Post Reply
Page 6 of 26  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 26 Next
3 years ago  ::  Feb 14, 2012 - 10:35AM #51
Bob_the_Lunatic
Posts: 3,458

Feb 14, 2012 -- 8:43AM, davelaw40 wrote:


Feb 14, 2012 -- 1:55AM, Bob_the_Lunatic wrote:



Again, I can tell the difference and don't mind your questions.  However, I imagine your curiosity may not be shared by others, especially considering we've gone at least one continent off topic here lol.  So perhaps we should continue further discussion in private, or in the Pagan area if the pagans would allow it (since Maine said she was also curious and assuming her curiosity remains).  Or perhaps most logically in the Nichiren Buddhism section.


And I am clearly not trying to prostelyze, so nobody should take it that way.  This is more theory than I've relayed than all my other 2300 posts combined-it's not really why I'm here.  But the man asked me GOOD questions, and hopefully nobody minds that I answered them.


Lastly John, if you'd like to know more about the 10 Factors (how I believe life interacts with its environment-ie how we create karma, and how our lives change from moment to moment due to our behavior, this is a very good link-or ask me, I'm pretty well versed in our theory.  


Piece of a lecture on the  Lotus Sutra




I am more familar with Pure land because we compared and contrasted Nembutsu with Name of Jesus Charismatic Christianity in Comparative Religion class and I've studied the life of Mushashi and Amidaba was sweeping thru Japan at the time.





No question there are parallels between Jodo Shu/Shinshu (Nembutsu) and Christianity.  You would have difficulty putting Nichiren Buddhism (or many Buddhisms) in a comparative religion class with Christianity, although I think it would work to a greater degree with Judaism.  (for example, neither is concerned with after death, and rather focuses on right living, here and now).

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 14, 2012 - 10:42AM #52
Bob_the_Lunatic
Posts: 3,458

Feb 14, 2012 -- 10:20AM, Iwantamotto wrote:


davelaw40:  I do not scoff at people who gain Spiritual value from Star Wars or the Simirillian; but if the don't have Jesus as well- I think they have missed out


I don't scoff at people who only focus on Christ, but I think if they don't study Kermit the Frog's Dream of Making People Happy, or the eternal romance of Sailor Moon and Tuxedo Mask, or the insightful compassion of the Robears (or whatever) from Thundercats, that they are missing out.  :)


Bob:  Gotta point out... on the other side, all those Buddhists are thinking "all those folks fooling around with gods and afterworlds ... are really missing out on the NOW


LOL.  I like Buddhism for its penchant of cutting the crap and getting right to the point. :)


Also called the "Dharma" in many sects of Buddhism.  This law is the nature of life itself, the sound of the Universe.  "Great Spirit" indicates an "entity" of some sort to me, so I don't think I can wrap my Buddhist brain around that idea.


My experience with God is like Dharma that appears to be an entity when viewed from human perspective and is certainly dredged through our own preconceived ideas.  I think that's why, when I dream of Him, the imagery is different every time, but the reality He represents is always consistent.


Untouched by karma, the purity of life-thus the only way for the human being to break free of their karma, in this life-is to awaken their Buddha nature by practicing The Law.


But you can't help practicing the Law, since it is eternal and omnipresent.  You can THINK you aren't, but it's really impossible, isn't it?




well, I would say that because my life is the Law at every moment... including when I am creating bad karma, delusional and oblivious to reality that I am "living the Law" perhaps.  But when I say "practice the Law", to me that means making an active effort to be aware of it and try to connect with it... and on the latter, I'd say that's rare actually.  Also "omnipresent" would be a misnomer IMO as it would indicate it is something separate from the life of ordinary human beings.  

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 14, 2012 - 3:48PM #53
davelaw40
Posts: 19,669

Feb 14, 2012 -- 10:42AM, Bob_the_Lunatic wrote:


Feb 14, 2012 -- 10:20AM, Iwantamotto wrote:


davelaw40:  I do not scoff at people who gain Spiritual value from Star Wars or the Simirillian; but if the don't have Jesus as well- I think they have missed out


I don't scoff at people who only focus on Christ, but I think if they don't study Kermit the Frog's Dream of Making People Happy, or the eternal romance of Sailor Moon and Tuxedo Mask, or the insightful compassion of the Robears (or whatever) from Thundercats, that they are missing out.  :)


Bob:  Gotta point out... on the other side, all those Buddhists are thinking "all those folks fooling around with gods and afterworlds ... are really missing out on the NOW


LOL.  I like Buddhism for its penchant of cutting the crap and getting right to the point. :)


Also called the "Dharma" in many sects of Buddhism.  This law is the nature of life itself, the sound of the Universe.  "Great Spirit" indicates an "entity" of some sort to me, so I don't think I can wrap my Buddhist brain around that idea.


My experience with God is like Dharma that appears to be an entity when viewed from human perspective and is certainly dredged through our own preconceived ideas.  I think that's why, when I dream of Him, the imagery is different every time, but the reality He represents is always consistent.


Untouched by karma, the purity of life-thus the only way for the human being to break free of their karma, in this life-is to awaken their Buddha nature by practicing The Law.


But you can't help practicing the Law, since it is eternal and omnipresent.  You can THINK you aren't, but it's really impossible, isn't it?




well, I would say that because my life is the Law at every moment... including when I am creating bad karma, delusional and oblivious to reality that I am "living the Law" perhaps.  But when I say "practice the Law", to me that means making an active effort to be aware of it and try to connect with it... and on the latter, I'd say that's rare actually.  Also "omnipresent" would be a misnomer IMO as it would indicate it is something separate from the life of ordinary human beings.  




It sounds more akin to Living a self-aware life

Non Quis, Sed Quid
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 14, 2012 - 3:58PM #54
johnacancienne
Posts: 7,314


One could say that it was morality without the shackles of a deity. Especially one who holds a carrot in one hand and a club in the other.

It isn't about waiting for the storms to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 14, 2012 - 4:50PM #55
Bob_the_Lunatic
Posts: 3,458

Feb 14, 2012 -- 3:58PM, johnacancienne wrote:



One could say that it was morality without the shackles of a deity. Especially one who holds a carrot in one hand and a club in the other.




Here's the perspective on morality:  If a teaching is pure-and leads to the true self, why would one need a moral code or any code?  Rules, or codes are only necessary when there is a lack of something greater.  


Also, from the Buddhist perspective, actions themselves have NO value of "right" or of "wrong".  For it is the nature of an act that determines what it is, not the act itself.  This also indicates that 'morality' is not necessary-morality is like will power, it is a lie.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 14, 2012 - 5:10PM #56
bigbear6161
Posts: 4,045
Any thoughts on Jesus and who he was historically?

How does the process of mythologization work?
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 14, 2012 - 5:57PM #57
johnacancienne
Posts: 7,314

Feb 14, 2012 -- 5:10PM, bigbear6161 wrote:

Any thoughts on Jesus and who he was historically? How does the process of mythologization work?



Have you bothered to scope out the links to the books and tapes given? It seems after I gave you the link to the book, and told you that you could preview some of the chapters, you'd have had something to comment on about it.  As it is, without going into the book and pulling up a quote from it here or there, I can do no more. Actually, I think we've all addressed it about as far as we can.

It isn't about waiting for the storms to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 14, 2012 - 6:09PM #58
johnacancienne
Posts: 7,314

Feb 14, 2012 -- 4:50PM, Bob_the_Lunatic wrote:

Here's the perspective on morality:  If a teaching is pure-and leads to the true self, why would one need a moral code or any code?  Rules, or codes are only necessary when there is a lack of something greater.  


Also, from the Buddhist perspective, actions themselves have NO value of "right" or of "wrong".  For it is the nature of an act that determines what it is, not the act itself.  This also indicates that 'morality' is not necessary-morality is like will power, it is a lie.




OK... For example... Pagans believe in something called the Law of Return. By that, what it means is that whatever you send out... good deeds or bad, praise or scolding, be sure of the intentions, for it's going to come back to you at a higher rate than sent out. By that, I mean if I'm an ass toward someone, for no reason other than to be mean toward them, I will get back more in return than I sent out.... If I am warm, loving and compassionate, then the same holds true. Some, depending on the path say times 3, and some say times 5. It really doesn't matter the amount, the repercussion, or reward as the case may be is greater than what I sent out. So this does place some value on right or wrong.... call it morality, for lack of anything better. We saw some of this in action, I think on the thread than got locked earlier this afternoon.


For us, the deities made these laws, though we aren't bound to follow them in a rigid manner, the law of return works the same. In Christianity, something similar would be "you reap what you sew". Basically, the major difference I see in your view is the need for a deity, and how we look at what we refer to as morality, and how certain laws are created. I don't see a whole lot of incompatibility here.

It isn't about waiting for the storms to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 14, 2012 - 6:52PM #59
Sacrificialgoddess
Posts: 9,496

Feb 14, 2012 -- 6:09PM, johnacancienne wrote:


Feb 14, 2012 -- 4:50PM, Bob_the_Lunatic wrote:

Here's the perspective on morality:  If a teaching is pure-and leads to the true self, why would one need a moral code or any code?  Rules, or codes are only necessary when there is a lack of something greater.  


Also, from the Buddhist perspective, actions themselves have NO value of "right" or of "wrong".  For it is the nature of an act that determines what it is, not the act itself.  This also indicates that 'morality' is not necessary-morality is like will power, it is a lie.




OK... For example... Pagans believe in something called the Law of Return. By that, what it means is that whatever you send out... good deeds or bad, praise or scolding, be sure of the intentions, for it's going to come back to you at a higher rate than sent out. By that, I mean if I'm an ass toward someone, for no reason other than to be mean toward them, I will get back more in return than I sent out.... If I am warm, loving and compassionate, then the same holds true. Some, depending on the path say times 3, and some say times 5. It really doesn't matter the amount, the repercussion, or reward as the case may be is greater than what I sent out. So this does place some value on right or wrong.... call it morality, for lack of anything better. We saw some of this in action, I think on the thread than got locked earlier this afternoon.


For us, the deities made these laws, though we aren't bound to follow them in a rigid manner, the law of return works the same. In Christianity, something similar would be "you reap what you sew". Basically, the major difference I see in your view is the need for a deity, and how we look at what we refer to as morality, and how certain laws are created. I don't see a whole lot of incompatibility here.




And there are the Nine Noble Virtues.

Dark Energy. It can be found in the observable Universe. Found in ratios of 75% more than any other substance. Dark Energy. It can be found in religious extremists, in cheerleaders. To come to the conclusion that Dark signifies mean and malevolent would define 75% of the Universe as an evil force. Alternatively, to think that some cheerleaders don't have razors in their snatch is to be foolishly unarmed.

-- Tori Amos
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 14, 2012 - 8:04PM #60
Bob_the_Lunatic
Posts: 3,458

Feb 14, 2012 -- 6:09PM, johnacancienne wrote:


Feb 14, 2012 -- 4:50PM, Bob_the_Lunatic wrote:

Here's the perspective on morality:  If a teaching is pure-and leads to the true self, why would one need a moral code or any code?  Rules, or codes are only necessary when there is a lack of something greater.  


Also, from the Buddhist perspective, actions themselves have NO value of "right" or of "wrong".  For it is the nature of an act that determines what it is, not the act itself.  This also indicates that 'morality' is not necessary-morality is like will power, it is a lie.




OK... For example... Pagans believe in something called the Law of Return. By that, what it means is that whatever you send out... good deeds or bad, praise or scolding, be sure of the intentions, for it's going to come back to you at a higher rate than sent out. By that, I mean if I'm an ass toward someone, for no reason other than to be mean toward them, I will get back more in return than I sent out.... If I am warm, loving and compassionate, then the same holds true. Some, depending on the path say times 3, and some say times 5. It really doesn't matter the amount, the repercussion, or reward as the case may be is greater than what I sent out. So this does place some value on right or wrong.... call it morality, for lack of anything better. We saw some of this in action, I think on the thread than got locked earlier this afternoon.


For us, the deities made these laws, though we aren't bound to follow them in a rigid manner, the law of return works the same. In Christianity, something similar would be "you reap what you sew". Basically, the major difference I see in your view is the need for a deity, and how we look at what we refer to as morality, and how certain laws are created. I don't see a whole lot of incompatibility here.




Very cool John.  There are a lot of allegories in Buddhism, some of them use gods to make a point.  Some Buddhists mistakenly take these stories literally, but they are like Aesop's Fables-stories demonstrating a principle or a truth of life.


One of my favorite allegories (I forget which sutra it is in) is about Karma.  And it describes these 2 creatures, named "Dosho" and "Domyo".  They sit on your shoulders.  They then take turns "reporting your deeds to Heaven" (could be a Confucian influence here).  Thus, at no time, are you not being watched by one of them.


From my talks with Maine, I frequently see parallels and certainly always found common ground in a "live and let live" attitude that baffles christians consistently.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 6 of 26  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 26 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook