Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

The Newly Found Book Of Judas


Amanda

Recommended Posts

It's great having Jun as an attack expert...

 

Have a chocolate drop :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 161
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Grandpa Harley

    56

  • Amanda

    39

  • Jun

    38

  • NotBlinded

    16

It's great having Jun as an attack expert...

 

Have a chocolate drop :)

 

No, no attack. Just facts.

 

An intermingling of the two practices can't be ruled out. But the author has no idea of what he's talking about.

 

The chocolate will melt in my porridge! It's breakfast time now. :HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's great having Jun as an attack expert...

 

Have a chocolate drop :)

 

No, no attack. Just facts.

 

The chocolate will melt in my porridge! It's breakfast time now. :HaHa:

 

One of the most dangerous weapons in the world is a fact...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that the Buddha said that we must always have doubt, we should doubt everything and search out the truth for ourselves. We must doubt what books, scriptures, teachers - everyone says. Doubt is healthy for the mind, through doubt we find our own way.

 

And then there is "doubting Thomas." He doubted everything told to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really... that's only in the gospel of John, the author of which hated Thomas with a vengeance

 

I think you may enjoy the Gospel of Thomas, btw...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really... that's only in the gospel of John, the author of which hated Thomas with a vengeance

 

I think you may enjoy the Gospel of Thomas, btw...

 

I stand corrected then, thanks Gramps. I do have a copy of that, just haven't had the inclination to read it yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really... that's only in the gospel of John, the author of which hated Thomas with a vengeance

 

I think you may enjoy the Gospel of Thomas, btw...

 

I stand corrected then, thanks Gramps. I do have a copy of that, just haven't had the inclination to read it yet.

It's not much of a read...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

".......akin to a Shin myokonin, a Zen Master, or even Shakyamuni Buddha himself" - The problem is that here we have two VERY DIFFERENT teachings presented as if they were one! Sakyamuni's (the Buddha) teachings and the teachings of Zen can in NO WAY be compared to Shin Buddhism (Shin myokonin).

 

The Shin Buddhist believes that Buddha is a god and resides in a heaven (the Pure Land). Shin Buddhism teaches that one must NOT RELY UPON ONE'S OWN POWER, but upon the power of the Buddha (as a god) to save one. This is achieved through PRAYING to the Buddha and chanting the nembutsu - "Namu Amida Butsu" - Praise Be To Buddha.

 

Pure land Buddhism is the biggest bane of Buddhism. It turns around the teachings of the Buddha and is responsible for all the religious, pray to a god rubbish that people come to think Buddhism is about.

Jun, then perhaps these teachings are incorporating the two (amongst other teachings) in that god is within us, and must work through us. Further, this kingdom of god within us (the pure land) we must call to come out of us to manifest here on earth so that this heaven (the pure land) and earth become one.

 

Further, these NT teachings are about one's own power... in ye too are gods, to think it not robbery to be equal to god, that god is within us and must work through us. Praying in the NT is to go within one's self, to meditate on the best solutions. Sometimes the answer is to view the 'problem' a different way.

Shin Buddhism is the teachings of Christianity grafted onto the teachings of the Buddha. This occured in Southern India and Western China around the first century - at the same time we find early Assyrian Christian influence in China.

 

I can see how some mingling went on at this time. It seems to be what has happened throughout time.

 

".........to have an insight into and awakened to oneself in an intuitive and non-dualistic sense." - Between the 4th century BCE and the 5th century CE we have the Greco-Buddhist influence, the Helenistic-Buddhist syncretism that influenced the artistic and notional development of Buddhism.

There are teachings in the NT that I think are before the 4th century that are non-dualistic. As sweet water and bitter water can not come from the same fountain. Other places non-dualism is endorsed.

 

BTW, that site I referenced is by far amongst many, many, many that are inclined to suggest that Jesus was either Buddhist, or that he was greatly influenced by it. If nothing more, I think these teachings attributed to him are paving the way for it. It would not be an easy task to bring the eastern thought to the middle east and the west at that time... obviously. Perhaps a bit difficult now too... :shrug:

 

It seems if we could all agree on at least a form of Buddhism, it would diminish a lot of wars. I have heard that Buddhism has never had a war in its name. Is that true?

"Jesus, in this gospel, speaks of enlightenment, the same type that is taught by Shakyamuni Buddha, Shin teachers and Zen Masters." - Shin Buddhists do not seek enlightenment, they seek to be "reborn" in the "Pure land." The author clearly has no experience in the practice of Buddhism.

I could see to a certain degree that every time someone is enlightened, we are reborn more into the "Pure land." Although, I will say that I do see a strong vein of reincarnation in the biblical teachings. So, yes we are reborn every time we are enlightened, and also... every time we are reincarnated, hopefully we are collectively closer to a "Pure land" too. I thought the Dali Llama believed in reincarnation, as I watched a documentary on how they find the past Dali Llama reincarnated. Don't the Tibbetan Buddhist believe this way too, or are they the same as the Dali Llama?

It's an interpretation, and a slightly strained one... There are similarities between Buddhist and Gnostic thought since both place an emphasis on individual validation and exploration and a distrust of what is 'reality'. There the resemblance ends. The under pinning of Gnostic (Mystic) Judaism, Gnostic Christianity and Sufi Islam is theist. It's trying to find the 'God within'...

Jun, I really don't see that much similarities with Jesus and the Gnostics. I don't know a lot of the Islamic faith either. The book I have read on Suffism doesn't put a lot of emphasis on God, yet I need to read that book again... maybe I will understand it better this time. I really did like it! What I've read about Madeline O'Hare (big in Atheist movement) had a LOT of similarities with the NT, IMO. Heck, I saw a lot of similarities with the Satanic Bible too, except for the strong endoresement of orgies. However, the NT does say that all things are legal unto me. So, perhaps it is the element of 'respect' for all as what is important as we perform our daily lives? :shrug:

 

Thanks again Jun. Gosh, you and NBBTB seem to have it all figured out. :)

 

BTW, although Grandpa Harley, IMO, has a wealth of exposure to a vast amount of information of an incredibly diverse range of topics, I think if you did read the book of Thomas, you'd understand it in a different light than most of us would. It is a short book, with just a list of sayings, not in narrative form... no story, full of deeper insights you (and NBBTB) probably already know and people like me wish we did. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jun, then perhaps these teachings are incorporating the two (amongst other teachings) in that god is within us, and must work through us. Further, this kingdom of god within us (the pure land) we must call to come out of us to manifest here on earth so that this heaven (the pure land) and earth become one.

 

Further, these NT teachings are about one's own power... in ye too are gods, to think it not robbery to be equal to god, that god is within us and must work through us. Praying in the NT is to go within one's self, to meditate on the best solutions. Sometimes the answer is to view the 'problem' a different way.

 

Maybe. :shrug:

 

Perhaps I'm having trouble with the terms "god" and "heaven." It's not something I can equate with.

 

As far as the "Pure land" refered to by Shin Buddhists, they believe that it is an actual place - a realm to which they will be taken at death IF they have achieved the big "E."

 

There's that "E" word. The word I am so reluctant to use as it has been misinterpreted and misused so often. It has come to mean something "otherwordly." It is often described as a state of "bliss" and has gradually become something almost unattainable unless you are to spend your entire life in a monastery, and foresaking the world for that one selfish desire.

 

What is mean't then by the big "E" (enlightenment)? For the Shin Buddhist the Pure Land IS enlightenment. A place reserved for you after you acheive enlightenment. A place to be beamed to where you will meet all those funky looking Bodhisattvas!

 

Enlightenment - nirvana in Sanskrit, nibbana in Pali - etymologically means "blowing out," "extinguishing." Taking hold of this root meaning of the word many have tried to make nonsense of the teaching. Many, including some Buddhists, hold that enlightenment means an extinction equivalent to death, whereupon the cycle of samsara has been broken.

 

That this is not the teaching of enlightenment is quite clear if one reads the language used by the Buddha in the Fire Sermon. The Buddha when he was staying in Gaya gave a sermon which underlies his concept of enlightenment (nirvana).

 

This is the Fire Sermon:

 

"All things, my followers, are on fire. And what, Oh Priests, are all these things which are on fire?

The eye, Oh Priests, is on fire; forms are on fire; eye-consciousness is on fire; impressions received by the eye are on fire; and whatever sensation, pleasant, unpleasant, or indifferent, originates in dependance on impressions received by the type that is also on fire.

The ear is on fire; sounds are on fire; the nose is on fire; odours are on fire; the tongue is on fire; tastes are on fire; the body is on fire; ideas are on fire; and whatever sensation, pleasant, unpleasant, or indifferent, originates in dependance on impression received by the mind, that is also on fire.

And with what are these on fire?

With the fire of passion, say I; with the fire of hatred; with the fire of infatuation; with birth; old age; death, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief, and despair are they on fire.

Perceiving this, Oh Priests, the learned and noble conceives an aversion. And in conceiving this aversion, he becomes divested of passion, and by the absence of passion he becomes free, and when he is free becomes aware that he is free."

 

So in that we have the explanation of what consumes man and makes him unhappy. What makes man unhappy is his falling prey to his passions. These passions prevent man from reaching happiness - nirvana.

 

The moment he is free from the sway of his passions, i.e., he learns to achieve nirvana, mans way to happiness is open to him. Clearly the Buddha did not say that life itself is burning and that death is its extinction. He said passions are on fire. He did not say that the passions must be extinguished completely. He said not to add fuel to the flame.

 

Nirvana (Enlightenment) can NEVER mean extinction. Nirvana means to achieve control over the passions so as to enable one to walk on the path to righteousness. It was not intended to mean anything more.

 

That nirvana is simply another term for a righteous life is made clear also by the Buddha in a talk to Radha.

 

Radha asked, "what for is nirvana?"

"Nirvana means release from passion." replied the Buddha.

"But nirvana, what is the aim of it?"

"Rooted in nirvana, Radha, the righteous life is lived. Nirvana is its goal. Nirvana is its end."

 

Nirvana has come to mean something other than what the Buddha taught. It has come to mean something - esoteric, almost supernatural.

 

The truth however is that EVERYONE IS CAPABLE OF REACHING THIS STATE. It is not the domain of Buddhist monks and priests alone. It is not some right bestowed upon certain deserving individuals. The Buddha never taught anything about being able to enter another realm or dimension upon acheiving release - nirvana.

 

BTW, that site I referenced is by far amongst many, many, many that are inclined to suggest that Jesus was either Buddhist, or that he was greatly influenced by it. If nothing more, I think these teachings attributed to him are paving the way for it. It would not be an easy task to bring the eastern thought to the middle east and the west at that time... obviously. Perhaps a bit difficult now too... :shrug:

 

It seems if we could all agree on at least a form of Buddhism, it would diminish a lot of wars.

 

There is certainly some overlapping of some thought. I doubt however, that "Jesus" ever existed. The Greeks at the time were certainly open to whatever religious or philosophical teachings they encountered. It was the Greeks who were responsible for the first images of the Buddha and that is the reason why the Buddha is often seen wearing Helenistic robes rather than the Indian ones and why he has a halo as do Christian images.

 

No-one can agree on one form of anything. Just as there are different cults sects of Christianity, so are there different sects of Buddhism. Some are closer to the original teachings than others. Some are nothing more than Buddhism by name only.

 

I have heard that Buddhism has never had a war in its name. Is that true?

 

Er, no. That is not entirely true. Gramps and I discussed this here a couple of weeks ago. I can't remember which thread it was in. Have a little dig. This is my area of interest - martial culture and hoplology - so I could go on for days, best not to get me started! :HaHa:

 

I could see to a certain degree that every time someone is enlightened, we are reborn more into the "Pure land." Although, I will say that I do see a strong vein of reincarnation in the biblical teachings. So, yes we are reborn every time we are enlightened, and also... every time we are reincarnated, hopefully we are collectively closer to a "Pure land" too. I thought the Dali Llama believed in reincarnation, as I watched a documentary on how they find the past Dali Llama reincarnated. Don't the Tibbetan Buddhist believe this way too, or are they the same as the Dali Llama?

 

See above about that famous "E" word. As a Buddhist I do not believe in reincarnation. This seems to be a re-occuring theme on this forum. Reincarnation is NOT a Buddhist concept and Buddhists DO NOT believe in reincarnation. Do a search for Gramps and my discussion on Tibetan Buddhism a couple of weeks back. The Dalai Lama and his Tibetans have their very own brand of "Buddhism." I hesitate to call it that at all, don't get me started on that! :thanks:

 

Jun, I really don't see that much similarities with Jesus and the Gnostics. I don't know a lot of the Islamic faith either. The book I have read on Suffism doesn't put a lot of emphasis on God, yet I need to read that book again... maybe I will understand it better this time. I really did like it! What I've read about Madeline O'Hare (big in Atheist movement) had a LOT of similarities with the NT, IMO. Heck, I saw a lot of similarities with the Satanic Bible too, except for the strong endoresement of orgies. However, the NT does say that all things are legal unto me. So, perhaps it is the element of 'respect' for all as what is important as we perform our daily lives?

 

Thanks again Jun. Gosh, you and NBBTB seem to have it all figured out.

 

BTW, although Grandpa Harley, IMO, has a wealth of exposure to a vast amount of information of an incredibly diverse range of topics, I think if you did read the book of Thomas, you'd understand it in a different light than most of us would. It is a short book, with just a list of sayings, not in narrative form... no story, full of deeper insights you (and NBBTB) probably already know and people like me wish we did. :)

 

I confess to knowing NOTHING about the gnostics.

 

Ah, the Satanic Bible. That's actually a good read. Anton LaVey's works were the first I got my hands on back in '92 when I decided I'd had enough of the Jesus cult and headed to Japan.

 

I can't speak for "NotBlinded," but I certainly do not have it all figured out. If I did that would be pretty damn boring! :thanks: I am always open to other opinions and teachings. Take what I say here as a grain of salt and doubt all that I say until you have verification that what I say is true. And if you find something that I have said is wrong or could do with another way of looking at it - please tell me. I hate to think I'm right about everything. We are ALL, ALWAYS students.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could use the word 'awake' instead of enlightened... I personally use the phrase 'got the Joke' but that's my own shorthand...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could use the word 'awake' instead of enlightened... I personally use the phrase 'got the Joke' but that's my own shorthand...

 

Yes, as often people do. However, I was trying to explain the actual etymology of the word and why it has been transformed into something else. I like that Gramps - 'Got the Joke" is cool!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, when I said that Thomas isn't 'much of a read' I meant it's not that major investment of time. Rather like the Bhagvagad Gita, it's nothing that one can't polish off pretty quickly...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, when I said that Thomas isn't 'much of a read' I meant it's not that major investment of time. Rather like the Bhagvagad Gita, it's nothing that one can't polish off pretty quickly...

 

Oh cool, thanks. I read the Gita in a week, back when I had more time to read books. Probably take two these days. :HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did the Gita in an afternoon... I think Thomas took me less time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did the Gita in an afternoon... I think Thomas took me less time

 

800 odd pages in an afternoon, that's impressive! The copy I have is in Sanskrit, and back when I read it I hadn't yet studied Sanskrit fully. Still, 800 pages in an afternoon!

 

My favourite verse is from Chapter 3, Karma Yog -

 

Lord Krishna explains to Arjuna that everyone has to perform their duty, no one can escape or relegate from his or her responsibility. However, it is utterly necessary to perform action without attachment. Moreover, ordinary people take inspiration from actions of great men, there for even the realized one should continue to perform their part. On Arjuna's question about the cause of sin, Lord Krishna explains that material desire, anger and lust are the one which leads to sinful acts and the only remedy is to control one's mind.

 

This is exactly as the Buddha explained - without the use of the term "sin."

 

(I had posted some Sanskrit here with the translation, but this forum couldn't display it, oh well, no-one would care much anyhow I guess except me)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the Mahabharata, not the Gita...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the Mahabharata, not the Gita...

 

Nope, that's from the Gita. Among the principal works and stories that are contained in the Mahabharata -

 

  • Bhagavad Gita (Krishna coveys the purpose of being and the Prapanja Rahasya literally the Earthly secret to grief ridden Arjuna. Anusasanaparva.)
  • Damayanti (or Nala and Damayanti, a love story. Aranyakaparva.)
  • Krishnavatara (the story of Krishna, the Krishna Lila, which is woven through many chapters of the story)
  • An abbreviated version of the Ramayana. Aranyakaparva.
  • Rishyasringa (also written as Rshyashrnga, the horned boy and rishi. Aranyakaparva.)
  • Vishnu sahasranama (the most famous hymn to Vishnu, which describes His 1000 names; Anushasanaparva.)

From Wiki.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the Gita is just before the war in the Mahabharata... it's tiny compared to the work that contains it.

 

I see where I got the mix up... you said 800 pages... the Gita isn't 800 pages :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the Gita is just before the war in the Mahabharata... it's tiny compared to the work that contains it.

 

Another favourite of mine is chapter 16 (or 15 I can't remember).

 

The deluded believe that to gratify the senses is the prime necessity of human civilisation. Thus until the end of life their anxiety is immeasurable. Bound by a network of hundreds of thousands of desires and absorbed in lust and anger.

 

I see where I got the mix up... you said 800 pages... the Gita isn't 800 pages

 

*EDIT*

The Gita is 18 chapters, 150 pages or thereabouts. oops! Yes the Mahabharata makes it a large volume, 866 pages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's that "E" word. The word I am so reluctant to use as it has been misinterpreted and misused so often. It has come to mean something "otherwordly." It is often described as a state of "bliss" and has gradually become something almost unattainable unless you are to spend your entire life in a monastery, and foresaking the world for that one selfish desire.

The desire to be desire free! :D

 

Enlightenment - nirvana in Sanskrit, nibbana in Pali - etymologically means "blowing out," "extinguishing." Taking hold of this root meaning of the word many have tried to make nonsense of the teaching. Many, including some Buddhists, hold that enlightenment means an extinction equivalent to death, whereupon the cycle of samsara has been broken.

I was just reading a little bit about that myself. (Please correct what I say next) All it means basically is that if you hold your breath, you will die. It's just saying to let it go and stop clinging to things. Whatever happens, happens. If one can accept that whatever life brings is perfectly all right, there is nothing to worry about.

 

That this is not the teaching of enlightenment is quite clear if one reads the language used by the Buddha in the Fire Sermon. The Buddha when he was staying in Gaya gave a sermon which underlies his concept of enlightenment (nirvana).

 

This is the Fire Sermon:

 

"All things, my followers, are on fire. And what, Oh Priests, are all these things which are on fire?

The eye, Oh Priests, is on fire; forms are on fire; eye-consciousness is on fire; impressions received by the eye are on fire; and whatever sensation, pleasant, unpleasant, or indifferent, originates in dependance on impressions received by the type that is also on fire.

The ear is on fire; sounds are on fire; the nose is on fire; odours are on fire; the tongue is on fire; tastes are on fire; the body is on fire; ideas are on fire; and whatever sensation, pleasant, unpleasant, or indifferent, originates in dependance on impression received by the mind, that is also on fire.

And with what are these on fire?

With the fire of passion, say I; with the fire of hatred; with the fire of infatuation; with birth; old age; death, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief, and despair are they on fire.

Perceiving this, Oh Priests, the learned and noble conceives an aversion. And in conceiving this aversion, he becomes divested of passion, and by the absence of passion he becomes free, and when he is free becomes aware that he is free."

 

So in that we have the explanation of what consumes man and makes him unhappy. What makes man unhappy is his falling prey to his passions. These passions prevent man from reaching happiness - nirvana.

That was very 'enlightening' Jun. :HaHa:

 

Here is that sense of holding on to things isn't it?

 

It's ironic that the minute one lets go of everything, how much more they seem to have what they desired all along, inner peace. I think this is the feeling that people have that led them to create an image of "God". But once they do that, they begin the clinging process over by seeking something permanent in a universe that is in constant movement.

 

The moment he is free from the sway of his passions, i.e., he learns to achieve nirvana, mans way to happiness is open to him. Clearly the Buddha did not say that life itself is burning and that death is its extinction. He said passions are on fire. He did not say that the passions must be extinguished completely. He said not to add fuel to the flame.

Indeed. It would be adding fuel to the fire to have a passion about being passion free.

 

Nirvana (Enlightenment) can NEVER mean extinction. Nirvana means to achieve control over the passions so as to enable one to walk on the path to righteousness. It was not intended to mean anything more.

 

That nirvana is simply another term for a righteous life is made clear also by the Buddha in a talk to Radha.

 

Radha asked, "what for is nirvana?"

"Nirvana means release from passion." replied the Buddha.

"But nirvana, what is the aim of it?"

"Rooted in nirvana, Radha, the righteous life is lived. Nirvana is its goal. Nirvana is its end."

 

Nirvana has come to mean something other than what the Buddha taught. It has come to mean something - esoteric, almost supernatural.

 

The truth however is that EVERYONE IS CAPABLE OF REACHING THIS STATE. It is not the domain of Buddhist monks and priests alone. It is not some right bestowed upon certain deserving individuals. The Buddha never taught anything about being able to enter another realm or dimension upon acheiving release - nirvana.

It just 'feels' like a different realm maybe because we are so used to clinging to our desires. It's no wonder that the new soon wears off and we must go find something else to achieve that feeling again. Nothing is permanent...

 

See above about that famous "E" word. As a Buddhist I do not believe in reincarnation. This seems to be a re-occuring theme on this forum. Reincarnation is NOT a Buddhist concept and Buddhists DO NOT believe in reincarnation. Do a search for Gramps and my discussion on Tibetan Buddhism a couple of weeks back. The Dalai Lama and his Tibetans have their very own brand of "Buddhism." I hesitate to call it that at all, don't get me started on that! :thanks:

The reincarnation idea, I've read, could be understood as not clinging on to the past so that when you walk through the door after leaving, you are a different person. The past dies to the present (inwardly).

 

I can't speak for "NotBlinded," but I certainly do not have it all figured out. If I did that would be pretty damn boring! :thanks: I am always open to other opinions and teachings. Take what I say here as a grain of salt and doubt all that I say until you have verification that what I say is true. And if you find something that I have said is wrong or could do with another way of looking at it - please tell me. I hate to think I'm right about everything. We are ALL, ALWAYS students.

Oh lord no! I am wrong many, many times. That is a good thing, IMO. I love to be reading a book or words here and then go :Doh: , that's what the heck they meant!

 

I'm just a baby when it comes to Buddhism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"...s that sense of holding on to things isn't it?"

 

By George I think you've got it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"...s that sense of holding on to things isn't it?"

 

By George I think you've got it...

:clap::Look:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The desire to be desire free!

 

Ha ha.

 

When watching desire, and not acting upon it, you gain control over your actions. You make conscious decisions and enjoy the outcomes greater. You will find desires lose their power over you when you observe them. To watch desire is to take the wind out of it’s sails.

 

All it means basically is that if you hold your breath, you will die. It's just saying to let it go and stop clinging to things. Whatever happens, happens. If one can accept that whatever life brings is perfectly all right, there is nothing to worry about.

 

That's it!

 

It's ironic that the minute one lets go of everything, how much more they seem to have what they desired all along, inner peace. I think this is the feeling that people have that led them to create an image of "God". But once they do that, they begin the clinging process over by seeking something permanent in a universe that is in constant movement.

 

Spot on!

 

Indeed. It would be adding fuel to the fire to have a passion about being passion free.

 

That's right. If one tries too hard, the reason for practice becomes another goal - another desire of itself - you are pushing yourself into unnecessary suffering. A determination to become passion free, is yet another desire then, it becomes a struggle. Simply watch and don't cling.

 

It just 'feels' like a different realm maybe because we are so used to clinging to our desires. It's no wonder that the new soon wears off and we must go find something else to achieve that feeling again. Nothing is permanent...

 

Perhaps so. It is necessary to realise that the practice is not to try to achieve anything. Just to be mindful of what is. Concentration must be firmly established for wisdom to arise. To concentrate the mind is like turning on a switch, and wisdom is the resulting light. Without the switch there is no light. The switch is always there though.

 

The reincarnation idea, I've read, could be understood as not clinging on to the past so that when you walk through the door after leaving, you are a different person. The past dies to the present (inwardly).

 

Mmmm. That's nice. Still, too many get hooked up on this word "reincarnation," it is a Hindu idea, and has no place in Buddhist practice.

 

I'm just a baby when it comes to Buddhism.

 

Hey, me too! Let's go to the park and play on the swings!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sounds like a plan to me.

 

See what I mean about 'The joke'... once you get it you see the 'funny side'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sounds like a plan to me.

 

See what I mean about 'The joke'... once you get it you see the 'funny side'

 

I was asked to visit with some people from the local Ozzy Zen Centre to teach sitting meditation, give a talk on Zen and have a question answer session last month. On my way there I passed a really cool looking new modern playground in a spacious park with nice big Eucalypts and nice flower beds. When I rocked up to the Zen Centre, there were all the practitioners sitting there on their personalised little cushions, in their drab little robes all lined up and surrounded by Japanese scrolls, shoji screens and incense wafting around. It was like I had just landed back in Japan!

 

Why is it that non-Japanese think that in order to practice Zen Buddhism, one has to adopt all the mannerisms of another culture? What's with all the Japanese decoration? Tatami, shoji, speaking Japanese - that's NOT ZEN! That's cultural imitation. Too many mistake the cultural stuff for Zen. Zen is what you make it, it is how you adopt it and adapt it to YOUR life.

 

I made them all take off their robes, put on their shoes and follow me down to the park. They were all hesitant, but followed anyhow - probably expecting some extra miraculous teaching. What did we do? We played on the playground equipment, and enjoyed the atmosphere. Like children again, forgetting all the worries of a busy life and revelling in the moment.

 

My words to them - you are too serious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.