Protestantism

» paper_turtle - Dogmatism & Buddhism

In response to A good morning posted by Migisi:

Another excerpt from the source cited in message #1:

(not italicized to make it easier to read)

The appearance of a variety of schools of Buddhism marked the entrance of dogmatism into Buddhism and dependence on authoritative interpretations. Today, different schools of thought have arisen in Buddhism due to the unquestioning acceptance of "authoritative" interpretations of the scripture. This new dogmatism goes against the non-dogmatic spirit of early Buddhism, and is therefore the beginning of degeneration. It is important to emphasize that this dependence on authorities and belief rather than on understanding for oneself, is to be regarded as a degeneration of Buddhist practice rather than progress. It is a natural human weakness to depend on others rather than to rely on oneself. But the aim of Buddhism is to overcome this weakness through the practice of Buddhism. Dependence on authority is inconsistent with Buddhist scripture.

[end of quote]

============

I think much the same could be said for Christianity. When we insist there is one, and only one, way to believe (or interpret scripture) we abdicate the responsibility to figure things out for ourselves.
.
In addition, we may find it easy to be deliberately blind to some point of truth simply because it doesn't fit in with what our belief system *dictates.*
.
Not only that, if we try to force our minds and spirits into someone else's way of thinking we do violence to ourselves. We deny our own reality. We punish ourselves for being who we are--and how we were born.
.
Understanding comes through interaction with the world around us. Belief (as in an article of faith) comes from an intellectual exercise which may or may not involve interaction with the outer world. Understanding leads to inner transformation. Belief in dogma leads to external acts, very often intended to demonstrate to others how "holy" we are.

peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» Brother_Jones - the cross and the lotus

In response to Dogmatism & Buddhism posted by paper_turtle:

There are some similarities in the teachings of Christ and Buddha but it doesn't seem even remotely similar in the idea of making a covenant with God.

C.S. Song writes:
...the cross and the lotus seem to have little in common, at first sight at any rate. The lotus springs from the surface of the water. When the wind blows and the water moves, the lotus also moves. It seems in perfect harmony with nature around it. In short, it gives the appearance of being at peace with itself. In contrast, the cross strikes out powerfully, painfully, and defiantly from the earth. It penetrates space and is incongrous with nature. The lotus appeals to our aethetic feelings, whereas the cross is revolting to the eyes of the beholder. The lotus is soft in texture and graceful in shape, while the cross is hard and harsh. The lotus moves with nature, whereas the cross stands ruggedly and tragically out of the barren earth. The lotus distinguishes itself in gentleness, while the cross is the epitome of human brutality. The lotus beckons and the cross repels. Indeed, what has the cross to do with the lotus? They represent two entirely different spiritualities which seem to be totally incompatible. They seem to have nothing in common.

Song does go on his book about what they do have in common after he sets the stage for the problem of suffering in such different cultures.
C.S. Song from Third Eye Theology; Theology in Formation in Asian Settings, 1990, p. 109.

i am just an oldtimer for the Lord.

-- posted by Brother_Jones

» paper_turtle - cross & lotus/symbolism

In response to the cross and the lotus posted by Brother_Jones:

Brother Jones,

Perhaps you missed it, but in the first message in this thread I made a very gentle and quiet request:
.
It would be nice, in discussing these ideas, if we could stick to *just* the ideas **as they are presented** . . . .
.
In light of that, and what has been presented in the thread before your message, the quote feels almost brutal--definitely jarring. It would have been more in keeping with what I hoped for had you included the quote talking about what Buddhism and Christianity have in common--and that is quite a bit.
.
In Buddhism, the lotus symbolizes:
.
purity,
.
transcendence,
.
the unity of the natural world--earth, air, fire, and water in one plant, and
.
the blossoming forth of good deeds done out of liberation from suffering, and in the hope of liberating others from suffering.
.
The stem symbolizes the practice of Buddhism's Eight-Fold Way (which is briefly explained in the article I've been quoting)
.
The stem raises out of the water in the same way Buddhism raises the mind above the mud of suffering (or materialism).
.
The stem passes through the water of experience.
.
The lotus blossom rises above the water, rather than resting on it--Buddhism is not attached to the water of life, but rises above it.

The human heart is like an unopened lotus. When the virtues of Buddhism develop, the lotus blossoms.
.
The white lotus is the symbol of spiritual perfection
.
The red lotus is the symbol for purity of heart, compassion, love.
.
The blue lotus is a symbol for wisdom.
.
The pink lotus is the symbol for Buddha himself.
.
When I think of the symbolism of the lotus in relation to Christianity I am reminded that God's love passes through the water of human life, and raises his children above the "mud" of worldliness.
.
I remember that the natural world is entrusted to humankind, and we are called to live in unity with it, and be good steewards of its gifts.
.
I remember that God's love causes human hearts to blossom.
.
.
This thread is not intended as a place for the debate of doctrinal points. It is not intended as a place to "defend the faith." I am hoping people will respond with *personal* thoughts--their *own* words, thoughts, feelings, not what they think they "ought" to say. That would be quite a break from Suite tradition, wouldn't it?
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» paper_turtle - The Purpose of Scripture in Buddhism

In response to Dogmatism & Buddhism posted by paper_turtle:

Another quote from the article mentioned in message #1:

============

During the time of the Buddha, the teachings served only as a guide or aid to thinking and not as an authority to be believed on faith. Even now, the scripture is not meant to be believed on faith. It is a thing to be understood using one's own intelligence, and tested in the crucible of one's own experience. The Buddha said, "Live with yourself as lamp, yourself as refuge and no other refuge; live with Dhamma [Dharma] as lamp, Dhamma as refuge and no other refuge." The word "Dhamma" here means, in a way, the teaching of the Buddha, but it also means one's own experience. This is because, the teaching of the Buddha only points to one's own experience. It is like flashing a light in the darkness, for those with eyes to see the path for themselves. It is not like giving a helping hand to a blind person who does not see where he is being led.
.
The Buddhist scripture helps a person to lead a good life, because it helps a person to decide for himself what is good and bad, by laying the facts before him. But the scripture does more. It shows a person how to do good, and even how to become good, the two being not the same. "Doing good" means an external goodness whereas "becoming good" means an inner transformation.
.
[end of quoted section]
.
============
.
This is my approach to the Bible. I read it for understanding of how to live in a way which entails both being good and becoming good.
.
I see that when Jesus taught the people, he simply presented the facts and let people figure it out for themselves. He spoke in parables so that people would HAVE to think about what he meant.
.
And, because we are creatures of free will, he did NOT tell us what we MUST think.
.
What I learn in the Bible IS tested in my daily life. I learn that a soft answer does indeed turn away wrath. I learn that forgiveness heals me and the person I forgive. And, as Kurt Vonnegut used to say, so it goes.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» Brother_Jones - cross & lotus/symbolism

In response to cross & lotus/symbolism posted by paper_turtle:

Perhaps you missed it, but in the first message in this thread I made a very gentle and quiet request:

Yes, I understand. I was simply attempting to lay some groundwork before trying to make some comparisons with Buddhism. I have spent some time on the subject and my conclusions are probably much different than yours on how Buddhism can be considered a philosophy but not a religion. But this will be my only attempt to answer your post in this thread because you are not wanting discussion of any controversy or debate. I can understand your thought process, but I have some difficulty with your choice of where to start this thread. It would seem more appropriate in another site other than Protestantism.

i am just an oldtimer for the Lord.

-- posted by Brother_Jones

» paper_turtle - cross & lotus/symbolism

In response to cross & lotus/symbolism posted by Brother_Jones:

I have some difficulty with your choice of where to start this thread. It would seem more appropriate in another site other than Protestantism.
.
Take a look at the list of topics for discussion on this Protestantism page. My thread doesn't seem nearly as divergent from spirituality as some of those listed.
.
I didn't call Buddhism a religion. I simply said there are similarities between Christianity, and much of what Buddhism says reflects what I, as a Christian, believe. The implication was/is that Buddhism contains wisdom which could be applied to living a spiritual life--regardless of what path one might follow. The point is the *wisdom,* not the label.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle
.

-- posted by paper_turtle

» pink101 - Judging Others

In response to cross & lotus/symbolism posted by Brother_Jones:

.
I thought you had turned over a new leaf.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brother_Jones - Judging Others

In response to Judging Others posted by pink101:

I thought you had turned over a new leaf.

Not sure what you are referring to. In a perfect world even your comment breaks the harmony of Paper Turtle's train of thought. I'm trying to play by the rules she put in place. My opening comments were from a well respected somewhat liberal theologian who has written quite a bit about the similarity of the lives of Jesus and Buddha. I was going to get to that part, but I'm never sure what I might say that falls into the category of debate which translates into judgement for you. Maybe I haven't changed all that much.

i am just an oldtimer for the Lord.

-- posted by Brother_Jones

» pink101 - Sorry

In response to Judging Others posted by Brother_Jones:
.
I guess I read something in to your post that you hadn't implied but that I inferred.
.
Sorry.
.
But, these threads are pretty broad based. The participants have been hangin around here for several years. You can't expect them to stop interacting just because the management has deactivated so many forum sites.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brother_Jones - Sorry

In response to Sorry posted by pink101:

Maybe it would help somewhat if I simply shared some of the quotes from the original article.

The practice of religion, for the Buddhist, is therefore not a static state of being good and obedient to God, but a dynamic process of growth, which is becoming "God.@

Is this the wisdom we should seek? Or is there another?

i am just an oldtimer for the Lord.

-- posted by Brother_Jones