Forms and Idols

Fool · Dec 9, 2016

Is the Abrahamic religions similar to the Buddhist ideas regarding forms as no thing, idols as desolate things??

Online Etymology Dictionary

Genesis Chapter 1 (KJV)

Matthew 5:13
13 “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.

John 6:63
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.

Genesis Chapter 1 (KJV)

sovietchild · Dec 9, 2016

Fool said:
Is the Abrahamic religions similar to the Buddhist ideas regarding forms as no thing, idols as desolate things??

Online Etymology Dictionary

Genesis Chapter 1 (KJV)

Matthew 5:13
13 “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.

John 6:63
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.

Genesis Chapter 1 (KJV)

Lol I kinda of thought of the same thing of Russian orthodox churches and Buddhist temples. They both have those icons, and they both decorate icons with candles.

Unveiled Artist · Dec 9, 2016

Fool said:
Is the Abrahamic religions similar to the Buddhist ideas regarding forms as no thing, idols as desolate things??

Online Etymology Dictionary

Genesis Chapter 1 (KJV)

Matthew 5:13
13 “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.

John 6:63
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.

Genesis Chapter 1 (KJV)

Both are similar in that they don't worship objects they use in worship. They are dissimilar in that Buddhist objects as a reflection of wisdom while abrahamics (I can only speak for some Christians) see objects (communion for example) as a reflection of love.

Some things overlap. Not all. No object is worshiped in either case so they are not considered idols.

Fool · Dec 9, 2016

Carlita said:
Both are similar in that they don't worship objects they use in worship. They are dissimilar in that Buddhist objects as a reflection of wisdom while abrahamics (I can only speak for some Christians) see objects (communion for example) as a reflection of love.

Some things overlap. Not all. No object is worshiped in either case so they are not considered idols.

the image of the beast is worshiped. that is the warning against the corruptible image of a man, a cult of personality

buddha insisted there was many buddhas. christ insisted there was many christs but "most" christians only believe there is one.

Ecclesiastes 3:18
I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.

Romans 1:23
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Unveiled Artist · Dec 9, 2016

I don't see how that relates to my reply. They are the similar in that they both use objects in their worship. They both differ because Buddhist see objects as a reflection of wisdom and Christians see objects as a reflection of love.

For example, Maitreya, The Buddha's disciple and Bodhissatva, means "compassionate one." A lot of the Bodhisattvas and Buddhas (enlightened ones) are reflections of wisdom. They are not idols. I guess you can say wisdom, love, compassion, and generosity are idols if you'd like to compare it.

Fool said:
buddha insisted there was many buddhas. christ insisted there was many christs but "most" christians only believe there is one.

Buddha means enlightened one. Christ means anointed. I say The Buddha because he is the first person and only person who understood the nature of life in its entirety. He said his disciples would be enlightened and anyone who follows his teachings would.

There are many buddhas but one Buddha, Gautama,

Christ said that he was anointed by his father. Christians are anointed by Christ's spirit via baptism. There are many christs but one Christ.

There are many christs, but one Christ, Jesus

It is all in context and meaning not just content.

Fool · Dec 9, 2016

Carlita said:
I don't see how that relates to my reply. They are the similar in that they both use objects in their worship. They both differ because Buddhist see objects as a reflection of wisdom and Christians see objects as a reflection of love.

For example, Maitreya, The Buddha's disciple and Bodhissatva, means "compassionate one." A lot of the Bodhisattvas and Buddhas (enlightened ones) are reflections of wisdom. They are not idols. I guess you can say wisdom, love, compassion, and generosity are idols if you'd like to compare it.

Buddha means enlightened one. Christ means anointed. I say The Buddha because he is the first person and only person who understood the nature of life in its entirety. He said his disciples would be enlightened and anyone who follows his teachings would.

Christ said that he was anointed by his father. Christians are anointed by Christ's spirit via baptism. There are many christs but one Christ.

It is all in context and meaning not just content.

baptism in the name; which is neti, neti, of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

or if you will, immersion in the name and omnipresence of christ consciousness/buddha nature in all.
the annointing is an absorption into mind, or impression upon mind. this is why the annointing between the eyes, or upon the area of the third eye, bindu.

colossians 3:11
christ is all and in all

immersion

the body eclipses the light of another celestial body

immersion
immersion (n.)

c. 1500, from Late Latin immersionem (nominative immersio), noun of action from past participle stem of immergere "to plunge in, dip into, sink, submerge," from assimilated form of in- "into, in, on, upon" (see in- (2)) + Latin mergere "plunge, dip" (see merge). Meaning "absorption in some interest or situation" is from 1640s. As a method of teaching a foreign language, 1965, trademarked by the Berlitz company.

im·mer·sion
iˈmərZHən,iˈmərSHən/
noun
noun: immersion

the action of immersing someone or something in a liquid.
"his back was still raw from immersion in the icy Atlantic Ocean"
- deep mental involvement.
  "his immersion in Jewish culture"
- a method of teaching a foreign language by the exclusive use of that language, usually at a special school.
- baptism by immersing a person bodily (but not necessarily completely) in water.
- Astronomyrare
  the disappearance of a celestial body in the shadow of or behind another.

Unveiled Artist · Dec 9, 2016

Fool said:
baptism in the name; which is neti, neti, of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

or if you will, immersion in the name and omnipresence of christ consciousness/buddha nature in all.
the annointing is an absorption into mind, or impression upon mind. this is why the annointing between the eyes, or upon the area of the third eye, bindu.

colossians 3:11
christ is all and in all

immersion

the body eclipses the light of another celestial body

immersion
immersion (n.)
c. 1500, from Late Latin immersionem (nominative immersio), noun of action from past participle stem of immergere "to plunge in, dip into, sink, submerge," from assimilated form of in- "into, in, on, upon" (see in- (2)) + Latin mergere "plunge, dip" (see merge). Meaning "absorption in some interest or situation" is from 1640s. As a method of teaching a foreign language, 1965, trademarked by the Berlitz company.

Christ consciousness and Buddha nature?

I never heard of the term Christ consciousness; and, to tell you honestly, I don't know what consciousness means in a religious context. Nonetheless putting Christ with it.

Buddha nature isn't the same as Christ's anointing spirit. The Buddha did not teach that we have spirits/souls of a deity or a person within us. You'd have to consult @buddhist whether Buddhist are initiated by water anointing but I don't remember that in the suttas so far I read. Initiation is given on full and new moon. Buddhist say the precepts and a couple of other things I forgot. Then they are Buddhist. (Thank you to the monastery I want go to soon)

Buddha nature is not a formal Buddhist teaching. It says we already have the capability to understand the full nature of life as long as we do X practices and understand the nature of suffering and so forth. That understanding not spirit, not love, and not consciousness, is our enlightenment.

Christ taught something quite different. The biggest and huge difference is The Buddha got revelation from himself and environment. Christ got revelation from a deity, his father. The definitions of their enlightenment and anointing are not similar at all.

People think that Buddha nature is like spirit because a lot of people talk about it with pre-existing god-concepts that are mixing with Buddhism. Buddha nature just says you already have the capability in you to be a Buddha. Theravada says you will be become Buddhas when you do X, Y, and Z. It's very concrete. It's not spirit-ual at all.

But, yes, Christians, according to some denominations, are to be baptized in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit not just in the name of Jesus.

buddhist · Dec 9, 2016

Carlita said:
Christ consciousness and Buddha nature?

I never heard of the term Christ consciousness; and, to tell you honestly, I don't know what consciousness means in a religious context. Nonetheless putting Christ with it.

Buddha nature isn't the same as Christ's anointing spirit. The Buddha did not teach that we have spirits/souls of a deity or a person within us. You'd have to consult @buddhist whether Buddhist are initiated by water anointing but I don't remember that in the suttas so far I read. Initiation is given on full and new moon. Buddhist say the precepts and a couple of other things I forgot. Then they are Buddhist. (Thank you to the monastery I want go to soon)

Buddha nature is not a formal Buddhist teaching. It says we already have the capability to understand the full nature of life as long as we do X practices and understand the nature of suffering and so forth. That understanding not spirit, not love, and not consciousness, is our enlightenment.

Christ taught something quite different. The biggest and huge difference is The Buddha got revelation from himself and environment. Christ got revelation from a deity, his father. The definitions of their enlightenment and anointing are not similar at all.

People think that Buddha nature is like spirit because a lot of people talk about it with pre-existing god-concepts that are mixing with Buddhism. Buddha nature just says you already have the capability in you to be a Buddha. Theravada says you will be become Buddhas when you do X, Y, and Z. It's very concrete. It's not spirit-ual at all.

But, yes, Christians, according to some denominations, are to be baptized in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit not just in the name of Jesus.

There is no immersion ritual that I've read of in the early Buddhist suttas. Instead, just through the simple act of intending to observe the Lord Buddha's teachings, one is then essentially a Buddhist. In later times, this crystallized and formalized into a process of ritualized chanting before a monk (in Theravada).

I have not come across the modern day-concept of "Buddha nature" in the early suttas either. I believe it to be essentially a new-age teaching along with "Christ consciousness", in a (futile, IMO) attempt to blend the two traditions together into a metaphysical syncretism.

Fool · Dec 10, 2016

Carlita said:
Christ consciousness and Buddha nature?

I never heard of the term Christ consciousness; and, to tell you honestly, I don't know what consciousness means in a religious context. Nonetheless putting Christ with it.

Buddha nature isn't the same as Christ's anointing spirit. The Buddha did not teach that we have spirits/souls of a deity or a person within us. You'd have to consult @buddhist whether Buddhist are initiated by water anointing but I don't remember that in the suttas so far I read. Initiation is given on full and new moon. Buddhist say the precepts and a couple of other things I forgot. Then they are Buddhist. (Thank you to the monastery I want go to soon)

Buddha nature is not a formal Buddhist teaching. It says we already have the capability to understand the full nature of life as long as we do X practices and understand the nature of suffering and so forth. That understanding not spirit, not love, and not consciousness, is our enlightenment.

Christ taught something quite different. The biggest and huge difference is The Buddha got revelation from himself and environment. Christ got revelation from a deity, his father. The definitions of their enlightenment and anointing are not similar at all.

People think that Buddha nature is like spirit because a lot of people talk about it with pre-existing god-concepts that are mixing with Buddhism. Buddha nature just says you already have the capability in you to be a Buddha. Theravada says you will be become Buddhas when you do X, Y, and Z. It's very concrete. It's not spirit-ual at all.

But, yes, Christians, according to some denominations, are to be baptized in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit not just in the name of Jesus.

the name is given at Exodus 3:14. it's neti, neti, or nuk pu nuk, or ahmi yat ahmi, or tat tvam asi, or ahea ashur ahea.

Christ Consciousness

1 Corinthians 2:16
for, “Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

Mencius said it best: "Friendship is two bodies being of ONE MIND". aka Love; which is what friend means.

###Friend###

John15:13
Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

not the love of gods, or god, not one's religion, not one's culture, or material things but the greatest love is friendship.

Fool · Dec 10, 2016

buddhist said:
There is no immersion ritual that I've read of in the early Buddhist suttas. Instead, just through the simple act of intending to observe the Lord Buddha's teachings, one is then essentially a Buddhist. In later times, this crystallized and formalized into a process of ritualized chanting before a monk (in Theravada).

I have not come across the modern day-concept of "Buddha nature" in the early suttas either. I believe it to be essentially a new-age teaching along with "Christ consciousness", in a (futile, IMO) attempt to blend the two traditions together into a metaphysical syncretism.

you use the term sutta, how exacting but irrelevant in the english language. a rule is a sutta and a sutta is a rule.

one person uses one term and another conveys the same idea in a different way. the vehicle is unimportant, the idea is everything.

languages and cultures evolve, thus old things become expressed in new languages and new cultures. getting hung up on the form at the expense of the idea is the dead letter of a thing. it never comes because it's never relevant to NOW, or supposedly not relevant to some other belief system; if the verbiage isn't exacting. in this case buddha nature is the essence of buddha; which is state of consciousness, or state of mind.

basically, i'm implying the idea of panpsychism

lin-chi comes to mind
Lin-chi- Great Teacher Series - Theosophy Trust

"Carried away on the endlessly flowing stream,
you ask what to do.
Gain real infinite illumination, I answer.
But to be free from forms and names is not
innate in man.
Even the sharpest sword must be constantly resharpened."
Lin-chi

A sword has no bias, it cuts both ways.

Matthew 13:52
He said to them, “Therefore every teacher of the law who has become a disciple in the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old.”

so yes, the form is impermanent but the message is timeless and buried in the cultural symbols, languages, and customs of all people.

so yes, buddha nature is inherent in all people. it is the essence of all things. Love isn't unique to a person, a religion, or a culture.

Unveiled Artist · Dec 10, 2016

buddhist said:
There is no immersion ritual that I've read of in the early Buddhist suttas. Instead, just through the simple act of intending to observe the Lord Buddha's teachings, one is then essentially a Buddhist. In later times, this crystallized and formalized into a process of ritualized chanting before a monk (in Theravada).

I have not come across the modern day-concept of "Buddha nature" in the early suttas either. I believe it to be essentially a new-age teaching along with "Christ consciousness", in a (futile, IMO) attempt to blend the two traditions together into a metaphysical syncretism.

I learned something new. Thank you.

Buddha-nature isn't actually new age as people make it to be. It's sometimes translated as if it's a spirit or something but it just means "you have the capacity already inside to have the nature (the enlightenment/understanding) of a Buddha (an enlightened one).

That's what I believe. When you add god-concepts, it makes Buddha-nature some spiritual force or unknown consciousness when it's just saying "we have the capacity now" and Theravada "we will have the capacity."

As for whether it's in the suttas, so for I read, it isn't. It's described in different ways for example Zen describes it (by different name) as I think emptiness. A total lack of attachment even to thoughts and concepts. Nichiren Buddhism, in general, describes it as we already have the capacity and knowledge of suffering and rebirth but to understand that suffering is to practice it by helping ourselves and helping others. Each sect has their own twist, as usual. Nichiren Buddhism is just Ten Tai but Nichiren Shonin, a disciple of a Ten Tai monk had more revelations on what he studied from early and modern (well, he was in the 18th century) Buddhist thought.

What I understand of the new age approach in addition to adding the god-concepts is that they'd say that Buddha-nature is a noun replacing "god" or person with something that we have. Instead of understanding which isn't a thing, they may see it more of "we get love from our Buddha-nature" type of thing which in my head sounds the same as we get love from god but mixed up.

If seeing it from the actual Buddha-nature perspective, we don't get love from Buddha nature because Buddha-nature isn't a person or thing that gives anything. When we understand the nature of life: birth/death and suffering and so forth and act according to our understanding hopefully, compassion, love (if one likes), and all the above that The Buddha had for others we would have likewise.

I kinda don't see too much of a difference between Theravada. It's just saying we have enlightenment, we just have to bring it out. Does that make sense?

Unveiled Artist · Dec 10, 2016

Fool said:
the name is given at Exodus 3:14. it's neti, neti, or nuk pu nuk, or ahmi yat ahmi, or tat tvam asi, or ahea ashur ahea.

Christ Consciousness

1 Corinthians 2:16
for, “Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

Mencius said it best: "Friendship is two bodies being of ONE MIND". aka Love; which is what friend means.

###Friend###

John15:13
Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

not the love of gods, or god, not one's religion, not one's culture, or material things but the greatest love is friendship.

Okay. You confused me.

What is MIND?

Fool · Dec 10, 2016

Carlita said:
Okay. You confused me.

What is MIND?

mindful as nuk pu nuk
conscientious as tat tvam asi

mind is formless, boundless. those who are bound to an idol are entrapped in the illusion of form; which is impermanent, uninhabited, an emptiness, a void,

Unveiled Artist · Dec 10, 2016

Fool said:
impermanent, uninhabited, and emptiness, a void

Why is this immoral or wrong?

What happens when someone is attached to what you call an idol?
Name some examples Since I know people who have idols but are not in illusions.

Fool · Dec 10, 2016

Carlita said:
Why is this immoral or wrong?

What happens when someone is attached to what you call an idol?
Name some examples Since I know people who have idols but are not in illusions.

ignorance, it obstructs the individual reaching enlightenment, self-actualization.

you are to love the god within you and your neighbor as self.

slay christ, slay the buddha as a form, the beast who once was, now is not, yet will come. i will send the Holy Spirit to you, unless jesus went away the I AM would not come because they would not recognize the omnipresence within Self but in some other place.

maitreya = al mahdi = saoshyant = quetzcoatl = kukulkan = christ = kalki

Unveiled Artist · Dec 10, 2016

Fool said:
ignorance, it obstructs the individual reaching enlightenment, self-actualization.

you are to love the god within you and your neighbor as self.

slay christ, slay the buddha as a form, the beast who once was, now is not, yet will come. i will send the Holy Spirit to you, unless jesus went away the I AM would not come because they would not recognize the omnipresence within Self but in some other place.

maitreya = al mahdi = saoshyant = quetzcoatl = kukulkan = christ = kalki

How do you know it obstructs people from enlightenment?

Not what you believe of others. That's assumptions and opinions. How do you know?

Fool · Dec 10, 2016

Carlita said:
How do you know it obstructs people from enlightenment?

Not what you believe of others. That's assumptions and opinions. How do you know?

it isn't a teacher's job to create a codependent relationship. it's enough that the pupil should become like her. you can do all these things and more; if you believe I AM that i am. Jesus was interested in flattery.

Luke 6:40
The student is not above the teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like their teacher.

Matthew 23:10
Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ.

Colossians 3:11
11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

you are the light of the world, a city set on a hill, set on a holy mountain, the body is the house of the Lord.
revelation 21

buddhist · Dec 10, 2016

Fool said:
buddha nature is the essence of buddha; which is state of consciousness, or state of mind ... buddha nature is inherent in all people. it is the essence of all things.

That is essentially the view of Mahayana and Vajryana; I do not practice either.

buddhist · Dec 10, 2016

Carlita said:
I learned something new. Thank you.

Buddha-nature isn't actually new age as people make it to be. It's sometimes translated as if it's a spirit or something but it just means "you have the capacity already inside to have the nature (the enlightenment/understanding) of a Buddha (an enlightened one).

That's what I believe. When you add god-concepts, it makes Buddha-nature some spiritual force or unknown consciousness when it's just saying "we have the capacity now" and Theravada "we will have the capacity."

As for whether it's in the suttas, so for I read, it isn't. It's described in different ways for example Zen describes it (by different name) as I think emptiness. A total lack of attachment even to thoughts and concepts. Nichiren Buddhism, in general, describes it as we already have the capacity and knowledge of suffering and rebirth but to understand that suffering is to practice it by helping ourselves and helping others. Each sect has their own twist, as usual. Nichiren Buddhism is just Ten Tai but Nichiren Shonin, a disciple of a Ten Tai monk had more revelations on what he studied from early and modern (well, he was in the 18th century) Buddhist thought.

What I understand of the new age approach in addition to adding the god-concepts is that they'd say that Buddha-nature is a noun replacing "god" or person with something that we have. Instead of understanding which isn't a thing, they may see it more of "we get love from our Buddha-nature" type of thing which in my head sounds the same as we get love from god but mixed up.

If seeing it from the actual Buddha-nature perspective, we don't get love from Buddha nature because Buddha-nature isn't a person or thing that gives anything. When we understand the nature of life: birth/death and suffering and so forth and act according to our understanding hopefully, compassion, love (if one likes), and all the above that The Buddha had for others we would have likewise.

I kinda don't see too much of a difference between Theravada. It's just saying we have enlightenment, we just have to bring it out. Does that make sense?

I believe the early suttas teach the "stripping away" of the layers of samsara.

Fool · Dec 10, 2016

buddhist said:
That is essentially the view of Mahayana and Vajryana; I do not practice either.

then listen to love, compassion, empathy; which is like a an ocean of bliss and to which all rivers run, LOVE is the WAY

Forms and Idols

ALL in all

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

ALL in all

Veteran Member

ALL in all

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

ALL in all

ALL in all

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

ALL in all

Veteran Member

ALL in all

Veteran Member

ALL in all

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

ALL in all