How are these Great Beings explained?

[CG Didymus]

No interaction can happen without Trust. Everything we do contains the element of trust.

Regards Tony

Trust in what people believe about religion doesn't mean much. How many times do we hear "you can trust the Bible" and they mean different things by it.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Unless you can explain the logic of offering something I cannot see?

I will attempt a reply to that question.

With each of the Messages of God we are obligated to share in Deed and Word. In doing this we are told we have to do that with wisdom. The isssue here is that we are all learning what this wisdom is and how to apply it to our lives.

Thus is offered in Love only, as with each soul the reaction of what is offered is not known until the offer is made.

There is many reasons why, but I guess we have noted the urgency of what has been offered to us by God;

"O MY SERVANT! Free thyself from the fetters of this world, and loose thy soul from the prison of self. Seize thy chance, for it will come to thee no more."

We have but a handful of years to mould our soul into a greater wisdom, which is an eternity. This in turn has positive results in this material world.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Trust in what people believe about religion doesn't mean much. How many times do we hear "you can trust the Bible" and they mean different things by it.

I will share a story in reply, why I do is because it shows what trust in God's Word can reveal to a soul that searches.

I know of a Female Muslim in Iran who became a Baha'i on the world wide web, she was very brave in my opinion to do that on the web.

I will share what she found in the Bible with her study about the resurrection; Basically she is amazed a Christian can not see in their scriptures that it was a Spiritual Body that was raised and not the flesh of Jesus.


"Recently, I am studying Bible, every night. I REALLY enjoy reading it, and apart from the joy, it gives me food for thought. So there is a part in Bible, I read tonight that CLEARLY states that Jesus did not rose from the dead with His physical body. After I saw it, I wondered how any Christian could thought about it as a physical happening. So I would like to share with you the part I read:

1 Corinthians 15:35-58New International Version (NIV)
The Resurrection Body

35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.

42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[a]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.

50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.” 55 “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?”

I, Personally, felt completely satisfied with the answer Bible itself gave me. Maybe sometimes we have to read our own scripture with new eyes, new mind."

Regards Tony

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I will attempt a reply to that question.

With each of the Messages of God we are obligated to share in Deed and Word. In doing this we are told we have to do that with wisdom. The isssue here is that we are all learning what this wisdom is and how to apply it to our lives.

Thus is offered in Love only, as with each soul the reaction of what is offered is not known until the offer is made.

There is many reasons why, but I guess we have noted the urgency of what has been offered to us by God;

"O MY SERVANT! Free thyself from the fetters of this world, and loose thy soul from the prison of self. Seize thy chance, for it will come to thee no more."

We have but a handful of years in eternity to mould our soul into a greater wisdom, which in turn has positive results in this material world.

Regards Tony

Thanks.

Given diversity in thought, in most buddhisms I know based on the Pali Canon, instead of offering information about someone else's wisdom, which to me is counterproductive, we (most PC traditions) offer no physical information (unless asked) Only expression by deed. What we do is the result of our passed positive actions Not on love (etc) since that is not an action.

We dont develop karma by love/god/etc-a person or noun, we develop it solely and defined by deed-an action/karma; deeds define our virtues not god.

So, if I answered my own question, I cant offer you something you cannot see. Thats illogical. What can you benefit from invisible information. Instead, I offer my actions, and in doing I know it benefits me. So whatever actions you do I would hope is reflected from The Dharma. I cant know since its your actions. The proof is in your actions not what I offer.

The Buddha would call your belief a lie or better word a delusion. Thats not my personality. Since he is not god, Im not obligated to show the same bias that he does in regards language preference about someone else's state of mind. What we do hope for is whatever is leading you away from enlightenment will change in one of your rebirths. Right now, you are not at that state. None of us are. Not even christ and muhammad.

But to understand the Dharma is to practice it not quote it nor compare it to bahaullah or anyone else not enlightened. There are specific practices that bring out the virtues of The Dharma. Depends on the school and tradition.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But to understand the Dharma is to practice it not quote it nor compare it to bahaullah or anyone else not enlightened. There are specific practices that bring out the virtues of The Dharma. Depends on the school and tradition.

Thank you for the reply.

"Thousands of candles can be lit from a single candle, and the life of the candle will not be shortened. Happiness never decreases by being shared.' Buddha

"If you light a lamp for somebody, it will also brighten your path." Buddha

Regards Tony

 

[Dawnofhope]

What I'm asking is more you are saying the sun rises in the north and falls in the south. After observation and study the sun rises in the east in the western side of the world and falls in the west.

In the pencil example, we cant change the context and point (saying a pencil is there) to reflect your point. If the sun does not exists and you say it does, you (in my opinion) would be wrong.

Im sticking to you saying something exists when I know it does not and asking you the logic in why and how you believe something exists that after I have observed and concluded the facts, I found your statement false.

Perhaps this is all of relevance to what we were discussing regarding Buddhism. What is the evidence that Buddha was a theist or an atheist? Sometimes these questions are not so black and white as whether or not you have a pencil in your hand.

There is an old saying: "Keep your mind level. If the mind is level, the whole world will be level." Consider these words. Realize that all the distinctions of the world are caused by the discriminating views of the mind. There is a path to Enlightenment in those very words. Indeed, the ways to Enlightenment are unlimited.

http://www.e4thai.com/e4e/images/pdf/theteachingofbuddha.pdf
p176

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Perhaps this is all of relevance to what we were discussing regarding Buddhism. What is the evidence that Buddha was a theist or an atheist? Sometimes these questions are not so black and white as whether or not you have a pencil in your hand.

There is an old saying: "Keep your mind level. If the mind is level, the whole world will be level." Consider these words. Realize that all the distinctions of the world are caused by the discriminating views of the mind. There is a path to Enlightenment in those very words. Indeed, the ways to Enlightenment are unlimited.

http://www.e4thai.com/e4e/images/pdf/theteachingofbuddha.pdf
p176

If we let our minds be that open why have a strong feeling and confirmation god exists-as fact? We'd all be agnostic if we decided to look at facts (like one and one is two) as possibilies to be an answer other than the truth.

With The Buddha and theism, it depends on if you trust what is written is a fact (if you trust historical documents). Its not religious in nature.

The pencil question is not religious in nature. Its not an abstract question and not deep. It is as "written."

If I observed the fact that there is no pencil, why would I take your opinion as a consideration for fact?

If you cannot trust what you read-bahallauh words included-then why trust what you say?

I asked Tony: If I cant see what you offer how can I benefit from it?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@adrian009

Another question I remembered but I keep forgetting who I asked is, if Manjushri is teaching the pure doctrine that was lost, what is he, as The Buddha's disciple, teaching that is different and "more correct" than that of The Buddha himself?

No person can corrupt The Dharma. The Buddha just realized it as Buddhas before him. The Dharma isnt defined by the people's political actions.

So what is he teaching that is more pure than The teachings he got from The Buddha himself?

 

[CG Didymus]

Love and unity is the path. Whatever teaching promotes love and harmony between people is good. All the religions which promote love are good. If any religion teaches hate, killing or war then it is not a religion or has ceased to be because the purpose of religion is to unite man.

So there is no ‘ wrong’ religion as long as religion is promoting love and unity.

Thanks for an amazing thread. It had to happen sooner or later, but it's still sad to see it fade away.

 

[Vinayaka]

Thanks for an amazing thread. It had to happen sooner or later, but it's still sad to see it fade away.

To think I was the top poster by some amount. In retrospect, it was a total waste of time. I'm disappointed with myself for falling victim to such a nonsensical discussion.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Sorry its taken a while to get back to you.

Another question I remembered but I keep forgetting who I asked is, if Manjushri is teaching the pure doctrine that was lost, what is he, as The Buddha's disciple, teaching that is different and "more correct" than that of The Buddha himself?

The Buddha's Teachings are of course the most pure form of Buddha's teaching by definition. His followers that would best reflect His Teachings would be those who are pure in heart. It does help to have heard the Teachings of Buddha with ones own ears rather than relying solely on the transmission of those Teachings through over 400 years of oral traditions.

No person can corrupt The Dharma. The Buddha just realized it as Buddhas before him. The Dharma isnt defined by the people's political actions.

That depends on how we define the Dharma. If the Dharma is the Buddha's teachings then the conflicting and contradictory opinions about His Teachings to the extent of causing schism, are a proof that His teachings have been corrupted. If they are timeless Teachings in the ether (for want of a better word) that Buddha simply discovered, then those Teachngs can never be corrupted.

So what is he teaching that is more pure than The teachings he got from The Buddha himself?

I wonder if this topic merits another thread to address it? In that way we may hear differing perspectives. On the other hand I'm happy to discuss as we are doing.

 

[Dawnofhope]

To think I was the top poster by some amount. In retrospect, it was a total waste of time. I'm disappointed with myself for falling victim to such a nonsensical discussion.

Sorry to hear you feel that way. I didn't feel it was a waste of anyone's time and valuable learning for us all. I do agree that if two people are arguing about religion, rather than having an open discussion in the spirit of good will, then it becomes counter productive and best to walk away. All the best.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That's okay. I came back from my aunt's funeral earlier and went straight to sleep. I'll be up for awhile. It's 8:45pm here.

The Buddha's Teachings are of course the most pure form of Buddha's teaching by definition. His followers that would best reflect His Teachings would be those who are pure in heart. It does help to have heard the Teachings of Buddha with ones own ears rather than relying solely on the transmission of those Teachings through over 400 years of oral traditions.

That is the difference between our views on Buddhism. The Dharma isn't written, it's oral. It's not a teaching but life itself. The written Dharma is not the Dharma itself. The Buddha did not create The Dharma. He just realized it.

If you rely on the physical teachings as "sacred", you're missing the point of what they taught.

That depends on how we define the Dharma. If the Dharma is the Buddha's teachings then the conflicting and contradictory opinions about His Teachings to the extent of causing schism, are a proof that His teachings have been corrupted. If they are timeless Teachings in the ether (for want of a better word) that Buddha simply discovered, then those Teachngs can never be corrupted.

That's why I asked you what The Dharma is to you. This isn't The Dharma. These are the sutras and suttas (etc). The Buddha realized the Dharma before anyone ever wrote a thing down.

Yes. The Buddha simply discovered. That's what enlightenment means. You discover or enlightened to something not create it. It's not central to The Buddha. The Buddha spoke to his teacher one time when he asked him would he (the his teacher) be his guru because he has found enlightenment but he needs instruction on how to practice. The Buddha himself was under a teacher before he found courage after more thought to teach The Dharma himself. You realize The Dharma when you practice it. Anyone can read the physical Dharma.

The physical dharma can be corrupted. They are just words on a page. The Dharma cannot. It's a practice not something written.

I wonder if this topic merits another thread to address it? In that way we may hear differing perspectives. On the other hand I'm happy to discuss as we are doing.

Yes. It's a good point, though. If Manjushri teaches something different, he'd have to teach something none of the buddhas before him. He would be breaking the chain of oral tradition and instruction that is held by monastics for years.

Off question: The age of Bahaullah (and John Smith, and L. Ron Hubbard) have the hight of their teachings in the 1800s. Some of which my great great grandmother was alive to witness. For example, Bahaullah died in 1892. That's not that far ago. If my great grandmother met Bahaullah as a child, would she be meeting a man of god? If so, when did the divinity drop then and today? If not, how is that different from today other than he not being here to confirm what he wrote?

 

[Dawnofhope]

That's okay. I came back from my aunt's funeral earlier and went straight to sleep. I'll be up for awhile. It's 8:45pm here.

That's good to hear your family sorted out funeral arrangements in the end. These occasions can be quite emotional so hope you're doing OK.

I've been working long hours and six days a week for the last 3 weeks so have been too busy for much RF.

Just before this intensely busy time I started a thread on the resurrection of Christ which I really haven't had the time to follow. Work as become quieter now.

That is the difference between our views on Buddhism. The Dharma isn't written, it's oral. It's not a teaching but life itself. The written Dharma is not the Dharma itself. The Buddha did not create The Dharma. He just realized it.

If you rely on the physical teachings as "sacred", you're missing the point of what they taught.

I think we have the same concepts, though our language to express them is different.

One one hand we have unwritten laws and teachings for life. They are there for us to discover whether through written or oral traditions. Then you have the actual written and oral traditions that concern the original Teachings of One whom we presumed discovered the Dharma.

Do we need to Buddha at all? I would argue we do, and can produce writings that can be attributed to Buddha's Teachings that suggest the personage of the Buddha is as indispensible to enlightment, as the Teachings of Christ are necessary to attain salvation.

There arguments aside, it certainly makes sense to follow the path of one who has reached the destination to which we aspire.

That's why I asked you what The Dharma is to you. This isn't The Dharma. These are the sutras and suttas (etc). The Buddha realized the Dharma before anyone ever wrote a thing down.

Yes. The Buddha simply discovered. That's what enlightenment means. You discover or enlightened to something not create it. It's not central to The Buddha. The Buddha spoke to his teacher one time when he asked him would he (the his teacher) be his guru because he has found enlightenment but he needs instruction on how to practice. The Buddha himself was under a teacher before he found courage after more thought to teach The Dharma himself. You realize The Dharma when you practice it. Anyone can read the physical Dharma.

The physical dharma can be corrupted. They are just words on a page. The Dharma cannot. It's a practice not something written.

Agreed.

Yes. It's a good point, though. If Manjushri teaches something different, he'd have to teach something none of the buddhas before him. He would be breaking the chain of oral tradition and instruction that is held by monastics for years.

Agreed.

Off question: The age of Bahaullah (and John Smith, and L. Ron Hubbard) have the hight of their teachings in the 1800s. Some of which my great great grandmother was alive to witness. For example, Bahaullah died in 1892. That's not that far ago. If my great grandmother met Bahaullah as a child, would she be meeting a man of god? If so, when did the divinity drop then and today? If not, how is that different from today other than he not being here to confirm what he wrote?

That would depend on the spiritual condition of your great great grand mother. If her heart were set on material rather than the spiritual, she would see in Baha'u'llah just a man. If her heart was attuned to the spiritual realm, then she may gain a glimpse of Baha'u'llah's majesty, and have a sense of the Divine within Him.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That's good to hear your family sorted out funeral arrangements in the end. These occasions can be quite emotional so hope you're doing OK.

I've been working long hours and six days a week for the last 3 weeks so have been too busy for much RF.

Yeah. I thought Id have this week off but Im on call. I have to work this evening but I dont "do" anything. So Im bored and go online until Im too tired to look at the screen. Had running around to do so I hope I can get s good nap when I get back home.

I think we have the same concepts, though our language to express them is different.

Im not a sacred-book person. Bahai teach The Dharma will decay. The suttas teach it will not. Bahai says Mansjuri will bring new Dharma. The suttas say many buddhas will continue The Buddha's Dharma (oral dictations held by tradition via monastics). Bahai see The Buddha's teachings as the suttas. The Buddha says thee suttas will die but The Dharma will not.

One one hand we have unwritten laws and teachings for life. They are there for us to discover whether through written or oral traditions. Then you have the actual written and oral traditions that concern the original Teachings of One whom we presumed discovered the Dharma.

We discover teachings through practice not written text. Teachers instruct through practice. Reading sutttas are commentary to those przctice but not the instructions themselves..

Do we need to Buddha at all? I would argue we do, and can produce writings that can be attributed to Buddha's Teachings that suggest the personage of the Buddha is as ind

Yes and no. Yes because we cant go back to talk to The Buddha directly. No because its not a book practice. With a good teacher books are not mere the point than instruction and practice.

There arguments aside, it certainly makes sense to follow the path of one who has reached the destination to which we aspire

True. It took me awhile given I dont follow books butI have no tezcher and our culture promotes religion by books. I love learning and applying practice. I dont want to be dependent on books. I wont have them when I die so my practice is what I have left.

That would depend on the spiritual condition of your great great grand mother. If her heart were set on material rather than the spiritual, she would see in Baha'u'llah just a man. If her heart was attuned to the spiritual realm, then she may ga

Probably. I think it would be like today. We have a lot of people who are spiritual not material focus. Everyone seem to seperate themselves from being holy enough based on time difference. If jesus were here now and looked like joe smoe no one would believe him. Yet in his humility, he can be human while satan can mask himself as an angel of light.

The closer the time period, the more symbolic and spiritual.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Yeah. I thought Id have this week off but Im on call. I have to work this evening but I dont "do" anything. So Im bored and go online until Im too tired to look at the screen. Had running around to do so I hope I can get s good nap when I get back home.

What's the on call you are doing?

Im not a sacred-book person. Bahai teach The Dharma will decay. The suttas teach it will not. Bahai says Mansjuri will bring new Dharma. The suttas say many buddhas will continue The Buddha's Dharma (oral dictations held by tradition via monastics). Bahai see The Buddha's teachings as the suttas. The Buddha says thee suttas will die but The Dharma will not.

I get that your not into sacred texts like the Protestant Christians and Baha'is. Its true that Baha'is see that the Dharma as defined by the recorded words of Buddha having decayed. It doesn't matter whether its through written or oral traditions, Buddhists themselves are irreconcilably divided as to what the Buddha really taught, just as Christians are about Christ. The Matrieya Buddha brings to light the true Dharma that has eternally existed but now taught within the framework of this modern era.

We discover teachings through practice not written text. Teachers instruct through practice. Reading sutttas are commentary to those przctice but not the instructions themselves..

I agree that it is through practice we can discover the Teachings. I doubt if we can attain enlightenment without having the true Buddhist Teaching, but if you believe it, then you will discover whether or not it possible.

Yes and no. Yes because we cant go back to talk to The Buddha directly. No because its not a book practice. With a good teacher books are not mere the point than instruction and practice.

The risk with that approach is that it could become akin to the blind leading the blind. Depends who the teacher is.

True. It took me awhile given I dont follow books butI have no tezcher and our culture promotes religion by books. I love learning and applying practice. I dont want to be dependent on books. I wont have them when I die so my practice is what I have left.

I think to live your life in accordance with your highest beliefs is the best we can do and no one can ask any more of you than just that.

Probably. I think it would be like today. We have a lot of people who are spiritual not material focus. Everyone seem to seperate themselves from being holy enough based on time difference. If jesus were here now and looked like joe smoe no one would believe him. Yet in his humility, he can be human while satan can mask himself as an angel of light.

The closer the time period, the more symbolic and spiritual.

Agreed.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Thanks for an amazing thread. It had to happen sooner or later, but it's still sad to see it fade away.

Many thanks CG. It’s kind people like yourself which gave life to us all. We can still keep in touch though as I like mixing with you guys.

I’m glad we got to all discuss so many things. It was all about just sharing views but it was the fellowship and challenging questions that I enjoyed the most and so let’s continue having fellowship as I’m sure i see you as a friend and would love to continue to have you ask difficult and challenging questions.

I learnt a hell of a lot from you about how much I don’t know. You kept me on my toes. . I thank you for that. Whenever you’re in the mood please keep the tough questions coming.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What's the on call you are doing?

I work at a senior/residential home. We watch the property and handle emergencies such as calling 911 if needed. Its good I dont do anything but it gets boring even if no one comes to sign in in the morning.

I get that your not into sacred texts like the Protestant Christians and Baha'is. Its true that Baha'is see that the Dharma as defined by the recorded words of Buddha having decayed. It doesn't matter whether its through written or oral traditions, Buddhists themselves are irreconcilably divided as to what the Buddha really taught, just as Christians are about Christ. The Matrieya Buddha brings to light the true Dharma that has eternally existed but now taught within the framework of this modern era.

Buddhist may be divided; politics. The Dharma is not; religion. What will maitieya teach that is different than his Lord? (Upgraded cell phones?)

The risk with that approach is that it could become akin to the blind leading the blind. Depends who the teacher is.

That depends on if you follow Buddhist teachings. Teacher disciple is highly valued like if not more than the suttas themselves. A lot of disciples go to priests, gurus, masters, etc for instruction. Their teacher explains The Dharma through practice. For example, I read the suttas daily. I meditate and pray. Traditions have specific ways you practice and specific instruction, intiation, and precepts that only a monastic can teach and give. The idea is as if you getting taught by The Buddha himself. Since lay are not monastics, like catholic to their priests, monastics is the closest we can get to practicing the dharma as taught by The Buddha himself.

I think to live your life in accordance with your highest beliefs is the best we can do and no one can ask any more of you than just that.

Nods.

Why the closer the time period the more symbolic and spiritual? Do you stop trusting the literalism of scripture after a certian period of time? Bahaullah late 1800? John Smith? The time difference is a huge indicator of authenticity of faith compared to telephone game.

 

[loverofhumanity]

With grief, it takes time. I'm learning more about rebirth through this experience. Nothing disappears. The mind and body together brings life but the body decays when there is no more awareness in the decaying body. Where that awareness goes, I dont know. The Buddha says we a reborn into the same awareness because we are still attached to our worldly senses and possesions. We have to "work out" our karma. That makes sense.

Whats interesting is I helped people go back to god when tbeir faith faultered. I supported people and friends when I went to church with them as they needed someone to talk with. I did this because I knew it was not about me. If they dont believe The Dharma, my offers will not help them. Instead, I talked about Their belief. Supported them in Their faith.

It makes a better conversation when offers turn into conversations of support without feeling we need to compromise our faith to talk about others. Learning curve.

You’re really so special to be so unselfish. Bless you.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

To think I was the top poster by some amount. In retrospect, it was a total waste of time. I'm disappointed with myself for falling victim to such a nonsensical discussion.

I see nothing as a waste of time if it moves us closer to our purpose in life. To that end, I learnt a great deal. Thank you for that.

Stay well and happy always.

Regards Tony