Why Would God Show Me This?

[PaulS]

2 hours ago, Burl said:

Buddha was not a Buddhist, and Jesus was not a Christian.

No, but according to Buddhist tradition, Buddha was a human being whom achieved awakening or enlightenment without a guru or sensei.

You said in your post above that "One cannot become enlightened by themselves or by reading".  That would seem to fly in the face of what the Buddha is said to have achieved.  Of course if you don't believe the Buddha became enlightened that's fine.  I'm just saying that Buddhism does not say you must have a guru or sensei to lead you and that to the contrary, Buddhism challenges adherents to test Buddhist teachings for themselves and abandon those that they feel are not valid.

 

[PaulS]

3 hours ago, SteveS55 said:

It's kind of a head scratcher, for sure Paul.   But, I suppose there has to be a first and I'm sure there have been others who didn't bother to share what they had realized.  The Buddha was apparently the only one willing and able at that time and place to teach a system he thought would lead to awakening. 

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that there aren't teachers in Buddhism or that people don't choose to follow this or that tradition/teaching/person, and/or that there isn't value in doing so, but rather I was simply identifying that Buddhism does not promote it being absolutely essential for a Buddhist to have a guru or sensei to guide their development.  That was Burl's observation, which is fine and I believe him, however I was saying that I think that is a misunderstanding of Buddhism.  A small matter in the scheme of things but obviously it has generated discussion.

[Burl]

5 minutes ago, PaulS said:

No, but according to Buddhist tradition, Buddha was a human being whom achieved awakening or enlightenment without a guru or sensei.

You said in your post above that "One cannot become enlightened by themselves or by reading".  That would seem to fly in the face of what the Buddha is said to have achieved.  Of course if you don't believe the Buddha became enlightened that's fine.  I'm just saying that Buddhism does not say you must have a guru or sensei to lead you and that to the contrary, Buddhism challenges adherents to test Buddhist teachings for themselves and abandon those that they feel are not valid.

 

This is where we started.  Ouroboros.

According to Buddhist tradition, he was concieved when his mother dreamed her side was pierced by a white elephant with six tusks.  Buddha was not born normally but walked out of his mother's side, took six steps and declared aloud that was his last incarnation.

This is definitely not your average human being.  Literally or figuratively, naturally or supernaturally, Buddha was exceptional.

You are fortunate to have several Buddhist communities in Mandurah.  There seem to be quite a few classes available.  Perhaps you could find a Buddhist and ask them for us.

[SteveS55]

Agreed,Paul.  As you say, it's a small matter to have generated such discussion.

 

Steve

[PaulS]

1 hour ago, Burl said:

This is definitely not your average human being.  Literally or figuratively, naturally or supernaturally, Buddha was exceptional.

You are fortunate to have several Buddhist communities in Mandurah.  There seem to be quite a few classes available.  Perhaps you could find a Buddhist and ask them for us.

Yes full circle.  As I mentioned before, my experience from the Buddhists I have spoken to, is that Buddhism very much regards Buddah as fully human and appreciates the myths concerning his conception and birth as just that, myths.  

The Buddhist community that I have associated with in Mandurah certainly do not take those stories literally.  The one i visited in South Korea certainly didn't either.  I'll admit the ones I visited in Thailand and Indonesia seemed to 'celebrate' the myths more seriously, but I do remember thinking that they didn't care much for determining if it was myth or not.  I took away that that part of the story wasn't important.

I wonder if you have ever associated with any Buddhists or spent time in a Buddhist temple Burl?

Edited June 9, 2017 by PaulS

[Burl]

9 hours ago, PaulS said:

Yes full circle.  As I mentioned before, my experience from the Buddhists I have spoken to, is that Buddhism very much regards Buddah as fully human and appreciates the myths concerning his conception and birth as just that, myths.  

The Buddhist community that I have associated with in Mandurah certainly do not take those stories literally.  The one i visited in South Korea certainly didn't either.  I'll admit the ones I visited in Thailand and Indonesia seemed to 'celebrate' the myths more seriously, but I do remember thinking that they didn't care much for determining if it was myth or not.  I took away that that part of the story wasn't important.

I wonder if you have ever associated with any Buddhists or spent time in a Buddhist temple Burl?

True story.  I had a Zen temple take computer classes from me in New Orleans and the Zen master was the most difficult student I have ever experienced.  He would not understand that he needed to understand the logic of the programmers and was completely frustrated when the computer refused to bow to his ego.  If had brought his bamboo rod he would have spent half the class thumping his Macintosh.

The need for personal guidance from one who is more spiritually advanced is replete in Zen, Amida And Lamanistic Buddhism.  One cannot read anything about Zen without coming in contact with the tales of student/teacher interaction.  The same is true in Sufic, Christian and the Hindu meditational traditions.

The fact that classes and temples exist is inarguable evidence of the need for their existence.

[PaulS]

3 hours ago, Burl said:

True story.  I had a Zen temple take computer classes from me in New Orleans and the Zen master was the most difficult student I have ever experienced.  He would not understand that he needed to understand the logic of the programmers and was completely frustrated when the computer refused to bow to his ego.  If had brought his bamboo rod he would have spent half the class thumping his Macintosh.

The need for personal guidance from one who is more spiritually advanced is replete in Zen, Amida And Lamanistic Buddhism.  One cannot read anything about Zen without coming in contact with the tales of student/teacher interaction.  The same is true in Sufic, Christian and the Hindu meditational traditions.

The fact that classes and temples exist is inarguable evidence of the need for their existence.

Aahh, New Orleans.  I remember visiting the Cat's Meow, Bourbon St, and the Cemetery there in 1991, but unfortunately not much else (hey, I was only 21 then!). Good times!

Apart from the Zen temple with the difficult Zen master, who sought computer classes from you,  I still wonder if you have ever associated with any Buddhists or spent time in a Buddhist temple, Burl?  I mean that from the perspective of trying to understand Buddhism as differentiated from 'Buddhism' imposing itself into your computer class.  Have you ever spent time in a Buddhist temple, or in discussions with Buddhists, in a genuine attempt to understand where they are coming from and what they believe?  Also I am trying to understand if you have personally had anything to do with Buddhism in an international perspective - i.e. have you ever visited Buddhism outside of your home country?

At the end of the day, if you are 'convinced' that there is a 'need'  for "personal guidance from one who is more spiritually advanced" concerning Zen, Amida and Lamanistic Buddhism, then, well, you are convinced already I guess.  I would suggest that such a 'need' is not the case, but each to their own.

Possibly "one cannot read anything about Zen without coming into contact with the tales of student/teacher interaction" and perhaps the "same is true in Sufic, Christian and the Hindu meditation traditions" (whatever the 'Christian meditation tradition' may entail precisely), but whatever the case I think there is difference in such being an 'essential requirement'.

I do not agree that the fact that classes and temples exist is inarguable evidence of the need for their existence,  but rather that the existence of such supports the notion that as humans we tend to flock together and we like it when there are 'teachers' who can provide us the assurance that we are 'on the right path'.  Buddha (or Jesus for that matter) never promoted classes or temples.

Peace & goodwill

Paul

Edited June 9, 2017 by PaulS

[Burl]

29 minutes ago, PaulS said:

You seem convinced that others need teachers. I doubt I, or others, can encourage you to see otherwise, at this stage.  No problem.

Peace & goodwill

Paul

True enough.  My teachers have been invaluable to my spiritual integration.  By myself I would be a lost ball in tall weeds.

[PaulS]

13 minutes ago, Burl said:

True enough.  My teachers have been invaluable to my spiritual integration.  By myself I would be a lost ball in tall weeds.

What if your teachers have led you down the wrong path, even if it seems the right one, for your 'spiritual integration'?  Are you open to correction or new learnings?

[Burl]

42 minutes ago, PaulS said:

What if your teachers have led you down the wrong path, even if it seems the right one, for your 'spiritual integration'?  Are you open to correction or new learnings?

That is one of the reasons teachers are essential.  Anyone who has ever been in a Jesuit classroom knows that you are expected to challenge the teacher at every opportunity.

This idea of avoiding others and leaving everything up to divine revelation has no self-correcting mechanism.  That's a fault.  It works for picking out a spiritual mattress to nap on but not much else.  

[thormas]

18 hours ago, PaulS said:

No, but according to Buddhist tradition, Buddha was a human being whom achieved awakening or enlightenment without a guru or sensei.

You said in your post above that "One cannot become enlightened by themselves or by reading".  That would seem to fly in the face of what the Buddha is said to have achieved.  Of course if you don't believe the Buddha became enlightened that's fine.  I'm just saying that Buddhism does not say you must have a guru or sensei to lead you and that to the contrary, Buddhism challenges adherents to test Buddhist teachings for themselves and abandon those that they feel are not valid.

 

I am not familiar with the life of Buddha or how much is to be believed or was, rather, the writings/imaginations of his followers but it is interesting that both Buddha and Jesus, if they did not have teachers, both were teachers or, at the least there are Buddhist teachings (based on Buddha?).

[PaulS]

6 hours ago, Burl said:

That is one of the reasons teachers are essential.  Anyone who has ever been in a Jesuit classroom knows that you are expected to challenge the teacher at every opportunity.

This idea of avoiding others and leaving everything up to divine revelation has no self-correcting mechanism.  That's a fault.  It works for picking out a spiritual mattress to nap on but not much else.  

You say potato, I say potatoe. I'm not interested in debating semantics around the word 'essential'.  Teachers are valuable, some might say invaluable.  Each to their own.  My posts have been in response to what seem to me to be your 'certainties' around some things Buddhist.  Your 'observations' to quote.

I am still curious about your actual exposure to Buddhism but I've asked that a couple of times now and you haven't answered, so I'm guessing that's intentional (but I'd rather hope it's inadvertent).  Not to worry if it is deliberate.

For me, my observations about Jesuit classrooms....well, I don't have any because I've not genuinely associated with Jesuits or indeed visited their places of worship, nor have I seriously considered their views on their religion.  So I wouldn't feel comfortable making any definitive statements about their faith.

I am interested in what others may think about 'divine revelation' though - but I will start a separate thread on that if anybody is interested.

Cheers

Paul

Edited June 10, 2017 by PaulS

[Burl]

8 hours ago, thormas said:

I am not familiar with the life of Buddha or how much is to be believed or was, rather, the writings/imaginations of his followers but it is interesting that both Buddha and Jesus, if they did not have teachers, both were teachers or, at the least there are Buddhist teachings (based on Buddha?).

How much is to be believed is a personal issue.

My question  

2 hours ago, PaulS said:

You say potato, I say potatoe. I'm not interested in debating semantics around the word 'essential'.  Teachers are valuable, some might say invaluable.  Each to their own.  My posts have been in response to what seem to me to be your 'certainties' around some things Buddhist.  Your 'observations' to quote.

I am still curious about your actual exposure to Buddhism but I've asked that a couple of times now and you haven't answered, so I'm guessing that's intentional (but I'd rather hope it's inadvertent).  Not to worry if it is deliberate.

For me, my observations about Jesuit classrooms....well, I don't have any because I've not genuinely associated with Jesuits or indeed visited their places of worship, nor have I seriously considered their views on their religion.  So I wouldn't feel comfortable making any definitive statements about their faith.

I am interested in what others may think about 'divine revelation' though - but I will start a separate thread on that if anybody is interested.

Cheers

Paul

 

[thormas]

8 hours ago, Burl said:

How much is to be believed is a personal issue.

 

Ultimately it is a personal issue but as with the gospels, there is a great deal of scholarship to help in these areas. It had not dawned on me, because it is not an area on which I concentrate, that Buddhism has similar issues with the main sources being considered diverse and somewhat contradictory. 

To that end, how do we know if the Buddha did or did not have teachers at points in his life? Does it make a better story for ancient 'biographers' to paint a picture that he didn't need them? And, if he didn't have any, how did he come by his 'wisdom?' If he needed no others, did he have direct insight into Being/Empytiness (or what westerners call God) and, if so, does this move us to the type of divine inspiration/insight, common in western religions, that is seemingly tied to a theistic understanding? 

Just asking. I am not a student of Buddhism (although I have done some reading) as I have my hands full with Christian theology - the non-thesitic type.

Edited June 10, 2017 by thormas

[christs-love]

On 08/06/2017 at 6:20 AM, PaulS said:

I was actually asking 'christs-love' if they would care to elaborate, not yourself Burl.  Sorry for the misunderstanding.

1

 

 

 

I would never search into Buddha or any other religion, why you may ask,Because of what Jesus said in John 14:6 King James Bible Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Jesus is teaches here all other religions are false,Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

 

 

[thormas]

2 hours ago, christs-love said:

I would never search into Buddha or any other religion, why you may ask,Because of what Jesus said in John 14:6 King James Bible Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Jesus is teaches here all other religions are false,Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

 

One can still believe John's gospel and search other religions, just as one might study the history of countries other than one's own.

On a separate note, one must (or can) ask if John is quoting Jesus directly or accurately - but either way, I don't read this as Jesus' statement that other religions are false. There is only One Way, Truth, Life - but it comes to different men in different ways. Further, we could discuss that, if so spoken, Jesus said these words as a practicing Jew among other Jews. So which is the true religion:Judaism or Christianity? Especially interesting when we consider that not only some Jews but some Christians reject Jesus (explicitly or implicitly by their lives).

[PaulS]

5 hours ago, christs-love said:

 

 

 

I would never search into Buddha or any other religion, why you may ask,Because of what Jesus said in John 14:6 King James Bible Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Jesus is teaches here all other religions are false,Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

 

 

An excerpt from a Marcus Borg article on the interpretation of this verse, and full link to article at the bottom:

The same point is made in a story I heard about a sermon preached by a Hindu professor in a Christian seminary several decades ago. The text for the day included the "one way" passage, and about it he said, "This verse is absolutely true--Jesus is the only way." Then, he continued, "And that way--of dying to an old way of being and being born into a new way of being--is known in all of the religions of the world." The "way" of Jesus is a universal way, known even to millions who have never heard of Jesus. 

The way of Jesus is thus not a set of beliefs about Jesus. That people ever thought it was is strange, when we think about it--as if one entered new life by believing certain things to be true, or as if the only people who can be saved are those who know the word "Jesus." Thinking that way virtually amounts to salvation by syllables. 

Rather, the way of Jesus is the way of death and resurrection--the path of transition and transformation from an old way of being to a new way of being. To use the language of incarnation that is so central to John, Jesus incarnates the way. Incarnation means embodiment. Jesus is what the way embodied in a human life looks like.

http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/christianity/2000/08/jesus-the-way-the-truth-the-life.aspx

[thormas]

Great quote Paul, I always loved Borg.

The Way is to be lived not merely 'some thing' to be believed..........

[JosephM]

Nice post Paul. Well put.