N
Nick_A
Guest
Hi All
[SIZE=-1]
[SIZE=-1]Are these two views really a contradiction even though they appear so?
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE][/SIZE]
Hi All
[SIZE=-1]
[SIZE=-1]Are these two views really a contradiction even though they appear so?
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE][/SIZE]
Dondi
Well-Known Member
Explain what Weil means by 'a supernatural use of suffering'?
LeoSalinas22
merely a shadow...
- Messages
- 719
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
i think nick meant the suffering of Jesus being the supernatural way of ending suffering. just muh thoughts.
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
Nick, (I like your name....)
They are, and they are not.
(1) They are, in that suffering is the key ingredient. Both Buddhism and Christianity are saying that suffering is something that we must endure in order to move the next level. It is merely a matter of how it is worded. Buddhism says it teaches the end of suffering by teaching us how to move to the next level -- which is how we will stop suffering. Christianity says that it is by suffering that we purify ourselves. It is after we purify ourselves that we become ready to move on to the next level. The two religions are really saying the same thing.
(2) They are not, in that the main focus of Buddhism is to remove suffering in the world. That is not the main focus of Christianity.
They are, and they are not.
(1) They are, in that suffering is the key ingredient. Both Buddhism and Christianity are saying that suffering is something that we must endure in order to move the next level. It is merely a matter of how it is worded. Buddhism says it teaches the end of suffering by teaching us how to move to the next level -- which is how we will stop suffering. Christianity says that it is by suffering that we purify ourselves. It is after we purify ourselves that we become ready to move on to the next level. The two religions are really saying the same thing.
(2) They are not, in that the main focus of Buddhism is to remove suffering in the world. That is not the main focus of Christianity.
greymare
Well-Known Member
imo
suffering, we have to do to make us stronger, better. so we realize we can go on, we will endure.
however, dont dwell on the suffering, dont go and deliberately bring it upon yourself or others, it will happen in time,eventually anyway.
you will suffer in your life, but you can get past it...........
imo
suffering, we have to do to make us stronger, better. so we realize we can go on, we will endure.
however, dont dwell on the suffering, dont go and deliberately bring it upon yourself or others, it will happen in time,eventually anyway.
you will suffer in your life, but you can get past it...........
imo
N
Nick_A
Guest
Our attachment to suffering is what keeps us from becoming ourselves. The supernjatural use of suffering includes all conscious efforts to experience it rather then escape from it. The Crucifixion is the most vivid example. Jesus' conscious experience of the Crucifixion enabled re-birth: the goal of Christianity.
Not sure. One expresses the intent to stop it, while the other expresses the use of it as a tool, thus it no longer is an ends but rather a means to create a conclusion.
Suffering itself (though not a comfortable thing), is not neccesarrily a bad thing, if it leads to something better in the long run.
Eventually both thoughts seek to quit the "suffering" part, so perhaps they are not far from eachother, philosophically.
N
Nick_A
Guest
Yes Nick, I've been told that "Nick" is a good four letter word.
Does Buddhism say that we must endure suffering or rather change our attitude towards it?
Does Christianity glorify suffering or rather assert that we must learn how to suffer in order to profit from it? We must consciously suffer ourselves while loving God. This is of course absurd if one believes that God is causing it.
This is hard to take and typical no frills Simone. But the idea is of course that God is not the cause of what happens on Earth but the closer Man consciously evolves towards the source, the less we are caught up with this madness. Purification comes through the help of the Spirit enabled through the conscious love of God.
The Book of Job deals with this and Job never blamed God so could consciously suffer while still loving God.
I am probably being misleading when using the term "love" since it has acquired a certain sugary quality that is not the authentic spiritual meaning. So in all fairness, I should include an explanation that is not at all sugary, but without understanding this, the depth of the Crucifixion and Resurrection remains hidden.
Love and Knowledge: Two Paths to the One
Yes as is said in the Book of John, the world must hate the message so Christianity is concerned with helping individuals open to its truths
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
What do you make of it - when people are attached to their suffering? There must be some value to it.
N
Nick_A
Guest
Hi Neti
The value is that it supports our image. Our image is the dominant concern of our life. It is our image or our "personality" that serves society while it is our essential selves or that which our personality surrounds that can grow to form the natural connection with higher consciousness. Attachment to our suffering supports our image. It is not necessarily an image of superiority. Many develop the image of a slave and find security and even a sense of purpose in it. When image is dominant then a person is attached to what supports it even though attachment to whatever image is suffering itself.
I never knew what a Man was until I learned that a MAN is master of himself. It became obvious why there were so few MEN and so many men. A MAN then could create any image he chose since he is not ruled by image and adopts an image acceptable to either kings and peasants to further his goal. Such a MAN can become either demonic and very powerful in the world or a savior and serve a higher purpose.
Jesus was tempted and chose to serve the higher purpose. St. Paul did the same in his own way. 1 Cor 9:
He chose to give up suffering for image which is attachment and psychological slavery in order to suffer to serve a higher conscious purpose which is an effort of conscious freedom..
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
I wish more realized and worked towards that.
E
Eclectic Mystic
Guest
Why don't we introduce the distinction of necessary suffering and unnecessary suffering.
I personally don't think it was necessary for Jesus to have been crucified. It's perfectly conceivable to have a world where that wouldn't even happen in the first place. If it is necessary then it's because his crucifiers make it necessary with their choices-- but not because of some inherent property of the world.
I personally don't think it was necessary for Jesus to have been crucified. It's perfectly conceivable to have a world where that wouldn't even happen in the first place. If it is necessary then it's because his crucifiers make it necessary with their choices-- but not because of some inherent property of the world.
E
Eclectic Mystic
Guest
It's also a misconception that Buddhism claims to end suffering. Buddhism cannot prevent an earthquake from destroying your house. It is dukkka-- unnecessary suffering-- which Buddhism aims at ceasing by means of transmutation.
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
Nick,
You asked,
"Does Buddhism say that we must endure suffering or rather change our attitude towards it?"
--> Buddhism takes a different approach. Buddhism says that we should get so involved helping others that we forget we are suffering. I personally have been able to use this philosophy to my advantage. I remember the time when I was doing volunteer work at the local Buddhist temple. At the time, my boss at work was giving me a lot of trouble, and I was very unhappy about it. However, while I was at the temple doing volunteer work, I was able to get so wrapped up in helping other people that I was able to forget my problems at work while I was at the temple. (Then, on the drive home from the temple, I would start worrying again about my problems at work.) At least I was able to forget about it while I was doing my volunteer work. This is the essence of the Buddhist attitude towards suffering.
"Does Christianity glorify suffering or rather assert that we must learn how to suffer in order to profit from it?
--> I think that there is a certain amount of glorifying of suffering in Christianity. For example, a friend of mine who is a Baptist minister recently gave a sermon entitled, "We have to suffer to be happy."
By the way, Nick is an interesting name. In Japanese, nikui means terrible, as does the Japanese word nikutarashii. I write my name Nick in two Japanese character, ni ku, which mean terrible suffering. In British slang, to nick something means to steal it. The name of the Devil is Nick.
You asked,
"Does Buddhism say that we must endure suffering or rather change our attitude towards it?"
--> Buddhism takes a different approach. Buddhism says that we should get so involved helping others that we forget we are suffering. I personally have been able to use this philosophy to my advantage. I remember the time when I was doing volunteer work at the local Buddhist temple. At the time, my boss at work was giving me a lot of trouble, and I was very unhappy about it. However, while I was at the temple doing volunteer work, I was able to get so wrapped up in helping other people that I was able to forget my problems at work while I was at the temple. (Then, on the drive home from the temple, I would start worrying again about my problems at work.) At least I was able to forget about it while I was doing my volunteer work. This is the essence of the Buddhist attitude towards suffering.
"Does Christianity glorify suffering or rather assert that we must learn how to suffer in order to profit from it?
--> I think that there is a certain amount of glorifying of suffering in Christianity. For example, a friend of mine who is a Baptist minister recently gave a sermon entitled, "We have to suffer to be happy."
By the way, Nick is an interesting name. In Japanese, nikui means terrible, as does the Japanese word nikutarashii. I write my name Nick in two Japanese character, ni ku, which mean terrible suffering. In British slang, to nick something means to steal it. The name of the Devil is Nick.
17th Angel
לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות
- Messages
- 9,437
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 0
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
That makes sense. But wouldn't it be fair to say they are attached to their social identity or sense of self rather than to suffering? Chances are if there was a more efficient and strategic method of maintaining self, they'd go for it and drop the suffering bit.
N
Nick_A
Guest
From the Buddhist perspective I don't know if it is possible to find "a more efficient and strategic method of maintaining self" because according to the Dalai Lama:
To make matters worse "suffering" is a word used in the First Noble Truth to represent dukkha which really means continuance on samsara.which is universal suffering. It seem then that maintaining self just supports samsara regardless of how noble the intent.
I really believe that Karma Yoga holds the key here and is not at all in conflict with either Buddhism or Christianity since the essential message is "know thyself."
Self is maintained because through the conscious awareness of our reactions, life becomes a teacher and as we Know thyself or consciously experience thyself rather than just mechanically react, we can be consciously known and helped from above. The self in this case doesn't supply purpose as is normally our case but rather the self being consciously experienced is a tool to become open to conscious human meaning and purpose. . This is classic detachment but who is capable of it? Jesus was and consciously witnessed and experienced the Crucifixion and in turn was able to free himself from it and ascend to the level of being where he came from.
I know how hard it is for me to remember that it is not a question of good and bad attachments but rather attachment itself that creates the false sense of self that keeps us turning in circles.
Attachment is a deep concept and IMO it is worthwhile discussing it since it seems obvious how easily we can lose its value and change it into questions of right and wrong, good and bad attachments.
N
Nick_A
Guest
Hi Nick
I see it as the opposite. Rather than forgetting our situation, the idea is to consciously remember and experience it from a quality of conscious detachment. Otherwise it is just another attachment.
A Basic Buddhism Guide: Differences From Other Religions.
The question is the same as with Neti: how to really understand what attachment means and why we should be aware of it rather than distort it into an acceptable societal standard of right and wrong.
Thanks for that. My name Nick is short for Nicholas and is the Russian name. I'll have to ask if the Russian origin for Nicholas has any similar connotations
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
Nick,
You said,
"Rather than forgetting our situation, the idea is to consciously remember and experience it from a quality of conscious detachment. Otherwise it is just another attachment."
--> This is just another attachment -- trying to consciously remember and experience something. It then becomes a type of wordplay -- trying to become unattached to the idea of being unattached to attachments. That is why I stick to my way of looking at it -- we should put all of our attachments, unattachments, etc., aside, and just go do something nice for someone.
"...how to really understand what attachment means...."
--> I think it is easy. To be attached means to do something nice for someone, and wanting to benefit from, or at least receiving some appreciation for, the result. Total unattachment means to do something (nice), and not be concerned about getting a 'feel good' experience out of it, not being concerned if anyone appreciated the effort we put out, etc.
You said,
"Rather than forgetting our situation, the idea is to consciously remember and experience it from a quality of conscious detachment. Otherwise it is just another attachment."
--> This is just another attachment -- trying to consciously remember and experience something. It then becomes a type of wordplay -- trying to become unattached to the idea of being unattached to attachments. That is why I stick to my way of looking at it -- we should put all of our attachments, unattachments, etc., aside, and just go do something nice for someone.
"...how to really understand what attachment means...."
--> I think it is easy. To be attached means to do something nice for someone, and wanting to benefit from, or at least receiving some appreciation for, the result. Total unattachment means to do something (nice), and not be concerned about getting a 'feel good' experience out of it, not being concerned if anyone appreciated the effort we put out, etc.
N
Nick_A
Guest
Does this mean that there is no essential difference between Buddhism and Secular Humanism?