Why seek "God"?

[Rajni]

To ramble on from my previous post :

If you've ever read "Practicing the Presence of God" by Brother Lawrence
of the Resurrection, his approach was to do everything for the love of
God. When I have applied this approach, even mundane, unpleasant
tasks would become a joy to do.

It's probably a similar technique to "living in the now"; at least, it seems to
have the same effect on a person. There are even practical, non-spiritual
benefits to that approach, such as having more energy at the end of the
day.

-

 

[dlamberth]

Actually, I can see how some Buddhist approaches could facilitate one's
walk with the Lord through techniques for getting negative mental "noise"
out of the way so that one can focus more fully on communing with God.

-

I know several Christian Buddhist for this very reason that you bring out.

 

[ananda]

In Christianity we do our Father's will. God's will, which is not exactly tied to the person but in God's overall plan coming to fruition.

This bliss is in who we are in Jesus Christ and God in general.

We are children of the King. Adopted, but Children. We are co-pertakers now of the will of the living God being done on this earth as we speak. We are part of a family and we are heirs of Christ and co-heirs to the Father. We participate, not just watch.

We participate in and are part of God's plan for all mankind.

Yes, I understand that is Christian dogma.

Why not see "bliss" as simply "bliss", then, as a goal worth seeking in and of itself? Why the need to interpret it and associate it with "God" or "Jesus" (or "Krisha" or "Aphrodite", etc.)?

 

[ananda]

Actually, I can see how some Buddhist approaches could facilitate one's
walk with the Lord through techniques for getting negative mental "noise"
out of the way so that one can focus more fully on communing with God.
If that makes sense. Like that whole "taking every thought captive" thing I
mentioned earlier. Again, though, I'm getting that more from modern
teachers on the subject who seem to draw from Eastern influences ...
If you've ever read "Practicing the Presence of God" by Brother Lawrence
of the Resurrection, his approach was to do everything for the love of
God. When I have applied this approach, even mundane, unpleasant
tasks would become a joy to do.

It's probably a similar technique to "living in the now"; at least, it seems to
have the same effect on a person. There are even practical, non-spiritual
benefits to that approach, such as having more energy at the end of the
day.

-

I'm familiar with Brother Lawrence; I agree with you, his approach is quite similar to the Buddhist approach to the early stages of meditation, to gain their associated states of mindfulness, concentration, and jhana (levels of meditative planes). Achieving just the first jhana results in intense experiences of loving-kindness and peace.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Yes, I understand that is Christian dogma.

Why not see "bliss" as simply "bliss", then, as a goal worth seeking in and of itself? Why the need to interpret it and associate it with "God" or "Jesus" (or "Krisha" or "Aphrodite", etc.)?

Why don't you find out instead of jumping the gun and putting it down? Seems you are biased. Everyone talks and knows little. Wading through things people understand and perception so time consuming.

 

[ananda]

Why don't you find out instead of jumping the gun and putting it down? Seems you are biased. Everyone talks and knows little. Wading through things people understand and perception so time consuming.

How can I find out, and how long would it take to find out? I've already spent 30 years in Christianity, about 10 years of that time as a teacher of both children and adults. Looking back now, I see no reason to associate "bliss" as originating from a personal being.

 

[dlamberth]

Why the need to interpret it and associate it with "God" or "Jesus" (or "Krisha" or "Aphrodite", etc.)?

Why not?

I can only speak for myself here, I "experience" a presence, an animating life force if you will, that is manifested through out and with in all of Creation. So to answer your question, there is no way I'm able to separate myself or anything that exist for that matter, from that Divine and Sacred life force. This IS my reality in life. Which means that everywhere I look, there God is.

 

[ToBeLoved]

How can I find out, and how long would it take to find out? I've already spent 30 years in Christianity, about 10 years of that time as a teacher of both children and adults. Looking back now, I see no reason to associate "bliss" as originating from a personal being.

Very telling. Maybe you didn't seek God but did what people told you to do? Not saying you did but many that do not find wonder in Christianity don't get close enough to God personally. That is what I have seen.

Do you think this may have been like your experience? Doing what you thought God wanted instead of asking God and waiting on His answer?

God is awesome. Some Christians not so much. I've been there.

 

[FireDragon76]

Very telling. Maybe you didn't seek God but did what people told you to do? Not saying you did but many that do not find wonder in Christianity don't get close enough to God personally. That is what I have seen.

It's possible for Christianity to become a dead thing, and for Buddhism to seem very much alive in comparison. Particularly if a person has been spiritually wounded.

I disagree with the idea of love being some kind of lower passion. I think that's a dehumanizing, narcissistic, and elitist mentality.

 

[ananda]

Why not?

I can only speak for myself here, I "experience" a presence, an animating life force if you will, that is manifested through out and with in all of Creation. So to answer your question, there is no way I'm able to separate myself or anything that exist for that matter, from that Divine and Sacred life force. This IS my reality in life. Which means that everywhere I look, there God is.

I cannot disagree with you - in a sense.

In early Buddhism, the first jhana is not only associated with incredibly blissful feelings of loving-kindness, but it is also claimed to be the heavenly realm of the deity Brahma (& his assembly of more minor deities), who believed himself to be "Almighty God", "Father", and "Creator" of all. He is not seen by Buddhists as eternal, however, and there are said to be jhanic planes & heavens above his own, which he cannot see. This is still speculation for me though, as I have not seen "Brahma" for myself ... but I find it to be an interesting correlation between what you wrote and what Buddhism claims.

 

[ananda]

Very telling. Maybe you didn't seek God but did what people told you to do? Not saying you did but many that do not find wonder in Christianity don't get close enough to God personally. That is what I have seen.

Do you think this may have been like your experience? Doing what you thought God wanted instead of asking God and waiting on His answer?

God is awesome. Some Christians not so much. I've been there.

I sought God, but never experienced that personal being. I waited for 30 years ... unfortunately, the problem is that I have a limited lifespan; I do not have an unlimited amount of time to explore all claims from various religions regarding God.

 

[Rajni]

I disagree with the idea of love being some kind of lower passion. I think that's a dehumanizing, narcissistic, and elitist mentality.

It might be tied to the whole forming of attachments thing. If the
goal is detachment, then even love (or some types of love) would be
included in the list of things one mustn't get entangled in (accord-
ing to [my understanding of] Buddhism).

However, I would think that love would only be a 'problem' if it's
being approached from the vantage point of ownership of another
person. That's where attachments can be debilitating. But a self-
less type of love, on the other hand, would be fine and wouldn't
conflict with one's goal of detachment.

As always, though, I could be wrong.
-

 

[ananda]

I disagree with the idea of love being some kind of lower passion. I think that's a dehumanizing, narcissistic, and elitist mentality.

Love has a measure of dukkha associated with it, that is why it is not considered to be the ultimate goal in early Buddhism.

 

[FireDragon76]

The Christian ideal of love is agape, which is a disinterested regard for another. It is not "attachment", but "unconditional positive regard" for the other. That is one reason celibacy has been so esteemed at various points in Christian history. But Christians also see a sacramental quality to even erotic and familial love.

I agree with the feminist who critiqued the Buddha for leaving his wife and family. I heard this poem years ago, but unfortunately her name escapes me at the moment, but it was shaming Gothama for thinking that bliss had to be found outside of relationships. There is something very masculine but also very delusional about thinking that transcendence is the height of spirituality.

 

[ananda]

It might be tied to the whole forming of attachments thing. If the
goal is detachment, then even love (or some types of love) would be
included in the list of things one mustn't get entangled in (accord-
ing to [my understanding of] Buddhism).

However, I would think that love would only be a 'problem' if it's
being approached from the vantage point of ownership of another
person. That's where attachments can be debilitating. But a self-
less type of love, on the other hand, would be fine and wouldn't
conflict with one's goal of detachment.

As always, though, I could be wrong.
-

Yes, what you wrote is accurate, to my understanding also of early Buddhism. Love is a high goal; compassion is an even higher goal, in that it is seen as less attaching (& with less dukhha) than love. Empathetic joy is likewise higher than compassion, and equanimity is the highest.

I think "self-less love", as you pointed out & what @FireDragon76 refers to as agape, seems to refer to compassion or empathetic joy ... however, since these states also have subjects & objects, the presence of some form of a connection (and therefore, attachment) is implied.

 

[FireDragon76]

The Christian ideal of agape makes no sense without compassion.

As I said, the rejection of all attachments reflects a twisted patriarchal spirituality of transcendence. Christians know better, we worship a crucified God who is very much attached to us.

 

[ananda]

The Christian ideal of agape makes no sense without compassion.

As I said, the rejection of all attachments reflects a twisted patriarchal spirituality of transcendence. Christians know better, we worship a crucified God who is very much attached to us.

I can see how you might reject detachment as "twisted", if you are required to interpret it in terms of your dogma.

Since I cannot verify Christian dogma for myself, I cannot interpret detachment from the same perspective, especially since personal, direct experience informs me that I encounter greater bliss and peace the more I detach.

 

[TheOldWays]

Christianity is anything but a common religion.

I am sure most religions say that about themselves.

 

[dlamberth]

Love has a measure of dukkha associated with it, that is why it is not considered to be the ultimate goal in early Buddhism.

From my experience, in any of the spiritual paths that I'm connected with, none of them considers Love as the "goal". Every one of them considers Love as the path or a way forward. More than any other creature, Human Beings are made to respond to Love. And I think that's important to consider. When talking about presence, for instance, Rumi has this to say: "There is no way into presence except through a Love exchange".

 

[dlamberth]

Christians know better, we worship a crucified God who is very much attached to us.

When looking at the ideas of attachment, I don't believe it's about God. It's about us as Human Beings and looking at our own attachments.

For instance, in the simplest form as a Lover of God, I look for my own attachments that get into my way that prevent me from being constantly aware of the presence of God in my life.