I have no personal knowledge of your alleged "true One", an alleged "eternal judgment" or his alleged "prophets". I do have personal knowledge of the Buddha's teachings, however.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Why seek "God"?
- Thread starter ananda
- Start date
Jane_the_Bane
Gaia's godchild
- Feb 11, 2004
- 19,359
- 3,426
- Faith
- Pagan
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
- Politics
- UK-Greens
Only if it was limited to any singular individual, phenomenon etc. This was not expecting permanence from impermanent things. Just all-encompassing (and transcending) benevolence.
Upvote
0
... benevolence for all (more than one), correct? Then I would suggest that there still exists attachment, only just that it's for the all.
Upvote
0
I am always interested in truth. However, I seek to personally know and appropriate that truth, not simply have blind faith that something is allegedly truth.
Upvote
0
Jane_the_Bane
Gaia's godchild
- Feb 11, 2004
- 19,359
- 3,426
- Faith
- Pagan
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
- Politics
- UK-Greens
Well,
1. I disagree with your assessment.
Buddhism isn't and has never been intended to be a path of lonely, starved asketics withdrawing to the top of a mountain, but always leads back to the "marketplace". It embraces benevolence, not callous withdrawal. Attachment and its relation to suffering are connected to the nature of impermanence, our illusions or false conclusions, and our unwillingness to accept change and a non-static universe (death, entropy, evolution, etc.) as the nature of reality.
2. Who is more attached? The asket who needs to withdraw from life in order to resist "temptation" - or the person who embraces life without seeking to conserve it or hold on to it? The anorexic is as much of a slave to food as the glutton.
3. I do not identify as a Buddhist. I'm partial to it, and take some inspiration from it, but I am no more beholden to its traditions and dogmas than to any other religion's. And I do not think it can hold up without some serious updates, based on advances in our understanding and knowledge of physiology, psychology, mind sciences, and the physical world.
Upvote
0
My understanding of Buddhism is that the arahant ideal, with the cessation of his kamma-sankaras/lifestream, contributes the most to the cessation of suffering - for himself and for others. He does not return ("lead back to the 'marketplace'"), but completely withdraws from samsara. Such a withdrawal is not callous, but supremely benevolent. Not only does he serve as a prime example to others, the cessation of his lifestream removes its potential to produce and add dukkha to others in samsara. Also, the compassion he demonstrates towards others is a consequence of the remainder of the kamma-sankaras which must be exhausted before he enters into parinibbana.
Both are attached in different ways.
Neither am I, I try to speak mainly based on what I've known for myself.
What updates would that be?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Silmarien
Existentialist
- Feb 24, 2017
- 4,337
- 5,254
- 39
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
It also strongly suggests that there are: "And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart." Jeremiah 29:13.
As much as I love Paul, I don't understand why people base their whole theology around his moments of despair and exaggeration. Western Christianity would be a lot less myopic if people went around quoting "faith, hope, and love" instead of "total depravity."
Upvote
0
Eyes wide Open
Love and peace is the ONLY foundation-to build....
Well I'll give you an example. My outlook or feeling I have within is to treat all life with respect, to show that I care. I call that love as stated prior because it's an outward projection of action from what I feel inside, so it's an act of love. I love all life, be it human, plant animal etc. If I don't eat a cow it's because I have its physical and mental well being at heart, I ask nothing of it, it has my love. I have no expectation of the cow. Can you see how I could then apply that to a human?
Am I completely resistant to another reaction to me? No, but then who is? but it doesn't corrode my capacity to continue to love in the manner I've stated.
Upvote
0
From what you describe, I would not call it "love". Buddhists like myself would call that "compassion" or "empathetic joy", two states higher than mere love. These states retain less attachment than love, but nevertheless attachment exists, as you stated.
Upvote
0
As many have pointed out, "love" is such a multivalent word, that it is essentially meaningless.
The ultimate goal of Buddhist practice - nibbana - is absent of attachments (and thus, absent of dukkha) of any kind, transcending the attachments of love (judging by any of its definitions, or attempts at definitions, I've heard).
Upvote
0
Eyes wide Open
Love and peace is the ONLY foundation-to build....
I disagree because it feels like love, which leads to compassion (the act of showing mercy) The feeling creates the action. Empathy is the resultant feeling produced in light of another's plight etc.
Whether I'm being compassionate or empathetic the initial feelings produced within the body (a distinct change within from meditation some 8 years ago) were not dependant on any outside stimuli, i was detached from all physical outside activity at the time. That feeling has to have a word attributed to it, I call that love. You can put forward Buddhist concepts of higher/highest states but ultimately they mean nothing to me as I'm not a Buddhist, but understand the value to you on your pathway and what Buddhism offers the student.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
JoeP222w
Well-Known Member
This seeking here is because God's grace has done a work in the heart of the believer, not because they seek Him, in and of themselves.
I don't base my whole theology solely on Paul. Nor did Paul despair or exaggerate. This is a completely wrong characterization.
That would be a stereotype. Faith, hope and love (interestingly written by Paul) are meaningless without understanding the total depravity of man and the grace and mercy that God grants in Jesus Christ.
Upvote
0
I truly do understand that from your perspective and from within the particular path you follow that Love seems is meaningless. I get that. But that does not make it so for myself or others or even others who follow Buddhism.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
