11 Oct 12
Originally posted by divegeesterNo, not if they don't appear reasonable, not at all.
Do you accept any of the non-evident beliefs and ideologies that exist within Bhuddism?
I have rational questions and doubts about "merit" ideas, reincarnation, vegetarianism ( as a sole diet). I don't feel a need to label myself as Buddhist, but I find Buddhist philosophy very rational and helpful in understanding what life is about. I think Buddhism in parts of it (not always at all) can be too passive and divorced from life, originating as some of it does from a monk-based culture.
It may appear strange but when they talk about "gods" and "demons" in some forms of Buddhism (Tantric) I don't have any problems with that, because they openly state they are not literally "real" but a visual means of for some people to understand the deeper aspect of Buddhism and to help themselves to develop. Its a sort of use of myth. Myth is not a lie, but more a poetic and imaginal way of approaching the greater mysteries of existence.
Where I think it is more expansive than Christianity is that it sees all of life connected and part of a whole, rather than "us" against "them". And I like its non-violence. It has generally a much more peaceful (and longer) history than Christianity. I believe there is even a way of approaching Christianity in a Buddhist type manner, if one accepts the use of myth. In that way, the mythic Christ is seen as means to realize the Buddha-Christ within us all.
11 Oct 12
Originally posted by TaomanPretty much.
No, not if they don't appear reasonable, not at all.
I have rational questions and doubts about "merit" ideas, reincarnation, vegetarianism ( as a sole diet). I don't feel a need to label myself as Buddhist, but I find Buddhist philosophy very rational and helpful in understanding what life is about. I think Buddhism in parts of it (not always at all) can ...[text shortened]... y, the mythic Christ is seen as means to realize the Buddha-Christ within us all.
You cant help but think that the theories about Jesus being taught from eastern sources seems to have some weight from 2 aspects (off the top of my head ).
1. non violence, befriending enemies. This seems to be a revolutionary concept to this day with a lot of Christians, whereas it was a firmly entrenched tenet of eastern mysticism (Buddhism) , for centuries.
2. There is a large gap in Jesus' life (20 years? ) , where (from my thinking), he had learnt somethings from someone (I gather), which seems to have empowered him to do all those very sympathetic and compassionate teaching that he emerged with in the last 3 years of his life.
(I know I've brought this up before, but the Christians on here really didn't have any real good answers as to where JC had gone for those missing years. Heck , maybe he just ran into a travelling monk who saw JC's potential and decided to fine-tune his method. Not a complete success, but not a dismal failure either. )
12 Oct 12
2 edits
NEIN!!! you veel spell ze verds properly! uzzervise...Do you accept any of the non-evident beliefs and ideologies that exist within Bhuddism?
Originally posted by Suzianne
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism
Let's wrestle that 'h' into its correct place. 🙂
*pointing Luger*
...you veel be shot!!!12 Oct 12
Originally posted by karoly aczelOn the basis of what we have, none of us really know with certainty this Jeshua, who has been legendised. Even the missing years - I don't know now (once thought I did) whether that happened or not, or whether it was just a gap in a story. Its like connect the dots and the dots can be connected ten different ways.
Pretty much.
You cant help but think that the theories about Jesus being taught from eastern sources seems to have some weight from 2 aspects (off the top of my head ).
1. non violence, befriending enemies. This seems to be a revolutionary concept to this day with a lot of Christians, whereas it was a firmly entrenched tenet of eastern mysticism ( ...[text shortened]... decided to fine-tune his method. Not a complete success, but not a dismal failure either. )
All of us who have been brought up in a Christian society have deep cultural attachment to these stories and almost automatically accept them as true basically, even if we are not believers. Non-believers even talk as from New Testament "facts" (not objective and not clear and unsupported elsewhere) to argue their case. None really know what the facts were, just a vague set of blurry stories, sometimes saying one thing and other times saying something different and then during the next century it blows up into gnostic type god-man "Saviour" myth in the end.
My sketch of who and what I think he was is probably the Jesus I also want to see and put together, just as much as your version.
Choose your Jesus. Which is what Buddhists do with their Tantric imaginal deities.
12 Oct 12
Originally posted by karoly aczelJesus never learned anything from Buddhism. 😏
Pretty much.
You cant help but think that the theories about Jesus being taught from eastern sources seems to have some weight from 2 aspects (off the top of my head ).
1. non violence, befriending enemies. This seems to be a revolutionary concept to this day with a lot of Christians, whereas it was a firmly entrenched tenet of eastern mysticism ( ...[text shortened]... decided to fine-tune his method. Not a complete success, but not a dismal failure either. )