A
AdvaitaZen
Guest
Just in what you have quoted, Seatlegal, I find it difficult to understand how any intelligent person can follow any Abrahamic tradition.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
LOL. Any intelligent person would know that misogyny was/is not limited to the Abrahamics, by any means. Nietzsche even went so far to claim that all higher civilizations got there by placing stricter controls on women. LOL.
A
AdvaitaZen
Guest
Why do you say it is not the case?
Look at the actions of man and tell me he is not living by sin.
Any moment we are aware of ourselves as something separate, we are bound to act ignorantly. Only being consciously aware of our position as the whole can we act rightly.
Until then, we will continue to act from greed, selfishness, need for power.
We will continue destroying each other.
He comes from Judaism, there is no mention elsewhere.
He has realized the pointlessness of maintaining earthly bindings, he has left to find some truth. This is not sin, it is the first true action of this man.
Except that everything you say is in relation to it.
A
AdvaitaZen
Guest
Do you feel this should cause us to accept those traditions?
Nietzsche only proves his own unworthiness as a man to look at for guidance in such statements.
Man must leave his ugly past behind, instead he uses it to justify todays evils.
A
AdvaitaZen
Guest
If you want to find the Higher Self, you must look at the container which is holding the lower self.
It is the lower self which judges, which has any relation to the world.
The world exists within the Higher Self.
Without what you are, nothing else can be.
All psychologists have done is try to justify the lower self, tried to instil acceptable behavior in patients. This is not good enough, this will not fulfil anyone, it is fruitless to even look at them.
Neitzsche has become insane in his later years.
Jung has refused to ever look at himself.
If they cannot understand their own mental mechanisms, how can they ever help you to understand yourself?
Yet, Buddha has his downfalls - refusing for many years to teach women, even killing someone.
Jesus has retained his delusion of a Father in the sky.
Moses has been a wandering buffoon.
Abraham has tried to kill his son.
Muhammad has decided it is ok to marry an 8 year old.
Krishna has had 16,000 wives.
We can pick apart each teacher, they all fall short in some way.
We must ultimately turn back to ourselves.
What is it which is alive here?
This is the only thing worth looking at, dying without knowing who lived is such a waste.
It is the lower self which judges, which has any relation to the world.
The world exists within the Higher Self.
Without what you are, nothing else can be.
All psychologists have done is try to justify the lower self, tried to instil acceptable behavior in patients. This is not good enough, this will not fulfil anyone, it is fruitless to even look at them.
Neitzsche has become insane in his later years.
Jung has refused to ever look at himself.
If they cannot understand their own mental mechanisms, how can they ever help you to understand yourself?
Yet, Buddha has his downfalls - refusing for many years to teach women, even killing someone.
Jesus has retained his delusion of a Father in the sky.
Moses has been a wandering buffoon.
Abraham has tried to kill his son.
Muhammad has decided it is ok to marry an 8 year old.
Krishna has had 16,000 wives.
We can pick apart each teacher, they all fall short in some way.
We must ultimately turn back to ourselves.
What is it which is alive here?
This is the only thing worth looking at, dying without knowing who lived is such a waste.
A
AdvaitaZen
Guest
Never cling to anyone.
Never cling to any idea.
Use everything available.
Find out the nature of "I".
If something doesn't help, move away.
Time is precious.
The point is to know, it is not to accumulate knowledge.
Who knows?
What value can any knowledge have without this.
You will only make yourself useful in the world.
A useful man is used.
Look within, beyond all concepts and ideas, beyond the story of you, and find out what is there.
That is Truth.
Never cling to any idea.
Use everything available.
Find out the nature of "I".
If something doesn't help, move away.
Time is precious.
The point is to know, it is not to accumulate knowledge.
Who knows?
What value can any knowledge have without this.
You will only make yourself useful in the world.
A useful man is used.
Look within, beyond all concepts and ideas, beyond the story of you, and find out what is there.
That is Truth.
A
AdvaitaZen
Guest
Never accept anything second hand.
Etu Malku
Mercuræn
- Messages
- 1,439
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 38
That's just ridiculous, the idea of Sin is subjective, this is not a written in stone concept it is an evolved one and depends on time era and culture.
I suppose from your statement, you don't find mankind very pleasant to be around? I do in fact.
Since when is ignorance a Sin? You're not getting the big picture here . . . unconscious actions are born from ignorance . . . there is no one to blame for this. Conscious actions are born from the Will . . . you are to be responsible for your own conscious actions.
Quite the opposite really, as I have explained. Greed and selfishness (not that they are even sins) are both conscious actions. To be human is to gravitate towards realms of Power . . . stop denying your humanism.
You'll have to do better than that, show me where Lucifer was invented by Judaism?
Then he was a fool, because like every single one of us, he perished at the hands of the Laws of Physics, entropy, death. But in opposition to many of us, he didn't sacrifice himself in any way towards the betterment of his family or mankind, only for his own selfish mystical ignorance.
Whereas I think Buddhism is one of the lesser evils in the world of Belief systems, it shares with other religions a very basic element, a belief that the universe is in some fashion set up for our sake . . . or at least set up in a manner conducive to our needs.
In Buddhism, it is expressed in the beliefs that there are cosmic laws that exist solely to process our "karma" and make it possible for us to "advance" in some fashion. This is one of the most fundamental problems with religions -- pretty much all religions.
People are falsely taught that there is something in or above the universe that has picked them out for special protection and consideration. Our existence is a product of luck, not divine intervention, and any improvements we achieve will be due to our own hard work, not cosmic process or karma.
But what troubles me most about Buddhism is its implication that becoming detached from ordinary life is the surest route to salvation. The Buddha's first step toward enlightenment was his abandonment of his wife and child. It seems legitimate to ask whether a path that turns away from aspects of life as essential as sexuality and parenthood is truly spiritual?
The very concept of enlightenment begins to look anti-spiritual, it suggests that life is a problem that can be solved, and should be, escaped. Buddhism claims that perceiving yourself as in some sense unreal will make you happier and more compassionate.
A
AdvaitaZen
Guest
I would suggest THIS is ridiculous.
The whole concept of sin is wholly Judaic, and if you believe their texts, it was literally written in stone.
Nothing of sin arises without first the idea of sin.
I find that man is too concerned with trivia.
You make man only a victim.
A true education should teach us how to be conscious.
It is societies fault that you even have this opinion.
Education means "to draw out", the principle issue of education should be in showing each one their divinity. The problem is that so few are aware of their divinity, how can anyone teach it?
Instead, we teach our children utter trivia (which means irrelevant nonsense.)
False, greed and selfishness stem from ignorance.
They are the manifestation of our refusal to accept we are these limited beings.
Show me where Lucifer exists before Judaism.
You do not think Buddha has benefited mankind?
The universe is because we are.
Without you, nothing can be so.
No, this is the Hindu concept of karma.
In Buddism, Kamma means action, and all action has a ramification.
Dissociating ourselves from the process of cause and effect, which is clearly visible in the universe, we transcend simple circumstance.
When we are no more subject to cause and effect, when circumstances no more effect us, we are free.
Can true improvement happen?
You have missed the whole teaching of Buddha in this statement.
He has taught that whatsoever we think we are accomplishing, it is all false. We are a happening within existence, yet not apart from that.
I agree, this is something difficult to understand.
It is exactly our attachment to ordinary life that creates our suffering though. When we feel there are many responsibilities for us to uphold, we cannot ever be free.
The very concept of enlightenment begins to look anti-spiritual, it suggests that life is a problem that can be solved, and should be, escaped. Buddhism claims that perceiving yourself as in some sense unreal will make you happier and more compassionate.
Enlightenment IS anti-spiritual.
It IS anti-material.
These are both concepts in the mind.
Enlightenment is beyond mind.
Beyond all that occurs, beyond all judgements, beyond everything.
Enlightenment is always the case.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
See this thread:
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/karma-the-penetrative-explanation-13947.html
nutshell highlight:
"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect.
One can certainly be greedy or selfish and not be aware of it. (Projection is one example.)
lol, NOT!
Methinks you might need to brush up on the Buddhist view of karma (kamma in Pali.)
Buddha was not enlightened when he left to become an ascetic.
On the contrary, anicca (impermanence,) dukkha (dissatisfaction-dis-ease,) and anatta (empty of self) are how we can tell something is real, and are called Three marks of existence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe very concept of enlightenment begins to look anti-spiritual, it suggests that life is a problem that can be solved, and should be, escaped. Buddhism claims that perceiving yourself as in some sense unreal will make you happier and more compassionate.
highly condensed westernized explanation: There is enough chaos (uncertainty, mystery, untraceability) in reality that we know it is not an illusion--aka, a product of our mind. (Solipsism)
From earlier in this thread:
To paraphrase modern scientists : Not only is reality stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than can imagine.
Anatta/sunyata (emptiness) naturally flows from this. Just because something is not traceable or is empty, it does not mean that it does not exist or is unreal--a close examination will show that this is the hallmark of reality.
Buddhism is quite like chaos theory in many respects. If you'd like to go deeper into this, feel free to start a thread.
Etu Malku
Mercuræn
- Messages
- 1,439
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 38
Ok, I will go and research more about Buddhism as my knowledge is limited it seems and I cannot express myself properly.
That said, I may not know enough about Buddhism but I do know about Lucifer and Luciferianism. So allow me to comment on that.
Lucifer is a Latin name. When you look for the Hebrew description of the angel who fell to become the ruler of hell, you find that the 14th chapter of Isaiah is not about a fallen angel, but about a fallen Babylonian king, who during his lifetime had persecuted the children of Israel.
In Latin at the time, "lucifer" actually meant Venus as a morning star. Isaiah is using this metaphor for a bright light, though not the greatest light to illustrate the apparent power of the Babylonian king which then faded."
In the Hebrew text the expression used to describe the Babylonian king before his death is Helal, son of Shahar, which can best be translated as "Day star, son of the Dawn." The name evokes the golden glitter of a proud king's dress and court (much as his personal splendor earned for King Louis XIV of France the appellation, "The Sun King").
The scholars who translated the Bible into current English did not use the original Hebrew texts, but used versions translated ... largely by St. Jerome in the fourth century. Jerome had mistranslated the Hebraic metaphor, "Day star, son of the Dawn," as "Lucifer," and over the centuries a metamorphosis took place.
Lucifer the morning star became a disobedient angel, cast out of heaven to rule eternally in hell. Theologians, writers, and poets interwove the myth with the doctrine of the Fall, and in Christian tradition Lucifer is now the same as Satan, the Devil, and --- ironically --- the Prince of Darkness.
The actual name, "Lucifer," goes back to the Greeks, before the Romans. Socrates and Plato talk about this "god of light"; surprisingly, not in the context of Eos (god of Dawn), but -- as a morning star -- juxtaposed with the sun (Helios) and Hermes. This information can be found in Plato's Timaeus 360 BC.
That said, I may not know enough about Buddhism but I do know about Lucifer and Luciferianism. So allow me to comment on that.
Lucifer is a Latin name. When you look for the Hebrew description of the angel who fell to become the ruler of hell, you find that the 14th chapter of Isaiah is not about a fallen angel, but about a fallen Babylonian king, who during his lifetime had persecuted the children of Israel.
In Latin at the time, "lucifer" actually meant Venus as a morning star. Isaiah is using this metaphor for a bright light, though not the greatest light to illustrate the apparent power of the Babylonian king which then faded."
In the Hebrew text the expression used to describe the Babylonian king before his death is Helal, son of Shahar, which can best be translated as "Day star, son of the Dawn." The name evokes the golden glitter of a proud king's dress and court (much as his personal splendor earned for King Louis XIV of France the appellation, "The Sun King").
The scholars who translated the Bible into current English did not use the original Hebrew texts, but used versions translated ... largely by St. Jerome in the fourth century. Jerome had mistranslated the Hebraic metaphor, "Day star, son of the Dawn," as "Lucifer," and over the centuries a metamorphosis took place.
Lucifer the morning star became a disobedient angel, cast out of heaven to rule eternally in hell. Theologians, writers, and poets interwove the myth with the doctrine of the Fall, and in Christian tradition Lucifer is now the same as Satan, the Devil, and --- ironically --- the Prince of Darkness.
The actual name, "Lucifer," goes back to the Greeks, before the Romans. Socrates and Plato talk about this "god of light"; surprisingly, not in the context of Eos (god of Dawn), but -- as a morning star -- juxtaposed with the sun (Helios) and Hermes. This information can be found in Plato's Timaeus 360 BC.
A
AdvaitaZen
Guest
This does not date prior to Judaic references.
Perhaps they have made the same erroneous translation, for the Greeks have only tried to bring other traditions into a synthesis. I certainly agree that the Christian allusions to Lucifer as Satan are erroneous, but I still feel you have been attracted to such teachings as a type of rebellion.
I hope in your perusing of Buddhist scriptures you will gradually see the error in any belief. A belief forms identification, and it is this identification I am really trying to come back to in you, I don't really care about the actual subject matter because it is irrelevant. Clinging to anything ensures we remain as the lower self.
The Higher Self is anatta - empty of content, just a space, potential.
A
AdvaitaZen
Guest
The key to reading Buddhist texts is to realize it is talking about nothing other than yourself.
This is its beauty, although somehow still worship is brought in, and the usual fanaticism still exists. It is like a psychology which brings us back to our natural self. It does not try to justify any of your problems, it only shows that nothing arising in the mind needs to be paid attention to, and thus you simply move beyond mind. Detaching from your ailments, they no more inflict you, peace overwhelms you.
In this is nirvana - mind is no more the master, it no longer projects onto reality because you cease to give it energy to do so, it is simply quiet unless actually called on, as opposed to the usual mind which is constantly churning, constantly chattering, constantly causing us to miss this moment.
This is its beauty, although somehow still worship is brought in, and the usual fanaticism still exists. It is like a psychology which brings us back to our natural self. It does not try to justify any of your problems, it only shows that nothing arising in the mind needs to be paid attention to, and thus you simply move beyond mind. Detaching from your ailments, they no more inflict you, peace overwhelms you.
In this is nirvana - mind is no more the master, it no longer projects onto reality because you cease to give it energy to do so, it is simply quiet unless actually called on, as opposed to the usual mind which is constantly churning, constantly chattering, constantly causing us to miss this moment.
A
AdvaitaZen
Guest
Anatta is often translated "no mind", for it is our thoughts which create the illusion of a separate self, we believe them and they affect our perception.
Most correctly it is "no self", for these thoughts create the idea of "me".
Eventually, in looking into this, we simply rest in the presence which is reality, which is the Self of Hindus, and your own Higher Self, as well as Buddha Nature and that mind which was also in Christ Jesus... it is to be in tune with the Tao, which is reality as it is. All simply points at this, which is Truth.
This is my only interest, all else is trivia, just an avoidance of this.
Most correctly it is "no self", for these thoughts create the idea of "me".
Eventually, in looking into this, we simply rest in the presence which is reality, which is the Self of Hindus, and your own Higher Self, as well as Buddha Nature and that mind which was also in Christ Jesus... it is to be in tune with the Tao, which is reality as it is. All simply points at this, which is Truth.
This is my only interest, all else is trivia, just an avoidance of this.
Etu Malku
Mercuræn
- Messages
- 1,439
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 38
Instaed of endlessly stating this doesn't predate any Judaic references, please point out the Judaic references to Lucifer, otherwise this discussion is ended.
My interest in Luciferianism has nothing to do with juvenile rebellion, Lucifer as an archetype has nothing to do with rebellion, unless of course once again portray him in Christian light.
This seems to be going no where . . .
A
AdvaitaZen
Guest
An empty mind is not an ignorant mind.
This is often the fear, that without thinking we will be stupid.
No, knowledge can be used as necessary, it simply ceases to shape our experience.
This is innocence.
This is often the fear, that without thinking we will be stupid.
No, knowledge can be used as necessary, it simply ceases to shape our experience.
This is innocence.
A
AdvaitaZen
Guest
A
AdvaitaZen
Guest
Which is my purpose in addressing your identification at all.
Identifications only serve to create distance, separation, hatred.
My purpose is to bring you back to yourself, which is only love.
Love in the sense of unity, oneness, lack of separation.
Ego is the only barrier.
Identifications only serve to create distance, separation, hatred.
My purpose is to bring you back to yourself, which is only love.
Love in the sense of unity, oneness, lack of separation.
Ego is the only barrier.
A
AdvaitaZen
Guest
Without defining yourself, there is no world.
There is only life happening now.
This is the purpose of religion.
There is only life happening now.
This is the purpose of religion.