Why seek "God"?

[ananda]

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.

I agree ... there is an inevitable impasse if we cannot agree on a common definition of "love". We must ultimately follow what we each know for ourselves.

 

[dlamberth]

I agree ... there is an inevitable impasse if we cannot agree on a common definition of "love". We must ultimately follow what we each know for ourselves.

Well, as mentioned earlier, knowing Love is something of the Heart. So it experiential in nature. Defining things is stuff of the thinking brain. The thinking brain likes to give understandable form to thought. It lives in duality. Your wanting to give Love some sort of defined form. My spiritual path is of the Heart and thus very experiential in nature. So yes, there is an impasse because it seems to me that your insisting on giving form to non-form. Be free from that attachment.

 

[ananda]

Well, as mentioned earlier, knowing Love is something of the Heart. So it experiential in nature. Defining things is stuff of the thinking brain. The thinking brain likes to give understandable form to thought. It lives in duality. Your wanting to give Love some sort of defined form. My spiritual path is of the Heart and thus very experiential in nature. So yes, there is an impasse because it seems to me that your insisting on giving form to non-form. Be free from that attachment.

It's not that I wish to give "love" a defined form - I just wish to come to a common understanding as to what it is. If we can't come to a common understanding, we can't discuss it.

 

[Eyes wide Open]

Thanks for the confirmation

Confirmation of what? You state compassion is a higher state than love, and yet the feeling I had internally for all life gives rise to compassionate acts, to show that I care, thus its of a higher nature than compassion. I call that feeling love, because it literally creates a love for all life. As I said prior it's that feeling that is an expression of who you are creating the action, not the action creating the feeling, because the feeling was born initially from no outside stimuli. Perhaps it's all semantics, it matters not.

 

[toLiJC]

What do you claim that I am stating, then?

for example you don't tell me that if we don't work for overall salvation in the true One now, nor will the same personalities that we are now work for our salvation in the next/future eternities (when we will successively be in the places/positions of others), and it seems that you don't even suppose/admit that there may be such a thing...

Blessings

 

[ananda]

Confirmation of what? You state compassion is a higher state than love, and yet the feeling I had internally for all life gives rise to compassionate acts, to show that I care, thus its of a higher nature than compassion. I call that feeling love, because it literally creates a love for all life. As I said prior it's that feeling that is an expression of who you are creating the action, not the action creating the feeling, because the feeling was born initially from no outside stimuli. Perhaps it's all semantics, it matters not.

Yes, from (this) Buddhist's perspective, compassion (karuna, the 2nd Brahma-vihara) is born from love (metta, the 1st Brahma-vihara). So, I would agree with you, love gives rise to compassion; where we differ is that we recognize compassion as something unique and different from love.

All in all, however, both love and compassion creates action, and action causes dukkha.

 

[ananda]

for example you don't tell me that if we don't work for overall salvation in the true One now,

I cannot speak of this because I have no direct knowledge of this.

nor will the same personalities that we are now work for our salvation in the next/future eternities (when we will successively be in the places/positions of others), and it seems that you don't even suppose/admit that there may be such a thing...

Blessings

You speak of "personalities" as if we have static, unchanging personalities that remain in the next reality.

No, evidence tells me even now that my personality is constantly changing - our lifestream is in an unending state of flux, taking in new ideas from others and the world around us, discarding other ideas and thoughts.

 

[Silmarien]

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 could accept that, though I should point out that the most powerful approaches to Christian apologetics work from the starting point that the human heart itself bears God's signature, so to speak.

I don't base my whole theology solely on Paul. Nor did Paul despair or exaggerate. This is a completely wrong characterization.

I don't mean that the exaggeration is his here. He's quoting one of the prophets, who generally used overstatement as a rhetorical device to make their point, no?

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.

Yes, 1 Corinthians 13 is specifically why I love Paul, despite philosophical differences. Not much of a stereotype, though. I have no problem with the idea that nobody goes seeking without God's grace first working on them, but I have every problem with walking into a thread like this and tossing out "total depravity" while not bothering to go into the nuances. You turn into every bad Protestant stereotype and the only message you end up sending is, "If in doubt, the answer is no."

 

[Eyes wide Open]

Yes, from (this) Buddhist's perspective, compassion (karuna, the 2nd Brahma-vihara) is born from love (metta, the 1st Brahma-vihara). So, I would agree with you, love gives rise to compassion; where we differ is that we recognize compassion as something unique and different from love.

All in all, however, both love and compassion creates action, and action causes dukkha.

So if I act with compassion (the act of showing mercy) that creates dukkha?
How so?

 

[ananda]

So if I act with compassion (the act of showing mercy) that creates dukkha?
How so?

All activity produces some form of dukkha, even "good" ones.

 

[Eyes wide Open]

All activity produces some form of dukkha, even "good" ones.

That's not an explanation that's a statement. Please explain and instance when you have been compassionate and it's created dukkha.

 

[dlamberth]

It's not that I wish to give "love" a defined form - I just wish to come to a common understanding as to what it is. If we can't come to a common understanding, we can't discuss it.

I've tried that. You weren't interested.

 

[ananda]

That's not an explanation that's a statement. Please explain and instance when you have been compassionate and it's created dukkha.

The common definition and expression of "compassion" is the active intervention (interference) in another being's lifestream, in an attempt to circumvent the natural expression of the law of cause & effect - without the ability to truly know that individual's motivations. E.g. We try to save another person from his low state, suffering a multitude of bad choices in life, e.g. by mindlessly giving him money, etc. He uses that money in bad ways, adding to his bad kamma, multiplying his dukkha.

The greatest compassion is equanimity/detachment - refraining from forceful attempts to change others or the world, or to bypass kamma - but remaining as a source of wisdom (a guide) to those willing to initiate change in themselves.

 

[ananda]

I've tried that. You weren't interested.

When did I say I wasn't interested?

 

[dlamberth]

When did I say I wasn't interested?

An interested person has curiosity and inquires for deeper understanding.

 

[JoeP222w]

I have every problem with walking into a thread like this and tossing out "total depravity" while not bothering to go into the nuances.

Man is evil in his very nature. I don't see any reason to water this truth down. If one does not fundamentally understand the anthropology of man, then to claim that men seek God, in and of themselves, is erroneous.

 

[ananda]

An interested person has curiosity and inquires for deeper understanding.

If I wasn't interested, I wouldn't have created this thread, and contributed to its growth to 46 pages

 

[dlamberth]

.

 

[ananda]

If that's so, lets see you explore Love than.

As I understand "love", it is my claim and extrapolation from personal experience that the Buddhist Path is the pinnacle and completion of the Path of Love.

 

[Eyes wide Open]

The common definition and expression of "compassion" is the active intervention (interference) in another being's lifestream, in an attempt to circumvent the natural expression of the law of cause & effect - without the ability to truly know that individual's motivations. E.g. We try to save another person from his low state, suffering a multitude of bad choices in life, e.g. by mindlessly giving him money, etc. He uses that money in bad ways, adding to his bad kamma, multiplying his dukkha.

The greatest compassion is equanimity/detachment - refraining from forceful attempts to change others or the world, or to bypass kamma - but remaining as a source of wisdom (a guide) to those willing to initiate change in themselves.

As I said prior its a question of semantics. My usage of the word action does not denote anything like the mindless money comparison you make.