SteveS55

Hello Elen, You ask: "What about believing in what you experience?" I think the short answer is "no", and I think it is implicitly included in the quotes attributed to the Buddha posted by Joseph. I'm not going to give you a book definition of "experience", but I would say that "experience" is the contact of the one's mind with an object within that mind's field of awareness. It can be either mental or physical. The experience is dependent on this combination, but very colored by one's particular thoughts, ideas, notions, beliefs, etc. To the extent that a person harbors strict beliefs, notions, etc. (products of the mind), their experience of reality is nothing more than a creation, and does not reflect reaility "as it is". As some schools of Buddhism teach, reality is merely an illusion; a projection of the mind, or a magical display of pure awareness This is a hard "belief" for most people to swallow, so the Buddha's advice is to find this out for yourself. At some point "belief" becomes "faith" in a particular path. And, I think that path can be virtually anything with a heart. Peace. Steve

For many years I have enjoyed the writings of J. Krishnamurti, mainly because I think he was one of the most original spiritual thinkers of the twentieth century. Lately, I’ve been taken with some of his thoughts about our relationship with reality, vis-à-vis “words and symbols”. Here is something he spoke on the subject in 1968: “One of the fundamental questions consists in man’s relationship to reality. That reality has been expressed in different ways….If we do not discover for ourselves what that relationship is, independently of the theoreticians and the theologians and the priests, we are incapable of discovering what relationship with reality is. That reality may be named as God, and the name is really of very little importance, because the name, the word, the symbol, is never the actual…..So in asking the question, as to what is the true relationship of man to reality, one must be free of the word with all its associations, with all its prejudices and conditions…One must be extraordinarily serious to find out if there is such a reality, or if there is not, and what is man’s relationship to it.” J. Krishnamurti - Talks in Europe 1968, 48, Social Responsibility It sounds to me that what Krisnamurti is suggesting, is that virtually our entire “relationship” with reality is based on the word or symbol representing what we think we perceive. So, this begs the question: Does reality, as perceived by humans, consist of only representations described by words and symbols? Is there no other substantial form to what we identify as “reality”, other than what we classify, define and judge? Do we, as humans, create a “reality” of our own? There are some Buddhist schools that would agree with a lot of this. They would say that what we perceive as “reality” is merely an illusion, and that “absolute reality” is something that cannot be defined, classified, or even verbalized. It is ineffable, a term also used by many of the Christian mystics. Many of these questions are obviously rhetorical, but still food for thought. Peace. Steve

Again, best wishes on your endeavor, Soma. There are precious few good, contemporary books on the view and praxis of Christian mysticism. Steve

I like it, Soma. So, I guess the problem is how to approach unconditioned, unmanifest pure being. That would be the "science" of Christian mysticism. Personally, I don't think we need to approach it at all, since it is always with us. I think we just need to develop a little confidence in this perspective. Peace. Steve

I agree with you, Soma that mysticism has been repressed by the Catholic Church. Approaching the ineffable has never been popular with a hierarchy that values ritual, devotion and attachment to doctrine, over less anxiety-ridden means of realization. I wish you well with your book and I will be interested to see how you resolve "action" and "partaking" into pure being. Just off the top of my head, I would guess that action, or activity is the continuous, creative play of energy within pure awareness. The problem seems to be that we overlay the experiential and phenomenal expression of this energy with a strong belief in its own reality, including morally conditioned judgments, and then grasp at it as though it had a substantial existence in its own right. This results in a very firm belief in a substantial "self", and all of the suffering that goes along with that. Just a few of my own thoughts for what they are worth. Peace, Steve

Hi Chuck, I come from the same background as you do, so I'm familiar with the "indoctrination". I broke free of that when I began to familiarize myself with various Catholic contemplatives and mystics. Among them, my favorites have been Thomas Merton, Meister Eckhart, Bernadette Roberts, and others. As for feeling "lost", that's actually a good thing. I think Merton says somewhere that we should stay lost when we finally get there. There is no path except the one that is "pathless", so I wouldn't look for anything, expect anything, or try to transcend anything. We are all just here now. Of course, that is my opinion; something everyone has to realize for themselves - or not! Peace. Steve

Romance as a meditative state - beautiful! One of the few times the self is abandoned and we are no longer separate. The self fears death and hopes for the security of a resurrection. But life itself has come in and out of existence since the beginning. Death, renewal and resurrection are woven into the fabric of existence. It is the belief in our separateness that is an illusion. Alan Watts said it this way: "Death is the epitome of the truth that in each moment we are thrust into the unknown. Here all clinging to security is compelled to cease, and wherever the past is dropped away and safety abandoned, life is renewed. Death is the unknown in which all of us lived before birth" - The Wisdom of Insecurity. Peace. Steve

The Forbes article you cited is correct, Dutch. Most people who participate in an employer sponsored 401k/profit sharing plan have no idea what they are investing in. Generally, they are always families of mutual funds which invest in a variety of industry specific companies, large cap, small cap, etc. I administer the 401k/profit sharing plans for the company where I work. I meet quarterly with our investment adviser, during which time we quantitatively evaluate a fund's past performance. If they don't make the grade, they are either watch-listed, or dropped and replaced. The key word here is "quantitative" assessment, not "qualitative". There have recently been some big-time lawsuits brought against employers by participants who were not informed about investment options, or were given risky mutual funds choices. Employers do not have the option of choosing one fund over the other because they judge them to be "morally acceptable". It just doesn't happen. So, that's eveyone's 401k lesson for today. If you want to know what you are invested in, look at the fund prospectus. You might even find it offends you! As for the Hobby Lobby decision. The very fact that it was a privately owned, closed corporation is the main reason for the Court's decision. The fact that it is "for profit" is interesting, but didn't have any bearing on the decision. This decision, by the way, applies "only" to closed corporations, which are many times family owned and operated. The Court reasoned that in such limited cases, the small number of owners, who bear all of the financial risk and responsibilty for the company, in which employees are free to come and go as they please, should be able to call the shots as far as their religious beliefs dictate, and they had some precedent for that. All and all, while not a popular decision among liberals/progressives, not a particularly bad one in terms of the Court's thinking. Peace. Steve

Hi Joseph, Yes, I think from the writings of Paul, we can conclude that he may have realized the egoless state. He mentions that it is not "he" that is living, "but Christ living in me". That's a pretty strong indication anyway. What intrigues me about the teaching I referenced above, is to contemplate how one's life might be transformed if we lived "as if" we were already dead. Death removes everything from us, including our hopes, fears, beliefs, opinions, and so on. It virtually "clears the decks" of all of our concepts. It seems to me that we are then liberated from clinging to what is inherently impermanent and fleeting. We see existence for what it is, rather than what we hope it to be, and we remove the fear of not getting what we had hoped for. Still, this is not a teaching for everyone. Those of us from Christian backgrounds are very reluctant to let go of our beliefs, hopes and fears. Steve

“Live your life as if you have already died”. – Shantideva (Eighth century Indian Buddhist monk) I recently watched a teaching by a Buddhist monk who expounded on this short and rather cryptic remark by the great Shantideva. It is the summation and culmination of all Buddhist thought and doctrine. Beyond this, there is no teaching. The monk I listened to suggested that we might ask ourselves the following question: “Am I ready to let go of everything?” When we live without hope or fear, when we have “let go” of everything, we have already died. The next question to ask is: “Who is doing the holding-on?” When we are not able to find any trace of the “whom”, or “what” doing the holding-on, we let go of everything. These questions are more to be reflected upon than answered, because there is really nothing to understand. And, they may have to be asked many times over weeks, months, and even years. Or, realization may come in the present moment. There is a story of a Zen master and his student. The student asked the Zen master: “How much ego can I have?” The Zen master replied: “Enough so you won’t get hit by a bus!” Peace. Steve

Hi Searchingmom, My personal opinion is that there is no need to search for anything. Yet, many of us do. If we search for "more", we find just that - more, and there is no end to "more". Sitting by a river can be just "sitting by a river", an end in itself. Enjoy yourself and your kids! Peace. Steve

Hi Annie, I think this passage is related to the phrase "resist not evil". The resultant reactive thoughts which occupy our mind, be they evil or otherwise, seem to enhance a very intractable sense of "self" versus the "other". I recall reading somewhere that we should attempt to avoid those people, places and situations that we find "vexatious to the spirit". So, while resistance is futile, resulting in conflict, love does not require that we show up for the evil. Peace. Steve

Again, Joseph, just something for people to consider. I don't wish to beat a dead horse, so I'm going to leave this alone now. My perspective on the spiritual life is perhaps not in conformity with Progressive Christianity, although I do think PC is a valuable option for many people. I'm not trying to win any arguments, only share my perspective. Beyond the regular contributors to this forum, you seem to have many guests who stop by and read. Hopefully, differing perspectives here will be helpful to them on their journey. Peace. Steve

Thanks for all of the threads, Joseph, in this and your other posts. Obviously this is a topic that is well worn here, and elsewhere. I don’t deny there are similarities among religions and spiritual traditions. Theoretically, we could all invent our own religion or philosophy, and there would be elements common to all. However, we would tend toward an eclectic approach, while Jesus and the Buddha understood reality in very original and unique ways. They had other sources as background, but not nearly as many as we do today. What makes them “special” is that their teachings had a unique revelatory quality which spoke to the specific local cultures of their time. As these cultures and times differed, so did their teachings. Every religion/philosophy/tradition demands a certain allegiance by its adherents. This is so because we cannot initially verify, through are own experience, every teaching a religion asks us to accept. It is simply not possible, in my opinion, to grasp depth without that allegiance. Neither is it actually possible, again in my opinion, to accept two or more religions, giving each the allegiance required. One observation I have with Progressive Christianity (not a criticism, merely an observation), is that the Progressive Christians I have come in contact with refuse allegiance to any particular religion or spiritual tradition, and take a Universalist approach to all of them. My personal view is that this approach is not always for the best. I believe I have hinted at this in some other threads, but I am attempting to clarify it here. This is always a question of individual preference, sometimes resulting from past negative experiences, but it is something I believe is worth considering. Peace. Steve

You are all over the place with your responses, Matteo. Try focusing and actually making a point. I don't say this to offend you, only to let you know I find it very difficult to follow your comments. A "fundamental equivalent" would be a foundational teaching by Jesus or the Buddha which most reasonable people could agree are virtually the same, or at least very similar. And, by "foundational", I mean a teaching which defines the essence of either Christianity or Buddhism. Peace. Steve

It looks as though this is becoming an authentic debate, with examples and everything! With all due respect to St. Paul, I would like to focus on the words and teachings of Jesus himself, rather than place reliance on someone who never actually met him. I think that the few words uttered by Jesus regarding his acknowledgement of suffering, dying to self, and overcoming the world, hardly satisfy the requirements of a legitimate teaching. It certainly doesn’t compare to the highly systemized teaching of the Buddha. But, I am not attempting to place a value on either teaching, only to see if they have anything at all in common. Jesus said “I have overcome the world”. Is that a teaching, or merely a statement of fact? We are to “die to self”. What does that mean? How is that to be accomplished, or must we refer to Paul to interpret an answer for us? Is it a Christian understanding that we all possess a “self”, and it must be annihilated, or are we void of “self” to begin with? I think your argument is rather thin; Joseph, but I appreciate your response. And yes, there are many authors who will compare similarities of different religions for us. Borg is only one. Thich Nhat Hahn, Thomas Merton, and D.T. Suzuki are some others. But at least Merton and Suzuki contrast the differences as well. I got sober 28 years ago in AA and I am amazed at the similarities between AA teaching and Buddhist doctrine. It is incredibly similar, right down to “taking refuge”. But AA was founded by WASPS, and based all of its Twelve Steps on Christian practices! Go figure. Peace. Steve

I agree with you, Matteo, that neither Jesus nor the Buddha taught the doctrine of “original sin”. But I will say that, at the very least, this doctrine attempts to address the reason why we find existence so unsatisfactory. When we reject this doctrine, a Christian must find a different way of explaining why we suffer in this world. There is just no good answer to this. God must be an evil god, or an uncaring one, to allow his creatures to suffer so. The Buddha taught that we hold our fate in our own hands. We have the means to put an end to suffering in this life, and end the cycle of future rebirths. This is not the Christian understanding of the nature of suffering. Suffering is seen as inevitable, and I think Jesus saw it in the same light. In any case, he didn’t actually “teach” an end to suffering in this life. That is not to say he didn’t think it was possible, only that he didn’t tell us how it might be accomplished. So, I would say that the Buddha’s teaching of the Four Noble Truths, namely the fact, origin, cessation, and path to the cessation of suffering has no equivalent teaching given or implied by Jesus. But, I will get back to the original question posed in this thread. I think that one way we can determine whether or not Jesus had any contact with Buddhist teaching, is to see if his teaching bears any similarity to Buddhist teaching. Personally, I don’t think it does. That is not to say that Jesus was not familiar with Buddhism, it is only to say that perhaps he wasn’t impressed with it. It is possible to see any number of similarities among various religions and traditions. I am often “reminded” of Christianity when I study Buddhism, and vice versa. But, I think these tend to be “universals”, which result from the mere fact that we are all human beings. Peace. Steve

Well Mateo, I see no reason to continue to engage with you in this manner. It is ultimately pointless and a waste of my time. Peace. Steve

You are confusing spiritual "practices" with "teachings", Matteo. Clearly some Chrisitan contemplatives engage in meditation borrowed from other traditions. That is not my point at all. I also disagree with your statement that one can be a Buddhist, Christian, Jew and atheist. To suggest such a thing is absurd. A Buddhist may be an atheist, and most likely is one, but a Christian, by definition, maintains a belief in a God of their understanding. For your information, there are many Buddhists who, while not neccessarily dogmatic, are very concerned with "right view", one element of the Eightfold Noble Path. This "right view" is an understanding, acceptance, and ultimate realization of the Buddha's teachings. If you want to debate similarities in teachings, I will gladly do that, but you are missing my original point entirely. Peace. Steve

I would be interested to know if the authors of these books attempted to reconcile the teachings of Jesus with early Buddhist teachings, particularly as found in the Pali Canon (taught by oral transmission at the time of Jesus). If Jesus had any contact at all with Buddhism, he certainly didn’t grasp, or perhaps rejected Buddhism altogether. The Buddha taught only “suffering”. While Jesus acknowledged the suffering of humanity in general, he certainly didn’t explain it with the profound understanding, and in the detail taught by the Buddha. The Four Noble Truths, impermanence, dependent origination and non-self, comprise the seminal teachings of the Buddha, and they are accepted by most Buddhist schools in varying degrees and methods of understanding. To my knowledge, there is nothing taught by Jesus even remotely similar to these teachings, all of which are related and, taken together, attempt to explain the origin and cessation of all things. On the surface, some people might say that Jesus and the Buddha taught “basically” the same thing. I think this is simplistic and an attempt at spiritual eclecticism which is rather common today. The fact is one cannot accept both the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of the Buddha without creating internal cognitive dissonance, causing a person to either make a choice between their teachings, or rejecting both. With all due respect Joseph, the more one penetrates the teachings of the Buddha, the fewer similarities one finds with the teachings of Jesus. Fundamentally, they are completely different, mainly because they employ contradictory axioms to arrive at their conclusions. Of course, if someone could explain some fundamental equivalents in both teachings that would certainly give me pause to reflect. Peace. Steve

I think it's always interesting to speculate on these things, Anna-Lena, as long as we keep in mind it is merely speculation. Over the years I have studied and practiced Chrisitanity in depth, and have a pretty solid foundation in Buddhist doctrine and practice. Honestly, I see very little in common between the teachings of Jesus and the Buddha, except for some universal ideas about the compassionate treatment of our brothers and sisters. If I were to guess, I would say Jesus probably stayed pretty close to home. I suspect life was probably very difficult, so everyone was needed to pitch in. His religious training was Judaism, and he probably didn't stray far from that. The gospel of John shows elements of Stoicism, so Jesus may have been familiar with that philosophy. Some time ago I read a book about John Cassian, a commentator on the early Desert Fathers and Mothers. Some scholars believe there may have been some contact among Christian and Hindu sects during that period, but again, there is nothing solid to point to. But it's fun to guess anyway! Peace. Steve

Thanks, Joseph. There are some very diverse and interesting people and discussions here. Merry Christmas to you and everyone here! Peace. Steve

You "Progressive 8-Pointers" could literally turn me back to mainstream Christianity! (lol) Peace. Steve

Wow, you guys are really somthing! Yes, Norm, perhaps my question is a non sequitur. Then again, perhaps "Progressive Christianity" is nothing more than mental autoeroticism! (sorry guys..I couldn't resist) Peace. Steve

I decided not to post my last question (See: “Why Was Jesus Born”) again in a new thread, because I thought it was an absurd request. It was merely “conversation drift”, which happens all the time on forums, and even in our real-time conversations. But, to attempt to make my point I will instead show how the orthodox Christian doctrine of the Trinity can be understood and possibly even be accepted by a "Progressive Christian". As I mentioned earlier, I think Bishop Spong has done a good job in rescuing Christians from fundamentalist beliefs and practices. He has demythologized the Bible, and allowed people to think for themselves. But, I think that orthodoxy has suffered and is often looked upon as too authoritarian or confused with “literal”. I don’t think anything could be farther from the truth. Sometime in early adulthood, having been indoctrinated with Catholic dogma, it struck me that little or none of the Bible was meant to be taken literally, but that there could be value in the doctrine which came forth from it. Doctrine is simply a “finger pointing to the moon”, meant to aid us in understanding our experience of reality. One such doctrine, which has always been central to Christianity, is the Trinity. How is one to understand this doctrine? It’s unfortunate that the early Church Fathers decided to present this in terms of a hypostasis of three distinct “persons”. So, you have the First Person – God the Father; the Second Person – Jesus; and the Third Person – The Holy Spirit. This system has been the accepted understanding among most Christians since around the time of the Council of Nicaea. This doctrine has, as its main purpose, to point to the human experience of “God” in conventional or relative reality. In theological terms, it is referred to as the “Economic Trinity”, or how God is experienced by us in the world. Another theological term is “Ontological Trinity”, or the nature of God in itself – the “Absolute”. Since few people have ever experienced Absolute reality, or the “Ground of All Being”, most of us must content ourselves with an understanding of the Economic Trinity. To simplify all of this, people experience God (or whatever term you choose to represent “God”) as transcendent (incapable of knowing the unmanifest God), as the Logos (or underlying animating, divine principle of the universe - God Incarnate), and immanent (within us – the Spirit). I trust most of us have had experiences of some, or all of these “divine” elements in our lives. And, it is the doctrine of the Trinity which is meant to help us understand these experiences from the Christian point of view. I was curious as to what Bishop Spong has to say about this doctrine, and I was able to find his thoughts in an answer to a question on this very website: http://johnshelbyspong.com/2013/08/15/on-building-a-christianity-without-security-or-creeds/ The point of this rather lengthy post is to show that being, or becoming a Progressive Christian, does not mean throwing the baby out with the bath water. There are orthodox Christian doctrines worth the effort of investigating. While I do not personally profess Christian doctrine anymore, I still see its value and significance in the lives of many people. For this reason alone, I give Christianity, and its central tenets, my highest respect. I get that people want to reject doctrine and dogma. Reject all of it if you wish, or find an understanding within the doctrine that actually does conform with your personal experience of reality. Peace. Steve