Why seek "God"?

[Dwells]

Eventually, permanently.

Does this demand no contact from others?

 

[ananda]

Here we go again.
I know you pointed that out, but I still completely disagree. In the spiritual evolution of things, the energy of Love is not lost and can not be lost as it has a way of raising the Heart level consciousness in a person, which in turn is part of the process of awakening.

I don't disagree with most of what you wrote here. The plane of love is a very high plane, and is an extremely high goal which all mankind should reach for. It certainly elevates the ordinary man into a far more awakened individual. (Love is associated with the seventh through ninth heavenly planes in Buddhist cosmology)

What I disagree with is this: in my experience, the plane of love is not the highest plane, as it does not offer a permanent release from dukkha.

 

[ananda]

Does this demand no contact from others?

I would say yes, solitude is a part of it, as it goes hand-in-hand with detachment.

 

[Dwells]

[QUOTE="ananda, post: 71211794, ]

The ultimate help we can offer others is to demonstrate that sukkha in our own lives, inspiring others to seek and work out the same path for themselves.

Helping others through activity is a lesser grade of help, as it involves 1. adding (ultimately pointless) activity within samsara, which does not permanently (but only temporarily) resolves dukkha; and worse, 2. negative interference in another individual's kamma, which often prevents them from observing cause & effect in action, depriving them of a chance to gain additional wisdom which offers a permanent release from dukkha.[/QUOTE]

So if we see someone about to step into traffic or drowning we should walk away, IYO?

 

[ananda]

So if we see someone about to step into traffic or drowning we should walk away, IYO?

I'm not stating that at all ... that's why I wrote "often prevents them from observing cause & effect in action".

Hopefully, the kindness which compels us to help others results in an awakening of wisdom in the recipient of our kindness (this would be a net positive), but it often does not (neutral); or - worse yet - it can result in helplessness and more dependence & attachments (a net negative).

 

[dlamberth]

What I disagree with is this: in my experience, the plane of love is not the highest plane, as it does not offer a permanent release from dukkha.

I understand it's not your experience, you have made that abundantly clear. But as experienced by so many others, Love IS a valid path to the highest plane that really does work. I reference the Sufi Path of Love as an example. Do you remember my Rumi suggestion if someday you actually want to do a deeper exploration on the subject? Some might call it the Path of the Heart. In another example taken from the Catholic tradition, Farther William Johnston draws the image in "The Inner Eye of Love, Mysticism and Religion" of "Riding Love like an Arrow to the Heart of God". There are lots of example of Love's spiritual power and where it can take a person, though admittedly they are outside of your own personal experience.

 

[Dwells]

I'm not stating that at all ... that's why I wrote "often prevents them from observing cause & effect in action".

Hopefully, the kindness which compels us to help others results in an awakening of wisdom in the recipient of our kindness (this would be a net positive), but it often does not (neutral); or - worse yet - it can result in helplessness and more dependence & attachments (a net nega

I personally don't see how, what you call dukkha, can ever be detached from anyone, especially if every action creates a reaction....wouldn't this apply to sukkha also?

 

[ananda]

I understand it's not your experience, you have made that abundantly clear. But as experienced by so many others, Love IS a valid path to the highest plane that really does work. I reference the Sufi Path of Love as an example. Do you remember my Rumi suggestion if someday you actually want to do a deeper exploration on the subject? Some might call it the Path of the Heart. In another example taken from the Catholic tradition, Farther William Johnston draws the image in "The Inner Eye of Love, Mysticism and Religion" of "Riding Love like an Arrow to the Heart of God". There are lots of example of Love's spiritual power and where it can take a person, though admittedly they are outside of your own personal experience.

I would not say that the power of love is outside my own personal experience. I have experienced the power of love.

I would rather say that the love is not the ultimate state, according to my personal experience which also accords with my understanding of the teachings of the Buddha.

 

[ananda]

I personally don't see how, what you call dukkha, can ever be detached from anyone, especially if every action creates a reaction....wouldn't this apply to sukkha also?

In a sense.

Dukkha alternates with mundane experiences of sukkha (e.g. pleasure born from activity), even on this human plane of existence, like a pendulum which swings from pole to pole. We endlessly seek sukkha - only to swing over to & experience dukkha, once that sukkha ends. Experiencing dukkha, we seek out more sukkha to (temporarily) erase that dukkha. So it goes, ad infinitum, in samsara.

Transcendental experiences of sukkha involves stillness (e.g. bliss born from less activity; or inactivity, in the case of nibbana). Inactivity produces no actions, and thus no reactions.

 

[Dwells]

In a sense.

Dukkha alternates with mundane experiences of sukkha (e.g. pleasure born from activity), even on this human plane of existence, like a pendulum which swings from pole to pole. We endlessly seek sukkha - only to swing over to & experience dukkha, once that sukkha ends. Experiencing dukkha, we seek out more sukkha to (temporarily) erase that dukkha. So it goes, ad infinitum, in samsara.

Transcendental experiences of sukkha involves stillness (e.g. bliss born from less activity; or inactivity, in the case of nibbana). Inactivity produces no actions, and thus no reactions.

Do you see any similarities with Buddha and Jesus' teachings?

 

[dlamberth]

So if we see someone about to step into traffic or drowning we should walk away, IYO?

I often think that when someone is using a cross walk with signage an all, that others are out of place when they come running up saying that the wrong cross walk is being used, even though they all get a person safely to the same side of the road.

 

[ananda]

Do you see any similarities with Buddha and Jesus' teachings?

Which Jesus? The one found in orthodox Christianity?

 

[Dwells]

I often think that when someone is using a cross walk with signage an all, that others are out of place when they come running up saying that the wrong cross walk is being used, even though they all get a person safely to the same side of the road.

Thank God for Grace.

 

[Dwells]

Which Jesus? The one found in orthodox Christianity?

The one who pointed, "the way".

 

[ananda]

The one who pointed, "the way".

IMO the one who pointed out The Way was the Buddha

In relation to the orthodox Jesus (as found in the common Bible/NT) & the Buddha as found in the earliest texts, I see few similarities, aside from the golden rule:

Jesus taught dependence & conformity, Buddha taught independence;
Jesus taught the need for blind faith, Buddha taught the need for personal knowledge;
Jesus taught attachment, Buddha taught detachment;
Jesus taught love as the ultimate state, Buddha taught that it was simply a high state;
Jesus taught the need for a hierarchy, Buddha taught against it;
Jesus taught laws that were land-, time-, and culture- bound, Buddha taught universal laws;
Jesus taught a path that cannot be verified, Buddha taught a systematic, testable path;
Jesus taught that "more" was the solution, Buddha taught "less";
Jesus was not a pacifist, Buddha was a pacifist;
Jesus' teachings relies on a "real" Jesus; Buddha's teachings do not rely on a "real" Buddha;
Etc.

 

[Dwells]

IMO the one who pointed out The Way was the Buddha

In relation to the orthodox Jesus (as found in the common Bible/NT) & the Buddha as found in the earliest texts, I see few similarities, aside from the golden rule:

Jesus taught dependence & conformity, Buddha taught independence;
Jesus taught the need for blind faith, Buddha taught the need for personal knowledge;
Jesus taught attachment, Buddha taught detachment;
Jesus taught love as the ultimate state, Buddha taught that it was simply a high state;
Jesus taught the need for a hierarchy, Buddha taught against it;
Jesus taught laws that were land-, time-, and culture- bound, Buddha taught universal laws;
Jesus taught a path that cannot be verified, Buddha taught a systematic, testable path;
Jesus taught that "more" was the solution, Buddha taught "less";
Jesus was not a pacifist, Buddha was a pacifist;
Jesus' teachings relies on a "real" Jesus; Buddha's teachings do not rely on a "real" Buddha;
Etc.

Thank you, that was enlightening.

 

[ananda]

Thank you, that was enlightening.

You're welcome.

 

[Dwells]

You're welcome.

Although I don't agree with all of your points.

 

[ananda]

Although I don't agree with all of your points.

Which summary points do you believe I've made a mistake with, or had a misunderstanding?

 

[Dwells]

Which summary points do you believe I've made a mistake with, or had a misunderstanding?

I don't feel Jesus taught conformity, he spoke out about against conforming to the ways of the world.
Jesus did not speak of blind faith, His teachings are what we follow and this leads to a biblical faith.
Jesus spoke of the different types of love agape, phileo, and eros.
1 Corinthians 13:4-8 and lets not forget grace.
Jesus increased the law and in order to relate to the people he spoke to "where they live" to increase their understanding of laws that include mercy, justice and grace.
Jesus most certainly did teach a path that can be verified and it's not an easy one. Denying ones self and taking up His cross to follow Him.
If by Jesus teaching "more" you mean living an abundant life, then yes, but not sure that is what you were referring to. He also said it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.
Jesus wasn't a Pacifist? What makes you say that?