tariki

Thanks Joseph. Much like you, I've found that I need to get away from Theism as such, theism as a "relationship with a personal God". The whole idea of "a" being among other beings, only greater, seems to complicate what increasingly appears to be simple. As I see it, this is all primarily a confusion of words. A confusion created by Hebrew into Greek or into Latin, Latin into Greek or English, and so on and so on. Until we end in the 20th Century with the word "holy" being spoken of by various Christians without recognition of its actual genesis. Often the word seems now to be used to denote a God totally above and separate from ourselves, untouchable.....a living, throbbing entity that repulses all that is imperfect and tainted by sin...... In other words, a picture that does its very best to repel every single meaning of the Incarnation that is life-giving. Christianity - at least to me - seems always to have been tainted by the dualism of "spirit" and "matter", "body" and "soul". And so it is with the more Conservative wing today. Reference to the "holiness" of God seems to tear apart the sheer simplicity of living by grace and instead places the Divine "up there", or "out there", pure and untouchable......and by implication, condemning of all the perfectly natural functions of ourselves as human beings.

Perhaps others here could say how they understand the "holiness" of God. Thanks

Just thought I would mention a book I have been reading ((in fact, now read twice), called "The Case for God: The True Meaning of Religion" by Karen Armstrong. Well worth a read. Put simply, it shows/argues that the literalist approach to the Bible is a relative modernism and not grounded in the full depth of the Christian Faith. This by an in-depth look at many of the early Church Fathers and other great pillars of the whole Christian Church throughout history. Maybe many here are not that "progressive" at all.........more regressive!

Just came to my notice that I in fact "quoted something from a gospel and added it to something St Paul said......"

For me this all revolves around theologies of salvation where the verse "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" becomes the foundation stone to "You must be born again", then "repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand" is added, and then "Whoever believes wll be saved but whoever does not believe will be condemned", finally "Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven" is thrown into the mix..........and hey presto! The job is done! As Thomas Merton has written........ The reification of faith. Real meaning of the phrase we are saved by faith = we are saved by Christ, whom we encounter in faith. But constant disputation about faith has made Christians become obsessed with faith almost as an object, at least as an experience, a "thing" and in concentrating upon it they lose sight of Christ. Whereas faith without the encounter with Christ and without His presence is less than nothing. It is the deadest of dead works, an act elicited in a moral and existential void. To seek to believe that one believes, and arbitrarily to decree that one believes, and then to conclude that this gymnastic has been blessed by Christ - this is pathological Christianity. And a Christianity of works. One has this mental gymnastic in which to trust. One is safe, one possesses the psychic key to salvation...... The key words are the "presence of Christ". The beauty of these words are that they cannot be pinned down, no parameters can be set to them. Christ surprised many (Parable of the Sheep and the Goats) when revealing that they had within them the presence of Christ, and had in fact been loving Christ, yet had never known) My own understanding is that a "true prophet" ( as Christ indicated ) is known by their fruits, and St Paul speaks of those fruits.....love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. St Paul also speaks of a reality that can be spoken of as "Not I, but Christ lives in me." Just how Christ comes to live in us is for me beyond our knowing and perhaps even beyond our control. My own Pure Land Buddhist path has it that.... Faith does not arise within oneself The entrusting heart is itself Given by the Other Power.

Welcome to the Forum Matt. I'd agree that any text is never fully understood. Historically, in institutionalised religion, it often seems that texts are read according to a particular tradition, or point of view, and the ultimate temptation is to enforce such and thereby marginalise others - a point made by Karen Armstrong in her fine book "The Case for God".Thus the text is read, not as you suggest, in "humility toward spirit", but with what can only be called blindness towards the spirit that will blow where it will. Just to add a small quote from the book mentioned which seems relevant here...... "Ezra had not swallowed the text gullibly but had 'set his heart to investigate (li-drosh) it. Jewish exegesis would be called midrash, which derives from the verb darash; 'to search', 'to investigate', 'to go in pursuit of' something as yet undiscovered. Anyway, welcome again....and if you wish, please introduce yourself in the "Water Cooler", "Members Introductions".

Thanks for the various responses. It seems I am speaking to the converted,,,,,,, As I see it there was the event, a life. Then we have the beginning of people responded to that life. Each gospel (canonical or otherwise) represents one particular way of seeing and understanding that life. We each must make our own........."who do you say that I am?" Those who seek to amalgamate the various gospel accounts and create a composite picture, claiming that such was what "really happened" thus miss the point entirely. Ehrman gives a very good example of this by speaking of the "seven words from the cross". He shows how each particular Gospel has its own way of understanding Christ by its own "words from the cross". He sums up by stating that those who seek to string all seven sayings together and think that such was what "really happened" and was actually said just end up with a meaningless string of sayings that in fact can mean little of significance to anyone.

I would just like to begin a thread on the noble art of "picking and choosing"......... Such a stance comes in for a lot of criticism from some quarters yet maybe should not draw down upon itself such a negative attitude. As a starter, here is a "cut and paste" from another forum where the subject was raised and I posted this....... ......... as far as "picking and choosing" from the Bible, from my own reading and study of Biblical scholarship it becomes apparent that the fundamental error is not recognising the cultural and time conditioned nature of the Biblical text. Scholars such as Bart Ehrman - with what to me at least is a host of uncontroversial detail and indisputable facts - show that the nascent Christian movement/witness produced a whole host of Gospels and letters/epistles that addressed issues facing particular groups. The canonical gospels each present a different perspective on Jesus, perspectives that are irreconcilable. The various Letters (of St Paul and others) are not capable of intelligent reconciliation as far as any particular overall "theology" is concerned. As I see it, the whole basic Protestant stance of seeing the NT as one "whole" that presents just one theology of salvation is wrong. It is Christ as Living Word, not inerrant Book, that saves. So, as I see it, one can do nothing else but "pick and choose", first because we are each unique individuals with our own relationship with he Divine, and second, to think that NOT to do so results in our finding just one message throughout the NT that offers no contradictions is misguided. Sadly, it seems that many still approach the Bible as "the word of God", inerrant, and insist that their own particular way of reconciling each and every word creates the "true faith". (End of cut and paste) Anyway, over to others here who may be interested.

My own experience has been that gratitude is virtually ALL of life, "spiritual" or otherwise. As I have said elsewhere, I am a Pure Land Buddhist and this path has found me just saying "thank you, thank you" spontaneously. I would also say that the same spontaneous gratitude should begin to arise irrespective of the experience of the moment being judged by ourselves "pleasant" or not. This is all part of the acceptance of things as they are, which - paradoxically - seems at the heart of genuine transformation of ourselves and of the world around us.

This world of dew is only a world of dew - and yet A haiku by Issa, written after the death of one of his children

It seems to me that there is a little bit of mileage in the old slogan that "we are not sinners because we sin, but that we sin because we are sinners." No need to be a hell-fire preacher or "old time" believer to get the sense of it. Really, approaching individual things with an eye to whether they constitute a "sin" or not misses the point - at least, that is how I have come to understand it. I have to admit that Thomas Merton once again provides me with some sort of illumination in this respect, with a small reflection found in his "New Seeds of Contemplation"..... "All sin starts from the assumption that my false self, the self that exists only in my own egocentric desires, is the fundamental reality of life to which everything else in the universe is ordered. Thus I use up my life in the desire for pleasures and the thirst for experiences, for power, honor, knowledge, and love to clothe this false self and construct its nothingness into into something objectively real. And I wind experiences around myself and cover myself with pleasures and glory like bandages..........." As Joseph has intimated....."All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not." (1 Corinthians 10:23) For me it comes down not to the accumulation of knowledge and activities ("works") designed to make us fit for the kingdom, but more a surrender of the self to the work of grace, a letting go (of self) and letting God . As I see it, the more we are able to surrender, the more we are able to discern exactly what is "expedient" in each and every moment - or, as Buddhists would say, "skillful" for the coming to be of a heart that is compassionate towards all.

Hi Gardener, If you have any tips as far as gardening is concerned I would be interested........most of what I touch in my garden seems to shrivel rather than thrive (apart from the weeds... ) Still, we gain much pleasure from watching the various birds tucking into the seed and fat-balls we put out for them, as well as the sheer enjoyment of watching them having a bath in the tiny birdbath that we always keep well filled. I was early twenties when I was "born again" and I've perhaps been born again many times since, always marveling in the unexpectedness of such a life. Like you, I have absolutely no idea what I might be when I grow up, but being now 63 (and close to 64) the problem - if such it is - is more critical for myself...... Maybe you need to "downsize" , which is what my beloved and myself are doing at the moment i.e. moving to a smaller dwelling now the bones are aging. But "downsize" in terms of expectation, much like the group of zen buddhists being taught by a renowned master who, seeing them all in a meditation session becoming more and more irritable and uncomfortable of posture, announced that when they had practiced just a little bit more they would in fact..........(ah! come to peace? find pure joy?).....no!!....."find the rest of their lives just the same"!!! Its difficult sometimes to find the lesson in such words, except that we must find our peace in our human reality of depressions, fears and disappearing hair follicles! Simple things can help - a sense of humour and a sense of gratitude for what we do have are just two, being extremely wary of any thought of "greener grass" elsewhere, and certainly any hope for "perfection" (whatever THAT might mean) Anyway, welcome. Derek

Perhaps it is a truth that every religion CAN become in essence the "way of the cult", which some have related to the "way of magic".....i.e. you must needs follow the instructions on the bottle to get the infallible effect. The Catholic monk Thomas Merton has spoken in greater detail of such an approach.... The reification of faith. Real meaning of the phrase we are saved by faith = we are saved by Christ, whom we encounter in faith. But constant disputation about faith has made Christians become obsessed with faith almost as an object, at least as an experience, a "thing" and in concentrating upon it they lose sight of Christ. Whereas faith without the encounter with Christ and without His presence is less than nothing. It is the deadest of dead works, an act elicited in a moral and existential void. To seek to believe that one believes, and arbitrarily to decree that one believes, and then to conclude that this gymnastic has been blessed by Christ - this is pathological Christianity. And a Christianity of works. One has this mental gymnastic in which to trust. One is safe, one possesses the psychic key to salvation...... The trouble is, as I see it, we think WE have the key, and moving on from this, we insist that all others must have a key cut to match our own. The significance is that, however we might cover our tracks by speaking of being saved by God, in fact we act, speak and think as if we are saved by ourselves, by "works". The inevitable consequence is that we then judge others by how they match our own lives, our own thoughts, our own efforts, our own sacrifices. That is, by judgement of others. So instead of becoming Christlike - that is, by accepting others first as the catalyst of true change - we become in effect the Pharisee, who ends up praising God that he is "not like other men"! The beauty of all this, and the hope, is that "salvation" can be found even in the hearts and minds of those who subscribe to, and seek to follow, the ways and teachings of all the various cults or whatever. As I see it, and as I have experienced it myself, we are often led to safety in spite of our beliefs rather than because of them..........along the road to joy that is mysteriously revealed to us without our exactly realising it.

Thanks Dutch, you've added a bit of clarity to my own thoughts on this.

There are some words of Marco Pallis on the presence of grace in Buddhism. Pallis says that the function of grace is to condition our homecoming to the very center from start to finish. It is the very attraction of the center itself.......which provides the incentive to start on the Way and the energy to face and overcome its many and various obstacles. Likewise grace is the welcoming hand into the center when we find ourselves at long last on the brink of the great divide where all familiar landmarks have disappeared. Pallis speaks of the Buddhist Icon of "touching the earth". The Buddha is seated on a lotus on the waters, where the waters symbolise existence with all its teeming possibilities. The Buddha shows the true nature of existence. His right hand points downward to touch the earth, his other supports a begging bowl which symbolises the acceptance of the gift - grace. In the two gestures of the Buddha the whole programme of our spiritual exigencies is summed up......an active attitude towards the world and a passive attitude towards heaven. The ignorant person does the exact opposite - passively accepting the world and resisting grace, gift and heaven. (Pallis, from "Is there room for grace in Buddhism?" )

The OP was in fact a cut and paste from a thread I have opened on another forum. One response I got was "what on earth are you talking about?" !!!..... So I sought to explain...... All I was seeking to speak of is how the overall concept of Grace can be applied across the board of certain religions - maybe all religions - as the essence of them. Again, as a by-product, perhaps to speak of the apparent contradiction between "faith" and "works" which some say is found in the NT, between the recorded views of James (Faith without works is dead) and St Paul (saved by Faith alone) Again, for anyone interested in Buddhism then it must be accepted that Enlightenment is the bottom line. The whole idea is not to believe in the Buddha, but to share the Buddha's insight, have the self same experience of reality that leads - as the Buddha claimed - to the "end of suffering". As I sought to explain, Grace normally is undertood in a Theistic sense, in Faiths where estrangement from God must be healed by Divine Mercy. The "bottom line" is salvation. The Divine bestows forgiveness/mercy - i.e. Grace - upon the devotee who "repents". With variations in Theologies and the faiths of the Book (i.e Judaism, Islam, Christianity) I was seeking to say that if Reality itself - the reality in which we "live and move and have our being" - is in fact benign, is in fact meaningful, rather than meaningless and ultimately senseless, then even in a non-theistic view the idea of Grace remains relevant. relevant in as much as Reality is to be realised as a given, that we do not attain it by seeking to perfect ourselves, nor by treating our "self" as an object that must needs be polished and perfected and made suitable. Personally I have found such an outlook life giving, and found also that the "works" that flow from it are experienced in such a way that they do not separate me in any judgmental way from those who seem not to perform any. For me personally, it allows me to know people of all Faiths as fellow travelers, and people of none. This is why I find the "one way" people my only "enemies" as such. As i see it, the "one way" is the selfessness that gives credit where it is due, to Reality itself! The ground of all things is an infinite reality that is for our very best. Yes, you can call it faith.

I would just like to open a thread on the reality of Grace. Normally its reality would be associated purely with a Theistic context, as an attitude of mercy given by a Supreme Being to Humankind. "Saved by Grace". Yet Grace figures deeply in Pure Land Buddhism and Buddhism is considered by many - rightly - to be non-theistic. There is a wide spectrum of understanding within Pure Land Buddhism. From those who understand Amida as Him/Her up there (or out West) who bestows "salvation" upon all who call upon Him/Her, and the Pure Land as a place we go to after death; to those who see Amida as a personification/representation of Reality-as-is and the Pure land as THIS world, NOW, when seen and lived in by an enlightened being. And all points in between. Mentioning the in between, I can bring in some ideas of Thomas Merton who speaks of the movement between an "I-Thou" relationship with the Divine to an experience of oneness,where the sense of "self" is lost, a movement from acting in conjuction with grace, to acting spontaneously from grace. Which in the "Eastern" way of speaking, is the way of wu wei, effortless working purely as the good. Again in the eastern way, this time from Ch'an (Zen) the story of the choosing of the Sixth Patriach is relevant. A contest was held of all the wannabees. One wrote a verse that said in effect that the mind was a mirror, and one must continually wipe it clean. A second wrote a verse that spoke of there being in fact no mirror, so what was there to wipe? The second guy claimed the prize! For he recognised that "enlightenment" was in fact not a product of any progress, of seeking to clean the mind, but of a realisation that Reality is a given, always ever present. That acts of "merit", any works (to use a Christian phrase) are more like switching the deck chairs around on the Titanic - yes, such can make the day more comfortable and scenic, yet ultimately of no purpose. So it can be seen that even in a non-theistic context, what can be known as Grace is present. Present in as much as the enlightened state is to be realised/acknowledged/seen...........not achieved/attained/earned. Such can explain such lovable verses in the Bible as "All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags" and that they "stink in God's nostrils". Yes, indeed they do, if Enlightenment is the bottom line! Obviously it can be asked just how we go about "realising" this, and it is a good question. One can only say "walk on", recognising the paradox that we can only at first seek to achieve/attain/earn yet seeking at all times to open our hearts to the working of Reality-as-is, which is Infinite Compassion, seeking the good of all eternally.

One of the "founding fathers" of Shin Buddhism, Shinran, in effect turned history upside down. He understood all reality as the expression of the "Vow mind", as the manifestation of "suchness", as everlasting activities of salvation, Upaya. From this viewpoint, the historical Buddha - and his own teachings - become just one expression within time of the "primal will" that all sentient beings come to realize enlightenment/salvation. Pure Land teachings may or may not be deemed to be derived from him (the historical Buddha) - for, to a certain extent, from such a perspective, this becomes irrelevant. I'd like to add that I am not particularly arguing for Shinran's point of view, merely attempting to explain it. Yet reflecting upon it, the perspective of Shinran can be understood as some sort of guard against fundamentalism, in as much as any expression of spirituality can be understood as being within the orbit of the "divine will" that all be "saved"..........or so it seems to me.... This is all in keeping with many Buddhist sutta's/sutra's........ The Lord speaks with but one voice, but all beings, each according to their kind, gain understanding, each thinking that the Lord speaks their own language. This is a special quality of the Buddha. The Lord speaks with but one voice, but all beings, each according to their own ability, act upon it, and each derives the appropriate benefit. This is a special quality of the Buddha. (Vimalakirti Sutra) Just as the nature of the earth is one While beings each live separately, And the earth has no thought of oneness or difference, So is the truth of all Buddhas. Just as the ocean is one With millions of different waves, Yet the water is no different: So is the truth of all Buddhas. Just as the element earth, while one, Can produce various sprouts, Yet it's not that the earth is diverse: So is the truth of all Buddhas. (Hua-Yen Sutra) I bring fullness and satisfaction to the world, like rain that spreads its moisture everywhere. Eminent and lowly, superior and inferior, observers of precepts, violators of precepts, those fully endowed with proper demeanor, those not fully endowed, those of correct views, of erroneous views, of keen capacity, of dull capacity - I cause the Dharma rain to rain on all equally, never lax or neglectful. When all the various living beings hear my Law, they receive it according to their power, dwelling in their different environments..... ..The Law of the Buddhas is constantly of a single flavour, causing the many worlds to attain full satisfaction everywhere; by practicing gradually and stage by stage, all beings can gain the fruits of the way. (The Lotus Sutra, Parable of the Dharma Rain) Certainly, as I see it, to posit the idea that the Divine - however conceived - has "written" just one book as a prime means of communication, with just one intended meaning, is ultimately incoherent and indefensible. I will continue to believe (and even continue to observe) that, for those who have the faith that ultimately the Cosmos we live in is benign and means us no harm, for such, the truth of this can be found in all places, at all times.....if we have the eyes to see and the ears to hear. All this relates - at least for me - with a "beautiful paradox" that I have spoken of before, drawn from the words of Thomas Merton.... It comes from a letter written to E.D.Andrews, an expert on the life and beliefs of the Shakers (or the United Society of Believers in Christ's Second Appearing). Andrews had sent Merton a copy of his book, Shaker Furniture, and Merton was responding to the gift. This wordless simplicity, in which the works of quiet and holy people speak humbly for themselves. How important that is in our day, when we are flooded with a tidal wave of meaningless words: and worse still when in the void of those words the sinister power of hatred and destruction is at work. The Shakers remain as witnesses to the fact that only humility keeps man in communion with truth, and first of all with his own inner truth. This one must know without knowing it, as they did. For as soon as a man becomes aware of "his truth" he lets go of it and embraces an illusion.

Hi Brent, Its reassuring to have what path I have confirmed by the Urantian Papers.

Hi Brent, Yes, from my own reading virtually EVERY book that is holy, sacred or authoritative has its own way of speaking against the authority/finality of words. Nevertheless, each seems eventually to become an "authority", to the detriment of humanity and our world.

For me the Pure Land way offers the encouragement to be totally honest with oneself and ones feelings and fears, such is one's trust in Amida's (Reality-as-is) Compassion and Infinite Light. For me, Amida is another name for the nameless, that can take whatever name, the will that works tirelessly throughout Reality - or, as reality - for the ultimate enlightenment of all. All experience has the potential to bring enlightenment; even the moments of apparent failure, of deep existential anxiety, can be transformed by pure acceptance, the embrace of Infinite Compassion. And my own experience is that this can be so virtually in spite of our own "beliefs" and "strategies" rather than because of them. There is a technical term in the Pure Land teachings that means "to become so of itself, not by calculation" and for me this means that it is not my own "understanding" or grasp of truth that brings genuine trust/faith, but Other Power. This is expressed by some words of a Pure Land devotee...... In the timeless process of birth-and-death, for the first time I was made to realize the Other Power of Amida Buddha. My understanding resulted from listening, but listening is nothing but a little scratch on a precious gem. I trusted my understanding instead of trusting Amida. Until now I was satisfied with my understanding. But, my understanding does not save me; It is Amida who saves me. For me, all the theologies of the world are "little scratches on a precious gem". They have their uses yet ultimately faith is more a letting go (of "self" and its strategies) than a clinging to them, or in Christian apophatic (negative) terms, more a "darkness" than a light. Anyway, just to finish, another "ode" from the pen of the Pure Land "saint" Saichi......... Nothing is left to Saichi, Except a joyful heart nothing is left to him. Neither good nor bad has he, all is taken away from him; Nothing is left to him! To have nothing - how completely satisfying! Everything has been carried away by the 'Namu-amida-butsu'. He is thoroughly at home with himself: This is indeed the 'Namu-amida-butsu'.

At one time I opened a thread on the Pure Land "saints" and mentioned there that "Saints" is not the correct word, they are in fact known (in Japanese) as myokonin. 'Myokonin' literally means a wondrous, excellent person. It is used for a devout follower of Pure Land Buddhism. A myokonin lives a life of total dedication to Amida, and their acts and sayings, though they often run counter to common sense, reveal their depth of faith and true humanity. One of their number, the cobbler Saichi, wrote... The love that inspired Oya-sama to go through All the sufferings and all the hardships - I thought I was simply to listen to the story, But that was a grievous mistake, I find. (Oya-sama.......see previous post on this thread) For me Saichi's words - in part - point to the reason why many are "dead" to any form of inter-faith dialogue. The words point to the need to engage existentially with the true heart of any faith before one can "know it" in any worthwhile or genuine manner. For me, this is the significance of the Biblical Proverb:- "They who answer a thing before they hear it, it is a shame and a folly unto them." What is it to truly "hear"? Is it to merely read, only seeking to refute? Anyway, obviously it is up to each of us to seek an honest answer in our own hearts as to how much we have really "heard" of any faith but our own, before it is possibly rejected as "worthless". Just as an offering to my Christian friends here, a word on "saints" by Thomas Merton, from his book "New Seeds of Contemplation".... The saints are what they are, not because their sanctity makes them admirable to others, but because the gift of sainthood makes it possible for them to admire everybody else.

Hi Brent, I've taken a look at the link. Thanks, but no thanks. As I see it, the last thing humankind - or indeed, any "kind" - need is another book, sacred. holy, authoritative, or whatever. Possibly it can be claimed that this particular book is different and provides relevant answers, answers at this time necessary to the correct progress of humanity. So be it. All the best Derek

Amida Looking Back (see previous post)

There is a painting by Rembrandt, the "Return of the Prodigal". The most significant figure in the picture - rather than the prodigal son himself - could be seen to be the son who stayed at home and "fulfilled all righteousness". He looks on upon the reconciliation between the Father and the prodigal with a certain degree of incomprehension. It just seems to me that sometimes the "christian life" becomes not a self-emptying/sanctification, but often a transformation back into the incomprehension of the son who stayed at home. The "choice" for God, the "seeking" for God, have become "works", works which are then thrown in the face of those who have made no such choice, who have not sought with quite the same degree of endeavour that we ourselves have made. So be it. Anyway, moving on, there is a statue of Amida that stands outside one of the Pure Land (Shin) temples in Japan. It is called "Amida Looking Back." The statue shows Amida with her/his hands in the mudra's (hand positions) of "teaching" and "fear not". In other words, the call is to come and hear the teachings, and cease to fear. Yet Amida is shown turning her head, for her first thought is for those who do not, or cannot come, for whatever reason. The ones who will not "make it" without special favour and grace. That is very much the heart of Shin. And perhaps much more.