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.
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.only the true One is the (primary) source of the perfect truth, buddha had not explained it and therefore had not used the (biblical) doctrine of eternal judgment as a basis of his teaching(s) - the true One and His(the biblical) prophets are the only ones explaining the perfect truth...
Blessings
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.If you're drawn via love to others, is that not a form of attachment?
... benevolence for all (more than one), correct? Then I would suggest that there still exists attachment, only just that it's for the all.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.
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.
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.this "i have no knowledge of... (true One), etc." seems very irresponsible/sounds like you are not interested in what the truth really is?!
Blessings
... benevolence for all (more than one), correct? Then I would suggest that there still exists attachment, only just that it's for the all.
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.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.
Both are attached in different ways.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.
Neither am I, I try to speak mainly based on what I've known for myself.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.
What updates would that be?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.
Well,
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.
The Bible says that there are no God seekers.
Romans 3:10-12 as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; (11) no one understands; no one seeks for God. (12) All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one."
If something/someone receives your love, and they do not perform to your expectation, does it affect you in any way?
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.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.
Reading what Eyes wide Open wrote, I'd call it Love, and an opening that can come from Love.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.
As many have pointed out, "love" is such a multivalent word, that it is essentially meaningless.Reading what Eyes wide Open wrote, I'd call it Love, and an opening that can come from Love.
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.
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."
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.As many have pointed out, "love" is such a multivalent word, that it is essentially meaningless.
Thanks for the confirmationI disagree because it feels like love .... The feeling creates the action....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?