK. It's axiomatic that a vice can never be made a virtue. What people perceive as 'selfish' in a good person is invariably an act directed towards a higher good or better end that was not seen at the time. It cannot be selfish, if it is, it is not good, nor is it justifiable.

I would rather not touch on what the Catholic tradition has to say on the matter, I feel organized religion is more political than religious and thus have very negative feelings towards it.

That's a shame, because it means you miss the reality of what a religion is saying, and what it is doing, having been caught up in external appearances.

The higher realms are not haphazard, nor chaotic, nor anarchic ... so a true religion will always be 'organised'. Coming at it another way, 'disorganised religion' (or, indeed, that modern misnomer: 'personal religion') cannot help but be haphazard, etc.

I have experienced it, although you are correct, there is no notion of separation in this state.

Difficult to say what you have experienced without a context.

Revelation is not the 'flight of the alone to the alone', that's philosophy. For example in Buddhism you have the Sangha, in Christianity the Mystical Body. "No man is an island" as Shakespeare said ... humanity is a community, and will not realise the fullness of its being until it attains that, impossible as it may seem.

To teach others, you must return to the previous state...

Oh, no, no, no! That's the road to ruin. If you return to a prior state, a lower state, then you're worse off than when you were there before — you become subject to that state, and worse — the sacra doctrina of the world is full of warnings against just such an apparent act of generosity.

You must remain who you are, and bring them to you. Any other way will destroy you in the end. (Christ and Buddha mixed with all and every, but remained themselves at all times.)

however for instance the story of Buddha's death shows he essentially maintained this state permanently.

The story of the Resurrection reveals an even greater mysery — but then the Buddha was just a man.

He chose when he would leave this earth, and he chose based on the state of his physical body and its inability to continue in this place.

The Risen Christ is Master of His corporeality ... and more, He is master of how His corporeality is seen, or not seen.

They can experience it, they merely choose to be ignorant of it.

They can only experience it according to the capacity of their faculties, so yes, but their experience will be provisional, secondary, relative, ephemeral ... and that also determines yours, the cosmos being the way it is.

They might be aware that 'something is going on' but they will not experience what you experience, but the point is your experience is still relative and conditional. Profound, and the earth might well shift on its axis (which, in a way, it does) but none the less ...

Of course, obviously my experience was not permanent, but this speaks of my own journey, there are many instances of people which have maintained this permanently.

And I bet they all belonged to a religion ... for as every Master asserts, the fulness is only realisable under the cover of a Tradition, at the very least it provides a sense-check.

Buddhism, for example, has a very rich tradition of teaching the adherent to ignore all signs and experiences as ephemeral, and sometimes actually the ego produces them to derail you (Christianity does the same) ... many people, who have chosen to 'go their own way' are, by definition, stepping into the dark, 'the blind leading the blind' ... how can it be otherwise?

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Lunitik]

One must have a means by which to discern reality from delusion, no?

When you are free from all bias, is this really necessary? When you can still the mind and simply observe that which is around you as it truly is, there should be no discernment at all. To discern itself is a process of mind, the very act distracts from observing the present completely, it is another distraction.

 

[Lunitik]

OK, let's explore "perception" now.
(AN 9.16) Sañña Sutta: Perception
(entire sutta)

"Monks, these nine perceptions, when developed & pursued, are of great fruit, of great benefit. They gain a footing in the deathless and have the deathless as their final end. Which nine?
"The perception of unattractiveness (of the body), the perception of death, the perception of the foulness in food, the perception of no-delight in any world, the perception of inconstancy, the perception of stress in inconstancy, the perception of not-self in stress, the perception of abandoning, the perception of dispassion.
"These nine perceptions, when developed & pursued, are of great fruit, of great benefit. They gain a footing in the deathless and have the deathless as their final end."​

These perceptions are referred to as beneficial. It is not perceptions, but desire-passion in regards to perceptions which are considered as defilements of the mind and awareness.

Upakkilesa Samyutta: Defilements

SN 27.6: Sañña Sutta — Perception

At Savatthi. "Monks, any desire-passion with regard to perception (naming, labeling) of forms is a defilement of the mind. Any desire-passion with regard to perception of sounds... perception of aromas... perception of flavors... perception of tactile sensations... perception of ideas is a defilement of the mind. When, with regard to these six bases, the defilements of awareness are abandoned, then the mind is inclined to renunciation. The mind fostered by renunciation feels malleable for the direct knowing of those qualities worth realizing."​

As I have pointed out, nirvana means "nothing", if you are nothing, who is perceiving?

 

[Lunitik]

OK. It's axiomatic that a vice can never be made a virtue. What people perceive as 'selfish' in a good person is invariably an act directed towards a higher good or better end that was not seen at the time. It cannot be selfish, if it is, it is not good, nor is it justifiable.

You have misinterpreted, I do not know how to better explain.

That's a shame, because it means you miss the reality of what a religion is saying, and what it is doing, having been caught up in external appearances.

The higher realms are not haphazard, nor chaotic, nor anarchic ... so a true religion will always be 'organised'. Coming at it another way, 'disorganised religion' (or, indeed, that modern misnomer: 'personal religion') cannot help but be haphazard, etc.

I assure you I have not missed the reality of religion at all, I have experienced it directly rather than depending on another persons experience to deliver my own salvation. I have walked the path of Christ rather than merely devoted myself to him.

The higher realms might not be any of the things you list, however it will always come across this way when the people of the earth encounter it. How do you think the Jews perceived Christ demolishing their synagogue? We already know how they perceived his message overall, how his mission was received. It is not that "higher realms" are this way, it is that man is stuck in his ways and that the messenger will often break with this. If Christ were to return, do you think the Church would accept him if even one thing was changed about his message? They would refuse it because they are not devoted to Christ but rather their tradition.

Difficult to say what you have experienced without a context.

I have mentioned it here, and throughout this thread.

Revelation is not the 'flight of the alone to the alone', that's philosophy. For example in Buddhism you have the Sangha, in Christianity the Mystical Body. "No man is an island" as Shakespeare said ... humanity is a community, and will not realise the fullness of its being until it attains that, impossible as it may seem.

So, you are saying Christ had peers prior to his resurrection? God has a peer? When you have no peer, no amount of relations will ever fulfill you because you see yourself as above them all. There is never a true communion between the parties. The Buddhist Sangha is a group of peers, the enlightened few, but has been expanded to refer to all Buddhists by those that do not wish to view it as exclusive. I do not see a single Christian that has attained the "mystical body", but I do not see how this is possible due to its inherent duality. I can sense the advancement of Hindu's and Buddhists, every Christian I have met is as dead, as a table, they are all asleep. Christianity inherently makes true, complete community impossible, for it is founded on a mountain of duality and so Christians look into the world segregating everything. There are few exceptions I have encountered for this, but this generally stems from those that venture outside the rules of the faith.

Oh, no, no, no! That's the road to ruin. If you return to a prior state, a lower state, then you're worse off than when you were there before — you become subject to that state, and worse — the sacra doctrina of the world is full of warnings against just such an apparent act of generosity.

You must remain who you are, and bring them to you. Any other way will destroy you in the end. (Christ and Buddha mixed with all and every, but remained themselves at all times.)


The story of the Resurrection reveals an even greater mysery — but then the Buddha was just a man.


The Risen Christ is Master of His corporeality ... and more, He is master of how His corporeality is seen, or not seen.


They can only experience it according to the capacity of their faculties, so yes, but their experience will be provisional, secondary, relative, ephemeral ... and that also determines yours, the cosmos being the way it is.

They might be aware that 'something is going on' but they will not experience what you experience, but the point is your experience is still relative and conditional. Profound, and the earth might well shift on its axis (which, in a way, it does) but none the less ...


And I bet they all belonged to a religion ... for as every Master asserts, the fulness is only realisable under the cover of a Tradition, at the very least it provides a sense-check.

Buddhism, for example, has a very rich tradition of teaching the adherent to ignore all signs and experiences as ephemeral, and sometimes actually the ego produces them to derail you (Christianity does the same) ... many people, who have chosen to 'go their own way' are, by definition, stepping into the dark, 'the blind leading the blind' ... how can it be otherwise?

God bless,

Thomas

trying to remember what this is in response to, hold on

 

[seattlegal]

As I have pointed out, nirvana means "nothing", if you are nothing, who is perceiving?

Hmm, I always thought it meant "to blow out" or "to extinguish."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca3/nibbana.html

 

[Lunitik]

cont. since the forum won't let me edit the other post again

Oh, no, no, no! That's the road to ruin. If you return to a prior state, a lower state, then you're worse off than when you were there before — you become subject to that state, and worse — the sacra doctrina of the world is full of warnings against just such an apparent act of generosity.

It is inevitable, even simple things like conversing with others, you must begin diversifying thought again. I find it interesting that you condemn generosity here, however, Buddha was never going to teach once he reached enlightenment. Upon the pleading of Brahma or Yehweh if you prefer, he decided to return to the world and show the way. Without Buddha accepting this plea, there would not be Buddhism in the world. This will be controversial, but whether you say Jesus was an Essene or practicing Buddhist monk, it becomes difficult to see how he could have delivered his message without this generosity of the Buddha. Sufi's would not exist, tantra and many forms of yoga would never have come into the world. Buddha's teachings have been adopted by the faithful of every faith, what would these faiths look like today without the generosity of Buddha? I would not like to think of it.

You must remain who you are, and bring them to you. Any other way will destroy you in the end. (Christ and Buddha mixed with all and every, but remained themselves at all times.)

This shows a fundamental ignorance, Buddha taught nirvana - nothing. In this state, there is no you to remain as, merely thinking about how to convey their higher state requires leaving the prior state for this state consists of no-mind.

The story of the Resurrection reveals an even greater mysery — but then the Buddha was just a man.

You will not like this, but I think the stories of the resurrection show that Jesus was not enlightened at all. I think he had experienced what Buddhists call satori, but before sending Judas off he is depicted begging for his life. On the cross, he asks why the father has forsaken him. These are ego and dualistic statements respectively. You must take on faith that he rose again, but certainly this isn't even the most gruesome death a man of God has been subjected to. A Sufi had each joint of each limb removed one by one, then had his eyes gauged out. Rather than the response of Christ - begging for life - he smiled and said this isn't him they are killing. This is an enlightened man, Jesus is certainly debatable as enlightened.

The Risen Christ is Master of His corporeality ... and more, He is master of how His corporeality is seen, or not seen.

You make the assumption here that I believe Christ rose again after dying, certainly I do not believe anyone can die after such a short time on the cross. Many surmise that on the cross, Christ reached what is called Samadhi. This would explain why he appeared dead, and also explains his glorified body. In this state, breathing seems to stop completely and there is a vast and very perceivable energy acquitted with it, the apostles would have been quite stunned by this. It would certainly, under these circumstances, to say the Jesus died and was reborn as something higher. Outside of this explanation I do not believe the resurrection is plausible at all.

They can only experience it according to the capacity of their faculties, so yes, but their experience will be provisional, secondary, relative, ephemeral ... and that also determines yours, the cosmos being the way it is.

This is what your faith tells you to distract you from attempting it at all. You believe Jesus is special somehow, and thus attaining his station is not seen as possible to you. There is nothing particularly special about Jesus other than what he has practiced - perhaps through Buddha's teachings as many have posited.

They might be aware that 'something is going on' but they will not experience what you experience, but the point is your experience is still relative and conditional. Profound, and the earth might well shift on its axis (which, in a way, it does) but none the less ...

There is nothing relative about it, for there is nothing to relate... all becomes one.

And I bet they all belonged to a religion ... for as every Master asserts, the fulness is only realisable under the cover of a Tradition, at the very least it provides a sense-check.

A religion, certainly, but never an organized religion, usually an esoteric school. This pertains to a direct communion with a living master, you must devote utterly your entire being to this master to attain his station. His teachings will always be based on tradition, for this simply makes it easier to convey a message. There will be significant differences based on what is necessary for the student, though.

Buddhism, for example, has a very rich tradition of teaching the adherent to ignore all signs and experiences as ephemeral, and sometimes actually the ego produces them to derail you (Christianity does the same) ... many people, who have chosen to 'go their own way' are, by definition, stepping into the dark, 'the blind leading the blind' ... how can it be otherwise?

It is funny that you speak of the Buddha in this example, since Buddha himself attained through going his own way, by the blind leading the blind. How can this state be realized in the first place without someone attaining without guidance? I suppose the Christian would insist that it is possible through God, but certainly the Buddhist would say this is unnecessary.

 

[Lunitik]

Hmm, I always thought it meant "to blow out" or "to extinguish."

Nibbana: nibbana

This is from a Buddhist perspective, I am talking about the word itself, the Pali definition separate from Buddhism. Many people attempt to translate it in Buddhist context, arriving at things like you have linked, or most simply 'unbound', but it was a common word in the Pali language.

If you read your link, I think it is quite clear they are actually referring to a state where there is nothing, so dispute of definition is irrelevant really.

 

[Lunitik]

Buddha has stated that some view his teaching as nihilistic, I think that the way Buddhists explain nirvana in other languages conveys this sensitivity. To say the goal of Buddhism is a state of utter nothingness, it flirts quite closely with this train of thought. This is to show ignorance, but then many will look into the purpose before they ever consider the teaching so ignorance is very likely when understanding nirvana for the first time.

 

[seattlegal]

This is from a Buddhist perspective, I am talking about the word itself, the Pali definition separate from Buddhism. Many people attempt to translate it in Buddhist context, arriving at things like you have linked, or most simply 'unbound', but it was a common word in the Pali language.

OK

.The Pali Text Society's Pali-English dictionary
Nibbāna : (page 362)

(see vāyati) refers only to the (non-- ) emittance of an odour, which could never be used for a meaning of "being exhausted"; moreover, one has to bear in mind that native commentators themselves never thought of explaining nibbāna by anything like blowing (vāta), but always by nis+vana (see nibbana). For Bdhgh's defn of nibbāna see e. g. Vism 293. -- The meanings of n. are: 1. the going out of a lamp or fire (popular meaning). -- 2. health, the sense of bodily well-- being (probably, at first, the passing away of feverishness, restlessness). --​

If you read your link, I think it is quite clear they are actually referring to a state where there is nothing, so dispute of definition is irrelevant really.

Um, it looks to be like it is used as a state of freedom, rather than bondage. I would say that is not the same as a state of "nothingness."

It seems closer to the Christian concept of being released from being slaves of the flesh.

 

[Thomas]

I assure you I have not missed the reality of religion at all, I have experienced it directly rather than depending on another persons experience to deliver my own salvation. I have walked the path of Christ rather than merely devoted myself to him.

So you claim to be the equal of Christ?

The higher realms might not be any of the things you list

It is not, there is no 'might' about it.

however it will always come across this way when the people of the earth encounter it.

Well the human person is the most fallible part of the whole equation, aren't they? Hence the necessity of tradition, and the disciplina arcani. Personal experience is the most fallible of the lot.

You cite Hindus, Buddhists ... but they, like the Christian, will tell you that 'going your own way' is a delusion of the ego ... the master/disciple relation is absolute in any meaningful spiritual journey. The Modern Western mind abhors the notion, of course, but there you are ... the Modern West is also the most secular, the most anti-traditional, and the most ignorant culture in that sense.

Think about it ... people cite religion as being the cause of bloodshed, well this is no longer the case. Secular totalitarianism has killed far, far more than all the so-called religious wars of history. It still is.

How do you think the Jews perceived Christ demolishing their synagogue?

He didn't. Are you referring to the rending of the veil?

If Christ were to return...

Here, you see — He never went away — the argument you cite is a common prejudice among those who haven't really studied Scripture. If you had, you'd know you're argument is flawed. He refutes it, by the way, not me.

So, you are saying Christ had peers prior to his resurrection? God has a peer?

No, I'm not, and I'm not sure how you think I am?

I do not see a single Christian that has attained the "mystical body"

That's unfortunate. But then, I wonder if you realise that it's only in love that you will see it? So I'd not be so quick to make such damning statements, they might have a habit of rebounding on you.

but I do not see how this is possible due to its inherent duality.

I can see that, for you do not really understand what the Good News is.

I can sense the advancement of Hindu's and Buddhists, every Christian I have met is as dead, as a table, they are all asleep.

I can understand that, for reasons cited above.

Christianity inherently makes true, complete community impossible, for it is founded on a mountain of duality and so Christians look into the world segregating everything.

Nonsense. This is such a superficial understanding of Christ, and Christianity.

There's little point in me citing the teachings that refute what you say, so I will not bother you with them, but suffice to say that your opinions and assumptions can be easily answered, and demonstrated to be flawed and entirely subjective.

Again, apologies for the apparent harsh language, but I treat as my Master instructs me.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Lunitik]

Um, it looks to be like it is used as a state of freedom, rather than bondage. I would say that is not the same as a state of "nothingness."

It seems closer to the Christian concept of being released from being slaves of the flesh.

A state of nothingness isn't complete freedom in your opinion? I would agree that there are correlations with the attainment of the Kingdom of God, yes.

 

[seattlegal]

Buddha has stated that some view his teaching as nihilistic, I think that the way Buddhists explain nirvana in other languages conveys this sensitivity. To say the goal of Buddhism is a state of utter nothingness, it flirts quite closely with this train of thought. This is to show ignorance, but then many will look into the purpose before they ever consider the teaching so ignorance is very likely when understanding nirvana for the first time.

Hmm, methinks you have not reached the Buddha's understanding of nibbana, as can be seen from the Alagaddupama Sutta I posted earlier in this thread:

When there is no false self, selfishness is not a negative. When you see all of existence as yourself, you do for others willingly, it becomes more like bandaging a cut you might have sustained merely to stop it bleeding. You remain in the world solely to increase others happiness when you have attained pure happiness yourself. Selfishness would be leaving this world completely, departing your body permanently to experience the pure bliss infinitely and uninterrupted.

from Alagaddupama Sutta:

15. "There are, monks, these six grounds for false views.[15] What are the six? There is here, monks, an uninstructed worldling who has no regard for Noble Ones, who is ignorant of their teaching and untrained in it; who has no regard for men of worth, who is ignorant of their teaching and untrained in it: he considers corporeality thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self';[16] he considers feeling... perception... mental formations thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'; and what is seen, heard, sensed, and thought;[17] what is encountered, sought, pursued in mind,[18] this also he considers thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'; and also this ground for views (holding): 'The universe is the Self.[19] That I shall be after death;[20] permanent, stable, eternal, immutable; eternally the same,[21] shall I abide in that very condition' — that (view), too, he considers thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self.'[22]
16. "But, monks, there is here a well-instructed noble disciple who has regard for Noble Ones, who knows their teaching and is well trained in it; who has regard for men of worth, who knows their teaching and is well trained in it: he does not consider corporeality in this way: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'; he does not consider feeling... perception... mental formations in this way: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'; and what is seen, heard, sensed, and thought; what is encountered, sought, pursued in mind, this also he does not consider in this way: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'; and also this ground for views (holding): 'The universe is the Self. That I shall be after death; permanent, stable, eternal, immutable, eternally the same shall I abide in that very condition' — that (view), too, he does not consider thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self.'
17. "Considering thus, he is not anxious about unrealities."[23]​

Seeing all existence as yourself is called a ground for false teaching by the Buddha.

More from Alagadupama Sutta:
The Arahant [35]

30. "This monk is called one who has removed the crossbar, has filled the moat, has broken the pillar, has unbolted (his mind); a Noble One who has taken down the flag, put down the burden, become unfettered.
31. "And how, monks, is that monk one who has removed the cross-bar? Herein the monk has abandoned ignorance, has cut it off at the root, removed it from its soil like a palmyra tree, brought it to utter extinction, incapable of arising again. Thus has he removed the cross-bar.
32. "And how, monks, is that monk one who has filled the moat? Herein the monk has abandoned the round of rebirths, leading to renewed existence; he has cut it off at the root, removed it from its soil like a palmyra tree, brought it to utter extinction, incapable of arising again.
33. "And how has he broken the pillar? He has abandoned craving, has cut it off at the root, removed it from its soil like a palmyra tree, brought it to utter extinction, incapable of arising again.
34. "And how has he unbolted (his mind)? He has abandoned the five lower fetters, has cut them off at the root, removed them from their soil like a palmyra tree, brought them to utter extinction, incapable of arising again.
35. "And how is the monk a Noble One who has taken down the flag, put down the burden, become unfettered? He has abandoned the conceit of self, has cut it off at the root, removed it from is soil like a palmyra tree, brought it to utter extinction, incapable of arising again. Thus is the monk a Noble One who has taken down the flag, put down the burden, become unfettered.
36. "When a monk's mind is thus freed, O monks, neither the gods with Indra, nor the gods with Brahma, nor the gods with the Lord of Creatures (Pajaapati), when searching will find[36] on what the consciousness of one thus gone (tathaagata) is based. Why is that? One who has thus gone is no longer traceable here and now, so I say.[37]
Misrepresentation


37. "So teaching, so proclaiming, O monks, I have been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans: 'A nihilist[38] is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.'[39]
"As I am not as I do not teach, so have I been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans thus: 'A nihilist is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.'
"What I teach now as before, O monks, is suffering and the cessation of suffering.​

 

[seattlegal]

A state of nothingness isn't complete freedom in your opinion?

No. Buddhism is The Middle Path. It is both practical (in every sense of the word) and spiritual. Compassion for all beings.

I would agree that there are correlations with the attainment of the Kingdom of God, yes.

And is that nothing?

 

[Lunitik]

So you claim to be the equal of Christ?

I have only stated that Christ is not unique, by any means.

It is not, there is no 'might' about it.

You have been there? Tell me about it.

Well the human person is the most fallible part of the whole equation, aren't they? Hence the necessity of tradition, and the disciplina arcani. Personal experience is the most fallible of the lot.

Buddha, the Sufi's, many Hindu schools, even the Gnostics and Kaballists of your own tradition would flatly disagree.

You cite Hindus, Buddhists ... but they, like the Christian, will tell you that 'going your own way' is a delusion of the ego ... the master/disciple relation is absolute in any meaningful spiritual journey. The Modern Western mind abhors the notion, of course, but there you are ... the Modern West is also the most secular, the most anti-traditional, and the most ignorant culture in that sense.

Your assertion is correct, however your conclusion is flawed. In fact, many of the most famous enlightened beings are self-attained. There are esoteric schools within every tradition, but to say they are necessary absolutely is false.

Think about it ... people cite religion as being the cause of bloodshed, well this is no longer the case. Secular totalitarianism has killed far, far more than all the so-called religious wars of history. It still is.

I would disagree, the wars in the middle east right now are merely the crusades with better weaponry. America is a very Christian nation, their soldiers are given the Bible when stationed in Iraq. Certainly the other side is very much a Muslim force. What is different? That it is politically guided? I would say that organized religion has always been a political affair.

He didn't. Are you referring to the rending of the veil?

Umm, so Christ didn't go nuts in the synagogue and begin flipping tables and yelling that they are desecrating his fathers house? I am asking how you think this was viewed by the Jews...

Here, you see — He never went away — the argument you cite is a common prejudice among those who haven't really studied Scripture. If you had, you'd know you're argument is flawed. He refutes it, by the way, not me.

If he never went away, where is he? The Bible says he is at the right hand of God, this appears to be outside Jerusalem?

No, I'm not, and I'm not sure how you think I am?

You have missed my sarcasm, refer to what I quoted to understand what I am saying.

That's unfortunate. But then, I wonder if you realise that it's only in love that you will see it? So I'd not be so quick to make such damning statements, they might have a habit of rebounding on you.

I am fully aware of the truth of the totality and dependency of love on spiritual development. It is integral to satori, for this is all that is left when all views - including God - are removed. This is the core of our being. The Bible actually confirms this, 1 John 4:8 tells us God is love, and we are also told that we have our being in God and he in us. Thus, everything inward and outward consists of love.

I can see that, for you do not really understand what the Good News is.

Feel free to explain it to me, what is so great about going to heaven? I get to serve God for all eternity, how is this supposed to be appealing? It is merely greed, you believe it because it removes your fear of death. You are presented with an explanation of immortality and so you cling to it. Is life everlasting really that appealing? No matter how awesome it is, if it lasted for eternity, you would eventually see this as normal and become immune to the effects. Yes, I certainly do not understand the Good News.

Nonsense. This is such a superficial understanding of Christ, and Christianity.

Christianity is superficial, there is no genuine change in the Christian it is all merely a surface difference. They justify this saying we are all humans and thus these faults can never be overcome. Buddha teaches us how to overcome them all, his teachings are more practical and direct towards the same goal, whereas Christians actually avoid the goal because it has been declared heretical to attain Christ-hood, you will notice that in Buddhism, you are taught "Do not be a Buddhist, be a Buddha". This is a stark difference between the faiths.

There's little point in me citing the teachings that refute what you say, so I will not bother you with them, but suffice to say that your opinions and assumptions can be easily answered, and demonstrated to be flawed and entirely subjective.

Feel free to cite them, I will explain through your own teachings if you please. I would suggest starting a new post for this, however, and I would ask you keep it succinct, Catholics like quoting entire letters rather than their point which will make it difficult to respond since we are limited in characters per post.

 

[Lunitik]

Hmm, methinks you have not reached the Buddha's understanding of nibbana

I completely agree with the scriptures you have quoted, for it is not correct to say that all is me - there was no me. It is complete oneness, no barriers at all, but it is difficult to explain. Also, since kensho or satori are merely a glimpse, obviously I have returned to dualism, I have not reached nirvana for the simple reason that I still desire it. This does not mean I do not understand what nirvana is, in fact satori simply means to understand. Understanding at my core does not mean I have reached the heights entailed. I have never claimed to have reached nirvana, sorry if I seem to have represented myself as having done so from your perspective.

 

[Snoopy]

This is from a Buddhist perspective, I am talking about the word itself, the Pali definition separate from Buddhism. Many people attempt to translate it in Buddhist context, arriving at things like you have linked, or most simply 'unbound', but it was a common word in the Pali language.

If you read your link, I think it is quite clear they are actually referring to a state where there is nothing, so dispute of definition is irrelevant really.

sg is correct from the Pali perspective, not some Buddhist perspective. It is the definition taken from the Pali Text Society.

 

[Snoopy]

This shows a fundamental ignorance, Buddha taught nirvana - nothing.

No he did not. Right view is the middle way between two wrong views. One is there is nothing post-mortem (nihilism). The other is an enduring soul post-mortem (eternalism).  

 

[Lunitik]

No he did not. Right view is the middle way between two wrong views. One is there is nothing post-mortem (nihilism). The other is an enduring soul post-mortem (eternalism).  

So you do not agree that Buddha simply would never have discussed an afterlife, since it doesn't pertain to suffering at all? You don't believe that he taught that the middle way is both and neither, that taking any stance whatsoever is to apply bias since we do not know either way for sure?

It appears to be that you are suggesting rather than this, Buddha teaches there is an afterlife which isn't eternal. I do not believe this is accurate when discussing Buddha's teaching. For Buddha, until nirvana is attained, you continue the cycles of birth, sickness, old age and death. Once you attain nirvana, you escape these cycles... how do you suppose you escape them if there is still something after the subsequent death? Note that he considers the realm of gods, those without the 3 lower bodies, to still pertain to a new birth.