Two Views on suffering

Nick_A said:
By escape I mean re-birth into a new quality of being.
Click to expand...

I see.

Transformation of self is a major religious theme.

Here are some differences between Buddhism & Christianity:

1) in Buddhism the transformation is back to an original, unconditioned state of nondefilement - immutable Buddha nature. Whereas in Christianity the movement is toward a future state of spiritualized selfhood: "the spiritual was not first; rather the natural and then the spiritual."

2) Growing toward "the likeness of the man from heaven" would seem to be an attempt to emulate specific Christlike traits. In Buddhism, on the other hand, there is a transformation of the perception of reality.

Overcoming ignorance and error affects our reaction to the world, our emotions and motivations. But I think Buddhism would tend to suggest that wholesome qualities are likewise grounded in some pre-existent state of innocence. They are not acquired as set of new futuristic qualities modeled after "the man from heaven."

I think Thomas Merton had something to say about "emptines" versus purity of the heart."
 
Netti-Netti said:
I see.

Transformation of self is a major religious theme.

Here are some differences between Buddhism & Christianity:

1) in Buddhism the transformation is back to an original, unconditioned state of nondefilement - immutable Buddha nature. Whereas in Christianity the movement is toward a future state of spiritualized selfhood: "the spiritual was not first; rather the natural and then the spiritual."

2) Growing toward "the likeness of the man from heaven" would seem to be an attempt to emulate specific Christlike traits. In Buddhism, on the other hand, there is a transformation of the perception of reality.

Overcoming ignorance and error affects our reaction to the world, our emotions and motivations. But I think Buddhism would tend to suggest that wholesome qualities are likewise grounded in some pre-existent state of innocence. They are not acquired as set of new futuristic qualities modeled after "the man from heaven."

I think Thomas Merton had something to say about "emptines" versus purity of the heart."
Click to expand...

Man on earth is in a fallen state of being. By fallen I mean that inner unity has become a plurality. It's like if you drop a plate which is unity and it breaks into many pieces, it is in a fallen state lacking unity.

If an acorn falls from an oak it has the chance to become an oak but as an acorn it is a seed..Man on earth is the same. The seed of the soul has a chance to evolve back to its origin or before the fall. To atain this is to atain the "kingdom."

I understand that Buddhism is the attempt towards an unconditioned state of nondefilement. The only trouble with this is that if we don't know the cause of the original defilement, how is it possible? Without knowing the cause, how can we agree with the solution?

It's not a matter of emulating traits but a change in "being." In the image simply means the reunification of the Trinity within Man. The Son as a unified trinity is in the image of the father but lower in scale and Man can evolve to be in the image as well,
 
Namaste Nick,

thank you for the post.

Nick_A said:


[SIZE=-1]Are these two views really a contradiction even though they appear so?

[/SIZE]
Click to expand...

yes.

the transliteration of the Buddhas sermons is problematic, at best, as it typically uses "suffering" for the term "dukkha" which suffering is but one aspect of dukkha.

"Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha."

SN 56.11: Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta

metta,

~v
 
Nick_A said:
Man on earth is in a fallen state of being. By fallen I mean that inner unity has become a plurality. It's like if you drop a plate which is unity and it breaks into many pieces, it is in a fallen state lacking unity.
Click to expand...

Maybe we restore the inner unity as we make our way back to the Creator.

Simone Weil: 1909-1943) wrote: "God gave me being in order that I should give it back to Him." We give it back to Him as our way of recognizing that He is The Source.

She goes on to say that "He who created us will not save us without our consent." I would add that He won't save us without our being directly and actively involved in the process.
 
Netti-Netti said:
Maybe we restore the inner unity as we make our way back to the Creator.

Simone Weil: 1909-1943) wrote: "God gave me being in order that I should give it back to Him." We give it back to Him as our way of recognizing that He is The Source.

She goes on to say that "He who created us will not save us without our consent." I would add that He won't save us without our being directly and actively involved in the process.
Click to expand...

Hi Neti

I agree that we must restore inner unity but it only can be done consciously

Basically mindfulness in Buddhism is the unifying effort to consciously "know thyself."

We are normally what has been described as the horizontal or sleeping man. The body reacts as it has been conditioned, the head is primarily concerned with the duality of associative thought and the emotions are somewhere in-between also reacting as has been conditioned.

Attempts at "presence' or "mindfulness is the effort to allow us to become the vertical man. In place of the dual associative mind, the true vertical man has a conscious mind which the associative mind can become a tool of. The conscious mind is pure affirmation of one level of being from a higher level while the dual associative mind compares things on the same level.

The body of the vertical being is also on the ground but it is now the emotions that can unite consciousness and the physical. But our emotions are so consumed with imagination and negativity, it is impossible. It is the Spirit that purifies the heart and can allow it to perform its necessary function of uniting consciousness with the physical. The seed of the soul is in the heart. It receives from above and in turn gives to the physical. This is why Christianity is concerned with the "Attention of the Heart" It is the process that heals the heart.by gradually freeing it from the dominance of our normal negative emotions.

Simone Weil: 1909-1943) wrote: "God gave me being in order that I should give it back to Him." We give it back to Him as our way of recognizing that He is The Source.
Click to expand...

The book: Gravity and Grace" is a compilation of essays and assorted writings by Simone Weil. She uses the word "Gravity" as what pulls our soul down to the earth and holds us. Grace in contrast is God's love that seeks to allow us to return.

By abandoning the dominance of our illusory concept of self it allows us to ascend with the help of grace to a greater conscious perspective. But again to really experience the superficiality of our concept of self requires real conscious presence since we don't want to be seen. This is why the world must hate Christianity because it asserts our insignificance, the nothingness of our image. Of course there is nothing more insulting to say in "polite society"

Denial and holding on to our image does as she says, deny consent. We have to become open in order to be helped unless for some reason grace breaks through due to circumstances. To be open requires the impartial experience of external life without our usual judgments but just experience: "Know thyself"

I'll be the first to admit from my attempts that it is far more difficult then we assume because as a plurality, only a small part of us is interested and the rest doesn't want to be seen..
 
Namaste Nick,

thank you for the post.

Nick_A said:


Basically mindfulness in Buddhism is the unifying effort to consciously "know thyself."
Click to expand...


may i ask how you came to such a view?

metta,

~ v
 
Vajradhara said:
Namaste Nick,

thank you for the post.



may i ask how you came to such a view?

[/size][/font]metta,

~ v
Click to expand...

To "Know thyself" requires being present for the conscious experience of oneself "NOW." The author here relates it to vipassana and to mindfulness. It is what I meant.

What is Vipassana? Mindfulness Meditation

Vipassana (insight meditation) is the ultimate expression of Socrates' dictum, "know thyself." The Buddha discovered that the cause of suffering can actually be erased when we see our true nature. This is a radical insight. It means that happiness does not depend on manipulating the external world. We need only see ourselves clearly - a much easier proposition..........

skip

We have said that vipassana practice develops mindfulness. Mindfulness is the continuous awareness, with bare attention, of one's activities, sensations and thoughts in the present moment. With mindfulness - and this is key - one does not judge or react to passing phenomena, but merely notes their occurrence impartially, without attraction or repulsion.
Click to expand...
 
Nick_A said:
To "Know thyself" requires being present for the conscious experience of oneself "NOW." The author here relates it to vipassana and to mindfulness. It is what I meant.

What is Vipassana? Mindfulness Meditation

Vipassana (insight meditation) is the ultimate expression of Socrates' dictum, "know thyself." The
Click to expand...
Cynthia Thatcher's comments are hard to reconcile to traditional Buddhism.

According to Anatman doctrine, "there is no 'self' in the sense of a permanent, integral, autonomous being within an individual existence. What we think of as our self, our personality and ego, are temporary creations of the skandhas."
Anatman -- Anatman or Anatta is a foundational Buddhist teaching

So one could say there is no "self" to know.

What is Socrates definition of self? I recall it was an essentialist concept that posited personal identity as being independent of the phenomenal realm. Presumably, somewhere in the World of Forms there is some perfect form for "You" as a discrete personality. That's not a very Buddhist view.
 
Netti-Netti said:
Cynthia Thatcher's comments are hard to reconcile to traditional Buddhism.

According to Anatman doctrine, "there is no 'self' in the sense of a permanent, integral, autonomous being within an individual existence. What we think of as our self, our personality and ego, are temporary creations of the skandhas."
Anatman -- Anatman or Anatta is a foundational Buddhist teaching

So one could say there is no "self" to know.

What is Socrates definition of self? I recall it was an essentialist concept that posited personal identity as being independent of the phenomenal realm. Presumably, somewhere in the World of Forms there is some perfect form for "You" as a discrete personality. That's not a very Buddhist view.
Click to expand...

"Purity is the power to contemplate defilement." Simone Weil
Click to expand...

The Demonstration of the Inconceivable State of Buddhahood Sutra

The Buddha asked, "Manjusri, where should the state of Buddhahood be sought?"
Manjusri answered, "It should be sought right in the defilements of sentient beings. Why, because by nature the defilements of sentient beings are inapprehensible. Realization of this is beyond the comprehension of Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas; therefore, it is called the state of Buddhahood."
The Buddha asked Manjusri "Does the state of Buddhahood increase or decreases."
"It neither increases nor decreases."
The Buddha asked, "How can one comprehend the basic nature of the defilements of all sentient beings?"
"Just as the state of Buddhahood neither increases nor decreases, so by their nature the defilements neither increase nor decrease."
The Buddha asked, "What is the basic nature of the defilements?"
"The basic nature of the defilements is the basic nature of the state of Buddhahood. World-Honored One, if the nature of the defilements were different from the nature of the state of Buddhahood, then it could not be said that the Buddha abides in the equality of all things. It is because the nature of the defilements is the very nature of the state of Buddhahood that the Tathágata is said to abide in equality."
Click to expand...

Since cosmology allows me to accept levels of reality, this is just common sense.

Defilement can only be appreciated as such from a conscious state of awareness.of it. To say that the self doesn't exist is to say that inner unity doesn't exist. However the aggregates that comprise the self exist and witnessed together from a higher conscious perspective is the effort to know thyself or mindfulness without judgment.

Jesus referred to the same in the Gospel of Thomas:

(3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."
Click to expand...

From the Christian perspective the conscious knowers capable of conscious objective self knowledge can be known from above and helped in their conscious evolution.

I would agree with you that the self defined as inner unity doesn't exist. However I do believe that the phenomenal expressions of the plurality of our being can be consciously known.

Buddhism believes in first things first, This is why Buddha didn't speak of God since for us it causes more harm than good. The first step is how to become present through meditation. Without the experience of conscious presence, God concepts normally produce all the confusion we know. But at the same time Buddha didn't deny God concepts.

But I see Buddha coming into existence. Where did he come from? The relationship I believe is cosmological and related to plato's world of forms.
 
Nick A,

You said,

"I don't believe in a personal God...."

--> I have the same type of belief system.

"As I see it, spiritual healing is psychological.... They try to retain an imaginary balance through inwardly hiding.... If they are not being bothered and secure in fantasy they believe they are spiritually healed."

--> I think you are talking more about people with emotional issues than religious issues. Would you agree? I have found that, when people finally start to deal with their emotinal issues, they really get down the root cause of many of their problems.

"Do you have a different conception of spiritual healing?"

--> I think emotional problems require emotional cures. Spiritual problems require spiritual cures. I have seen many people try to meditate away their personal problems. In my opinion, they are looking in the wrong place for an answer.

"Psychological wounds are the same. Yet the idea is somehow to consciously allow oneself to become open rather than recoil."

--> Better yet,we should deal directly with the psychologial damage that has occured.

"Man on earth is in a fallen state of being."

--> The funny thing is, that fall was necessary (and was not a sin, as Christians would have us think.) (I am not a Christian.)

"The only trouble with this is that if we don't know the cause of the original defilement, how is it possible? Without knowing the cause, how can we agree with the solution?"

--> I think I agree with you. But could you give an example?

"In the image simply means the reunification of the Trinity within Man."

--> I would phrase it differently: We are in the process of recognizing the Triple Logos within us, the Triple Logos that has been there all along. Many people make the mistake of looking for the Triple Logos outside of us instead of within us.

"Basically mindfulness in Buddhism is the unifying effort to consciously "know thyself."

--> I think mindfulness is more of a technique that allows us to cut out a lot of the psychological crap that we have picked up over the years.

"...the emotions are somewhere in-between...."

--> That is why I feel one of our biggest tasks in this life is to get in touch with our emotions.

"The body of the vertical being is also on the ground but it is now the emotions that can unite consciousness and the physical."

--> I am not sure what you are saying. Can you give an example?

"...our emotions are so consumed with imagination and negativity, it is impossible."

--> I think it is never impossible to unite our emotions with our intelligence. The more a person thinks this is impossible, the more they need to get some emotional work done.

"...Christianity is concerned with the "Attention of the Heart" It is the process that heals the heart.by gradually freeing it from the dominance of our normal negative emotions."

--> I can see why you feel this way. I just disagree.

"This is why the world must hate Christianity because it asserts our insignificance, the nothingness of our image."

--> I have two responses.

(1) Many of us non-Christians have various reasons to have a 'negative' view of Christianity, but this is not one of them.

(2) Buddhism asserts our insignificance in the very same way.

"To "Know thyself" requires being present for the conscious experience of oneself "NOW."

--> I think that it takes a heck of a lot more than that for us to 'know' ourselves. But that is a good first step.

"...Buddha didn't speak of God since for us it causes more harm than good."

--> This assumes there was a God for Buddha to speak of in the first place. Many of us do not make that assumption.
 
Nick_A said:
. This is why the world must hate Christianity because it asserts our insignificance, the nothingness of our image.
Click to expand...

I disagree here. In Christianity, the experience of brokenness is identified with humility before G-d, who offers the Gift by which the brokenness is alleviated. Being transformed into a Son or Daughter who partakes of the Glory is not so insignificant.
 
Nick the Pilot said:
"...Buddha didn't speak of God since for us it causes more harm than good."

--> This assumes there was a God for Buddha to speak of in the first place.
Click to expand...
Buddhism doesn't seem to need G-d as a starting point


"...Buddha didn't speak of God since for us it causes more harm than good."
Maybe just no need to talk about it for certain purposes.
 
why does God permit suffering?​


who really is to blame for it?​


humans are to blame for much of the suffering. ​


They fight wars, commit crimes, pollute the environment, often carry on business in a manner motivated by greed rather than concern for their fellowman, and sometimes indulge in habits that they know can be harmful to their health. ​



When they do these things, they hurt others and themselves. ​



Should it be expected that humans would be immune to the consequences of what they do? (Gal. 6:7; Prov. 1:30-33) Is it reasonable to blame God for these things that humans themselves do? ​







satan and his demons also share responsibility. ​


The Bible discloses that much suffering is because of the influence of wicked spirits. ​



The suffering for which so many people blame God does not come from him at all.—Rev. 12:12; Acts 10:38; ​











how did suffering get started?


Examination of the causes focuses attention on our first human parents, Adam and Eve.
Jehovah God created them perfect and put them in paradise surroundings.
If they had obeyed God, they would never have got sick or died.
They could have enjoyed perfect human life forever.
Suffering was not part of Jehovah’s purpose for mankind.
But Jehovah clearly told Adam that continued enjoyment of what He had given them depended on obedience.

Obviously, they had to breathe, eat, drink, and sleep in order to continue living.

And they had to keep God’s moral requirements in order to enjoy life fully and to be favored with such life forever.

But they chose to go their own way, to set their own standards of good and bad, and thus they turned away from God, the Life-Giver. (Gen. 2:16, 17; 3:1-6) Sin led to death.

It was as sinners that Adam and Eve produced children, and they could not pass on to their children what they no longer had.

All were born in sin, with inclinations toward wrongdoing, weaknesses that could lead to illness, a sinful inheritance that would eventually result in death.
Because everyone on earth today was born in sin, all of us experience suffering in various ways.—Gen. 8:21; Rom. 5:12.


Ecclesiastes 9:11 says that "time and unforeseen occurrence" also have a bearing on what happens to us.

We may get hurt, not because the Devil directly causes it or because any human does it, but because by chance we are in a place at the wrong moment.




​










​
 
Netti-Netti,

You said,

"Buddhism doesn't seem to need G-d as a starting point."

--> Correct, it does not. I am glad that we have this comparative religions Forum, so that we can help people to realize and appreciate this crucial aspect of Buddhism.
 
Nick the Pilot said:
Netti-Netti,

You said "Buddhism doesn't seem to need G-d as a starting point."

--> Correct, it does not. I am glad that we have this comparative religions Forum, so that we can help people to realize and appreciate this crucial aspect of Buddhism.
Click to expand...
ok, but the fact that of Buddhism does not need G-d as a starting point does not mean that "the supernatural" is not involved in Buddhism. It also doesn't mean that Buddhism can't be used to discover spiritual knowledge that harmonizes with G-d's projection of Himself within the phenomenal realm.

Recall it was because of a visit with a spirit being that Buddha decided to become a teacher (even though he was resistant to the idea).

Also, as discussed elsewhere, even though superstitious prayer does not seem to be involved, the Sutras describe numerous encounters between humans and deities.
http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/what-isnt-spiritual-9314-8.html#post156604
 
Netti-Netti,

You said,

"...but the fact that of Buddhism does not need G-d as a starting point does not mean that "the supernatural" is not involved."

--> Correct. According to Buddhism, there is no need to connect the two concepts 'personal God' and 'the supernatural.'

"Recall it was because of a visit with a spirit being that Buddha decided to become a teacher (even though he was resistant to the idea)."

--> Buddhists do not see the need to connect such spirits to the concept of God. The former can exist without the latter.

"Also, as discussed elswhere, even though superstitious prayer does not seem to be involved, the Sutras describe numerous encounters between humans and deities."

--> Buddhists do not see the need to connect such deities to the concept of God. The former can exist without the latter.
 
Nick the Pilot said:
--> Correct. According to Buddhism, there is no need to connect the two concepts 'personal God' and 'the supernatural.'
Click to expand...

Personally I think it's a brilliant idea to keep it nondenominational. That way you don't have people bickering about dogmatic G-d concepts. It seems the Buddha was politically astute.

But again, the fact that the connections aren't made explicitly doesn't mean they aren't there.

The Buddha was also evasive about things like "self." He would simply sidestep the issue. Yet "no-self" doctrine is widely considered to be "it."
 
Namaste Nick,

thank you for the post.

Nick_A said:
The Demonstration of the Inconceivable State of Buddhahood Sutra

Jesus referred to the same in the Gospel of Thomas:
Click to expand...

i don't think this Sutta means what you think it does. further it seems that you've omitted most of the Sutta from your response. whilst i realize that picking a sentence or two out of a lenghty body of text is a method which many Christians use it will not lead to a proper cognition of the Dharma if such a method is employed.

Buddhism believes in first things first, This is why Buddha didn't speak of God since for us it causes more harm than good. The first step is how to become present through meditation. Without the experience of conscious presence, God concepts normally produce all the confusion we know. But at the same time Buddha didn't deny God concepts.
Click to expand...


the Buddha did, despite the many theist claims, speak directly regarding deities and creator deites in particular. you realize that the Buddhist canon is made up of 5,098 Suttas, some of them well over 100,000 words long. it is quite possible and indeed likely that you've not read a significant enough portion of the Buddhist canon to make a conclusion on what the Buddha spoke about or didn't.

the Buddha specifically denied the concept of a creator deity and did so in no uncertain terms. the Indian people had a well developed and sophisticated theological system and the concept of monotheism and a creator deity were well understood. with regards to deities (and there are several classes of deities) or Devas and Devatas in the tradition, there is absolutely no purpose in worshipping them as they are in every bit the same predicament as humans. by and large they are in a worse situation than humans as they cannot hear or practice the Dhamma. if they can hear it, and most of them cannot, they cannot or will not practice and thus they fall into a lower rebirth when their karmic energy is expended. this happens with the deity that thinks it is the creator deity as well.

of course as there are many concepts regarding a creator deity it is possible that the Buddhas discourses haven't covered someones concept of the creator but so far i've not seen any.
But I see Buddha coming into existence. Where did he come from? The relationship I believe is cosmological and related to plato's world of forms.
Click to expand...

the word "buddha" is a title and not a proper name of a particular being. the being that you are, probably, referring to is the Buddha Shakyamuni. Buddha Shakyamuni was born into a small kingdom on the now border of Nepal and India. the word Buddha comes from the root bud which means to awaken or to wake up, with the suffix of "dha" added it denotes a being which has awoken or woken up. so, the title Buddha Shakyamuni means "The Awakened Sage of the Shakya Clan". if you are asking how did he Awaken and attain Liberation, he speaks directly of this very thing in the Suttas themselves.

metta,

~v
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top