Greetings Friends, A Mystic by any other name is still a Mystic. And this is a cool article I found that really touched my sense of Knowing. May this help add to the peace, joy, health and safety of all sentient beings. (the only side I'd like to add is that 'emptiness' can be seen as 'open-ness' or conversely 'full of potential'.) Namaste Dr. FeelGood
Good post, +rep. Sufic and Buddhist meditation and thought share a common source to some extent, the Vedas and Upanisads. Through these and direct experience within meditation, we also share the same understanding of the nature of ultimate reality, and many of the means to realise it too. Very little separates our ways of thinking in any eastern tradition. Zen, Vajrayana - all forms of Buddhism - Sufism, Taoism, Vedanta, the original Brahmic Hinduism - all speaks of exactly the same ultimate nature. The only thing that does separate some forms from others is terming ultimate nature 'god'. In Buddhism we don't believe in god or the soul. All interesting stuff, good find. MelT
Great read. Not only do sufis and zen monks/buddhists say the same things, but Jesus and Buddha taught the same things as well. They all just use different terms and symbols to say the exact same thing. Enlightenment = heaven, Buddha's void = Jesus's god, dharma body = soul/eternal life, both said you have to give up worldy attachments to acheive enlightenment, Jesus's so called "sins" are the same as Buddha's great causes of suffering. Jesus wasn't talking about heaven and hell literally, he was saying that we can create heaven or hell for ourselves... Just as Buddha said we create suffering or happiness for ourselves. Both Buddha and Jesus were Krishnas, enlightened humans, "god", if you want to call it that, as humans. It makes me sad that people focus on seperation and self instead of connection and unity. It is not hard to see that we are all the same, yet everyone tries so hard to have a seperate identity that they can define themselves by, so we have all these religions that have been radically misinterpreted, when their original message thousands of years ago was all the same... Christianity today has become a joke. It's current beliefs are incredibly absurd... It's funny because all the Buddhist monks and Islamic Sufis talk about Jesus like he was a buddha. All the (awakened) christian monks who spend their time meditating talk about Buddha and Jesus the same way... I just read a book about Buddhism where a Christian monk who lived in the mountains was talking about Buddhist beliefs and how it's the exact same message as Jesus's message... and how Buddha and Jesus are one in the same, they are humans who reached full enlightenment, they just lived so long ago that their enlightenment was a huge deal, it was completely beyond most people's thought capacity...
I'm sorry, this is such a good thread to put any kind of dissent into, it's just that some (not all) of the things above aren't true about Buddhism, I hope you don't mind me saying so. Buddha's message differed quite a lot from that of Jesus. Jesus offered salvation in heaven, separation from god, a soul, the idea of sin, repentence. Buddhism doesn't have any of these things, we don't have worship, but veneration. We have no sins to repent. It's not your fault at all, it's common for people to think of Buddhism as something that is purely about being good and learning to be moral, living with one another, etc. And whilst it is in part, that isn't what Buddha was teaching, those things are the practises that help support his teachings, the preparation to some extent for the teachings that come later. Mahayana, for the sake of argument, is the bottom rung on the ladder. It focuses on morality, shamatha meditation, with a strong basic introduction to the theme of sunyata. This introduction is the whole thrust of how Buddha intended to guide people to enlightenment, through an understanding of the nature of reality - the same one that he and many others have experienced. The morality aspect is an introductory aspect, if you were a student working towards realisation. In Buddhism we wouldn't agree that Jesus is enlightened, and I do understand that you will find this hard to believe. But bearing in mind all of the above, that we don't believe in a soul, a god, a heaven, etc., you can perhaps see the gulf between Christianity and Buddhism. Perhaps the easiest way to illustrate it is that Jesus taught dualism, not unity - ie, that there is a god and his subjects, or that there is a person and a person's soul; or that there is an earth and a heaven. Buddhism is non-duality, there is only ( ) But, I digress, let's leave this thread alone MelT
I would agree whole heartedly with vein of you have added. Thomas Merton is a man who comes to mind when I think about the language of the 'east' in the 'west', so to speak. Merton was a Mystic and in the course of my reading and learning about Mystic/Christian meditation I also see a huge language talking about the true nature of the self etc... which was also familiar from a theological stand point in the Sufism I am familiar with and what I've studied/experienced. Personally speaking I was raised as a Christian but around 18 heavily began evolving into a Buddhist practice, which I found out helped me understand The message of Jesus, see the larger allegory in the Bible as well as many other religious texts and writing I would move on to study and incorporate/learn from. It's not cherry picking, imo, because it's all in the same basket Over the years and on the theistic side of things the Islamic veiw, of the Abrahamic faiths has made the most sense to me and has added again to my understanding of following in the foot steps of Jesus, that is, Enlightened or God realized/ Full Human or Living in Supreme Being. If I were to peg down a theistic language that I don't feel the need to clarify some details it may be Advaita Vedanta, which speaks of non-duality as many mystics and it also had massive developments because of it's development along side and after Buddha's passing from human form. However, though all this, Buddhism has been the practice of awakening that has drawn light upon all these subjects for me, so this is the path I continue to practice, while evolving other religious practices w/ the same vigilance that I incorporate Buddhist practice. Wadu and meditation on a Muslim prayer schedule in one for instance. So...I'll close this one off for now and I'm sure we'll talk again Namaste, Dr. Feel Good
Thanks, I'm sorry I missed this one at first. I find that the article is very good, although there are a few things that its might sugar up a little for the sake of continuity. I'm glad that you found merit in it. I also appreciate your words here as well. I have been practing Buddhism for the last 8 years and I don't know how I feel about the use of 'we' although I get the jist of what you are saying and agree large in part, understanding where you are coming from, at least. For instance I have heard many different opinions on the status of Jesus's enlightenment from a Buddhist perspective and I can't say "we" have always been congruent in that manner Like I said there are some difference in understanding and they aren't worth nit picking imo. What caught my eye as a good example of what you are getting at with difference is when you basically said "Buddha means awakened being, there fore Buddhism is the practice of awakening"... of course that is paraphrased a little and I apologize if I put words in your mouth there, but that is how I took the word "practices" in coarse to being open for the teaching. I am interested in what school of Buddhism you feel most closely expresses the Dharma to you, as I notice your low rung-ing of the Mahayana tradition. Thanks for the reply and I would agree maybe not to leave it along, but at least keep it friendly? In kind Dr. Feel Good
What I was trying to say is that Jesus wasn't talking about duality or morals, but trying to end suffering, like Buddha. I actually have a pretty good understanding of Buddhism. In other words, my point was that Jesus's teachings weren't mystical at all. I am not any religion but I am closest to zen buddhist than anything else. I understand what Buddha taught and how Buddhism is a very "earth based" religion, if you will. They don't have mystical beliefs. All the things you said are true. I think you may have misinterpretted what I was trying to say. What I was trying to say is that Jesus wasn't teaching what he is commonly thought to teach, but instead was very misinterpreted. I wasn't giving my interpretation of Buddhism, I was giving my (quite uncommon) interpretation of Jesus's teachings. If you actually did get what I was saying, well, there's nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree. I'll stop posting after this one because I don't wanna hijack the thread (hopefully I haven't already...)
In revisiting my birth language of faith time and again w/ the insights I have had in My Practice I am often amazed at the flow of Sutra rolling into my eyes and into my mind. Interestingly enough, for the last year I have volunteered as a spiritual counselor at a drop in centre in the downtown where I live. This was a challenge to myself in many ways, one was speaking to the Ultimate Truths w/ the Relative tounge, which isn't always abundantly easy. Each morning there is a Bible study which I lead on my day there and we work from a 'Daily Bread', however how esoterically we get on the topic is up to me, however I am working with a street pop. so I work to keep it practical. Oft there are times when a friend there doesn't understand the language of what is written and when I am able, if I can't do more than help them find their own reason through questioning, I will relay the concept through a Sutra-esq, if not exact, language and just as often people's eyes light up or will come back a few days later to tell me that that verse has really stuck with them. Selflessness/Ego and Non-Duality are often the topics I steer to and it would take a few more than a couple of lines to sum that up. But more than anything I meet people where they are at and don't tell them what to think, which is really different for that setting. Once a long time ago I heard a Buddhist monk speaking about how a man went to India to become a Buddhist and study under a teacher. However when he got there the teacher told him that he must return and learn the Truth in his birth faith, or as I call it language of expression. I felt the teacher wouldn't do this unless he felt there was merit to be had in said Path as he wouldn't send a man to suffering. I also realized that the lesson might have JUST been for the man. So I began to solely practice Buddhism anyways, while also attending a Unitarian Universalist Church, which is a great place to learn from others and get involved. I always have read the Bible, although I sat it down for a long time.... maybe 3 years straight while I studied other paths out of my varied interest in philosophy, history, sociology, and of course spirituality. Then a couple of years ago something like I described above all fell into place and the Truth in the allegories started to pop out for me everywhere as I was reading texts. I was finally able to come back to the Bible and read it for the deeper message and I can only describe it as reading it *put hand close then far, rather than *moving hand left to right... and I don't know if that makes sense or not. However, at this point of my life an Atheist Believer might encompass me for a label outside of saying I'm a Buddhist. That is... I don't believe in God how it presented which is why I was interested in the was the Ultimate was observed in the article. But do find inherent worth in a lot of the practices of religions, thus I believe in the practices and that they result in a higher supreme state of being. I also posted another thread about Non-theism, in which I mention I take that to be "I don't NEED to Know" about a Creator and to me that seems like the Middle. Whether there is or isn't doesn't change how I go about my life, and for that matter there doesn't need to be a Creator/God ,as is explained for thanksgiving and enlightened action. I offer this up as a snap shot of my processing and talking things through, so please be kind and take this with a grain of salt as I only mean to keep a good conversation going by the sharing of my heart and mind. In loving kindness, Dr. FeelGood
My use of the term 'we' is guarded, of course. In my early days I automatically assumed that every religious worthy was enlightened. I was a christian, and studied world religions and seriously researched experiences of realisation for years, then became a Buddhist. But, it wasn't until about my sixth year of being a 'career' Buddhist that I understood Buddhism enough to know why Jesus wasn't realised. Devout and studious as I was, I didn't even know that there were other options to Mahayana, shamatha and vipassana. I teach meditation now, and could still easily find people in the west who call themselves Buddhists who think of Jesus as enlightened - it's just that they don't know the full story. Christianity has developed its own meaning to the term, and its use doesn't reflect eastern thought. What caught my eye as a good example of what you are getting at with difference is when you basically said "Buddha means awakened being, there fore Buddhism is the practice of awakening"... of course that is paraphrased a little and I apologize if I put words in your mouth there, but that is how I took the word "practices" in coarse to being open for the teaching. Yes - or no as well Buddhism isn't the practise of awakening, Buddhism is the practise of knowing you're already awake.But anyway, mahayana and other forms provide introductory practises to higher tantra. You can eaily practise the lower forms happily all your life if you wish, and get results with them if they suit your mind-set, nobody has to move from one form of Buddhism to another if they don't want to. But anyone who is serious about reaching enlightenment usually will, for the reasons below. I am interested in what school of Buddhism you feel most closely expresses the Dharma to you, as I notice your low rung-ing of the Mahayana tradition. I'm a Tibetan Buddhist in the Nyingma Dzogchen tradition, but I went through Shivaism, then Mahyana in my first few years, so I have no particular bias. All forms are equal, all express the same Dharma. In terms of meditation, if looking at a banana does it for the practitioner, then that is the best form for him or her. However, the difference between the forms of Buddhism is speed. Whereas someone practising basic Mahayana is offered realisation after many lifetimes, in the higher forms it's certainly possible within one lifetime, or even instantaneously. In a sense, to even begin to practise the higher forms is an introduction to being enlightened. As such, it's a logical step for many on the road to realisation to move away from mahayana into other types of Buddhism. Buddhism is divided into, from the 'top' down: Atiyoga, Anuyga, Mahayoga (Mahayana) and the yogas of the lower tantras.People tend to think of Zen as being a kind of special esoteric practise that's higher than others, but in fact it's about the level of Anu. The highest two forms are Dzogchen, followed by Mahamudra. Although we use the terms higher and lower (particularly concerning tantra), as I say above, all that changes is the directness of the teachings and that meditation in the vipassana and shamatha style give way to using view of the ultimate nature of reality to reach deep states much more quickly - usually instantaneously. MelT
The rest aside, maybe you could break it down concerning your opinion about why Jesus couldn't be an enlightened being, since I've certainly heard my share of both, what is one more I agree with you assertion about realizing we are awake already, that is a good point, and the yes and no answer is usually the best answer because of relative usages and meanings of words. However I don't disagree with you wording. I appreciate your sharing and looking forward to more conversations in which we both share our understanding. More often than not I find the most contentious arguments/heated talk between people of the same or similar practice and I hope that we don't go this route. I like what you have to say and hope that we can learn from each other. In kindness, Dr. Feel Good
TBH, my personal view as to why he wasn't realised isn't separate from the Buddhist opinion of why he wasn't. Not that I blindly follow Buddhism - Hindu, Taoist, Sufic, etc descriptions of the nature of realisation are all the same in terms of what the enightenment experience contains, and its no different from that which a non-denominational person might have. Basically Jesus taught duality, and that there was a soul, a god who we should worship to allow us into somewhere called heaven. That we need to be free of sin to have salvation, and that to reach salvation we need to 'go through him', that it can't be reached by yourself. Everything he said was about duality and attainment. Reaching enlightenment shows reality as devoid of all of those things. Realisation is understanding the nature of reality, from the POV of all of that reality, seeing that those things are impossible and unnecessary. As you know yourself as a Buddhist, the knowledge concerning reality gained in these experiences is exactly the same from person to person, no matter what their intial beliefs. Without prior knowledge,without contact, in many cases without ever meditating or thinking a spiritual thought everyone who has a decent Kensho learns exactly the same things about reality. And this knowledge shows that the duality that Jesus spoke of in so many ways, does not exist. The knowledge leads you to one inescapable point, that the best way to teach people to reach realisation is to discuss aspects of reality, such as non-daulity, sunyata and the other samayas. Buddha taught sunyata endlessly. Nagarjuna, considered to be the second Buddha, taught nothing but it. Jesus taught duality and that we have to fulfill certain criteria to be happy and enter his judgemental god's heaven. It couldn't be further from what you learn needs to be done to become realised. As I posted elsewhere, Buddha said, whether there is a god or not is not relevant to enlightenment and that prayer to him or anyone else was not necessary. So why did Jesus say that it was? Because he wasn't realised and he was basing what he spoke of on Hebrew thought. If Jesus had been realised he would not have wanted to mislead his followers by talking in terms of duality, that would actually prevent his followers them from reaching enlightenment. All debate is good We're quite able to remain civil, I'm sure. MelT
i think jesus wasn't born enlightened, he achieved it. because, what did he before he was 'jesus', just another person?
i believe you are right in saying that the Christian veiw of Jesus differs from Buddhisms but consider if his message got misinterprited? you should check out the gospel of Thomas The Thomas Gospel - how the Gospel of Thomas correlates with yoga philosophy
Melt, I am very glad that you took the time to explain that view to me. I would have to say that on that basis of Jesus, I agree with everything that you are saying. However windchime, imo, brings forth a point that I myself think is valid as well. When I read about the 'Christian' Jesus vs. the Jesus I find in the non-canonical Gospels it strikes me as varying enough to wonder what the 'real' message of Jesus was. So I suppose with out getting into that in a great degree, but will add, having an interest in history and knowledge of how the Church was shaped after it became a state religion only adds further confusion, so I attempt to take the inspiration that I can. I don't put the weight of 'salvation or enlightenment' on the life of Jesus. I do however see it's value in being able to speak to myself and others about the perennial ideas and truths, since I'd say it's a common 'tongue' that people I've experience speak or prefer to speak. Perhaps that offers some understanding. I'm very glad to be speaking with you. I didn't mean for my tone to sound defensive when I said I hoped we could talk and not argue, however I like to play with all my cards on the table and just thought I'd put that out there. In my experience on talking religion/spirituality on boards like this or specifically on religion forums there is a lot of people talking TO each other and not WITH each other. I just wanted to make it apparent that I'm a 'wither' Thanks again for the kind words and patient explanation. In kindness, Dr. FeelGood
I'm familiar with the Gospel (interesting isn't it?) and if it's real there are certainly some parallels between what he said in it and some aspects of Hinduism. The problem may well be, as you say, that the church later suppressed any talk of non-duality, I don't know. But I don't feel that anything that's left in his teachings apart from morality - a very small part of both Hinduism and Buddhism - that reflect anything concerning the higher teachings concerning reality. What sours it for me is that a lot of the gnostic texts are considered not to be real events. I've studied them for the last few years to actually find evidence that Jesus did also take on eastern philosphy, but I'm still in doubt about their authenticity. MelT
I'm very much a 'wither' too. I love to explore other people's thoughts and was simply hoping to hear about yours as a new poster. My questions were really intended to find one thing, not whether you are a 'real' Buddhist or not (who cares? and what is that to do with me anyway?, but whether or not you do as the path of someone spiritual, or that of an explorer? I ask this because it's easier to talk to people about this kind of thing if they aren't bogged down with putting on an image of being a Buddhist, Christian, rather than simply discussing the good and bad about both without being defensive. I'm not spiritual in any way, I explore, and thought from the way that you and Boss' were talking that you are of a similar mind. If this is the case then it makes both our jobs here that much easier MelT
Not really that interesting Melt The historical side of the church's forming, what books/people were 'heretical' and more so who decided and defined heretic have all led me to a place where heads and tails aren't easy to deciphered about the message of Jesus.... That is a bummer for sure, as the documents that seem to have historical validity sound much different than the Book that we left with today. My main interest in the Abrahamic religions presides in the realm of mysticism which doesn't assert a dual nature.
Hello Melt, I had to look up 'wither' to see if there was some meaning that I didn't know about it... my Friend, I wouldn't call people like you and me a whither in the way that I know the word. People who are open and interested aren't fading away or shrinking from their ideas/beliefs. You obviously put us together here in that category but, it seems, not in a bad way, so I'm interested to hear what you meant by it. I am thankful for your clarification about 'real Buddhists' and that is perhaps a failing of talking about Buddhism on Buddhist message boards, if you are familiar with the example. I really don't care for that vein of 'talking' and wasn't sure what you were getting at right away there. I didn't intend for any accusations to be interpreted as such, hopefully you did not infer that. It's not my way. I would consider myself to have a spiritual journey and exploration angle in my study, but also there is a honest and simple 'explorer' side to it as well. I feel knowing about something before assessing the spiritual value is a better service to the general understanding of where/how/why certain things are said or advocated. And I have an interest in history/sociology/philosophy all of which Religion/Spirituality has been seemingly pivotal in shaping. So they are link, to some degree at least, imo. A religious education forum I am on has people converting their title from religion to religion on a daily basis... to me... that seems a little silly, but I won't demean it, of course, we all have individual ways. While I was raised as a Christian I have be committed to the study and practice of Buddhism for the last 8 years and have experienced amazing insights that have affirmed that this is the Path to stick to as my basis of exploring and knowing my 'self'. I consider myself a Buddhist, I have taken the refuges and it's the 'advice' that comes to my mind first, but I wouldn't say that it solely is were I draw textually from. That is, even though the words are from a 'different faith', the "heart" themselves are sometimes written in a way that has lead me to further thinking, which I would say is through a Buddhist filter. When I read or hear something, this is the expression of Truth that flows into my ears, eyes and connectedness. It's my 'considering point' if you will. Suppose that it's hard to pull apart Buddhism, Spiritual and Explorer for myself as I feel Buddhism itself is an invitation to look deeply and when I look deeply at 'other' paths I still find the same truths, that is, the words touch the truths as I understand them, however this doesn't make me a practitioner of the theology/philosophic way at large in those faiths/beliefs. Not completely sure how to answer this for you. So here is a list to add to the wall of text.... *I am a Buddhist, but don't feel that it limits my options for where I seek understanding because I know where my considerations on the words lay. *I enjoy specific talks. *But also don't answer every spiritual-esq question with solely and solidly Buddhist doctrine. *My intention for participating is shaped by Buddhism, but that isn't to say I have any malicious or proselytizing intention. *Because of 'local options' in my life during moving and so forth, Unitarian Universalist houses of meeting have also been the place where I attended worship due to the extended interest since the Sangha I was in used their space for their meetings as well. The UUisms are interesting in and of themselves, but largely I mention this because of the impact inter-meaning sharing has left on me. Above all that is what I value most. People sharing how they find meaning in their life. Why I believe what I do and what I do with what I believe aren't mutually exclusive, however my specific beliefs are not always the 'best foot forward' in all conversation and generally think of myself as a welcoming person, who people have felt safe to talk with about their own journey/spiritual path or exploration without worry of judgment, but rather an open ear and maybe a question or two. I gladly will/would like to clarify any questions or if I totally missed the point, I'll take another swing. But I hope this helps you get a little more of a feel for who I am, so to speak and how I post. Likely you will see many non-Buddhism specific threads from me ranging from 'I saw this, in this' or 'what do you think about this' much like the 'nontheism' thread.... Over all I am accepting or try my best to let people read into and answer the questions the best they feel is 'what I mean' and I enjoy that variety as well, because sometimes the 'point' of my talk comes out as I read further and talk it out. I'm generally just interested in people and I enjoy talking with them. Since this isn't a Buddhist-centric message board my questions and language are often open ended as to the sources I draw upon, since there are likely a diverse cast of people here. In loving kindness and respect, Dr. FeelGood
I think you've answered everything I want to know, good posting You see, the problem is that the easiest way to realisation isn't what most people hope to find. I may say some things during future conversations that you might think go against everything you've been taught, or want to believe. But, I say nothing purely to demean or to try to prove that Buddhism above all else is right. My only interest is to try to help prevent people from getting bogged down with years of practices that, whilst useful, don't do anything to help you along the path. I could use meditation as an example; whilst shamatha and vipassana have their place and are of course better than not meditating at all, they're pretty slow means to use. They're meant to be learned, of course, but purely as introductory tools to the practice of higher tantra, which all forms contain an element of. What's happened is that different schools have become bogged down with specific details, which sometimes unfortunately result in the student never seeing the big picture of what meditation actually is. I'm not suggesting that this is you, I just wanted to point out that any posts I make concerning meditation and View are not made purely so I can be a smartass, I sincerely am trying to help. MelT
Well noted Melt, I'm glad that I was understood and I hope you got the vibe I wasn't assuming you to purely be a smartass. I am glad you took the time to lay out your beliefs and that you intention is to help. I have only worked with samantha/vipasana meditation myself with in the Buddhist frame work. Would you care to lay out more simply the methods you are talking about or please refer me to more reading, if you feel that there is an apt place to share with me? I understand about people being bogged down, hopefully not ironically , and miss the 'point' if you will. One example that comes to mind was one night after a sitting in the town where I lived a couple years ago I said 'Well, now it's time for off cushion meditation' as we were leaving.... and a man who was there said 'HEY! That is a great idea!' Now this man had been sitting there for 2 years before I started going there and this was 1 out of 2 years I spent there. I assume.... that he had some intention for coming beyond relaxation but it's really hard to say 'what' without passing neg. judgment. I wish more for him, but you know.... perhaps my mentioning the 'off cushion' thing was all I could do at the time... However I just recall thinking.... 'We are here, listening to the same Dharma talks with the same teacher and same general approach to the meditation and you don't get mindful wakeness off the cushion?' I only replay this because that was a surprising moment in my practice that sounds like what you are talking about with bogging down. Some people apparently can make good lemonade with lemons, and others just like having a pile of lemons to sit on, lol. But I am interested in more and now that I'm in Toronto I know I have a wealth of possible options for finding a place with the teachings you are speaking of, as opposed to the small Northern BC town I lived in most recently. I've just moved as a side note . So I think we got it now.... I'm not a quasi-practitioner and you're not a smarty pants Thanks Melt.