Buddhism - Christianity Compatibility

Originally posted by lucifershammer
LOTC's view does not reflect that - human actions are not the essence in his view of karma (try saying that in Sanskrit and you'll realise exactly how absurd it sounds).

I think I'd sound absurd saying anything in Sanskrit.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Possibility A: To achieve peace.

Please answer in the context of the discussion of karma.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Please answer in the context of the discussion of karma.

I just did, fool.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I think I'd sound absurd saying anything in Sanskrit.

A simple, but incomplete, translation of karma would be "human action".

What LOTC is saying boils down to "human action" [i.e. karma] having no correlation with human action.

See what I mean?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I just did, fool.

All you did was refer to the limited view of karma I was talking about earlier. LOTC claims to have a more comprehensive and complete view of karma in non-supernatural terms related to his redefinition of 'rebirth'.

EDIT: What's wrong? Am I getting under your skin already?

EDIT2: The difference between the limited view and the traditional Buddhist view is that, in the traditional view, events that cause joy are always the result of good karma (from this or previous lives) and events that cause sorrow are always the result of bad karma. Your "peace" point is no different from the investment example I raised earlier. In general, wise investment will lead to profits and unwise investment will lead to losses, but chance events could reverse that. Similarly, actions intended to cause peace need not always do so.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
LOTC claims to have a more comprehensive and complete view of karma in non-supernatural terms related to his redefinition of 'rebirth'.

I don't interpret his post in quite the same light. As far as I can tell, he's just interpreting Buddhism in a certain way. Buddhism is, after all, open to interpretation. Strict adherence to the master's words is not a requirement...and if it is, let Buddhism go hang...

Getting under my skin? Nah. When I call you "fool" it is with a Bill Cosby accent.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I don't interpret his post in quite the same light. As far as I can tell, he's just interpreting Buddhism in a certain way. Buddhism is, after all, open to interpretation. Strict adherence to the master's words is not a requirement...and if it is, let Buddhism go hang...

Nothing wrong with interpretation per se. But there is a difference between exegesis and eisegesis. And it is important to be clear and honest with yourself about which one you're doing.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Nothing wrong with interpretation per se. But there is a difference between exegesis and eisegesis. And it is important to be clear and honest with yourself about which one you're doing.

Indeed.

I take from Buddhism what I can use, what makes sense to me. I am not a Buddhist, whatever that may be. Early Buddhist writings can be extremely obscure and philosophically subtle; it may also not be necessary for one to read them. They may no longer be relevant! Everyone makes their own path to the waterfall.

Originally posted by stocken
Is Buddha-nature everything then? Are there any creator in Buddhism?

Buddha-nature describes the potential of all sentient beings, without exception, for attaining full awakening (buddhahood). My own buddha-nature is exactly the same as any buddha's buddha-nature. The difference is that a fully awakened being has realized their full potential whereas I am still operating in a great deal of mental confusion. That confusion stems from an incredibly strong, well-cultivated belief in an "I" that cannot be found through investigation of any sort.

The Buddha never commented on a creator god. He never said anything about one's existence or non-existence. The Buddha's focus was on eliminating the suffering brought about by beings' own actions. In his day, there were a multitude of gods that were recoginized, but not a single one of them could end the stark suffering the Buddha witnessed. That suffering is no different today. It's held that he found the way to end the continual cycle of birth, sickness, old age, death.

I think a certain level of level of awarenes, realisation and what I would call true intelligence and Knowledge, not knowledge as in accumulated memory, which in itself can be harmful, must be reached before any text,be it philosophical or religious, obviously not scientific, can be read without bias thus revealing the true meaning that was or was not intended for the knowledge known at the time.
Question, question and then question some more, your own motivation and that of others within the circle of influence of your friends family and loved ones but especially your children as they are the seeds of tomorrow. I especially would like everybody to question the intentions and effects of TV on children and even themselves and realise at the minimum-the huge effort made in trying to promote and glamourise, openly and subconsciously the sense of self and seperateness,with the 'I' and the ego been feuled to want bigger and better, or as one pop song of the early 90's put it-"I'm bigger and bolder,and rougher tougher" This was actually the verse of a song that was released when I was at school, the title was 'Dominator' but the the chorus is too much, "I wanna kiss myself." This is what is promoted from the start, so to actually realise that happiness lies in loss of the self-Is a feat in itself that numerically can only get smaller.
I've read before that the cross is the negation of the 'I'. This been literally the 'I' with a line through it. The cross been used religiously well before BC. I think the logicness of buddhism speaks for itself.

Truth is one, though the sages know it as many.

"What we are today comes from our thoughts of yesterday, and our present thoughts build our life to tomorrow:
Our life is the creation of our mind."
Dhammapada

Heaven is a state of mind.
Nirvana is a state of mind.
Both reached with the destruction of the self and all desires that tie us to this place.

Or as the Beatles said "All You Need Is Love".

Originally posted by eagles54
Buddha-nature describes the potential of all sentient beings, without exception, for attaining full awakening (buddhahood). My own buddha-nature is exactly the same as any buddha's buddha-nature. The difference is that a fully awakened being has realized their full potential whereas I am still operating in a great deal of mental confusion. That confusion s ...[text shortened]... It's held that he found the way to end the continual cycle of birth, sickness, old age, death.

Clear all obstacles from your path… If you meet the Buddha, then kill the Buddha! Only thus will you attain release, only thus escape the nets and become free.

—Zen Master Lin-chi (Rinzai)

Originally posted by vistesd
Clear all obstacles from your path… If you meet the Buddha, then kill the Buddha! Only thus will you attain release, only thus escape the nets and become free.

—Zen Master Lin-chi (Rinzai)

That means somthing like" if you find enlightment outside yourself it cant be real because you can only find it within yourself" right?

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
That means somthing like" if you find enlightment outside yourself it cant be real because you can only find it within yourself" right?

No dependence. And you are the Buddha. But, since it's something of a koan, the question becomes not just how to think about it ("Okay, I get it..." ), but what to do with it....