Spiritual question/thoughts

[Black Jack II]

Since we have seen some spiritual based posts of late, I thought I would add one of my own, just to opine a bit and get some thoughts. I am just shooting in the dark on this one.

Can a person be christian spiritual without having a specific denomation of worship and do you have to go to church to be fully committed??

A long time ago, some may or may not remember, I was a very staunch atheist who would of given Fux a serious run for his money. Over the course of the last two years, some things have changed that when I added them up, caused me to readjust my outlook on the subject, which if you knew me, would be a huge deal.

The problem is, I still am not a church type of person, it still makes me feel very out of water, I would rather just be private in my own connection with whatever god is, than be forced into some thought factory, by people who may or may not have there own act together.

But if a person does this, if he self educates himself, is he missing the boat??

Thoughts,

Thanks;)

[MasterKiller]

Church should educate, not indoctrinate.

I'm sure you could do some soul searching and book reading to come to your own conclusions, but ulitmately you'll find deeper meaning if you surround yourself with others who have already been where you are at, imo.

[Shadow Skill]

I personally belong to a non-donominational church. My advice would also sorround your self with people who are not into the religious ( stand up 5x kneel, say 7.5 hail marrys etc.) study the bible and pray for understanding. I would attend a church because a good pastor / preacher whatever they wanna go by can help guide you and push you more in the right direction. you should talk to
JDK.

[SanHeChuan]

Yeah it's always good to have a room full of yes men to tell you your right. :rolleyes:

[mantis108]

Well, the fact that you have a position or opinion on God (yes, Athetists have spirituality too), you are indeed recognizing spirituality. Whether you are religious, that's a different issue IMHO.

If we think of God as the ultimate reality and ulitmate truth (not a reasonable purpose but utterly truthful principle), then it doesn't matter what form of religion you practice or not practice at all IMHO.

The Bible is written by men in the name of GOD. To err is human, how much faith you have on these men wrote? Now that's the question. The Bible like many other religious texts is partial truth relative to God (truth in entirity). So ultimately it's upto you to know or rather experience God/Dao/Allah/whatever label. Or you can just ignore it altogether. It's a free world and it's your choice.

Mantis108

[Black Jack II]

If we think of God as the ultimate reality and ulitmate truth (not a reasonable purpose but utterly truthful principle), then it doesn't matter what form of religion you practice or not practice at all IMHO.

That is more what I am meaning to convey.

[Mas Judt]

Got time for a beer? This is one of my favorite topics - although in the case I'm kind of like a Democrat - a lot of opinions but no real clear of what to do...

PM me, man.

[SPJ]

a persuit of truth or enlightenment;

it is a personal effort of a life time;

the monks/priests may give you some guidance or directions; and yet we make the trip/journey/experiences etc.

--

being in a church/congregation/commune etc. may or may not be a good idea.

--

again it is your call.

--

:D

[Scott R. Brown]

The Book of Romans teaches we are saved by grace (a gift from God, or an act of God) and not by works (actions, behaviors). This means that our spiritual transformation firstly occurs internally, in our hearts and minds. This internal change then changes our outward actions/behaviors and also our motivations for performing those actions/behaviors. The motivation for our actions is shifted from personal gain to the performance of actions because we understand them to be correct or beneficial to ourselves and others.

It is incorrect to considered a person a poorly practicing Christian if they do not regularly associate with other Christians since this is clearly an outward act (work) that does not necessarily reflect the person’s inward spiritual attitude. While outward actions may provide some evidence of an individual’s internal spiritual state of being they are not absolute indicators. Empty works/actions are actions performed from the wrong motivation that is, selfish motivations such as to gain some worldly or social benefit. So to attend regular gatherings with other Christians for the purpose of “appearing” to be a “good” Christian or for the purpose of avoiding the ridicule of other Christians is incorrect motivation. One is to attend gatherings with other Christians for the purpose of establishing and sustaining their faith. The recommendation to associate with other Christians then is for the individual's benefit and not intended to be an indicator of a “good” Christian.

The reason Christian teachings encourage Christians to attribute the results of their actions “to the glory of God” is for the purpose of helping the Christian to avoid falling into arrogance. Arrogance is a form of aggrandizement that occurs as a result of accepting personal glory/rewards/reputation/benefits resulting from the performance of “good” actions/behaviors.

The works performed by "good" Christians are a consequence of the “fruits of the spirit”. “Fruits of the spirit” are personal qualities that occur as a result of internal transformation. Our motivation for performing “good” actions is changed because now we “understand” the greater purpose for performing such actions, as opposed to performing “good” actions for the purpose of personal worldly benefit or from fear of punishment.

While "faith without works is dead", so are works without grace, or the correct attitude for performing the actions, dead (empty) as well. Actions performed for the purpose of personal worldly gain, while outwardly "appearing" to be benevolent are motivated by selfishness and so are inherently incorrect behaviors. "Good works" are to be born from an internal attitude that understands them to be correct. Their motivation is purely selfless without regard for consequences good or bad and is therefore correctly motivated and is rightly given to the glory of God, not to the glory of the individual!

This concept was also clearly illustrated by the comments of Bodhidharma to the Emperor Wu of Liang. When asked by Wu what virtues (benefits) he had achieved by building temples, ordaining monks, giving alms and charitable meals, Bodhidharma replied, “none at all”. Bodhidharma and other Ch’an patriarchs taught that this is because outward “good works” are not an accurate demonstration of an individual’s state of mind/being. One can be mean-spirited, arrogant, selfish, cruel, etc. and still perform those same actions. True virtue is a consequence of personal qualities, not outward actions. “Good” actions are outward behaviors while spiritual virtue is an internal quality of character. Identical actions may be performed by both types of individual, the worldly and the spiritual, but the motivations for the actions are different and this is what separates one from the other.

[David Jamieson]

Christianity is about your personal relationship with god, your belief that jesus was god's only offspring sent to us to absolve us of our sins by dying at our hands and to commune with others.

the communing with others part is called church in the simplest of terms. I suppose you could take up the gnostic form of chritianity, but you would still commune with others.

it is the same in virtually all religions that there is a point of community with others.

It's not very christian to be a loner and uncommunicative.

[mantis108]

Aye, a great piece of magnum opus on the Grace of God.

Warm regards

Mantis108

[Mr Punch]

There are many non-denominational churches, or you could try a Friends' Meeting House or something (Quakers - older style non-denominational).

I considered myself very spiritual for a long time, and was more than happy to welcome the notions of the Christian God, but I found there was no way I could believe that Christ was literally the Son of God. Simply through study of history: there are few reliable history books written nowadays (most have an agenda, or sometimes worse - a lack of one and a lack of context!), none from 500 years ago, none from 1000 years ago... so it stands to reason that if any of the books in the Bible were contemporary... there would be no reason to believe them either, just because the author said they were the word of god.

So, it was Church of England, aetheism, or agnosticism...! :D

I'm a devout agnostic... and nothing will shake that! If you honestly don't profess knowledge on something you're left with intuition and feeling. That's more honest and responsible spirituality than most knees-benders ever get close to.

Having said that, I always wish religious people the best, unless they try to force their opinion on me... all too often the moderate religious person becomes a fundamentalist when questioned logically, and the ravings of fundamentalists are the same in any religion.

Good luck.

[Jeong]

In my opinion (which probably shouldn't be worth much)


Can a person be christian spiritual without having a specific denomation of worship and do you have to go to church to be fully committed??

Absolutely. Denominations are just like different styles of KF. You can be a purist and suscribe to a specific teaching or you can sample multiple styles and synthesize them to what you think is the best. Both are still KF though.

With regards to your church question - I don't think that going to church is *necessary*, but it's not a bad idea. Going to a church is like going to a kung fu school. You can go and learn what people who have spent much of their lives dedicated to it have to say and be directed more quickly, or you can figure it out on your own. You will probably spend a lot of time wasted in the long run though, so I would recommend trying to find something you can stand if you're really wanting to learn more about it. There are some pretty non-conventional churches out there (example: www.steelcitychurch.com).


But if a person does this, if he self educates himself, is he missing the boat??

Definitely not. Missing the boat would be ignoring the question altogether. There is no law written the stars (or anywhere in the Bible either) that says 'you must go to church'. If you earnestly seek God, you'll find him, whether at a church or elsewhere.

[David Jamieson]

This concept was also clearly illustrated by the comments of Bodhidharma to the Emperor Wu of Liang. When asked by Wu what virtues (benefits) he had achieved by building temples, ordaining monks, giving alms and charitable meals, Bodhidharma replied, “none at all”. Bodhidharma and other Ch’an patriarchs taught that this is because outward “good works” are not an accurate demonstration of an individual’s state of mind/being. One can be mean-spirited, arrogant, selfish, cruel, etc. and still perform those same actions. True virtue is a consequence of personal qualities, not outward actions. “Good” actions are outward behaviors while spiritual virtue is an internal quality of character. Identical actions may be performed by both types of individual, the worldly and the spiritual, but the motivations for the actions are different and this is what separates one from the other.

I think this interpretation of the concept is incomplete.


to me, the lesson and understanding is that there is not much virtue in the doing of what is easy and that one cannot claim to be actively good through deeds by the doing of which there is no sacrifice on their part either via time or material goods.

One cannot "act" in good ways with evil intention because the result will not be good and therefore, the action was not good to begin with.

If the emperor was only giving out of his self interest, his manifest intention would be undoubtedly different from that of a person who clearly sacrifices.

there is a Christian tale of a woman who is poor and a man who is wealthy. the wealthy man puts much in the poor box at the temple and the poor woman gives everything she has even though it is not 1/1000th of what the rich man gave, but her action and the nature of her being revealed the sacrifice of her giving vs the tainted intention of his and therefor, in this parable, it is indicated that it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for this man to pass through into heaven.

so, in my opinion, the tendency to dismiss good deeds entirely because real intention is supposedly hidden is an aspect of passive nihilism that is associated with Ch'an, particularly those who over intellectualize Buddhism in general can get caught in this way of interpreting the teachings.

TaMo may have said that Wu's actions were meaningless because the nature of Wu's intention was apparent to him.

i will cede that charitable actions can be taken without a compassionate heart. obviously and that it is akin to thinking you'll go to heaven because you dump your good garbage at the salvation army bin. :)

[Black Jack II]

Some very good feedback guys,

Basically I think calling myself a hopefull agnostic at this point is a decent start, I don't have nor want any specific dogma forced down my throat at any fast pace, its more of a inner gut feeling that started this change of view.

It's going to take a lot to find where the road is at and where I feel comfortable in those thoughts, a clash of logical view and I guess for a lack of a better word, some essence of faith brought on by new occurances.

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi David,

Bodhidharma did not say that Wu’s actions were meaningless; he said they did not confer virtues. One must have a more complete understanding of Ch’an to fully understand Bodhidharma’s meaning here. The point he is making is that while outward displays may be good/beneficial in the worldly sense, they do not reflect or create inner transformation. It is inner transformation that gives rise to true virtue; Hui-Neng states that “Wu’s mind was wrong…”, that is, he did not fully understand the teaching. Bodhidharma’s meaning was that while the outward actions of Wu confer blessings (beneficial worldly effects), they do NOT reflect/create virtue within the mind. Blessings are outward beneficial consequences, while virtue is a consequence of inner transformation. This inner transformation spontaneously occurs when one perceives clearly without obstruction. This is very similar to the Christian assertion that Grace is a gift from God freely and spontaneously given, NOT something a person earns.

The passive nihilism found in some Ch’an practices have been repeatedly criticized by Hui-Neng, the sixth patriarch of Ch’an, and his school of thought and is associated more closely with Shen-hsiu’s school of mirror wiping! Shen-hsiu was passed over by the 5th patriarch in favor of Hui-Neng. Hung-jen, the 5th patriarch stated that Shen-hsiu stood at the door, but had not entered yet!

The key point is that salvation cannot be gained through actions, only by inner transformation.

Since this is the case no actions of any kind are required to earn or demonstrate a depth of spiritual understanding. That is not to say they won't occur, only that they are not required!

[cjurakpt]

actually, I think it's a little different than both of the above: it's not about morality, it's about reality...

the "point" is that there is no virtue to be gained at all, regardless of what you do, or how you do it, regardless of your actual intentions, because ultimately there is nothing to gain in general

the "ideal" of Ch'an is the Heart Sutra - which essentially is saying that beyond all phenommenon lies emptiness: no gain, no loss; nothing soiled, nothing pure; so the very notion of "virtue" was simply a relative construct that inherently was empty - whether you do something virtuous or evil, it is still, intrinsicly, without substance, fundamentally

so Ch'an is not concerened with things like character, good deeds / intentions - these are all things still bounded up in mind; Ch'an triesd to break out of this, to literally shut the conditional mind down in order to enable one to see clearly the nature of things such as they are: so you could do all those "good" things, it's just a matter of seeing clearly why - even if you clearly saw that you were simply doing them to curry popular favor, at least you weren't fooling yourself...

remember, this was written during a time when the vogue was doing good deeds to pay off your "karmic debt"; think of Ch'an as sort of the Lutheran version of Buddhism, telling people that simony wouln't get you anywhere...it wasn't a very popular viewpoint at all...and telling the Emperor what he told him was like telling George Bush that Iraq was a huge mistake - to his face, in front of the White House Press Corps, while he was giving you an award

now, don't get me wrong - Boddidhrma wasn't telling the Emperor not to do those things - he was just taking the question as an opportunity to give him insight into the ultimate nature of reality - in a way, perhaps it was a "reward" to the Emperor for even doing those thing - I mean, it's actually about as direct an answer that you would ever get froma a Ch'an master - he could have walked up and slapped the Emperor in his face and let him figure it out that way, or muttered something cryptic about going out 4 gates in 4 different directions simultaneously...

[cjurakpt]

The passive nihilism found in some Ch’an practices have been repeatedly criticized by Hui-Neng, the sixth patriarch of Ch’an, and his school of thought and is associated more closely with Shen-hsiu’s school of mirror wiping! Shen-hsiu was passed over by the 5th patriarch in favor of Hui-Neng. Hung-jen, the 5th patriarch stated that Shen-hsiu stood at the door, but had not entered yet!

yes - I believe that the Fifth Patriach Abott asked all "candidates" who wanted to succeed him to write a short verse about their insight: Shen-hsiu wrote about his mind being like a spotless mirror without a speck of dust on it; when the Abott heard this, he said that this was close, but not quite right; Hui Neng, an illiterate peasant who heard someone "preach" the Dharma once on the street and just "got it", had to ask one of the young monks to inscribe his own verse on a wall: the verse basically was like "there is no dust, there is no mirror"; the Abott, realizing that the author of this verse was the right man for the job, asked who wrote it; the young monk was like "I did", thinking that the Abott meant literally who did the actual writing - the Abott, a bit unsure (since it was not impossible for a child to have that level of insight), asked again if he had been the one who composed it; the young monk was like, "no, it's that Hui Neng guy"; after hearing this, as it was in public, the Abott was like "nope, sorry, you are totally wrong"; however, he arranged to meet Hui neng in secret, for fear that the other monks would rise up and kill him because he was not a learned scholar and all that; so, the Abott met with him in secret to give him the Dharma transmission and his bowl and robe (symbols of his authority) - he then he told Hui neng to get the Heck out of Dodge before sunrise! I know that upon discovering what the Abott did, the monks did chase after Hui Neng, but I forget what happened next!

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi cjurakpt,

You are correct. Words/explanations are merely used as a teaching device meant to point us towards direct apprehension. So when Wu queried Bodhidharma, Bodhidharma answered in a manner befitting the needs of the situation. The conversation was not one of the deeper meanings of Ch’an because it would have been over the head of Wu since he didn’t yet understand the difference between inner transformation and works.

Ch’an is only concerned with virtue and works, good and bad, etc. in regards to using them as a teaching device for those of lesser understanding. The contradiction of opposites is used as a device for the purpose of getting us beyond the conditioned mind and to direct experience.

I agree with you it is less important what one does and more important why, however from a deeper perspective it is also not important why as this also originates from the conditioned mind.

The question is does one perceive, experience and act with an unobstructed mind. Unobstructed mind is the unconditioned condition, the thoughtless thought, etc. Unobstructed mind uses conditioned mind, but is not bound by it.

Remember that Wu missed the point entirely and dismissed Bodhidharma from his court.

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi cjurakpt,

Hui-Neng hid out for 10-15 years in the mountains and then eventually came out to teach. Shen-hsiu continued to teach in the north at Jade Spring Monastery while Hui-Neng taught at the Jewel Forest Monastery in the south. While their was not enmity between the two as would be befitting of their understanding, some of their followers with lesser maturity had feelings of competition and tended to bad-mouth the other school.

[David Jamieson]

Since this is the case no actions of any kind are required to earn or demonstrate a depth of spiritual understanding. That is not to say they won't occur, only that they are not required!

So, we could say the lesson is: "If you have to ask, then no". :p

[Scott R. Brown]

So, we could say the lesson is: "If you have to ask, then no". :p

Pretty much, or another way to put it might be, "If you don't know, then you don't KNOW!";)

[cjurakpt]

Remember that Wu missed the point entirely and dismissed Bodhidharma from his court.

fortunately for Wu, Boddhidharma never really left!

[Scott R. Brown]

fortunately for Wu, Boddhidharma never really left!

LOL!! Well in that case he never really arrived either! ;)

[cjurakpt]

LOL!! Well in that case he never really arrived either! ;)

yes - when was he ever not there, indeed!

[cjurakpt]

Pretty much, or another way to put it might be, "If you don't know, then you don't KNOW!";)

true, yet Boddhidrama's "I don't know" and the Emperor's "I don't know" are hardly the same...

[Scott R. Brown]

yes - when was he ever not there, indeed!

To keep it going:

Neither was Wu there and neither did he ask a question that was not answered by one who never arrived in order to leave!! LOL!! Now I am getting dizzy!:confused:

[cjurakpt]

Hi cjurakpt,

Hui-Neng hid out for 10-15 years in the mountains and then eventually came out to teach. Shen-hsiu continued to teach in the north at Jade Spring Monastery while Hui-Neng taught at the Jewel Forest Monastery in the south. While their was not enmity between the two as would be befitting of their understanding, some of their followers with lesser maturity had feelings of competition and tended to bad-mouth the other school.

thanks - the erstwhile spotlight of my memory reseambles more and more the dim glow of an old EXIT sign these days...

[cjurakpt]

To keep it going:

Neither was Wu there and neither did he ask a question that was not answered by one who never arrived in order to leave!! LOL!! Now I am getting dizzy!:confused:

so, you are closer to the truth then - may I slam a door on your outstretched leg?

[Scott R. Brown]

true, yet Boddhidrama's "I don't know" and the Emperor's "I don't know" are hardly the same...

LOL, well that is what the caps were for....

but in essence there is nothing to know and no one to know it so is there really any difference then?

[Scott R. Brown]

so, you are closer to the truth then - may I slam a door on your outstretched leg?

I prefer a less painful demonstration, but I would enjoy a good laugh if you closed the door on your own foot! :D

[cjurakpt]

...so is there really any difference then?

I dont' kn....hey, wait a minute there...

[cjurakpt]

I prefer a less painful demonstration, but I would enjoy a good laugh if you closed the door on your own foot! :D

thanks for the encouragement! perhaps we will all have a hearty chuckle together some day!

[Scott R. Brown]

thanks - the erstwhile spotlight of my memory reseambles more and more the dim glow of an old EXIT sign these days...

Well it helps to have the Sutra of Hui-Neng sitting next to me!;)

[Scott R. Brown]

thanks for the encouragement! perhaps we will all have a hearty chuckle together some day!

Well in that case lets close the door on someone else's leg!:D

[cjurakpt]

Well it helps to have the Sutra of Hui-Neng sitting next to me!;)

well, I was cribbing off my teacher's commentaries from the Blue Cliff Record myself...

[cjurakpt]

Well in that case lets close the door on someone else's leg!:D

I think we just did! (talk about a threadjack)

ok, gotta run - my son's voicing his discontent with being alone in his room at night - be well sir!

[Scott R. Brown]

Catch you next time. Don't slam the door on his foot. I'll wager he is too young to enjoy the joke, LOL! good night!

[Scott R. Brown]

It's going to take a lot to find where the road is at and where I feel comfortable in those thoughts, a clash of logical view and I guess for a lack of a better word, some essence of faith brought on by new occurances.

Hi Black Jack II,

Well just follow your inner yearnings for now. There is no reason for there to be a conflict with reason. Keep in mind that direct experience is not founded upon reason. It simply IS an experience.

You know that fire is hot because you have experienced the heat of it not because someone provided you with a rational argument demonstrating it to be so! You know what an orange tastes like because you have eaten one. If you had never eaten one, and only read about the experiences of others who have eaten one, your knowledge of the taste of an orange would be inherently meaningless. The description (rational argument) is not the thing itself. To understand completely what an orange tastes like you must taste one for yourself. There is no rational argument that can provide you with this unique experience, only an orange can do that! And while the taste of two oranges may be similar, no two taste exactly alike!

Unexplained occurrences or “occurrences that do not fit into our preconceived notions” of the way we think things “should be” are the little nudges of the universe (Tao, God) that are meant to knock us out of our complacency (stagnation) and inspires us to search for meaning. The search for meaning stimulates inner growth. I call it “Disequilibrium versus Equilibrium”, but it is nothing more than Yin-Yang really. Equilibrium, while restful and calm, eventually becomes stagnation, where little to no change or growth occurs. Stagnation eventually becomes unease and unease is uncomfortable. Once we feel discomfort we are in a state of disequilibrium and seek to regain equilibrium. Life (Tao, God) creates disequilibrium in order to stimulate within us the desire to regain equilibrium. It is this desire to regain equilibrium that fuels personal growth. Once we have regained equilibrium we have returned to the state of rest and recuperation. This continues for a time until another disequilibrium occurs that stimulates further growth and the cycle continues on!

[NJM]

Can a person be christian spiritual without having a specific denomation of worship and do you have to go to church to be fully committed??


Well, that is something you have to discover by yourself.


The answer is of course you can, by the way. :P

I have no denomination, and aside from celebrations and other occassions, I find common attendance to churches rather cold and impersonal. That is not to say that worshipping/studying with others is a bad thing, in fact it is very helpful. Just choose what is right for you. If something feels wrong, it might be wrong for you.

[FuXnDajenariht]

Hi David,

Bodhidharma did not say that Wu’s actions were meaningless; he said they did not confer virtues. One must have a more complete understanding of Ch’an to fully understand Bodhidharma’s meaning here. The point he is making is that while outward displays may be good/beneficial in the worldly sense, they do not reflect or create inner transformation. It is inner transformation that gives rise to true virtue; Hui-Neng states that “Wu’s mind was wrong…”, that is, he did not fully understand the teaching. Bodhidharma’s meaning was that while the outward actions of Wu confer blessings (beneficial worldly effects), they do NOT reflect/create virtue within the mind. Blessings are outward beneficial consequences, while virtue is a consequence of inner transformation. This inner transformation spontaneously occurs when one perceives clearly without obstruction. This is very similar to the Christian assertion that Grace is a gift from God freely and spontaneously given, NOT something a person earns.

The passive nihilism found in some Ch’an practices have been repeatedly criticized by Hui-Neng, the sixth patriarch of Ch’an, and his school of thought and is associated more closely with Shen-hsiu’s school of mirror wiping! Shen-hsiu was passed over by the 5th patriarch in favor of Hui-Neng. Hung-jen, the 5th patriarch stated that Shen-hsiu stood at the door, but had not entered yet!

The key point is that salvation cannot be gained through actions, only by inner transformation.

Since this is the case no actions of any kind are required to earn or demonstrate a depth of spiritual understanding. That is not to say they won't occur, only that they are not required!

but Buddhist dont believe in the grace of God. you earn inner transformation. your the only one responsible for your salvation. it isn't something given. good actions help to create virtue and an inner transformation. they aren't mutually exclusive.

its closer to the discipline of Karma Yoga: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_Yoga

"Karma yoga (Sanskrit: कर्म योग), (also known as Buddhi Yoga) or the "discipline of action" is based on the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita, a sacred Sanskrit scripture of Hinduism. One of the four pillars of yoga, Karma yoga focuses on the adherence to duty (dharma) while remaining detached from the reward. It states that one can attain Moksha (salvation) or love of God (bhakti) by performing their duties in an unselfish manner for the pleasure of the Supreme. Karma Yoga is an intrinsic part of many derivative types of yoga, such as Natya Yoga."

[FuXnDajenariht]

yes - I believe that the Fifth Patriach Abott asked all "candidates" who wanted to succeed him to write a short verse about their insight: Shen-hsiu wrote about his mind being like a spotless mirror without a speck of dust on it; when the Abott heard this, he said that this was close, but not quite right; Hui Neng, an illiterate peasant who heard someone "preach" the Dharma once on the street and just "got it", had to ask one of the young monks to inscribe his own verse on a wall: the verse basically was like "there is no dust, there is no mirror"; the Abott, realizing that the author of this verse was the right man for the job, asked who wrote it; the young monk was like "I did", thinking that the Abott meant literally who did the actual writing - the Abott, a bit unsure (since it was not impossible for a child to have that level of insight), asked again if he had been the one who composed it; the young monk was like, "no, it's that Hui Neng guy"; after hearing this, as it was in public, the Abott was like "nope, sorry, you are totally wrong"; however, he arranged to meet Hui neng in secret, for fear that the other monks would rise up and kill him because he was not a learned scholar and all that; so, the Abott met with him in secret to give him the Dharma transmission and his bowl and robe (symbols of his authority) - he then he told Hui neng to get the Heck out of Dodge before sunrise! I know that upon discovering what the Abott did, the monks did chase after Hui Neng, but I forget what happened next!

lol some monks they were....ick :rolleyes: ..... Buddha must of been rolling in his grave so to speak.

[GunnedDownAtrocity]

havent gotten a chance to read the entire thread yet ... its late ... but i wanted to say that if you are interested in christianity at all listen to what the jehova's witnesses have to say if you ever have the chance. i work with a dude and i was very surprised at how down to earth and non judgemental their whole approach is. they get a really bad rap, but it's completely undeserved.

[mantis108]

yes - I believe that the Fifth Patriach Abott asked all "candidates" who wanted to succeed him to write a short verse about their insight: Shen-hsiu wrote about his mind being like a spotless mirror without a speck of dust on it; when the Abott heard this, he said that this was close, but not quite right; Hui Neng, an illiterate peasant who heard someone "preach" the Dharma once on the street and just "got it", had to ask one of the young monks to inscribe his own verse on a wall: the verse basically was like "there is no dust, there is no mirror"; the Abott, realizing that the author of this verse was the right man for the job, asked who wrote it; the young monk was like "I did", thinking that the Abott meant literally who did the actual writing - the Abott, a bit unsure (since it was not impossible for a child to have that level of insight), asked again if he had been the one who composed it; the young monk was like, "no, it's that Hui Neng guy"; after hearing this, as it was in public, the Abott was like "nope, sorry, you are totally wrong"; however, he arranged to meet Hui neng in secret, for fear that the other monks would rise up and kill him because he was not a learned scholar and all that; so, the Abott met with him in secret to give him the Dharma transmission and his bowl and robe (symbols of his authority) - he then he told Hui neng to get the Heck out of Dodge before sunrise! I know that upon discovering what the Abott did, the monks did chase after Hui Neng, but I forget what happened next!

I believe people often miss the point of this story which is not about which monk got it and which monk didn't. This is often the point of view of most people who tell this story.

The verse that is by Shen-hsiu is about the traditional Ch'an Buddhist teaching that's came from India brought by Bodhidharma. It's not that Shen-hsiu didn't get it. He did but it's more or less a status quo because there is a high degree of intellectual capacity involved and it's increasingly out of sync with the grass root audience who are really what Buddhism in China wanted to reach out to at the time. We have to remember the rise of Daoism and its influence on all levels of Chinese culture. The Fifth Patriach understood that to win China over it's not only in the imperial court, but also in its people. Buddhism and Shaolin temple during Tang dynasty enjoys a lot of favors from the imperial court mainly because of the political gamble that Shaolin made in helping Emperor Tang Taizong. It's also has to do with billiant monk such as Tripitaka who sojourned in India and worked on translations of the sutras that he brought back. Tang Taizong admired Tripitaka to the point that he wanted the monk to be a minister. BTW, the novel "Journey to the West" is a romanticized version of Tripitaka's story. However, Tang Taizong's father adopted Daoism to be the national religion mainly because of the fact that Lao Zi and the imperial family shared the same last name Lee. This fact, he believed, would help to strengthen the reign as a sign of divine design. Also Lao Zi's brand of Daoism is philosophical and scholistic in nature. This created a balance of power with the 2 religions in the imperial court although that's not necessarily what he intended. So the actual playing field for the 2 religions would have to be in the grass root level not within the walls of monasteries. This is the reason why Hui-Nang being one of the illiterate grass root level character with his verse that shows high degree of sophistication would be an ideal person to attend to the new flock so to speak. To the Fifth Patriach, Hui-Nang represented a matured Chinese Ch'an school of thoughts that is of the people, by the people and for the people of China at large. The environment for a proper Chinese brand of Ch'an had ripen.

Mantis108

[SevenStar]

Can a person be christian spiritual without having a specific denomation of worship and do you have to go to church to be fully committed??

depends on whom you ask. the bible says there where multiple people congregate, He will be there. So, technically, you go to church to be in His presence and worship. Because of this, there are pastors who will say that you do indeed need to be in church to be considered a fully committed christian. There are some other scriptures they will point out as well, but I can't think of them off the top of my head.




But if a person does this, if he self educates himself, is he missing the boat??


in a sense, this is like martial arts - you need guidance. if your chosen religion will be christianity, then you will be reading the bible - which is full of parables and written in a way which can be hard to understand is you do not have a pastor to guide you.

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi FuXnDajenariht,

Whether they believe in it or not does not mean the effect is not the same. There is only one path to enlightenment or salvation or whatever you want to call it. The various methods are merely window dressing according to the specific culture and time in history. The various methods appear outwardly different, but the process is essentially the same.

Inner transformation is not earned in Ch’an, I cannot speak about the other branches of Buddhism; they do not concern me. In Ch’an if you “try” to gain it you miss it. It is more that you allow it to happen, or stop interfering with its natural manifestation. Any method used is merely a device used for the benefit of the individual to come to the realization on their own. Once realization is attained the method may be discarded, just as hammer is discarded after the nail has been set. In Christianity the process is identical for those who seek a deep personal relationship with God; they just address the issue differently because the culture is different.

Good actions or bad actions do not create virtue or take away virtue, they create consequences. These consequences are the good or bad karma accrued. So for Emperor Wu his blessings for helping the Buddhists were good karma, but they did not help his cultivation of virtue.

The realization of Atman or attainment of Samadhi in Karma Yoga is still the same process. There is no virtue gained by performing actions. It is the detachment from consequences that accrues virtue. This detachment is a mental state of being, not a physical action. One uses actions as the tool to guide or cultivate their detachment. The result once again is the same. Ones actions are not their own, but actions of the divine worked through ones self. It is not my will, by thy will! The same mental attitude is encouraged in Christian teachings. It is the surrender of personal ego to the divine. How one goes about accomplishing this is personal preference, yet the process remains the same.

[Mega-Foot]

If you are interested in Christianity and ninjitsu, I suggest you read the book of Judges. The story of Ehud encapsulates the ideals of the ninja, and perhaps draws a link between the assassination arts of ancient Israel, and the modern day ninja.

Peace be unto you all.

John Takeshi.

[SevenStar]

The Book of Romans teaches we are saved by grace (a gift from God, or an act of God) and not by works (actions, behaviors). This means that our spiritual transformation firstly occurs internally, in our hearts and minds. This internal change then changes our outward actions/behaviors and also our motivations for performing those actions/behaviors. The motivation for our actions is shifted from personal gain to the performance of actions because we understand them to be correct or beneficial to ourselves and others.

while that is true, it is also made clear that you must serve God, which implies work. serving and joyful giving are both things expected of a committed christian.


It is incorrect to considered a person a poorly practicing Christian if they do not regularly associate with other Christians since this is clearly an outward act (work) that does not necessarily reflect the person’s inward spiritual attitude.

there are scriptures that state otherwise.


While outward actions may provide some evidence of an individual’s internal spiritual state of being they are not absolute indicators. Empty works/actions are actions performed from the wrong motivation that is, selfish motivations such as to gain some worldly or social benefit.

which is why it is stated that He likes a cheerful giver.

[SevenStar]

Hi FuXnDajenariht,

Whether they believe in it or not does not mean the effect is not the same. There is only one path to enlightenment or salvation or whatever you want to call it. The various methods are merely window dressing according to the specific culture and time in history. The various methods appear outwardly different, but the process is essentially the same.

Inner transformation is not earned in Ch’an, I cannot speak about the other branches of Buddhism; they do not concern me. In Ch’an if you “try” to gain it you miss it. It is more that you allow it to happen, or stop interfering with its natural manifestation. Any method used is merely a device used for the benefit of the individual to come to the realization on their own. Once realization is attained the method may be discarded, just as hammer is discarded after the nail has been set. In Christianity the process is identical for those who seek a deep personal relationship with God; they just address the issue differently because the culture is different.

Good actions or bad actions do not create virtue or take away virtue, they create consequences. These consequences are the good or bad karma accrued. So for Emperor Wu his blessings for helping the Buddhists were good karma, but they did not help his cultivation of virtue.

The realization of Atman or attainment of Samadhi in Karma Yoga is still the same process. There is no virtue gained by performing actions. It is the detachment from consequences that accrues virtue. This detachment is a mental state of being, not a physical action. One uses actions as the tool to guide or cultivate their detachment. The result once again is the same. Ones actions are not their own, but actions of the divine worked through ones self. It is not my will, by thy will! The same mental attitude is encouraged in Christian teachings. It is the surrender of personal ego to the divine. How one goes about accomplishing this is personal preference, yet the process remains the same.

The bible states that all who believe in christ - those who have been saved - will go to heaven. Non believers will not. This being the case, it cannot all be the same, at least not in the eyes of each respective religion. The bible does not say "All who believe in me, or all who believe in allah, or all who believe in the dao - will be guaranteed a spot in heaven."

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi SevenStar,

Romans makes clear you are saved by grace not by works. Therefore it is immaterial whether one performs works or not. Works may be a reflection of ones inner condition, but there is no requirement since one is saved by grace.

The Bible encourages one to associate with other Christians in order to establish and sustain ones faith. I consider it a recommendation that would provide beneficial results and not a requirement. I would say that a good portion of people who consider themselves Christians would be detrimental to associate with. Arrogance and ignorance is rampant among some and I find them annoying!

The Bible encourages good works and the spreading of the "good news" however being saved by grace is an internal transformation and not an outward display of action.

If you read the writings of Christian mystics you will find accounts identical to the ones mentioned in some Ch'an and Hindu writings. However, the proof is in the experience itself and not in the writings of others. If you have not had the experience and have not developed the insight it won't be understandable to you.

Since God is God, he is also Tao and Allah and any other name a religion wishes to attribute to him. Just as you are personally experienced differently by each person in your life, so is God experienced differently according to ones cultural perspective. To your son you are Dad, to your Mom you are son, to your wife you are husband, to your employer you are employee, to your sister you are brother, etc. Each one experiences you differently according to the particular perspective of the relationship, but in all cases you are the same person.

If you limit your knowledge to only what the Bible teaches or filter information through the Bibles narrow perspective then you will limit your understanding.

[Black Jack II]

I think some people may find a very hard time with the Allah comparison. Even more so when you get down to that dieties history.

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi Black Jack II,

That would only occur with those who do not understand Islam very well. Most people only have knowledge of Islamic terrorists and their version of Islam.

Also it is important to draw a distinction between how a religion's teachings are interpreted, which are affected by human flaws, and the actual being/spirit/deity worshiped

[Mas Judt]

I'm going to require that my school t-shirt change to one that reads 'Infidel.'

[Scott R. Brown]

P.S.

Islamic mystics report the same experiences as mystics from other religions, including Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, etc.

[mantis108]

Hi Black Jack II,

That would only occur with those who do not understand Islam very well. Most people only have knowledge of Islamic terrorists and their version of Islam.

Also it is important to draw a distinction between how a religion's teachings are interpreted, which are affected by human flaws, and the actual being/spirit/deity worshiped

P.S.

Islamic mystics report the same experiences as mystics from other religions, including Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, etc.

Amen to that. ;)

Warm regards

Mantis108

[SevenStar]

Romans makes clear you are saved by grace not by works. Therefore it is immaterial whether one performs works or not. Works may be a reflection of ones inner condition, but there is no requirement since one is saved by grace.

yet at the same time, people were punished / rewarded for their works. The bible is full of men considered holy that worked for Jesus, from abraham building altars to joshua dividing the lands. The bible is full of contradictions, and this very well may be another one. Or possibly it merely demonstrates the difference between catholics and baptists.


The Bible encourages one to associate with other Christians in order to establish and sustain ones faith. I consider it a recommendation that would provide beneficial results and not a requirement.

no, it is a requirement. I can't recall all scriptures alluding to it off the top of my head, but one is hebrews 10:25 (maybe?) which is about forsaking the assembly.


I would say that a good portion of people who consider themselves Christians would be detrimental to associate with. Arrogance and ignorance is rampant among some and I find them annoying!

I agree. But you attend church to be in the presence of God. The attitude of the others in attendance is of non-importance, except for possibly the pastor.


The Bible encourages good works and the spreading of the "good news" however being saved by grace is an internal transformation and not an outward display of action.

the inward transformation should manifest at some moments in an outward display, no? this is why the bible stresses a heart of giving, being a servant, etc.


Since God is God, he is also Tao and Allah and any other name a religion wishes to attribute to him.

not really. If God has three aspects in christianity - the father, the son and the holy ghost, then how can he be the same as allah, when the muslims say jesus was merely a prophet and not the son of God? They all are referred to in similar respects, but are not the same.


Just as you are personally experienced differently by each person in your life, so is God experienced differently according to ones cultural perspective.

eternity, maybe, but not God. As different as the supreme beings are between cultures, there would have to be more than one god.


If you limit your knowledge to only what the Bible teaches or filter information through the Bibles narrow perspective then you will limit your understanding.

I don't disagree with that.

[Siu Lum Fighter]

It's been theorized that during the lost years, when Jesus was wandering around the world, he may have traveled to India and practiced Buddhism. I've also heard it said that this is where the most common Christian mudra came from (with both palms pressed together). This would make sense since Buddhism is one of the first major world religion in which we see this gesture used regularly and they were doing this five hundred years before the Christians were.

Also, once Christianity was established as the official religion of the Roman Empire it became a different "animal." It went from being a much more personal quest for spiritual enlightenment to being a religion where your participation and tribute to the church meant the difference between heaven and hell. Honestly, how can people believe that Jesus and his "father" ("God") would have you cast into a "lake of fire" for all eternity just because you didn't believe in what he said? Jesus loved all sinners unconditionally; why would he all of a sudden turn around and want them all to suffer a horrible existence forever? This notion was inserted by power hungry, corrupt men who's sole purpose was to strike fear into the hearts of the people so they could have absolute control over them. Christianity has been an effective tool for control and manipulation for centuries now.

Todays Christians miss the point. Jesus was not any more a "God" than you and I are. Maybe you could say he was just better at being a human being than most of us, but he never said that we couldn't achieve what he had achieved or that we couldn't be like him. My advice is, don't be another idolater; follow your own inner path.

[Mega-Foot]

I am a devout Christian. As much as any ninja could ever be said to be. Sure, I make transgressions against the law and Lord, but ninja codes sometimes require it, and a simple prayer and paternoster can quickly cover for a ruthless assassination or recon for household goods. After all, in the Lord's Prayer, he assures us that he will forgive us if we trespass, and I do trespass quite a bit, although most people never even know that I've set foot on their property. Still, I guess the point is, I know.

Anyways, does anyone know if Jesus plied his trade while walking the world? He covered a lot of ground on foot, but how did he fund it? I'm sure he must have been quite the carpenter. Maybe he sold some figurines that he had time to whittle in his off hours? You know, a little Roman soldier for the children to play with? Or perhaps a dagger-weilding Zicari action figure? How did he supplement his income, which was, well, nothing?

I don't want to say that Christ was a vagrant or a bum, living off of alms and charity, for it seems this would be a great imposition. And nobody likes bums, except for other bums. Sometimes I even see some bums walking hand-in-hand, like married couples, as they swarm for the shelters on cold nights. It makes me appreciate the power of love, and Huey Louis and the Blues rings in my ears.

What record do we have of his professional status? For all we know, he could have been an ensiferous Daggerman, and part of the resistance. And perhaps the crucifixion was in retribution for his trespasses against the state, or trespasses onto private property.

I've always wondered about this. Perhaps he was ronin?

It really makes you think, doesn't it?

[Mega-Foot]

Will anyone get offended if I witness? The Holy Spirit is coursing through me right now.

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi mantis108,

Thank you for your kind words!

Concerning Shen-hsiu:

It was Hui-Neng that reported Hung-jen as saying that Shen-hsiu had knocked at the door, but had not yet entered inside.

Hui-Neng also stated that inherently there is no difference between sudden and gradual schools. Sudden is for the quick-witted and gradual is for the slow-witted. Unfortunately most of us are slow-witted I am afraid, LOL!!

To fully understand the teachings of Hui-Neng it is important to also understand the philosophic background of Buddhism at the time.

“Body”, “Form” and “Use” were concepts of Mahayana Buddhism used to describe or explain the relationship between substance and function. “Body” is the physical manifestation of a thing, its substance, “Form” is its actual appearance and “Use” is its function, what is done with it. An orange is an orange, round “object”; this is its substance, its “Body”. Its color and shape correspond to its “Form”, how it “appears”. An orange is eaten; this is its “Use”. “Body” is the orange-ship of the object, without its “Body” it is not an orange, but merely a representation of an orange. A picture of an orange has the “Form” of an orange, but not the “Body” of an orange. Without the “Body” there can be no “Use”. I cannot eat an orange that has no Body. I cannot eat a picture of an orange. Any “real” object must have “Body”, “Form” and “Use”.

Ch’an philosophy is only concerned with “Body” and “Use”. Self-nature is “Body” while “Use” is Prajna, or “insightful wisdom”. There is no Form because self-nature is inherently formless. Hui-Neng taught that Buddha-nature is found in all things and this is their self-nature. The purpose of Ch’an is to recognize this and to be free from erroneous perception which is caused by the passions. This condition occurs when we realize that our self-nature IS self-knowledge (insightful wisdom, Prajna); the two are one and the same thing. Self-nature manifests itself by “Using” itself. As explained by D. T. Suzuki, “To BE itself is to KNOW itself!” (CAPS are mine)

Shen-hsiu’s school of thought focused on “Body” and ignored “Use”. Their purpose was to wipe the “Body” of the mind clean, but did not understand that the “Body” (self-nature, mind) is inherently clean to begin with. Neither did his school of thought actively “Use” self-nature; this is where the nihilistic tendencies arise. This nihilistic tendency was recognized by Hui-Neng and he criticized it. Shen-hsiu’s method develops a tranquilized mind, but does not actively “see into itself”, remember that “seeing into itself” is both “Body” and “Use” occurring at once; therefore the method falls short of complete liberation. Hui-Neng stated this method was binding oneself with purity. That is, one creates the concept of purity and seeks to bring their self into accord with it. Purity is an artificial concept. If one continually focuses on purity they tend to become bound by the artificial concept and forget it is merely a device one is using that is to be discarded once its usefulness is over. One becomes bound by this artificial construct and if they are not able to eventually discard it they do not reach complete realization.

I teach that both methods are useful as long as one does not forget that a tool (method) is only as useful as the benefits it provides. Once its benefits have been exhausted it is time to discard the tool (method). Once the nail is hammered I have no more use for the hammer, but also if I wish to drive a screw a hammer is useless. A tool’s benefit never exceeds its usefulness!

Many philosophical Taoist schools of thought combined the two methods of Northern Ch’an (Shen-hsiu) and Southern Ch’an (Hui-Neng) but with the caveat not to get lost in tranquilization. “The Cultivation of Realization” teaches, “Whatever you may be doing, you should practice both stopping and seeing. Stopping is the silent calm; seeing is alert awakeness.” The “Treatise on Sitting Forgetting” teaches, “Disappear into the empty mind; do not disappear into the possessive mind” and “Just let there be uncovered openness above the stabilized mind and groundless vastness below the stabilized mind.” A “silent calm” mind (stopped mind) and a “stabilized mind” is same as the tranquil mind of Shen-hsiu, while the “alert awakeness”, “uncovered openness” and “groundless vastness” is the empty mind of Hui-Neng.

[PangQuan]

so this leaves some questions lingering in the thoughts of some.


who is right?

is anyone right?

all religions cannot be right since some denounce others and say they are the only way.... so according to these types of religions everyone else is wrong.


the heart and spirit often are all the same at the core, but the outward presence (man and his ego) choose to alter the spirit of purity to meet the needs of man.

how many religious people arent truly following thier religion? at this point are they just fake? or does the religion make an acception. like "you followed half of the commmandments so ill let you into heaven..."

[SevenStar]

I'm going to require that my school t-shirt change to one that reads 'Infidel.'

that reminds me of an episode of "batman:the animated series", where raz au gul's thug / bodyguard would slap the p!ss out of batman anytime he said something against ras au gul. he'd say "Infidel!!" then smack him in the face.

[SevenStar]

It's been theorized that during the lost years, when Jesus was wandering around the world, he may have traveled to India and practiced Buddhism. I've also heard it said that this is where the most common Christian mudra came from (with both palms pressed together). This would make sense since Buddhism is one of the first major world religion in which we see this gesture used regularly and they were doing this five hundred years before the Christians were.

while that would make sense, why would a christian prophet / son of God / whatever you believe he was, need to practice buddhism? If anything he should have been spreading christianity, not assimilating something else.


Also, once Christianity was established as the official religion of the Roman Empire it became a different "animal." It went from being a much more personal quest for spiritual enlightenment to being a religion where your participation and tribute to the church meant the difference between heaven and hell.

Agreed.


Honestly, how can people believe that Jesus and his "father" ("God") would have you cast into a "lake of fire" for all eternity just because you didn't believe in what he said?

he destroyed the planet once by water and said he would do it again by fire. This being the case, why wouldn't he throw non-believers into hell? He gave them their entire existence to pursue him, and they chose not to. Besides, it eliminates having to deal with overcrowding issues. :D


Christianity has been an effective tool for control and manipulation for centuries now.

very true. However, the result was not necessarily a bad thing, from certain perspectives.

[PangQuan]

I do find it interesting that "The Golden Rule" is exactly the same as Confucius' "Golden Mean" though Confucius predated Jesus by about 500 years.

where the ideal is found in every religion, the title by which its refered to within christianity and confucianism has an uncanny resemblance to each other.

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi SevenStar,

The Old Testament “holy” men were bound by the Law and were thus known by their works. The New Testament transcends the “law” of the Old Testament. The New Testament teaching is that men are not save by the Law or by works, but by the Grace of God! Paul states, “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are edifying, not all things are expedient.” This means Paul is not bound by actions/works/Law. However, just because he may do whatever he wishes, since he is not bound by the Law, does not mean he will do whatever he wishes because not all things are beneficial (expedient or edifying).

As far as assembly is concerned, one is only bound to the Law, in this case the Law is saying one must associate with other Christians, if one is not saved by Grace. If one is saved by Grace then there are no dictates one MUST follow. Paul cannot say “All things are lawful for me”, meaning he is not bound by the law, and then dictate laws that must be followed; otherwise not all things are lawful for him. Therefore, we must consider the admonition to associate with other Christians as a recommendation and not a Commandment!

The presence of God occurs in your own being or heart and is not found in a Church or a gathering of like minded people. The site of a church and association with like minded people is for the establishment and reinforcement of faith. That is, for your own benefit and is not a Commandment one MUST follow in order to be a good Christian. The world system has a tendency to wear us down and we tend to fall away from our focus on God. By associating with like minded people our commitment is reinforce, our doubts assuaged and our hurts healed. Those who accept association as a requirement suffer from guilt when they do not follow this arbitrary rule. I have known Christians who experienced guilt if they did not attend Church 4 times a week. This guilt motivates individuals to participate, but then they are participating to avoid the feeling of guilt and not for the purpose of establishing and reinforcing their faith. This is a misunderstanding of the teaching and can become a stumbling block. We come to God because we love him not because we are afraid of him. Our motivation influences our practice; those who come to God out of fear or guilt are bound by the Law and not saved by Grace.

While inward transformation is where spiritual maturity occurs, outward actions will occur that demonstrate/reveal this inner change, however those “young in the spirit” are not in a position to judge based upon outward appearances. Again, I have known Christians who condescend to those who do not wear the correct clothing to church, or do not attend the required 4 times a week, or do not make a correct display of tithing. These are not necessarily signs of Christian qualities; however “fruits of the spirit” are manifested according to each individual’s personal gifts. One person may tithe more because he is able while another may never have their Christian qualities recognized by others because they are manifested in more hidden ways. The teaching of Christ is to concern ourselves with our own imperfections and not be concerned with what we “think” are the imperfections of others. “Take the beam out of your own eye before you complain about the mote in another’s eye, and “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. It is best not to impose a requirement of behavior of another because it is not our place to judge their motivations; we never see the whole picture and so cannot be a fair judge. God can so it is between them and God!

Tao, Christian God, and Allah, etc. are all the One God! There can only be ONE God! The differences in qualities are not found in God, the differences are found in our perception of him. We may both experience the same event, but both of us will experience it differently according to our individual personality and conditioning. We may write an account of the same event and have different, but similar descriptions, but we might also have two descriptions that are so different it appears we are describing two different events rather than the same event. Our perception is determined by our conditioning; our experience of God is determined by the tradition we follow. Therefore it appears there is more than one God worshiped when in fact it is always the same God with different qualities projected upon him by the conditioning of the individual. Even the Christian perspective limits Gods qualities and Christ alludes to this as well. Some perspectives may be more accurate than others, but as long as we have fallible humans involved it is preferable to learn about God directly using your perspective of choice (religion) as a tool or method to create structure for your search. But your relationship with the deity is always a personal one!

The limitations to our depth of spiritual experience and understanding are created by the limitations we impose upon ourselves. Traditions meant to help us experience God directly for ourselves also become anchors to our growth when our personal experience exceeds the artificial structure of the tradition and we fear to expand our perspective. This is something directly understood by mystics of all religions and this is why even though there are outward differences of expression of many religions, the mystics of each report similar experiences.

[Scott R. Brown]

so this leaves some questions lingering in the thoughts of some.

who is right?

is anyone right?

Hi PanfQuan,

They are all different versions of the same thing with varying degrees of accuracy. Just as we may all witness the same event yet have different interpretations of it, so it is with spiritual methods. Differences originate in the individual according to their own personal conditioning and according to their ability to correctly or accurately interpret their experiences for others. Those who sincerely pursue direct knowledge/experience of the deity report similar yet different descriptions. The variations may be attributed to each individual's cultural conditioning, intelligence, level of education, and ability to communicate.

Some religions, especially the more tribal traditions have an aside purpose of trying to manipulate physical reality through mental (magical) means, but their mystic experiences still coincide with others of the mystic bent.

[cjurakpt]

It's been theorized that during the lost years, when Jesus was wandering around the world, he may have traveled to India and practiced Buddhism. I've also heard it said that this is where the most common Christian mudra came from (with both palms pressed together). This would make sense since Buddhism is the only other major world religion in which we see this hand gesture used regularly and they were doing this long before the Christians were.

Also, once Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire it became a different "animal." It went from being a much more personal experience and quest for spiritual enlightenment to being a religion where your participation and tribute to the church meant the difference between heaven and hell. Honestly, how can people believe that Jesus and his "father" ("God") would have you cast into a "lake of fire" for all eternity just because you didn't believe in what he said? Jesus loved all sinners unconditionally; why would he all of a sudden turn around and want them all to suffer a horrible existence forever?

Todays Christians miss the point. Jesus was not any more a "God" than you and I are. Maybe you could say he was better at being a "human" than most all of us, but he never said that we couldn't achieve what he had achieved or that we couldn't be like him. My advice is, don't be another idolater; follow your own inner path.

it was probably more likely that J. picked up his spiritual training locally, since that area of the world at the time was a crossroads for many different beliefs, including Buddhism (it had ~500 years to get there from India, so not a big surprise); one popular theory is that he was part of the Essenes, a hermit-like group of folks all into meditation and stuff (someone can provide more accuracy on this group);

"History of God" by Karen Armstrong gives a good overview of the local spiritual politics of the the day, as well as how Christianity (de)evolved over the centuries, and was co-opted for many other people's agendas, personal or political - I think that she makes the argument that Christianity would be better off referred to as "Paulism", since St. Paul evidently had more to do with putting Christianity on its current course than J. did;

the India theory also comes into play after he "died", which some say was faked, that he was out cold for 3 days, then took off for the East after waking up

[Mega-Foot]

Jesus was a master of the iron palm, so the nails did not do as much damage as we woud like to think. And his iron shirt kept the spear of Longinus from penetrating too far. So after his "death", which he faked in order to throw off the guards and judges, so that he could come back under the radar, he bided his time in the tomb. I think he was in hiding, plotting, planning, waiting for the perfect opportunity to strike, and get bloody vengeance against the house of Pilate and the traitorous Pharisees. But then something wonderful happened.

Jesus gave up his plans for retribution. He reflected, sat down and meditated, and stared at the wall of the tomb for three days, and found internal peace.

It is said, by the Essenes, that during this time of reflection, an art known as Jesus Fist was developed. It is comprised mainly of iron palm training, and iron shirt--specifically to fight against spears and ninja spikes. There are many qigong forms, which include regular practice in moving aside great obstacles, and the ability to veritably run on water through weight-vest training.

Sadly, the art was lost under the oppressive reign of the Romans, then outlawed, and finally devolved into mere thuggery at the hands of the barbarian invaders, who thought it better to take their opponents to the ground.

It is said that in some circles, small portions of the Christ Chuan still exist. But they cannot be pieced together.

It is interesting to note that his followers carried katanas. One of his disciples cut off the ear of the High Priest's attendant.

I think Jesus was a spy. An ancient Jewish daggerman; the equivalent of a modern day ninja.

[Mega-Foot]

But enough joking aside. Let us forgive my trespasses.

Spirituality is the essence of the tiger's eye, engendered in the mind of the spirit of the tiger.

[PangQuan]

Hi PanfQuan,

They are all different versions of the same thing with varying degrees of accuracy. Just as we may all witness the same event yet have different interpretations of it, so it is with spiritual methods. Differences originate in the individual according to their own personal conditioning and according to their ability to correctly or accurately interpret their experiences for others. Those who sincerely pursue direct knowledge/experience of the deity report similar yet different descriptions. The variations may be attributed to each individual's cultural conditioning, intelligence, level of education, and ability to communicate.

Some religions, especially the more tribal traditions have an aside purpose of trying to manipulate physical reality through mental (magical) means, but their mystic experiences still coincide with others of the mystic bent.

i think that makes sense to me...

so basically your saying that regardless of certain aspects of the each faith (eg: all non believers going to hell/purgatory/whatnothaveyou...etc.) the core experience remains somewhat unchanged from others, aside from personalized believes such as imagry, sensations, and historical revelance?

if i follow

[FuXnDajenariht]

while that would make sense, why would a christian prophet / son of God / whatever you believe he was, need to practice buddhism? If anything he should have been spreading christianity, not assimilating something else.

i dont think his point was to create a specific religion called Christianity in the first place. Chrisitianity as a religion was created after his death.

his need or lack thereof for studying Buddhism would be dependent on whether he was infact divine which alot of people dispute in the first place. if he was the Son of God then it stands to reason he very well wouldn't need to. but if your of the mind that he was a just human being, a very extraordinarily wise and evolved human being, but a human being nonetheless, then his motivations would be more reasonable. any wise man will tell you to never for a second cease being a student of any and everything. Buddha himself studied non-stop at numerous philosophical schools and never settled or became complacent and arrogant about his perceived knowledge until the day he reached enlightenment.

his continual education might also explain why there were so many differing branches of Christianity back then too.

[mantis108]

This is not meant to put a negative light on the life and times of Jesus. But if I was a conspiracy theorist on a "historical" Jesus (a real life person), I would have drawn the following profile of him.

1) Jesus would have lived in a time where there were at least 3 prongs of power existed in his country. There was the Romans who conquered the land. There was the court of Harlod (?). Finally, there was Temple institution ran by the Rabis. So the power of the people really is fragmented and this powerless and hopelessness adds to the anxiety of the people. In Jesus mind, he suffers as "his" people suffer.

2) There is a high possibility that the historic Jesus travelled and studied in far away land such as India. There are reports of a temple in India where Jesus sojurned and studied. We need to bear in mind that Hinduism, Janism, Buddhism, etc teaching were available at the time. It is also possible for him to have travelled to Egypt.

3) If Jesus did travel by land, he would have no doubt heard of the exploits of Alexander the Great, who have conquered the known world 300 some years previous with Egypt on the one end and India, which he did invaded but not conquered, on the other. Alexander the Great, who claimed to the son of a Greek Diety (Zeus - the Supreme God) would have been pretty impressive to the mind of a young and ambitious Jesus.

4) He could also have learned healing and magical traditions in those countries. His "miracles" would not be so miraculous if see in this light. He could totally be a normal human being with a goal and on a mission to unite his motherland using some elements of Alexander the Great such as claiming to be the Son of God although he would have used mystics or philosophical "reasoning" to make that claim but not through an oracle. Also he is said to be from the Davidic line. This would have given him a preist-king position. BTW, the Indian Diety, Skanda, is modeled after Alexander. This Diety also came to China through Buddhist connection and it became Nuo Jia the Third Prince who is also revered and worshipped as far south as Guangdong and Hong Kong.

5) Yogic practice derived from Hinduism does allow married couples to practice Yoga. The Rabis in Judaism traditionally would be married as well. It is entirely possible for Jesus to have married Mary Magdalene and still be seen as a "Holy" man.

6) Christianity came way after his death. It is a marriage of Roman Pagan religious believe and the historical Juses's interpretation of Judaism as transmitted by his disciples of whom non seemed to have learned the healing and magical traditions (Peter or Mary Magdalene might have but there isn't much to go with on that).

Just to muddle the water a little bit more. ;)

Mantis108

[mantis108]

Hi mantis108,

Thank you for your kind words!

Thank you for your thought provoking posts. :)


Concerning Shen-hsiu:

It was Hui-Neng that reported Hung-jen as saying that Shen-hsiu had knocked at the door, but had not yet entered inside.

Hui-Neng also stated that inherently there is no difference between sudden and gradual schools. Sudden is for the quick-witted and gradual is for the slow-witted. Unfortunately most of us are slow-witted I am afraid, LOL!!

To fully understand the teachings of Hui-Neng it is important to also understand the philosophic background of Buddhism at the time.

“Body”, “Form” and “Use” were concepts of Mahayana Buddhism used to describe or explain the relationship between substance and function. “Body” is the physical manifestation of a thing, its substance, “Form” is its actual appearance and “Use” is its function, what is done with it. An orange is an orange, round “object”; this is its substance, its “Body”. Its color and shape correspond to its “Form”, how it “appears”. An orange is eaten; this is its “Use”. “Body” is the orange-ship of the object, without its “Body” it is not an orange, but merely a representation of an orange. A picture of an orange has the “Form” of an orange, but not the “Body” of an orange. Without the “Body” there can be no “Use”. I cannot eat an orange that has no Body. I cannot eat a picture of an orange. Any “real” object must have “Body”, “Form” and “Use”.

Traditional view of Yijing (Classic of Change) also parrallel this definition of the constitution of "real" - the "Body" (Ti), "Form" (Xing) and "Use" (Yong) IMHO. In Yijing language, they are known as Dao (way/principles), Fa (protocol/method) and Qi (form/utility). Sometimes it is just Dao and Qi. Fa is more of a process.


Ch’an philosophy is only concerned with “Body” and “Use”. Self-nature is “Body” while “Use” is Prajna, or “insightful wisdom”. There is no Form because self-nature is inherently formless. Hui-Neng taught that Buddha-nature is found in all things and this is their self-nature. The purpose of Ch’an is to recognize this and to be free from erroneous perception which is caused by the passions. This condition occurs when we realize that our self-nature IS self-knowledge (insightful wisdom, Prajna); the two are one and the same thing. Self-nature manifests itself by “Using” itself. As explained by D. T. Suzuki, “To BE itself is to KNOW itself!” (CAPS are mine)

Thanks and I understand that. My point was that there is some degree of simularity between what Shen-hsiu advocated and Daoist Alchemy IMHO.

As I always maintain that Daoist tradition (ie Alchemy) that is based in the Yijing does not necessarily be Dualistic in nature. Dualism became a dominant philosophy in the study of Yijing due to rise of the Southern Song dynasty's Neo-Confucian scholars such as Zhu Zi. There are Buddhist influences in that school of thoughts and the result is the Dualistic view (ie Emphasis of Yinyang). This is not the way it used to be. Rather older traditions are more of a trinity. The shift happened because of the Neo-Confucian's teachings and text books (including their interpretation of Yijing) were adopted by public education system since Ming dynasty. To simply put it, the Neo-Confucians literally got the "mathametics" of Yijing wrong but they were able to compensate or rather circumvent that by focusing on the "mind" (Xin) and reasoning. So their meditation practice would be more like Hui Neng's school; while traditional Doaism Alchemy is more similar to Shen-Shiu's IMHO.


Shen-hsiu’s school of thought focused on “Body” and ignored “Use”. Their purpose was to wipe the “Body” of the mind clean, but did not understand that the “Body” (self-nature, mind) is inherently clean to begin with. Neither did his school of thought actively “Use” self-nature; this is where the nihilistic tendencies arise. This nihilistic tendency was recognized by Hui-Neng and he criticized it. Shen-hsiu’s method develops a tranquilized mind, but does not actively “see into itself”, remember that “seeing into itself” is both “Body” and “Use” occurring at once; therefore the method falls short of complete liberation. Hui-Neng stated this method was binding oneself with purity. That is, one creates the concept of purity and seeks to bring their self into accord with it. Purity is an artificial concept. If one continually focuses on purity they tend to become bound by the artificial concept and forget it is merely a device one is using that is to be discarded once its usefulness is over. One becomes bound by this artificial construct and if they are not able to eventually discard it they do not reach complete realization.

I would argue that Shen-hsiu was merely to "uphold" tradition because there were much more at stake given the long term development of the Chinese Buddhist institution; while Hui-Neng is free or liberated (he has nothing to lose to begin with) to do as he "pleases". It's more or less a Church Vs Individual or Kung Fu traditional systems community Vs Bruce Lee's JKD ideal thing IMHO. Both Shen-hsiu and Hui-Neng are "heavy weights" in the match but only at present Hui-Neng's school is leading in the scoring cards. So... Without the slow school there is no sudden school. So...


I teach that both methods are useful as long as one does not forget that a tool (method) is only as useful as the benefits it provides. Once its benefits have been exhausted it is time to discard the tool (method). Once the nail is hammered I have no more use for the hammer, but also if I wish to drive a screw a hammer is useless. A tool’s benefit never exceeds its usefulness!

agreed 100%


Many philosophical Taoist schools of thought combined the two methods of Northern Ch’an (Shen-hsiu) and Southern Ch’an (Hui-Neng) but with the caveat not to get lost in tranquilization. “The Cultivation of Realization” teaches, “Whatever you may be doing, you should practice both stopping and seeing. Stopping is the silent calm; seeing is alert awakeness.” The “Treatise on Sitting Forgetting” teaches, “Disappear into the empty mind; do not disappear into the possessive mind” and “Just let there be uncovered openness above the stabilized mind and groundless vastness below the stabilized mind.” A “silent calm” mind (stopped mind) and a “stabilized mind” is same as the tranquil mind of Shen-hsiu, while the “alert awakeness”, “uncovered openness” and “groundless vastness” is the empty mind of Hui-Neng.

I hear you, my friend, thanks.

Warm regards

Mantis108

[Ray Pina]

Since we have seen some spiritual based posts of late, I thought I would add one of my own, just to opine a bit and get some thoughts. I am just shooting in the dark on this one.

Can a person be christian spiritual without having a specific denomation of worship and do you have to go to church to be fully committed??

A long time ago, some may or may not remember, I was a very staunch atheist who would of given Fux a serious run for his money. Over the course of the last two years, some things have changed that when I added them up, caused me to readjust my outlook on the subject, which if you knew me, would be a huge deal.

The problem is, I still am not a church type of person, it still makes me feel very out of water, I would rather just be private in my own connection with whatever god is, than be forced into some thought factory, by people who may or may not have there own act together.

But if a person does this, if he self educates himself, is he missing the boat??

Thoughts,

Thanks;)

All there is: is right now and what you bring with you into the moment!

You want to believe Jesus is the savior of your soul and go to church go do it.... live it to the best.

Want to be a Taoist and sit in caves and contemplate the way the moom shines of the ball of **** that the dung beatle rolls.... cool. Eat the mushrooms! You'll learn about how silly so many thoughts are and just watch the clouds.

The moment my friend. The moment. This vibrating thing that causes us to exists in it existing in nothing.... what man can name it? Who can define it's intention? It builds here and destroys there. Sun here, night there. Male and female.

Seriously. Just go into the moment free and expect great things.

[TenTigers]

Christianity was created long after the death of Christ.
The last supper was a Passover Seder, so Jesus lived and died a Jew.
The teachings of spirituality are universal-we are all the same, we simply speak different languages-Chinese,Japanese,Latin,Hebrew-Judiasim, Buddhism, Taoism etc,
Now stop eating pork,put on your yarmulkas and get yer arses to shule!
And YOU THERE!! Yeah YOU, Father Nelson! get yer mits off of the altar boys!
I'm sure you can find a nice, hot nun...somewhere, fer Chrissakes!
(I was always partial to Sister Bertrille...ya think Alehandro Ray was tryin to look under her habit when she flew overhead? I would!)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=sbvkWzngR5E

[kwaichang]

I must explain everything with Logic, I must explain everything with LOgic . AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. Free me . From my need to explain the unexplainable. I appreciate all of your posts as we are saved by Faith and your posts give me more and more Faith. KC

[Scott R. Brown]

i think that makes sense to me...

so basically your saying that regardless of certain aspects of the each faith (eg: all non believers going to hell/purgatory/whatnothaveyou...etc.) the core experience remains somewhat unchanged from others, aside from personalized believes such as imagry, sensations, and historical revelance?

if i follow

Hi PanfQuan,

Yes. The essence of the deeper experience is the same, but since we are all unique individuals with conditioned and limited personalities we interpret the experience differently and communicate it through the filter of our egos.

The outward manifestations of a religion such as rules of behavior and rituals of worship are culturally influenced. Just as there are those of us who are gifted in math (and/or other mental and physical skills, such as, basketball, soccer, music, art, engineering, etc.) and therefore are capable of solving mathematical problems beyond the understanding of most of us, so it occurs with spiritual matters. Some individuals are gifted with the ability to transcend their ego and reach experiences beyond what most religious people experience. It is these individuals that report similar experiences. And once again the differences in their descriptions may be attributed to social/cultural conditioning and their ability to communicate inexpressible direct experience.

When a religion is established there are rules of conduct and rituals established for those with lesser understanding or gifts of spiritual insight. Rules of conduct provide a behavior framework that builds and sustains social cohesion, while rituals assist the mind in transcending the ego’s filtering of direct perception and assist in developing a sense of reverence.

Rules of conduct and ritual should be viewed as the outward tools used by a particular religion for the purpose of providing a social and spiritual framework. They are tools, the finger pointing the way to the moon. If we focus too much on the finger we miss the purpose of the finger pointing, the moon! The problem with most people is they tend to focus so much on the finger, the behavior and the rituals, they don’t realize they are tools to help them transcend and they become anchors that hold them back. When this occurs and is taken to the extreme people are stoned for taking God's name in vain or for not wearing a beard, etc

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi mantis108,


Traditional view of Yijing (Classic of Change) also parrallel this definition of the constitution of "real" - the "Body" (Ti), "Form" (Xing) and "Use" (Yong) IMHO. In Yijing language, they are known as Dao (way/principles), Fa (protocol/method) and Qi (form/utility). Sometimes it is just Dao and Qi. Fa is more of a process.

That is a very interesting perspective. Can you point me to resources that discuss this please?


My point was that there is some degree of simularity between what Shen-hsiu advocated and Daoist Alchemy IMHO.

I agree with you.


As I always maintain that Daoist tradition (ie Alchemy) that is based in the Yijing does not necessarily be Dualistic in nature. Dualism became a dominant philosophy in the study of Yijing due to rise of the Southern Song dynasty's Neo-Confucian scholars such as Zhu Zi. There are Buddhist influences in that school of thoughts and the result is the Dualistic view (ie Emphasis of Yinyang). This is not the way it used to be. Rather older traditions are more of a trinity. The shift happened because of the Neo-Confucian's teachings and text books (including their interpretation of Yijing) were adopted by public education system since Ming dynasty. To simply put it, the Neo-Confucians literally got the "mathametics" of Yijing wrong but they were able to compensate or rather circumvent that by focusing on the "mind" (Xin) and reasoning. So their meditation practice would be more like Hui Neng's school; while traditional Doaism Alchemy is more similar to Shen-Shiu's IMHO.

I would agree! There is no requirement to limit one’s understanding to a dualistic expression. One could say it is inherently ONE/Wu (or rather, non-dual) at its core essence, but upon bifurcation it becomes both dualistic and a trinity at the same time, depending upon ones perspective. At the beginning there is ONE, the next step in the process is bifurcation, TWO. However, once we have TWO, THREE occurs spontaneously as well, TWO and THREE are mutually arising.

One = Yin-Yang, (Wu); TWO = Yin and Yang; THREE = Yin-Yang (Wu), Yin, and Yang. So in essence once TWO occurs, THREE occurs as well. They are mutually interdependent and as expressed in the Tao Te Ching, “from this spring the ten thousand things”.


I would argue that Shen-hsiu was merely to "uphold" tradition because there were much more at stake given the long term development of the Chinese Buddhist institution; while Hui-Neng is free or liberated (he has nothing to lose to begin with) to do as he "pleases". It's more or less a Church Vs Individual or Kung Fu traditional systems community Vs Bruce Lee's JKD ideal thing IMHO. Both Shen-hsiu and Hui-Neng are "heavy weights" in the match but only at present Hui-Neng's school is leading in the scoring cards. So... Without the slow school there is no sudden school. So...

I agree.

[Vajramusti]

An aim of Buddhism is to dissolve dualism.

joy chaudhuri

[Water Dragon]

Hey Bro, here's a few books that might help you, I know they did me.

'Mere Christianity' -- C.S. Lewis
'The Pursuit of God' -- A.W. Tozer
'Wild at Heart' -- John Eldredge

Deep words in those books, and a very different view than what I thought Christianity was, and I was an alter boy.

Also, if you want to talk, PM me your number. I'm not the wisest of men, but I'd be glad to share my story with you.

[Scott R. Brown]

An aim of Buddhism is to dissolve dualism.

Hi Vajramusti,

I partially agree. The purpose is often stated that way; however the goal is not to dissolve dualism, but to not be BOUND by dualism. It is clinging that causes the problem, not the apparent existence of dualism. When we cling to the results of our actions we become bound by that clinging and we experience suffering. In order for suffering to be transcended we must merely stop clinging. When we cease clinging we are no longer emotionally controlled (bound) by the consequences of attachment to dualism which is the cause of karma! Clinging is an emotional/mental condition and not a consequence of objective dualism.

Dualism doesn’t disappear/dissolve, if it did there could only be the One or non-dual condition of being. There would be no you and no me; no existence of anything. You would not be able to post on a BB under the pseudonym Vajramusti because there would be no artificial construct that considered itself Vajramusti! Since we perceive the existence of separate things everywhere, dualism continues to exist, but only according to a specific perspective of perception. It is our perception that transcends dualism then, not that dualism dissolves. Think of it as a game played by the non-dual intelligence on itself. All separate conditions of being “appear” separate for a specific purpose, but are essentially non-dual. So in this sense all things are at once BOTH non-dual and separate at the same time depending upon the perspective from which one chooses to perceive.

[Vajramusti]

"Dualism doesn’t disappear/dissolve, if it did there could only be the One or non-dual condition of being.""

------------------------------------------------------------------
Ultimately and ontologically not one but zero. A previous answer disappeared
in cyberspace with its conditional temporary existence (wrong button).

joy chaudhuri

[Scott R. Brown]

"Dualism doesn’t disappear/dissolve, if it did there could only be the One or non-dual condition of being.""

------------------------------------------------------------------
Ultimately and ontologically not one but zero. A previous answer disappeared
in cyberspace with its conditional temporary existence (wrong button).

joy chaudhuri

Well of course One is just another way to say non-dual and non-dual is the historically preferred manner of referring to the “One”. I will sometimes combine them with a slash mark (One/non-dual).

In truth you cannot have “Zero”. Zero is itself a conditional term; you must have Something before you can have Nothing! Nothing only has meaning in contrast to something. No something, no nothing!

If the essence of reality was Nothing or Zero then nothing could exists. The error in this thinking is that of course Something exists. Something is apparent to us everywhere. If Everything was essentially Zero/Nothing then there would not be anything to notice there was Zero/Nothing and there would be no discussing it. Since we can perceive and discuss the “condition of Zero/Nothing” then Zero/Nothing does not actually exist. What I mean here is there is no absolute Zero; there is no absolute Nothing, only Absolute Something. So the Absolute/One/non-dual condition is Something, not Zero/Nothing.

The essence of Something is ALL THINGS and it is undifferentiated-differentiation. Something includes all things when they are differentiated and it is all things when they are undifferentiated at once at the same time. The undifferentiated condition is non-dual, but it is NOT Zero. When it is perceived or considered in its undifferentiated condition it may be referred to as nothing, but this must be understood as meaning nothing specific, and NOT Zero, Absolute Nothingness. When perceived as differentiated it is referred to as something specific. This undifferentiated-differentiation is non-dual, but cannot rightly be referred to as Zero. You could have relative zero/nothing, but absolute Zero/Nothing does not exist!

[SevenStar]

Tao, Christian God, and Allah, etc. are all the One God! There can only be ONE God! The differences in qualities are not found in God, the differences are found in our perception of him. We may both experience the same event, but both of us will experience it differently according to our individual personality and conditioning. We may write an account of the same event and have different, but similar descriptions, but we might also have two descriptions that are so different it appears we are describing two different events rather than the same event. Our perception is determined by our conditioning; our experience of God is determined by the tradition we follow. Therefore it appears there is more than one God worshiped when in fact it is always the same God with different qualities projected upon him by the conditioning of the individual. Even the Christian perspective limits Gods qualities and Christ alludes to this as well. Some perspectives may be more accurate than others, but as long as we have fallible humans involved it is preferable to learn about God directly using your perspective of choice (religion) as a tool or method to create structure for your search. But your relationship with the deity is always a personal one!

you are combining the experience with the actual entity, which I don't think should be case. A spiritual experience would be different between individuals, even if they are of the same religion. I agree with you on that. But, if there is only one god, then there is no different experience to have. He wouldn't say to one culture, "love everyone", then turn around and say to another "kill all infidels", for example. that lends more to the thought that there is no god at all. Each culture created their own transcendant signifier (LOL - thanks, chris) according to their own beliefs.

[David Jamieson]

Well of course One is just another way to say non-dual and non-dual is the historically preferred manner of referring to the “One”. I will sometimes combine them with a slash mark (One/non-dual).

In truth you cannot have “Zero”. Zero is itself a conditional term; you must have Something before you can have Nothing! Nothing only has meaning in contrast to something. No something, no nothing!

If the essence of reality was Nothing or Zero then nothing could exists. The error in this thinking is that of course Something exists. Something is apparent to us everywhere. If Everything was essentially Zero/Nothing then there would not be anything to notice there was Zero/Nothing and there would be no discussing it. Since we can perceive and discuss the “condition of Zero/Nothing” then Zero/Nothing does not actually exist. What I mean here is there is no absolute Zero; there is no absolute Nothing, only Absolute Something. So the Absolute/One/non-dual condition is Something, not Zero/Nothing.

The essence of Something is ALL THINGS and it is undifferentiated-differentiation. Something includes all things when they are differentiated and it is all things when they are undifferentiated at once at the same time. The undifferentiated condition is non-dual, but it is NOT Zero. When it is perceived or considered in its undifferentiated condition it may be referred to as nothing, but this must be understood as meaning nothing specific, and NOT Zero, Absolute Nothingness. When perceived as differentiated it is referred to as something specific. This undifferentiated-differentiation is non-dual, but cannot rightly be referred to as Zero. You could have relative zero/nothing, but absolute Zero/Nothing does not exist!

For me, "nothing" is indeed "something".

for instance, it has been said: "we can not call it void, nor can we call it not void, but for the purpose of pointing it out, we shall call it void".

the very fact that "it" can be pointed out makes nothing, something. While difficult to comprehend, it really isn't. Merely another aspect of dualism and that each side can be verified as existing...even when it is not perceived to be doing that. :-)

[Vajramusti]

can be true logically and experientially.


Logically zero gives meaning to 1, 2 etc .

joy chaudhuri

[Scott R. Brown]

can be true logically and experientially.


Logically zero gives meaning to 1, 2 etc .

joy chaudhuri

Yes, That is my point. Zero is not the Essence of things, the Absolute, because it is still a conditional concept. It is a part of the Essence of things, but it is not THE Essence itself. It is 1, 2, 3, etc. that give meaning to Zero. Without 1, 2, 3 etc. there can be no Zero!

Zero is a concept that is part of the realm of Something, not the realm of Nothing, therefore Nothing is actually Something. It is the Something we "call" Nothing". It is just a part of the Something we "consider" ("refer to as") empty. The key here is the concept "consider/refer to as". "Considering" or "referring to" is a conditional concept that requires something to be contrasted with it to give it meaning. We cannot have fullness without emptiness and we cannot have emptiness without fullness. Therefore the Absolute must contain both concepts. Hui-Neng referred to it as the thoughtless-thought, but in my opinion nothing illustrates the concept better than Yin-Yang!

Yin-Yang is both full and empty at once. It is constantly changing, yet unchanging.

[Vajramusti]

you are entitled to your POV.
Following the path of discursive reasoning is not easy in a thread on
a kung fu forum.

An assumption that there is something - involves speculation and an act of faith.
From the POV of Hui neng, Nagarjuna, Lankavatarasutra, Surangamasutra etc-
its speculative to think of permanent unconditional essences, selves or enitiies. The void is the void and what sees in zazen and dhyan speaks for itself and is not found through discursive reasoning.

Of course, there are many POVs.

Cheers, bye for now- have some intense conditional wing chun to do for the next few days.

joy chaudhuri

[mantis108]

This is one of the sites that I use other than text books (Chinese mainly).

http://zhouyi.sdu.edu.cn/english/index.asp

I use the Chinese page of that site which has loads of articles concerning the study of Yijing.


Yes, That is my point. Zero is not the Essence of things, the Absolute, because it is still a conditional concept. It is a part of the Essence of things, but it is not THE Essence itself. It is 1, 2, 3, etc. that give meaning to Zero. Without 1, 2, 3 etc. there can be no Zero!

Just wanted to say the "0" as a symbol is said to have been an Arabic invention. The number symbol set (1 - 10 and the powers of 10) that are commonly used today came from the Arab. The "0" is a represention or rather denoting the "existence" of Allah/God which is at once mysterious-obvious. There is no end nor is there a beginning as seen in the symbol. Absolute existence is one that is beyond question because it's an unanswerable question as you have demonstrated. It is also one of the questions that the historic Buddha didn't try to answer. What is time before time? The best we can do is to come up with "imaginary time" (again no beginning an no end) which can be establish mathametically; therefore, theoretically possible but it doesn't necessarily physically exist. Physical time (space-time continuum) does have a beginning and theoretically it would end one day in the "future".


Zero is a concept that is part of the realm of Something, not the realm of Nothing, therefore Nothing is actually Something. It is the Something we "call" Nothing". It is just a part of the Something we "consider" ("refer to as") empty. The key here is the concept "consider/refer to as". "Considering" or "referring to" is a conditional concept that requires something to be contrasted with it to give it meaning. We cannot have fullness without emptiness and we cannot have emptiness without fullness. Therefore the Absolute must contain both concepts. Hui-Neng referred to it as the thoughtless-thought, but in my opinion nothing illustrates the concept better than Yin-Yang!

Technically, singularity (Zero) is Wuji/Taiji, then liang Yi (Heaven and Earth) and so on so forth. In older tradition, Yin is the moon and Yang is the sun. The mathametics is derived from the spatial relationships between the sun, the moon and/or the 5 planets/phases (Wu Xing) with respect to earth. Yin and Yang aren't exactly conceptual only. In the process of divination using the Yallow stick method, this mathametics is used. Taiji is represented with 50 sticks.

This is part of the reason in my mind that you are correct in saying that thoughtless-thought or rather nothingness trumps Yin-Yang in expressing the concept of Absolute. However, if we see Yin-Yang as mathametic symbols to express or denote concepts then there isn't really a better or worst differentiation in expression IMHO.


Yin-Yang is both full and empty at once. It is constantly changing, yet unchanging.

Hence, Yi (changing) or imperminence.

Warm regards

Mantis108

[PangQuan]

The Brahmasphutasiddhanta must have blown people away at the time.

imagine a world without the concept of zero, and them BAM! some dude shows it to you.....

I wonder what the next 'zero' will be...

[Vajramusti]

"Just wanted to say the "0" as a symbol is said to have been an Arabic invention. The number symbol set (1 - 10 and the powers of 10) that are commonly used today came from the Arab. "
----------------------------------------------------------------------Yikes! As it usually happens threads go off in different directions and sustained conversations are not easy.
The numerals came to the west via the Arabs but they originated in India-they were called Arabic numerals but the Arabs called them Hindu numbers. Indian numerals went west via Persia and Babylon. A complex history beyond the scope of a KFO forum thread. Even now the western numerals have no Arabic writing style- closer to Sanskrit. History of different disciplines are often overlayed with
conqueror's histories.

joy chaudhuri

[Scott R. Brown]

you are entitled to your POV.
Following the path of discursive reasoning is not easy in a thread on a kung fu forum.

An assumption that there is something - involves speculation and an act of faith.
From the POV of Hui neng, Nagarjuna, Lankavatarasutra, Surangamasutra etc-
its speculative to think of permanent unconditional essences, selves or enitiies. The void is the void and what sees in zazen and dhyan speaks for itself and is not found through discursive reasoning.

Of course, there are many POVs.

Cheers, bye for now- have some intense conditional wing chun to do for the next few days.

joy chaudhuri

Hi Vajramusti,

To follow discursive reasoning takes practice. I understand the difficulty.

There is no assumption that there is Something. It is known through direct experience. Something exists because we experience it directly on a daily basis. We just use discursive reasoning as ‘one” means to communicate this truth.

As I have previously stated, If Nothing was the essence of being there would be nothing to perceive. Since we are able to perceive, Something exists. When masters speak of Nothing/Emptiness/Void they are referring to undifferentiated Something, NOT the absence of everything. The use of the term Void or Nothingness is merely a literary device meant to try to communicate a direct experience and not the actual thing itself. Because it is still a discursive device it is subject to misunderstanding, therefore we use various methods of illustrating the point; not just discursiveness. No one method is better or worse than the next. Each reaches people according to their natural inclinations and abilities.

Just as a description of the taste of an orange will not provide one with the actual experience of the taste, so a description, illustration, or discursive argument of Void is not Void itself. Just as one must taste an orange directly to understand it’s taste, so one must directly perceive the Void in order to understand its essence.

Discursiveness is merely a tool we use in order to discuss direct experience with other conditional beings. It is part of the Divine play. The description is never meant to be a substitute for direct experience. Description is the finger pointing the way to the moon, it is not the moon. Admonitions against discursive thought by some masters are not intended to discourage its use, but to remind students that discursive understanding is NOT the direct experience. Understanding someone else’s description of what an orange tastes like is not the same thing as tasting an orange directly. The one who actually tastes the orange is the expert on the taste of an orange not the person who is a master of reading the descriptions of others. Many students get lost in discursiveness and forget it is the direct experience that matters.


Enjoy your Wing Chun training. :)

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi mantis108,

Thank you for the information.


Hence, Yi (changing) or imperminence. Mantis108

Don't you mean permanent-impermanence? ;)

[SevenStar]

okay,puff, puff pass...

[Scott R. Brown]

you are combining the experience with the actual entity, which I don't think should be case. A spiritual experience would be different between individuals, even if they are of the same religion. I agree with you on that. But, if there is only one god, then there is no different experience to have. He wouldn't say to one culture, "love everyone", then turn around and say to another "kill all infidels", for example. that lends more to the thought that there is no god at all. Each culture created their own transcendant signifier (LOL - thanks, chris) according to their own beliefs.

Hi SevenStar,

I think you may have misunderstood me or I wasn't clear enough. While the experience may be similar, it is filtered through a fallible human ego. It is cultural conditioning and ego distortion that causes one to believe that God told them to “kill all infidels”. I would argue that someone with that sort of message did not clearly understand or integrate their transcendent experience to begin with. They had an experience that was far beyond their ability to understand and integrate into their belief system. Remember that Mohammed was essentially illiterate and uneducated and apparently not very mature either. If he had any form of true transcendent experience he clearly didn’t have the maturity or intelligence to properly understand or integrate it into his world system!

Remember that all experiences are filtered through our ego. We must learn to transcend our ego in order to perceive with an unobstructed mind. Apparently Mohammed was not capable of accomplishing this. Essentially he could be considered a child who was given a gun. Also we should be clear that we may not actually know which of his teachings were reinterpreted to fit the political aspirations of his followers. His religion started to break down immediately after his death.

Further, please do not confuse the message and actions attributed to Mohammed with the mystics of Islam. The same admonition would apply to those of the Christian or any other religion that distort teachings for selfish or evil purposes. True mystic experience can be distorted very easily when the experience transcends the individual’s ability to understand. But those with understanding and maturity do report similar experiences. Also, just because someone reports a transcendent experience does not mean they actually had one!


For me, "nothing" is indeed "something".

for instance, it has been said: "we can not call it void, nor can we call it not void, but for the purpose of pointing it out, we shall call it void".

the very fact that "it" can be pointed out makes nothing, something. While difficult to comprehend, it really isn't. Merely another aspect of dualism and that each side can be verified as existing...even when it is not perceived to be doing that. :-)

Hi David,

That is a very good restatement of my point. I have to sit down and put my head between my legs now. I think I am getting faint. We apparently actually agree about something! LOL!! :)

I hope that wasn't too long-winded for you! ;)

[FuXnDajenariht]

i was always intrigued by that.

i think the concept existed but people prolly didn't think it necessary to verbally express it. you either have something or your dont. you go fishing, you catch 3 fish, you eat them, you have no fish. simple

who really knows though. an example i suppose would be like when you have a fully formed idea in your head but your at a loss for the words to articulate your meaning. i for one always struggle with ways to properly convey my thoughts to people. alot of times it the words to describe it come out way less elegantly than the way it appeared in my mind.

this is way OT but i was always interested in the origin of language. how it came into being from the first attempts we humans made in trying to describe and explain the objective world around us, to articulating abstract thoughts, and how it basically evolved over our collective existence. how each unique culture shapes and makes use of it etc etc....

its such a complex thing when you think about it. it would seem to require a genius level IQ to even come up with the basic concept of language.

anyone know any good books investigating that?

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi FuXnDajenariht,

I have considered this myself. I have considered that speech/words are what create for us the sense of time. It seems that because our thoughts are expressed in a linear fashion they create a sense of time.

If you introspect into your mind you may notice that your thoughts do not actually occur linearly until they are translated into words. You must train your mind to perceive at the level prior to thinking in words in order to perceive this pure thought. This type of thinking is instantaneous; thoughts occur all at once, at the same time in what I call "The Fog of Knowing". The act of translating the thought into words creates time.

Conceivably if two minds could directly communicate without words, then thought transference would be instantaneous. If this instantaneous thought transference occurred then one might not be able to distinguish between their own thoughts and the thoughts of others because all thoughts would occur at once and we would perceive them at once. This condition is the experience that everything is ONE. The ONE or non-dual condition is when we experience no separation between phenomena. When thought is instantaneous there are no barriers and there is only Oneness. So individuality is actually a condition that requires artificial barriers to be constructed in order for each individual to distinguish their own self from other selves. I speculate that one of the artificial constructs is words.

At least that is my rudimentary speculation on the matter. I haven't actually ironed out the details yet, but I am working on it.