Why Would God Show Me This?

[christs-love]

Why would God show me this? I’m a nobody, I was In prayer, and in the far distant in the darkness I seen a sun in the position of a sunrise I seen it 3 separate times, and as I am starring at it I felt glorious joy and happiness, and there with God I did not need anything to eat or drink, the only thing that matters is the relationship I have with him nothing else, and this world and everything it has to offer is absolutely nothing compare to what he has in store for us, and I realized I love Jesus more than anybody on earth.

[PaulS]

It sounds lovely, but I would fully encourage maintaining eating and drinking whilst you're on this earth. No matter what your relationship with Jesus, you will not survive without those. ?

Edited May 24, 2015 by PaulS

[JosephM]

Christs-love,

 

It sounds like a beautiful experience to me. It validates the truth in that this life is temporal and what we have to eat and drink is not all that important in the scheme of things compared to the knowledge of the presence of that which sustains us and is present always and not only where the sun rises. You have a full life ahead of you and when the time comes for the sunset, i believe your joy and peace will remain full.

 

Joseph

[PaulS]

I would suggest food and drink are primary in the scheme of things. Without those one would not be able to have any knowledge (their brain wouldn't work). 'That which sustains us' would do very little sustaining if one didn't feed their body. Some might see it as insignificant but I can guarantee you would've have seen your 60 plus years if you simply relied on any spiritual relationship to sustain you, Joseph.

 

But yes, I agree it's very agreeable to feel protected, loved and looked after at the end of the day.

Edited May 25, 2015 by PaulS

[soma]

If you love Jesus and he asked you to become Buddhist would you oblige?

[christs-love]

On 2015-5-26 at 7:43 AM, soma said:

If you love Jesus and he asked you to become Buddhist would you oblige?

 

On 2015-5-26 at 7:43 AM, soma said:

If you love Jesus and he asked you to become Buddhist would you oblige?

No

[PaulS]

Hi christs-love,

Welcome back to commenting on the forum as it's been over two years since your last post.  

I hope you're still enjoying those moments of feeling glorious joy and happiness.

Cheers

Paul

[Burl]

10 hours ago, christs-love said:

 

No

No Buddhism?  How intolerant ;-)

According to the Buddhist scriptures I believe Gautama was conceived when his mother dreamed of a white elephant who plunged its six tusks into her side.  When Gautama was born, he immediately took six steps and declared aloud that this would be his last incarnation.

No wonder some people prefer this legend to Christian ones!  Six tusked white elephants are pretty cool.

[PaulS]

1 hour ago, Burl said:

No Buddhism?  How intolerant ;-)

According to the Buddhist scriptures I believe Gautama was conceived when his mother dreamed of a white elephant who plunged its six tusks into her side.  When Gautama was born, he immediately took six steps and declared aloud that this would be his last incarnation.

No wonder some people prefer this legend to Christian ones!  Six tusked white elephants are pretty cool.

I think it's wonderful how Buddhism can recognise it's myths and appreciate them for their teachings, as opposed to taking such things literally, such as the myth of Buddha being born of a virgin.

Whether it's six white elephants, walking on water, raising zombies from the dead - all myths are pretty cool (if we know how to recognise the difference between myth and reality).

[Burl]

2 hours ago, PaulS said:

I think it's wonderful how Buddhism can recognise it's myths and appreciate them for their teachings, as opposed to taking such things literally, such as the myth of Buddha being born of a virgin.

Whether it's six white elephants, walking on water, raising zombies from the dead - all myths are pretty cool (if we know how to recognise the difference between myth and reality).

Why do you assume Buddhists do not take these stories literally?  

Westerners who are literate and have appropriated Buddhist intellectualism are not representative of the religion.  Ask a monk who owns nothing but his saffron cloak and a begging bowl, not a fat and happy Californian with the time and money for books.

[SteveS55]

"not a fat and happy Californian with the time and money for books."  I object, Burl.  I'm a Californian and I'm neither fat nor happy!

Steve

[PaulS]

5 hours ago, Burl said:

Why do you assume Buddhists do not take these stories literally?  

Westerners who are literate and have appropriated Buddhist intellectualism are not representative of the religion.  Ask a monk who owns nothing but his saffron cloak and a begging bowl, not a fat and happy Californian with the time and money for books.

Buddhism is quite wide and varied and naturally has taken on local cultural and political traits in its various geographic regions, much like Christianity throughout the world.  So to say that no Buddhist takes these myths literally would be too presumptuous of me.  However, throughout the world the broad teachings of Buddhism concern the Buddha's lessons and do not focus on the Buddha himself.  Buddhists, in general, do not regard Buddha as God and do not worship him.  Subsequently, the importance of the Buddha's mother's dream is of no importance to most Buddhists - fat, saffron cloak, begging bowl, or not.  

Concerning literacy, it seems to me quite the opposite to what you suggest - that is that often it has been the western world adopting a religion from the east that has misunderstood the texts (Christian and Buddhist) and read myth as literal stories.

[Burl]

 

24 minutes ago, PaulS said:

Buddhism is quite wide and varied and naturally has taken on local cultural and political traits in its various geographic regions, much like Christianity throughout the world.  So to say that no Buddhist takes these myths literally would be too presumptuous of me.  However, throughout the world the broad teachings of Buddhism concern the Buddha's lessons and do not focus on the Buddha himself.  Buddhists, in general, do not regard Buddha as God and do not worship him.  Subsequently, the importance of the Buddha's mother's dream is of no importance to most Buddhists - fat, saffron cloak, begging bowl, or not.  

Concerning literacy, it seems to me quite the opposite to what you suggest - that is that often it has been the western world adopting a religion from the east that has misunderstood the texts (Christian and Buddhist) and read myth as literal stories.

Where do you get this information on world Buddhism, Paul?  I had the impression you were a bit of a loner in the formal religious sphere.

 

 

 

[PaulS]

7 hours ago, Burl said:

Where do you get this information on world Buddhism, Paul?  I had the impression you were a bit of a loner in the formal religious sphere.

Well Burl,

A genuine question Burl or a sarcastic response?  Just asking.

I'm not sure what you define the formal religious sphere as.  Do I have a Masters degree in World religions? -  No (although I do have one in Occupational Safety & Health, but I don't think that counts in this discussion).

People get all sorts of impressions when they don't really know a person well.  Particularly in internet forums where we lack the ability to converse in real time, to observe the other's body language, and where we miss tone and inflection in the voice that may make something sound either like a statement, joke or an offensive remark.

No doubt you have some impressions of me based on my posts and some interactions.  All I would say to that is that any such impression is likely to be wrong in many, many ways.

I read, I study, I travel, I talk to people. 

All the best.

Paul

Edited June 7, 2017 by PaulS

[Burl]

5 hours ago, PaulS said:

Well Burl,

A genuine question Burl or a sarcastic response?  Just asking.

I'm not sure what you define the formal religious sphere as.  Do I have a Masters degree in World religions? -  No (although I do have one in Occupational Safety & Health, but I don't think that counts in this discussion).

People get all sorts of impressions when they don't really know a person well.  Particularly in internet forums where we lack the ability to converse in real time, to observe the other's body language, and where we miss tone and inflection in the voice that may make something sound either like a statement, joke or an offensive remark.

No doubt you have some impressions of me based on my posts and some interactions.  All I would say to that is that any such impression is likely to be wrong in many, many ways.

I read, I study, I travel, I talk to people. 

All the best.

Paul

Genuine question.  You made a judgment about world Buddhism and I wanted to know the logical basis.  Now I know it is anecdotal.

One observation about Buddhism I have made is that it is absolutely essential for a Buddhist to have a guru or sensei guide their development.  The best that books can do is to point towards Buddhism.  One cannot become enlightened by themselves or by reading.

I can see a lot of value in the rituals of Buddhism.  Prayer wheels, flags, pilgrimages all make sense to me. 

The idea that an intellectual understanding of religion is superior to a superstitious belief system is a conceit.  I am often guilty of this bigotry myself.

Edited June 7, 2017 by Burl

[PaulS]

11 hours ago, Burl said:

.......One observation about Buddhism I have made is that it is absolutely essential for a Buddhist to have a guru or sensei guide their development.  The best that books can do is to point towards Buddhism.  One cannot become enlightened by themselves or by reading.

.......The idea that an intellectual understanding of religion is superior to a superstitious belief system is a conceit.  I am often guilty of this bigotry myself.

If that is an observation you have made about Buddhism....well, I'll leave it to more knowledgeable people about Buddhism to answer, but I believe that is a misunderstood observation, particularly when you consider the Buddha's teachings about thinking for one's self and rejecting or accepting the Buddha's teachings based on one's own personal testing of said teachings.  Whilst there are books there are also the Buddhist 'scriptures' and its 'canon' (a borrowed Christian term used for convenience here) - the greatest teaching of all (IMO) encouraging people to contemplate the teachings for themselves.

As for superstition vs intellectualism - You misunderstand me if you think I am saying intellectualism is superior to myth.  I am simply saying there is much value in identifying what is myth and what is literal.  BOTH have much value individually. My observations are that many Christians believe myth literally occurred,which is a different thing to regarding a story as myth but taking away wisdom from it.

Try this link for a quick lesson on Buddhism (note the last paragraph too).  http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/5minbud.htm

Regarding this thread, Buddhism started being discussed because christs-love was expressing how much they loved Jesus - yet if Jesus asked them to become Buddhist they would refuse to.  The reasons why would maybe make for a good discussion however christs-love's one syllable answer to the question doesn't leave a lot of room for discussion.  Would you care to elaborate christs-love?

Edited June 7, 2017 by PaulS

[Burl]

6 hours ago, PaulS said:

If that is an observation you have made about Buddhism....well, I'll leave it to more knowledgeable people about Buddhism to answer, but I believe that is a misunderstood observation, particularly when you consider the Buddha's teachings about thinking for one's self and rejecting or accepting the Buddha's teachings based on one's own personal testing of said teachings.  Whilst there are books there are also the Buddhist 'scriptures' and its 'canon' (a borrowed Christian term used for convenience here) - the greatest teaching of all (IMO) encouraging people to contemplate the teachings for themselves.

As for superstition vs intellectualism - You misunderstand me if you think I am saying intellectualism is superior to myth.  I am simply saying there is much value in identifying what is myth and what is literal.  BOTH have much value individually. My observations are that many Christians believe myth literally occurred,which is a different thing to regarding a story as myth but taking away wisdom from it.

Try this link for a quick lesson on Buddhism (note the last paragraph too).  http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/5minbud.htm

Regarding this thread, Buddhism started being discussed because christs-love was expressing how much they loved Jesus - yet if Jesus asked them to become Buddhist they would refuse to.  The reasons why would maybe make for a good discussion however christs-love's one syllable answer to the question doesn't leave a lot of room for discussion.  Would you care to elaborate, christs-love?

No.

Edited June 8, 2017 by PaulS

[SteveS55]

I am told that for one to commit to the Buddhist path, it is necessary to find a qualified teacher, or guru.  The Western understanding of that term may not be quite correct, since it means more like something along the lines of a spiritual friend or companion.  

It has something to do with connecting to a particular lineage which was generally an oral tradition carried on from one generation  to another within that lineage.  In any case it has been the tradition for centuries.

At some point the student will be ready for the "pointing out instructions" from the guru, or master.  I believe that is the main reason for a teacher.  It isn't some sort of mommy/daddy relationship where the student projects all of their neurotic needs onto the teacher.

As for "enlightenment" whatever that might be, I don't think there are any guarantees one way or the other. 

Steve

 

 

 

[PaulS]

2 hours ago, Burl said:

No.

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

[JosephM]

Christs-love has posted the same OP on numerous Christian sites word for word. Perhaps there is no interest in a real discussion but more a personal story that was looking for some interpretation/support of the dream/vision by different Christian groups?.

Joseph

[PaulS]

With 2 years between posts I probably wasn't expecting much of a discussion, but thought I'd encourage the opportunity.

[Burl]

9 hours ago, SteveS55 said:

I am told that for one to commit to the Buddhist path, it is necessary to find a qualified teacher, or guru.  The Western understanding of that term may not be quite correct, since it means more like something along the lines of a spiritual friend or companion.  

It has something to do with connecting to a particular lineage which was generally an oral tradition carried on from one generation  to another within that lineage.  In any case it has been the tradition for centuries.

At some point the student will be ready for the "pointing out instructions" from the guru, or master.  I believe that is the main reason for a teacher.  It isn't some sort of mommy/daddy relationship where the student projects all of their neurotic needs onto the teacher.

As for "enlightenment" whatever that might be, I don't think there are any guarantees one way or the other. 

Steve

 

 

 

Yes, a teacher or guide is a necessity.  Can't free the self from ego by caging the self within it.  That is an ourobous of delusion.  Same thing in Sufism and Christianity.

 

[PaulS]

8 hours ago, Burl said:

Yes, a teacher or guide is a necessity.  Can't free the self from ego by caging the self within it.  That is an ourobous of delusion.  Same thing in Sufism and Christianity.

So Buddha was delusional?  According to Buddhism, he achieved enlightenment without a teacher (in the sense of a guru or sensei to guide their development).  I understand this (from my anecdotal experience) to be a major component of Buddhism - finding enlightenment for oneself rather than adopting another's enlightenment.

Guides and teachers may well be useful, but not essential, IMO.

Edited June 8, 2017 by PaulS

[SteveS55]

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. 

[Burl]

1 hour ago, PaulS said:

So Buddha was delusional?  According to Buddhism, he achieved enlightenment without a teacher (in the sense of a guru or sensei to guide their development).  I understand this (from my anecdotal experience) to be a major component of Buddhism - finding enlightenment for oneself rather than adopting another's enlightenment.

Guides and teachers may well be useful, but not essential, IMO.

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