Are Jesus and Buddha brothers?

[itchay]

First off, I would like to ask the readers to have an open mind upon reading this article. You may or may not believe it. I don't claim this to be the only truth. After all, truth is subjective. When I read the thread about Buddhism that had implications of "it" being above all religion, it just didn't sit well with me. I had to satisfy my curiosity. And this is what I came across.
(Special thanks to ryu4192000 for sharing www.catholic.com (http://www.catholic.com))

Kindly read up to the last part.

Thank you.

-------------------------------------------------------
Are Jesus and Buddha Brothers? (http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0505fea1.asp)
If so, there’s a serious family feud.
By Carl E. Olson and Anthony E. Clark


"When you are a truly happy Christian, you are also a Buddhist. And vice versa." So concludes best-selling author and Buddhist monk Thich Hhat Hanh near the end of his popular book Living Buddha, Living Christ.

Some Catholics agree. For example, Jesuit Father Robert E. Kennedy, a Roshi (Zen master), holds Zen retreats at Morning Star Zendo in Jersey City. He states on his web site: "I ask students to trust themselves and to develop their own self-reliance through the practice of Zen." The St. Francis Chapel at Santa Clara University hosts the weekly practice of "mindfulness and Zen meditation." Indeed, the number of Buddhist retreats and workshops being held at Catholic monasteries and parishes is growing.

Similarly, controversial New Testament scholar Marcus J. Borg writes in Jesus and Buddha: The Parallel Sayings, "Jesus and the Buddha were teachers of wisdom," contending that "wisdom is not just about moral behavior, but about the ‘center,’ the place from which moral perception and moral behavior flow." Jesus and Buddha proclaimed a "world-subverting wisdom," Borg writes, "that undermined and challenged conventional ways of seeing and being in their time and in every time." He notes that both men spoke about "the way" and concludes, "Thus both were teachers of the way less traveled. ‘Way’ or ‘path’ imagery is central to both bodies of teaching."

But are these two "ways" really as compatible as Hanh, Kennedy, Borg, and others believe? What similarities and differences are there between the historical persons and teachings of Jesus and Buddha? Can we agree with Hanh that people should be able to have "both the Buddha and Jesus within their life"?

Buddhism Boom

Buddhism is the fourth largest religion in the world, with about 370 million adherents. Although less than 1 percent of Americans identify themselves as Buddhist, interest in this ancient belief system is growing. There are more Buddhist texts in major bookstores than works dedicated to Islam or Hinduism, and there has been a steady stream of articles and books by and about the Dalai Lama in recent years.

Since the 1960s, the influence of Buddhist thought in some Catholic circles has become increasingly evident. After the Second Vatican Council’s call for respectful interreligious dialogue, many Catholics—including some priests and religious—fully embraced the study of Buddhism. Much was made of the "common characteristics" of Catholicism and Buddhism, particularly in the realm of ethics. External similarities (including monks, meditation, and prayer beads) seemed to indicate newly discovered commonalties between the followers of Christ and Buddha. While some edifying dialogue took place, some Catholics mistakenly concluded that Buddhism was just as true as Christianity and that any criticism of Buddhism was merely "triumphalistic."

Today it is not uncommon for Catholic retreat centers to offer classes and lectures on Zen Buddhism, Christ and Buddha, and even "Zen Catholicism." Their bookstores feature titles such as Zen Spirit, Christian Spirit: The Place of Zen in Christian Life; Jesus and Buddha: The Parallel Sayings; and Going Home: Jesus and Buddha As Brothers, wherein comparisons are made between Christian and Buddhist mysticism, at times suggesting that the two are essentially identical in character and intent.

As one self-proclaimed "Christian Buddhist," John Malcomson, explains, "People often ask me how I could think of myself as a Christian Buddhist. The simple answer is that I don’t see God as separate from me." Rather, he states, "God is within me as God is within all things."


Open-Minded Alternative?

Malcomson is just one of a growing number of Christians drawn to Buddhism. In Crossing the Threshold of Hope, John Paul II notes, "Today we are seeing a certain diffusion of Buddhism in the West." What makes this diffusion possible, and why is Buddhism attractive to so many?

Buddhism offers spiritual vitality in the midst of the emptiness of secular life, gives the promise of inner peace, and meets the desire for an explicit moral code. In his classic study Buddhism: Its Essence and Development, Edward Conze writes, "To a person who is thoroughly disillusioned with the contemporary world, and with himself, Buddhism may offer many points of attraction, in the transcending sublimity of the fairy land of its subtle thoughts, in the splendor of its works of art, in the magnificence of its hold over vast populations, and in the determined heroism and quiet refinement of those who are steeped in it."

Another appeal is the non-dogmatic and ostensibly open-minded character of Buddhism. For those who reject the dogmatic, objective claims of Christianity or hold that Christianity should avoid an "exclusive" approach to truth, Buddhism offers an easier alternative. Buddhists teach that they do not practice a religion, a philosophy, or a type of science but rather a way of life that cannot be explained by or contained within any categories used in traditional Western thought. What makes Buddhism so "open-minded," though, is that its teachings are deliberately ambiguous.

Put another way, Buddhism transcends notions of "religion" or "belief" and so can appear compatible with Christianity. In an interview with Beliefnet.com, the Dalai Lama stated, "According to different religious traditions, there are different methods. . . . For example, a Christian practitioner may meditate on God’s grace, God’s infinite love. This is a very powerful concept in order to achieve peace of mind. A Buddhist practitioner may be thinking about relative nature and also Buddha-nature. This is also very useful."

In other words, Christianity and Buddhism are two ways to the same end; Jesus and Buddha are two enlightened teachers who help man to that end. Or, as a reader on a Christian discussion forum stated, "Buddha was just a philosopher who urged men to be selfless. Jesus was just a philosopher who urged men to be selfless. Love is just another word for selfless." Such easy parallels between Christ and Buddha, unfortunately, are misleading and distort the teachings of Christ.


Buddha Basics

Buddha (c. 563–c. 483 B.C.), born Siddhartha Gautama, was the son of an Indian king. Around the age of thirty, he left his privileged life in court to become an ascetic and spent several years traveling and meditating on the human condition, considering especially the reality of suffering. One day, meditating beneath a bodhi tree, he became enlightened (buddha means "enlightened one") and afterward began to teach his dharma, or doctrine, of the Four Noble Truths.

The Four Noble Truths are these:

Life is suffering.
The cause of suffering is desire.
To be free from suffering, we must detach from desire.
The "eight-fold path" is the way to alleviate desire.The eight-fold path consists of right views, right intentions, right speech, and right actions along with livelihood, effort, mindfulness, and concentration.

The final goal of Buddhism is not merely to eradicate desire but to be free of suffering.

Buddha also taught the "three characteristics of being":

All things are transitory.
There is no self or personality.
This world brings only pain and suffering.Based on these characteristics, Buddhism asserts that to accept the existence of anything is to give birth to its opposite (e.g., love and hate, joy and fear, etc.), which results in the duality of "good" and "bad." Nirvana—literally, "extinguishing a flame"—is the extinction of self and the escape from the cycle of reincarnation.

While Buddhism allows belief in an afterlife, such an allowance is called upaya, an expedient means to a real end. Upaya allows belief to exist as a means to an end; all belief, including that of Buddhism, is merely a construction. According to the logic of upaya, Christianity is allowable as a stage toward spiritual progression, leading eventually to the extinction of self, or nirvana.

The term dharma is difficult to define. One meaning implies the teachings of Buddha or doctrine/law. Ultimately, though, all dharma is provisional; it is simply a means that is without real meaning. Peter Harvey, in his Introduction to Buddhism, says that "one dharma cannot ultimately be distinguished from another: the notion of the ‘sameness’ of dharmas. Their shared ‘nature’ is ‘emptiness’ (sangata). As the Heart Sutra says, ‘Whatever is material shape, that is emptiness, and whatever is emptiness, that is material shape.’" In other words, dharma is itself illusory.

Sometimes it is said that Buddhism is atheistic, yet Buddhism is not interested in the question of God, so it is more accurate to describe it as practically atheistic or simply agnostic. Buddhism "works" whether or not there is a God. A Buddhist allows others to believe in God or gods, but such beliefs are merely convenient means to the final end, which has nothing to do with God or gods.

"God is neither affirmed nor denied by Buddhism," wrote the Trappist monk Thomas Merton in Mystics and Zen Masters, "insofar as Buddhists consider such affirmations and denials to be dualistic, therefore irrelevant to the main purpose of Buddhism, which is emancipation from all forms of dualistic thought." This is captured well in the sutras (scriptures), which state that to escape desire one must "not become attached to existence nor to non-existence, to anything inside or outside, neither to good things nor to bad things, neither to right nor wrong." In Buddhism, all distinctions must be extinguished; even enlightenment has no definite nature.


What’s the Purpose?

Despite many external similarities, Buddhist meditation and contemplation is quite different from orthodox Christianity. Buddhist meditation strives to "wake" a person from his existential delusions. "Therefore, despite similar aspects, there is a fundamental difference" between Christian and Buddhist mysticism, writes Pope John Paul II. "Christian mysticism . . . is not born of a purely negative ‘enlightenment. ’ It is not born of an awareness of the evil that exists in man’s attachment to the world through the senses, the intellect, and the spirit. Instead, Christian mysticism is born of the revelation of the living God" (Crossing the Threshold of Hope).

The Buddhist mystic seeks absorption into an impersonal whole, looking to rid himself of desire and suffering. The Christian mystic, on the other hand, desires neither the loss of personality nor an impersonal oneness with all but a deep and abiding communion with the Triune and personal God.

Jean Cardinal Daniélou, known for his study of Eastern religions, explains in God and the Ways of Knowing that "mystical knowledge partakes in the life of the Trinity. It is the realization by man of his deepest being, of what God meant to achieve in creating him."

For the Christian mystic, there is an object (the loving and merciful God) and a growth in the salvific life of grace, leading to everlasting life. On the other hand, the Buddhist sutras state that the "categories of everlasting life and death, and existence and non-existence, do not apply to the essential nature of things but only to their appearances as they are observed by defiled human eyes." Buddhism resists existential possibility; Christianity affirms it.

Catholics believe that the Church is the Bride of Christ, the seed of the kingdom of God, and the conduit of God’s grace and mercy in the world. Buddhists believe that church, or sangha, is in the end upaya—nothing more than the expedient means to final extinction.

Rather than the Beatific Vision, Buddhist teaching holds that non-existence is the only hope for escaping the pains of life.

The Catholic Church teaches that although suffering is not part of God’s perfect plan, it can bring us closer to Christ and unite us more intimately with our suffering Lord. Buddhism teaches that suffering must be escaped from; indeed, this is a central concern of Buddhism. Christianity is focused on worshiping God, holiness, and the restoration of right relationships between God and man through the work of Jesus. The Buddhist, on the other hand, is not concerned with whether or not God exists, nor does he offer worship. Instead, he seeks his own nirvana.

Catholicism believes that truth, and the Author of truth, can be known rationally (to a significant yet limited extent) and through divine revelation. In contrast, Buddhism denies existential reality; nothing, including the self, can be proven to exist. As the dharma states: "Things are like illusion; they can be said neither to be existent nor non-existent."


Attracting Hungry Souls

Fr. Romano Guardini, in his classic work The Lord, stated his belief that Buddha would be the greatest challenge to Christ in the modern age. Such an assertion may appear somewhat exaggerated in our age, but Buddhist teachings seriously threaten Christianity’s central doctrines. Because it appears to be peaceful, non-judgmental, and inclusive, its appeal undoubtedly will continue to grow. Buddhism’s refusal to articulate dharma in logical ways and its comfortable insistence on a relativistic approach to knowledge and truth makes dialogue quite difficult. Because it offers a spirituality that is ostensibly free of doctrine and authority, it will attract hungry souls looking for fulfillment and meaning. "For this reason," the Holy Father states, "it is not inappropriate to caution those Christians who enthusiastically welcome certain ideas originating in the religious traditions of the Far East."

Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate (Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions) says, "Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination." It continues, noting that "the Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions" and believes that other religions, in certain ways, "often reflect a ray of that Truth that enlightens all men."

But the document also insists that the Church "proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ ‘the way, the truth, and the life’ (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to himself" (NA 2). While the Council noted that Buddhism may contain a "ray of Truth," it did not endorse appropriation of Buddhist beliefs into Christian practice. Rather, the Council insisted that non-Catholic religions can be fulfilled only through the truths held exclusively by the Catholic faith.

The perennial teachings of the Catholic Church and the Buddhist sangha are inherently incompatible. Whereas God remains completely other, distinct from his creation, higher Buddhist discourse rejects the possibility of any such duality. There can be no Creator/creature distinction in Buddhism.

From an apologetic perspective, dialogue with a Buddhist is hindered almost from the start, as the two great philosophical tools of Christianity—ontolog y and epistemology—are discarded in Buddhist discourse. That is, if existence itself is untenable, how can creation be proven? If creation is untenable, how can God be proven to exist? So it is vital when entering into dialogue with a Buddhist to understand Buddhist objections to Christian beliefs. In the end, we should remember that the Council of Nicaea taught that men must have one thing before truly becoming a member of the body of Christ: faith.

Shortly before the Holy Father’s visit to St. Patrick’s Cathedral in 1979, the Dalai Lama was greeted there. A monsignor in the receiving line recalls his encounter with the Buddhist patriarch: The Dalai Lama approached him, gazed into his eyes, and queried, "Father, do you know the difference between you and me?"

"No, Your Holiness," replied the monsignor.

"You believe in a personal God," the Dalai Lama observed, "and I do not."

This, above all, marks the difference between Christians and Buddhists. Beyond the rhetoric of "peace," "compatibility," and "the way," there remains one profound difference between Buddha and Jesus: Jesus is God; Buddha is not.

.................... .................... .................... .........
Carl E. Olson is editor of IgnatiusInsight.com, author of Will Catholics Be "Left Behind"? and co-author of The Da Vinci Hoax. He holds a master’s in theological studies from the University of Dallas.

Anthony E. Clark is a professor of Asian history at the University of Alabama. His more recent research has centered on East/West religious dialogue.

[may_abe]

:D good question and threads. Para po sa akin, Jesus still exist and for bhudda some gayagaya belief from other friends. Sa palagay ko hindi sila brothers kase, si Jesus iba ang mother..si Bhudda hindi ko pa nakikita in person.

[ryanne81]

Why would you ask questions like that when you have answered it your self.

This, above all, marks the difference between Christians and Buddhists. Beyond the rhetoric of "peace," "compatibility," and "the way," there remains one profound difference between Buddha and Jesus: Jesus is God; Buddha is not.

[hacaya]

pasali po...para sakin ang pinakamalaga sa buhay na tao ay may sarili kang pinaniniwalaan..just respect other's belief para respetuhan ba..peace!

[sweetscrazy]

This, above all, marks the difference between Christians and Buddhists. Beyond the rhetoric of "peace," "compatibility," and "the way," there remains one profound difference between Buddha and Jesus: Jesus is God; Buddha is not.

The MAIN reason why Christians have difficulty understanding Buddhism is because Christians are 'dualists' while Buddhists are 'nondualists'. As the article stated, if you allow the existence of one item (e.g. love) then you allow unknowingly allow the existence of its opposite (e.g. hate). If you believe in an external God then you will naturally allow the existence of an external Satan. If you mentally allow the existence of one nation (e.g. USA) then you allow the existence of other nations (e.g. Phils). The two existences (duality) causes conflict (suffering) when there really is no need for it. If humanity was just one nation then there would be no wars and less suffering.

that's why i wrote this (http://www.timog.com/forum/showthread.php?t=152 26) to give a basic explanation of how nondualists think. By thinking nondualistically, then you can find answers to questions like why do people suffer, how is life formed, what happens after you die, how did Jesus walk on water, how did Mohammad bring rain during the drought, how can the universe expand, etc.

[Stacie Fil]

Itchay,

I know you really wish to share your belief and Im glad as to learn more. One question now here in my mind is that; bhuddist is trying to get away from desire as to get away from suffering. For it is said that desire is the source of suffering.

Yet, how possibly it is to get away from suffering/desire, when the fulfillment of desire is also the way of fulfilling happiness. Don't we all want/ desire to be happy and have a comfortable and peaceful life?


Christianity and Buddhism are two ways to the same end; Jesus and Buddha are two enlightened teachers who help man to that end.

I dont think so, not same end. I think Buddhism prior to Jesus could help man elevate his physical and spiritual level of development only up to a stage where Jesus teaching should begin and go further growth beyond. As you said yourself, "Jesus is God; Buddha is not" Not to discriminate Bhuddism, but I think thats the probable historical fact. For when if Jesus teaching arrive in the east, people will be ready to accept and understand. Almost the same strict level or foundation the Esralites recieved the Ten commandments from Moses. So thier hearts would be ready to recieve the new and higher thought Jesus will bring as he come.


That is, if existence itself is untenable, how can creation be proven? If creation is untenable, how can God be proven to exist?

You see what I meant. Bhuddism find it bleak to grasp God existence. Similar to your title thread question; Are Jesus and Buddha brothers (http://www.timog.com/forum/showthread.php?p=362 631#post362631)? Yes you consider everything and everyone similar in view of dualities, but you forgot or ignore individual uniqueness or level. You forget that even in children within the family, there is an eldest and youngest position. And more in dualities the aspect of + and - , male and female as distinct. How about more the level of cause, creator, parent position. Bhudda emphasize on individual, while Jesus bring the family level.

Whats more burdensome is the idea without creator or intillectual source. Nariyan ka, pero putok sa buho. Di mo alam kung bakit o ano ang dahilan at nariyan ka nga. Ikaw ay tsamba...kahit maliwanag na nakikita mo ang order o kaayusan sa sarili mo. Pag walang isip kase ang may gawa, iba iba ang mga resulta at susunod na resulta dahil walang tamang pattern at sistema na sinusunod. Yung isa pwedeng nasa noo ang ilong at yung iba naman eh nasa pisngi. :eek: Can you imagine that? As if nagbabanggaan lagi ang mga planeta. Lahat disorder ,chaos o distruction at wala ka tiyak na makikita as good, beautiful, in order creations. Ano pang value para maghanap nang peace or contentment kung ikaw mismo distructive by nature dahil wala kang value.



Anyway, hope its a consolation. If you can consider God as the original cause of all things created. Then being present as a resultant being. We are all created beings under one creator. We can say that by birthright God is our original Parent, and all men are brothers.



:)

[Stacie Fil]

The MAIN reason why Christians have difficulty understanding Buddhism is because Christians are 'dualists' while Buddhists are 'nondualists'. As the article stated, if you allow the existence of one item (e.g. love) then you allow unknowingly allow the existence of its opposite (e.g. hate). If you believe in an external God then you will naturally allow the existence of an external Satan. If you mentally allow the existence of one nation (e.g. USA) then you allow the existence of other nations (e.g. Phils). The two existences (duality) causes conflict (suffering) when there really is no need for it. If humanity was just one nation then there would be no wars and less suffering.

that's why i wrote this (http://www.timog.com/forum/showthread.php?t=152 26) to give a basic explanation of how nondualists think. By thinking nondualistically, then you can find answers to questions like why do people suffer, how is life formed, what happens after you die, how did Jesus walk on water, how did Mohammad bring rain during the drought, how can the universe expand, etc.


Thank sweetscrazy for sharing this. Well, not everybody or not all Christian views are like this.

[alexb]

Although less than 1 percent of Americans identify themselves as Buddhist, interest in this ancient belief system is growing. There are more Buddhist texts in major bookstores than works dedicated to Islam or Hinduism, and there has been a steady stream of articles and books by and about the Dalai Lama in recent years.


Hinduism/Buddhism is the platform of the New Age movement. They are categorized as neo-paganism.

[kakkoii_daw]

@itchay,
may conspiracy thread ka na ren ba hehe, uso na talaga ito ah... hmmm... benta ko na kaya globodyne stocks ko... :D

[itchay]

:D good question and threads. Para po sa akin, Jesus still exist and for bhudda some gayagaya belief from other friends. Sa palagay ko hindi sila brothers kase, si Jesus iba ang mother..si Bhudda hindi ko pa nakikita in person.

tama nga naman...magka-iba moms nila :D
Why would you ask questions like that when you have answered it your self.

This, above all, marks the difference between Christians and Buddhists. Beyond the rhetoric of "peace," "compatibility," and "the way," there remains one profound difference between Buddha and Jesus: Jesus is God; Buddha is not.

sori po if nilito ko po kayo...kinopya ko lang kase ang title ng article.
should've made it more specific. :)

pasali po...para sakin ang pinakamalaga sa buhay na tao ay may sarili kang pinaniniwalaan..just respect other's belief para respetuhan ba..peace!

yes, respetuhan lang...walang ungusan. thank you for your input. :)

[itchay]

The MAIN reason why Christians have difficulty understanding Buddhism is because Christians are 'dualists' while Buddhists are 'nondualists'. As the article stated, if you allow the existence of one item (e.g. love) then you allow unknowingly allow the existence of its opposite (e.g. hate). If you believe in an external God then you will naturally allow the existence of an external Satan. If you mentally allow the existence of one nation (e.g. USA) then you allow the existence of other nations (e.g. Phils). The two existences (duality) causes conflict (suffering) when there really is no need for it. If humanity was just one nation then there would be no wars and less suffering.

that's why i wrote this (http://www.timog.com/forum/showthread.php?t=152 26) to give a basic explanation of how nondualists think. By thinking nondualistically, then you can find answers to questions like why do people suffer, how is life formed, what happens after you die, how did Jesus walk on water, how did Mohammad bring rain during the drought, how can the universe expand, etc.

i'd really like to be enlightened on this word, 'nondualist'...
just can't get it right...

if, say, you're nondualist, how would you know you're not in a "suffering" state, but instead in an "enlightened" state? in the accepted definitions, they may not be exact opposites. but in buddhism, they are two existences, from opposite ends...right? wrong?

[sweetscrazy]

i'd really like to be enlightened on this word, 'nondualist'...just can't get it right...
if, say, you're nondualist, how would you know you're not in a "suffering" state, but instead in an "enlightened" state? in the accepted definitions, they may not be exact opposites. but in buddhism, they are two existences, from opposite ends...right? wrong?

First of all 'suffering' and 'hell' is a state of mind. It varies from person to person. For example, to a rich man, having only one meal per day is 'suffering' but to a beggar who has absolutely nothing, the guarantee of having one meal per day is 'happiness'. It is your environment, culture, and upbringing that tells you what suffering and happiness is. God is not bound by culture and upbringing so He does not experience 'suffering' and 'happiness' the same way we do.

The enlightened state is simply the opposite of the 'unenlightened' state or a person who does not know the true nature of God or the Universe. Duality is the nature of the Universe because it is the only way for God to appreciate His perfection (through destabilizing Himself and which creates 'mirrors' of Himself (http://www.timog.com/forum/showthread.php?t=152 26) in the Imperfect form)

If a person is easily affected by duality then he can suffer needlessly. If he is nondualist then, he will not be affected. A good example would be a Taoist story:

An old farmer had been worked his crops for many years. One day his horse ran away. Upon hearing the news, his neighbors came to visit.

"Such bad luck," they said sympathetically.

"Who knows what is good or bad?" the farmer replied.

The next morning the horse returned, bringing with it three other wild horses.

"How wonderful," the neighbors exclaimed.

"Who knows what is good or bad?" replied the old man.

The following day, his son tried to ride one of the untamed horses, was thrown, and broke his leg. The neighbors again came to offer their sympathy on his misfortune.

"Who knows what is good or bad?" answered the farmer.

The day after, military officials came to the village to draft young men into the army. Seeing that the son's leg was broken, they passed him by. The neighbors congratulated the farmer on how well things had turned out

In all cases above, the farmer was nondualist, but the people were dualists. The farmer was not affected by the outcomes while the people felt suffering and happiness. If you put God into the story above (i.e. "Only God knows what is good or bad." said the farmer) then it becomes Karma Yoga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_Yoga), which is a step towards salvation

[KikoyBalayon]

pareho po ba sila surname? kung hindi po eh baka parehong tatay..

[itchay]

Itchay,

I know you really wish to share your belief and Im glad as to learn more. One question now here in my mind is that; bhuddist is trying to get away from desire as to get away from suffering. For it is said that desire is the source of suffering.

Yet, how possibly it is to get away from suffering/desire, when the fulfillment of desire is also the way of fulfilling happiness. Don't we all want/ desire to be happy and have a comfortable and peaceful life?

Anyway, hope its a consolation. If you can consider God as the original cause of all things created. Then being present as a resultant being. We are all created beings under one creator. We can say that by birthright God is our original Parent, and all men are brothers.

:)

thanks for understanding. i also believe that all men are brothers. the article is only to show the fundamentals of the two beliefs, in a catholic perspective. my mind is still open.

indeed, if you take "desire" out of the equation, how will man be able to fulfill his happiness, if he has no desire for it? "desire" is not totally negative.

and this is what i understand so far...
in buddhism, "suffering" is the zero point, and you have to walk the path towards enlightenment.
while in christianity, mankind started as perfect, sinned, suffered, redeemed, and walk the path of righteousness to become happy. "suffering" is just in-between.

[itchay]

@itchay,
may conspiracy thread ka na ren ba hehe, uso na talaga ito ah... hmmm... benta ko na kaya globodyne stocks ko... :D

pareho po ba sila surname? kung hindi po eh baka parehong tatay..

hehehe, andito pala kayong dalawa ha...tag-team talaga kayo ano...seryos mowd pa naman ako...:p

uu, ito ay para masabotahe ang stocks mo, kaks...bitawan mo na yan.:D

at di pa yata uso surname nuong una, kiks...kaya, ayan tuloy, nagkagulo. :D

[adechan]

Since the 1960s, the influence of Buddhist thought in some Catholic circles has become increasingly evident. After the Second Vatican Council’s call for respectful interreligious dialogue, many Catholics—including some priests and religious—fully embraced the study of Buddhism. Much was made of the "common characteristics" of Catholicism and Buddhism, particularly in the realm of ethics. External similarities (including monks, meditation, and prayer beads) seemed to indicate newly discovered commonalties between the followers of Christ and Buddha. While some edifying dialogue took place, some Catholics mistakenly concluded that Buddhism was just as true as Christianity and that any criticism of Buddhism was merely "triumphalistic. "

quoted it from very first

~~ really something very questionable here
Catholicism teachings is really far from the original Christians during the pentecostal time, those time of the disciples
And appeared here more of buddhism? :eek:

Just can't help to shake my head.

And if Jesus and Buddha are brothers, and catholic will grasp it, they should be renewing the Mary's doctrine and prayers "especially on the part of forever virgin"

Just an observation

[Dax]

and this is what i understand so far...
in buddhism, "suffering" is the zero point, and you have to walk the path towards enlightenment.
Magkaiba tayo ng pagkakaintindi itchay san . Based dun sa original post mo, I think: In Buddhism, "suffering" is either + or - , and you have to walk towards 0. Thanks for the interesting article.

[Stacie Fil]

thanks for understanding. i also believe that all men are brothers. the article is only to show the fundamentals of the two beliefs, in a catholic perspective. my mind is still open.

indeed, if you take "desire" out of the equation, how will man be able to fulfill his happiness, if he has no desire for it? "desire" is not totally negative.

and this is what i understand so far...
in buddhism, "suffering" is the zero point, and you have to walk the path towards enlightenment.
while in christianity, mankind started as perfect, sinned, suffered, redeemed, and walk the path of righteousness to become happy. "suffering" is just in-between.

Only to share and give clarification with regards to my small understanding in Christian faith. Mankind didn't started as perfect. If it does, then they should have not failed and sinned. Yes, they should have reach that maturity of hearts and relation to Heavenly Fathers. As children to naturally learn, embody or inherit the nature/character of thier parent. But sadly another force (temptation) derailed them from doing so. Then starts the conflict within and surely, suffering prevail. As history progresses, lossing the connection and getting further away on the side of goodness, evil in man was in greater dominion in almost all aspect of his life. Man in his fogged mind doesn't even know how lost his situation in reality.

Of course, the parental heart of Heavenly Father is crushed, seing His beloved children lost and misirable in their confused state. From that small amount of goodness in man's heart, God untiringly works to envigorate that small spark of love in men through religion.

So the zero point is when after man has realize his fallen ways. Then he should turn back to change his life in the direction of goodness(repent). He had to take responsibility of his past, and thus struggle to regularly trained himself to repel evil and naturally live a pure good living.

After paying all the evil past, its only then he reached the zero point and further constantly live a life without sinning anymore, grow his heart into a parental heart, untill he retire to this physical life.


:)

[ryu4192000]

quoted it from very first

~~ really something very questionable here
Catholicism teachings is really far from the original Christians during the pentecostal time, those time of the disciples
And appeared here more of buddhism? :eek:

Just can't help to shake my head.

And if Jesus and Buddha are brothers, and catholic will grasp it, they should be renewing the Mary's doctrine and prayers "especially on the part of forever virgin"

Just an observation

Hi Adechan. Just want to clarify some points you raised about the article.

I think the reason you arrived on that assumption is because you did not read the whole article. :D It was a very long article (I almost fell asleep :D) , but please read on. The Catholic stand on this issue is declared on the section "Attracting Hungry Souls". The article has a catchy title, but it does not insinuate that Jesus and Buddha are brothers in the literal sense - so there is no connection on the Catholic belief about the Virgin Mary.

The comment you made about the "original Christians during the pentecostal time" is off-topic that perhaps is best discussed on a separate thread.

[ryanne81]

[quote=Stacie Fil;363679....Only to share and give clarification with regards to my small understanding in Christian faith. Mankind didn't started as perfect. If it does, then they should have not failed and sinned.

:)[/quote]

Pasensya na po but I strongly do not agree with that stament.
Please refer to the book of Gensisis and youll see how perfect man was. :)

[KikoyBalayon]

yeah.. that all began when God rested on the seventh day.. then sh*t happened.. :D

[sweetscrazy]

But sadly another force (temptation) derailed them from doing so. Then starts the conflict within and surely, suffering prevail. As history progresses, lossing the connection and getting further away on the side of goodness, evil in man was in greater dominion in almost all aspect of his life. Man in his fogged mind doesn't even know how lost his situation in reality.One of the most basic commandments in all religions is 'Thou shalt not kill' which should apply to ALL living beings and not just humans (ahimsa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa)). But since Jesus said 'what goes out of the mouth is more important' Christians think that this means that they can eat anything and 'kill' animals for food. If so, then why not disregard the Ten commandments all together? In the strictest sense, eating meat is a sin because it violates one Commandment. Without demand, there would be no supply. And then I see Christians preaching 'repent! repent!' while i see them eating meat. Those guys lose credibility instantly :D

The way I interpret Matthew 15: 11 is that Jesus was reffering to the virtue of satya (http://www.yogapeace.com/satya_%28truth%29.ht m). If you analyze the discussion between Jesus' and the Pharisees, it had nothing to do with biology or physical sanitation, but mental purity. To interpret it in the dietary way would be to misinterpret the whole discussion and take things out of context.

halata ba na pino-promote ko ang vegetarianism and healthy eating? :D

[ryu4192000]

One of the most basic commandments in all religions is 'Thou shalt not kill' which should apply to ALL living beings and not just humans (ahimsa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa)). But since Jesus said 'what goes out of the mouth is more important' Christians think that this means that they can eat anything and 'kill' animals for food. If so, then why not disregard the Ten commandments all together? In the strictest sense, eating meat is a sin because it violates one Commandment. Without demand, there would be no supply. And then I see Christians preaching 'repent! repent!' while i see them eating meat. Those guys lose credibility instantly :D

The way I interpret Matthew 15: 11 is that Jesus was reffering to the virtue of satya (http://www.yogapeace.com/satya_%28truth%29.ht m). If you analyze the discussion between Jesus' and the Pharisees, it had nothing to do with biology or physical sanitation, but mental purity. To interpret it in the dietary way would be to misinterpret the whole discussion and take things out of context.

Actually this is one that I don't understand about the dietary part of Buddhism. If you say "ALL living things" doesn't that include plants?

So in the strictest sense Buddhism is also violating it?

[sweetscrazy]

Actually this is one that I don't understand about the dietary part of Buddhism. If you say "ALL living things" doesn't that include plants?
So in the strictest sense Buddhism is also violating it?

When you eat a vegetable, it's still green right? It's still alive. Some ultra-strict Buddhist and Jain monks take only leaves (the original plant is still alive) and do not take root crops.

Jain food (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain_vegetarianism) is the most 'spiritually-correct' of all diets and is also the hardest to follow

[ryu4192000]

When you eat a vegetable, it's still green right? It's still alive. Some ultra-strict Buddhist and Jain monks take only leaves (the original plant is still alive) and do not take root crops.

Jain food (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain_vegetarianism) is the most 'spiritually-correct' of all diets and is also the hardest to follow

Actually, I eat both cooked veggies and fresh ones.

I was wondering what is your take. I don't know but this this seems very strict and is not practical at all.

Jains make considerable efforts not to injure plants in everyday life as far as possible. They admit that plants must be destroyed for the sake of food, but they only accept such violence inasmuch as it is indispensable for human survival, and there are special instructions for preventing unnecessary violence against plants.[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain_vegetarianism#_ note-22) Some Jains don’t eat plants and plant parts that grow underground, such as potatoes, onions, roots and tubers, because tiny life forms are injured when the plant is pulled up and because the bulb is seen as a living being, as it is able to sprout.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain_vegetarianism#_ note-23)

The article said that this form of diet is the "most radical form" and I guess that means it's not widely followed by Hindus or Buddhist.

I cannot know for certain if you are following this diet - but I am guessing you don't.

So does it mean, "in the strictest sense", if you don't follow this you are also losing your credibility in the same way that you say about us Christians who eat meat?

[sweetscrazy]

I don't know but this this seems very strict and is not practical at all.

That's right, it's not practical. That why Buddha taught about the 'Middle Path' for those who cannot do the strict extreme practices.

When living in the world, one must strike a balance between spirituality and world-life. Otherwise, it's better to go to the mountains and practice spirituality there. Buddhists are more flexible than Jains and some Hindus in this regard. Semi-strict practices can help you gain Liberation, while ultra-strict practices can help you gain Salvation.

I cannot know for certain if you are following this diet - but I am guessing you don't.I follow it 60% of the time. If i went to the monastic order then I would follow it 90% of the time :D

So does it mean, "in the strictest sense", if you don't follow this you are also losing your credibility in the same way that you say about us Christians who eat meat?A Chrstian who eats meat does not think of the suffering (http://www.peta.org/) which the animal had to endure (http://www.kfccruelty.com/) just to serve as food. Animals are not only killed, they are also locked up and mutilated. If Christians give such high regard to Jesus 'dying' for them, then they should also note the animals which have 'died' for them to serve as food. Devout Buddhists think about other beings all the time and will only eat meat or root crops after taking all things in consideration.

[Dax]

One of the most basic commandments in all religions is 'Thou shalt not kill' which should apply to ALL living beings and not just humans (ahimsa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa)). sweetcrazy san,

Since napunta ang usapan sa pagpatay ng "living beings", can we include (in the strictest sense) to the list virus and bacteria? Di ba sila living beings? If they are, then does it mean that Buddhists should refrain from cleaning their bodies, brushing their teeth, washing their hands etc. because doing these would kill living beings? :confused:

[sweetscrazy]

can we include (in the strictest sense) to the list virus and bacteria? Di ba sila living beings? If they are, then does it mean that Buddhists should refrain from cleaning their bodies, brushing their teeth, washing their hands etc. because doing these would kill living beings?
sure some sadhus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadhu) actually do that. But that's classified under extreme renunciation, which Buddha said was not necessary to attain liberation (though it does help).

If you allow virus to live, then you risk allowing yourself to die from it, and you would be violating the value of your own life. If you die (one death), then you won't be able to join PETA (http://www.ecorazzi.com/?p=1727) and defend those poor animals (prevent many deaths).

[itchay]

quoted it from very first

~~ really something very questionable here
Catholicism teachings is really far from the original Christians during the pentecostal time, those time of the disciples
And appeared here more of buddhism? :eek:

Just can't help to shake my head.

And if Jesus and Buddha are brothers, and catholic will grasp it, they should be renewing the Mary's doctrine and prayers "especially on the part of forever virgin"

Just an observation

hi, ady,

maybe it was just the writer's intent to acknowledge the current trend, that's why he wrote what he wrote.

this is just my take...of course, at first glance, it seems possible that christianity and buddhism can mix. but as you start to dig deeper, the deeper you go, the clearer it is that these two faiths traverse a parallel road...same direction, but will never meet.

Magkaiba tayo ng pagkakaintindi itchay san . Based dun sa original post mo, I think: In Buddhism, "suffering" is either + or - , and you have to walk towards 0. Thanks for the interesting article.

@dax,

indeed, the article is telling it like that. but i think of it as just the writer's point of view about "suffering". it so happens mine is different. i may have posted the article, but i don't agree with it 100%.

thank you for reading.

[adechan]

hi, ady,

maybe it was just the writer's intent to acknowledge the current trend, that's why he wrote what he wrote.

this is just my take...of course, at first glance, it seems possible that christianity and buddhism can mix. but as you start to dig deeper, the deeper you go, the clearer it is that these two faiths traverse a parallel road...same direction, but will never meet.

thanks :) ~~ great to hear it from you.

[itchay]

One of the most basic commandments in all religions is 'Thou shalt not kill' which should apply to ALL living beings and not just humans (ahimsa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa)). But since Jesus said 'what goes out of the mouth is more important' Christians think that this means that they can eat anything and 'kill' animals for food. If so, then why not disregard the Ten commandments all together? In the strictest sense, eating meat is a sin because it violates one Commandment. Without demand, there would be no supply. And then I see Christians preaching 'repent! repent!' while i see them eating meat. Those guys lose credibility instantly :D

The way I interpret Matthew 15: 11 is that Jesus was reffering to the virtue of satya (http://www.yogapeace.com/satya_%28truth%29.ht m). If you analyze the discussion between Jesus' and the Pharisees, it had nothing to do with biology or physical sanitation, but mental purity. To interpret it in the dietary way would be to misinterpret the whole discussion and take things out of context.

halata ba na pino-promote ko ang vegetarianism and healthy eating? :D

sobrang halata po...pati kapitbahay namin, nahalata kayo. :D

i am, of course, crazy about vegetables. i gulp down a liter of vegetable juice a day, aside from the vegetable viands i devour everyday . but i also can't live without steak, medium-rare. :D

you mentioned about the commandment, 'Thou shalt not kill', and what it means to you.
okay, say, let's consider for one moment that all the people here in this planet are buddhists like you, and all are strict vegetarians like you, what will then be the resultant ecological landscape?

[Dax]

sure some sadhus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadhu) actually do that. But that's classified under extreme renunciation, which Buddha said was not necessary to attain liberation (though it does help). Sugee, may mga ganun pala! :eek:
If you allow virus to live, then you risk allowing yourself to die from it, and you would be violating the value of your own life. If you die (one death), then you won't be able to join PETA (http://www.ecorazzi.com/?p=1727) and defend those poor animals (prevent many deaths).You would have saved more living beings if you allow the virus to live, because they exist by the hundreds of thousands in your body. If you die, then it's just one living being - you. :p Oh by the way, I don't believe in PETA. Watch this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ijLulwUTY) to see why. :)

[alexb]

The ten (10) commandments are categorized in two. Love for God (command 1-4) and love for fellowman (command 5-10).

Therefore, the command "thou shall not kill" applies to killing our fellowmen and not animals.

---------------------------------

Buddhism believes in reincarnation, kaya ayaw nila kumain ng meat ay baka si dead lola iyun.

[Stacie Fil]

One of the most basic commandments in all religions is 'Thou shalt not kill' which should apply to ALL living beings and not just humans (ahimsa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa)). But since Jesus said 'what goes out of the mouth is more important' Christians think that this means that they can eat anything and 'kill' animals for food. If so, then why not disregard the Ten commandments all together? In the strictest sense, eating meat is a sin because it violates one Commandment. Without demand, there would be no supply. And then I see Christians preaching 'repent! repent!' while i see them eating meat. Those guys lose credibility instantly :D

The way I interpret Matthew 15: 11 is that Jesus was reffering to the virtue of satya (http://www.yogapeace.com/satya_%28truth%29.ht m). If you analyze the discussion between Jesus' and the Pharisees, it had nothing to do with biology or physical sanitation, but mental purity. To interpret it in the dietary way would be to misinterpret the whole discussion and take things out of context.

halata ba na pino-promote ko ang vegetarianism and healthy eating? :D

I believe you are absolutely right. Thats why I'm wondering why the discussion was suddenly went to food and later to animal rights?

[sweetscrazy]

I believe you are absolutely right. Thats why I'm wondering why the discussion was suddenly went to food and later to animal rights?
i wanted to show that the teachings of Christianity and Buddhism are the same.

If you die, then it's just one living being - you. :p Oh by the way, I don't believe in PETA. Watch this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ijLulwUTY) to see why. :)

fundamentalism is always wrong in any organization. rather than liberating all animals as PETA envisions, it would be better to give them animal rights.

Buddhism believes in reincarnation, kaya ayaw nila kumain ng meat ay baka si dead lola iyun.
They don't eat meat because it's contrary to non-violence and respect for life, aside from the fact that it's not healthy.

okay, say, let's consider for one moment that all the people here in this planet are buddhists like you, and all are strict vegetarians like you, what will then be the resultant ecological landscape?

First, land use (http://veg.ca/content/view/133/111/) would be improved, secondly, less Greenhouse effect and thirdly, the ecological balance of the oceans would be preserved. There would be better global sustainability (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7060072.stm) and healthier populations in the long-run ;)

[alexb]

Malinaw ang sabi ni Buddha, baka makain daw natin ang ating kamag-anak (re-incarnation), its not about eco-balance...

"Mahamati, I see that living beings are in the transmigration of the six paths, being together in births and deaths, they give birth to and foster each others, and cyclically become fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters of each others; They may be men or women, may be the direct line of descent, may be cousins, affinities, uncles, aunts, sons, daughters, grandsons, and other various relatives of each others; They may also be born in other paths(of animal, ghost, god, and so on.), whether virtuous or evil, they frequently become the relatives of each others. Because of these relationships, I see that all meats eaten by living beings are of their own relatives. Due to the greed for flavors of meats, the living beings circularly eat each others, then they always have the thoughts of hurting each others. Their painful karmas are always increasing, so they are wandering in cycles of births and deaths and unable to escape."

[sweetscrazy]

Malinaw ang sabi ni Buddha, baka makain daw natin ang ating kamag-anak (re-incarnation), its not about eco-balance...

that's only one reason of the DOZENS of reasons why Buddha said a holy person shouldn't eat meat. Again, you're taking things out of context (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_o ut_of_context) by simply taking one passage and without referring to the whole sutra.

The 'eco-balance' reason is covered by:

"Mahamati, if no one eats meat, then no one kills living beings for food. Because there are people who wish to eat meat, if they have no meat to eat they will go everywhere to buy meat, then the others who wish to earn money will kill living beings and sell the flesh to the meat eaters. The killings are for the buyers, thus the buying is the same as the killing. Therefore, meat eating can obstruct the holy Way."

The mental health reason is covered by:

"Meat eating increases hindrances of the body, and produces evil minds; Evil minds produce greed, thus I do not allow meat eating. The greed produced by meat eating can lead one to insobriety, and insobriety produces lustfulness, then one cannot extricate himself from births and deaths."

The virtue reason is covered by:

"Meat eating destroys the merciful heart, obstructs Nirvana and liberation, and violates the teachings of sages, thus I do not allow eating meat. Not eating meat cultivates the pure-heavenly(Brahma) seed and many practice-Ways; Wisdom, richness and nobleness,
all come from not eating meat."

There are sooo many reasons why a person shouldn't eat meat. The full sutra is here (http://www2.fodian.net/old/English/671_16.html). If the Christian reason for eating meat is Matthew 15: 11, i mentioned that Jesus was speaking about spiritual purity and not food. Many Christian sects are vegetarian.

If the person defends meat-eating just because of the good taste, bear in mind that the good taste only last a few seconds while its effects lasts long-term and can affect the rest of your life in the form of heart disease, mental problems, faster aging, less energy, more stress, etc.

[alexb]

that's only one reason of the DOZENS of reasons why Buddha said a holy person shouldn't eat meat. Again, you're taking things out of context (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_o ut_of_context) by simply taking one passage and without referring to the whole sutra.


pinost ko na dati na kaya ayaw kumain ng meat ang buddhist ay baka makain si dead lola, you didnt agree then, but now you agree 100%.

and if you fully agree, then that's not taking it out of context.

sana sumagot ka nang diretso, style yan nang pag-iwas, loopholes, then blame others as "di makaintindi"

-------------------------------------------------------

No man has a right in America to treat any other man "tolerantly" for tolerance is the assumption of superiority. -Wendell L. Willkie

[sweetscrazy]

pinost ko na dati na kaya ayaw kumain ng meat ang buddhist ay baka makain si dead lola, you didnt agree then, but now you agree 100%.

and if you fully agree, then that's not taking it out of context.

nope. i didn't fully agree with you because you implied that the possibility that 'baka makain si dead lola' was either the only reason or the main reason why Buddhists didn't eat meat, which would be false.

if you read the sutras in totality, the reasons for not eating meat due cleanliness and compassion greatly outnumbers the reason of not eating meat due to the possibility of 'eating a dead relative'. Therefore if you conclude that 'kaya ayaw kumain ng meat ang buddhist ay baka makain si dead lola' then it's is equivalent to taking things out of context. :cool:

[alexb]

1 - the demon maya created us because of her insufficient value of existence (she needed to ADD value), but her creation is just an illusion, meaning you and I are illusion. how come the pain & suffering we experience are very real?

2 - the demon maya created us because of her insufficient value of existence, therefore, there is no emotional attachment, no affection toward man, no feelings at all. why should man worship her and ask for her help knowing that we are created only for her selfish motives?

3 - would she hear man's plea and supplication knowing her creation is just an illusion?

4 - if man is just an illusion and all things and experiences are illusion, why should we aspire nirvana when it is also just an illusion? why not just enjoy life to the fullest since at the end there is nothing?

5 - if two (2) people look at an object at the same time and see the same thing, therefore that object is NOT an illusion.

------------------------

No man has a right in America to treat any other man "tolerantly" for tolerance is the assumption of superiority. -Wendell L. Willkie

[Stacie Fil]

Now its about killing, tsk,tsk,tsk?

Don't plants have life too? People talk to them too and right?

Whats so dirty about meat, when plants grows from dirt? Chemically speaking our body is similar to dirt. However handsome or pretty a person is, and whatever food he/she take, imagine the smell/whats inside of digestive system?


Thinking about makain si Lola, seems the same probability. Kung saan sila nabaon or ash na naisaboy, at any time pwedeng may fruit bearing seed/plants na tumubo at lumaki doon.:D

So, what is the relation to; Are Jesus and Buddha brothers? (http://www.timog.com/forum/showthread.php?p=366 005#post366005) :confused: :p

[sweetscrazy]

..but her creation is just an illusion, meaning you and I are illusion. how come the pain & suffering we experience are very real?
the separation of consciousnesses (from each other and from God) is the illusion. Everyone is basically the same in the sense that each wants to be happy and avoid suffering. If you chop off your finger, you may feel pain as your nerves sends impulses to your brain, but if you have a strong mind, you can negate those impulses. It's the same principle used to train soldiers (http://youtube.com/watch?v=se34fciDwrs) and is used by shaolin monks

2 - the demon maya created us because of her insufficient value of existence, therefore, there is no emotional attachment, no affection toward man, no feelings at all. why should man worship her and ask for her help knowing that we are created only for her selfish motives?the 'demon maya' is a product of Shakti which is personified by Kali (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali). To differentiate them, people gave Kali a feminine gender while Shiva a masculine one. In short, Kali is the aspect of God that not only is the Creator but is also the 'maintainer' of Creation (Laws/Mother Nature). Therefore one of her aspects is Karma. Since the Universe is created by Kali, Her presence is more easily perceivable than that of Shiva, which is why older religions tend to worship Her.

Since both Kali and Shiva are 2 aspects of one God, then people who could perceive Her would worship Her to remove Her Illusion. The people who could perceive Shiva would worship Him to fight Maya. People who could perceive neither (i.e. atheistic Buddhists) would simply deny the Illusion.

3 - would she hear man's plea and supplication knowing her creation is just an illusion?since Kali is also God, then yes. There is no major difference in worshipping Shiva (God) or Shakti (Creator) except on the technical part.

4 - if man is just an illusion and all things and experiences are illusion, why should we aspire nirvana when it is also just an illusion? why not just enjoy life to the fullest since at the end there is nothing?
because by attaining nirvana, the illusion is destroyed. Without the illusion, there is only God in His Pure Form-- No more Duality, Maya, Kali, Shakti, nor Creation. A life lived without aspiring for Nirvana / Realization will be a life lived within the Illusion and will have less 'value' than a life lived with Nirvana (having known and experienced the Pure Form of God)

5 - if two (2) people look at an object at the same time and see the same thing, therefore that object is NOT an illusion.it will appear the same if both of them are IN the illusion. It's the same concept as 'The Matrix' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix). Before Neo realized his mind was simply inside a computer, everything seemed normal. But when he realized the Reality that the world was just made up of digits (as in a computer) he was able to manipulate all objects in the world and see things as 1's and 0's. Neo's life gained value after realizing the true nature of his reality was not in the computer but was outside.

[alexb]

the separation of consciousnesses (from each other and from God) is the illusion. Everyone is basically the same in the sense that each wants to be happy and avoid suffering. If you chop off your finger, you may feel pain as your nerves sends impulses to your brain, but if you have a strong mind, you can negate those impulses. It's the same principle used to train soldiers (http://youtube.com/watch?v=se34fciDwrs) and is used by shaolin monks

separation of conciousness is the illusion, therefore we are real, contradictory to your former statements. so the pain and suffering is real. my nerves are real. sabi mo illusion lang.

the 'demon maya' is a product of Shakti which is personified by Kali (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali). To differentiate them, people gave Kali a feminine gender while Shiva a masculine one. In short, Kali is the aspect of God that not only is the Creator but is also the 'maintainer' of Creation (Laws/Mother Nature). Therefore one of her aspects is Karma. Since the Universe is created by Kali, Her presence is more easily perceivable than that of Shiva, which is why older religions tend to worship Her.

Since both Kali and Shiva are 2 aspects of one God, then people who could perceive Her would worship Her to remove Her Illusion. The people who could perceive Shiva would worship Him to fight Maya. People who could perceive neither (i.e. atheistic Buddhists) would simply deny the Illusion.


you did not answer the question...again. kako why, (BAKIT) should man worship your god? an insensitive god who created man for selfish motives. gets na?

you said before your god is shiva + shakti = maya the creator, there was no kali before. people pala is more powerful than god for they gave them genders

since Kali is also God, then yes. There is no major difference in worshipping Shiva (God) or Shakti (Creator) except on the technical part.


I am not asking about worshipping. Explain why would she hear and how to man's pleas.

because by attaining nirvana, the illusion is destroyed. Without the illusion, there is only God in His Pure Form-- No more Duality, Maya, Kali, Shakti, nor Creation. A life lived without aspiring for Nirvana / Realization will be a life lived within the Illusion and will have less 'value' than a life lived with Nirvana (having known and experienced the Pure Form of God)

therefore, nirvana is real, you said everything/all is illusion
"god in pure form", therefore meron siyang UNPURE form. ano yung form na iyon?

it will appear the same if both of them are IN the illusion. It's the same concept as 'The Matrix' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix). Before Neo realized his mind was simply inside a computer, everything seemed normal. But when he realized the Reality that the world was just made up of digits (as in a computer) he was able to manipulate all objects in the world and see things as 1's and 0's. Neo's life gained value after realizing the true nature of his reality was not in the computer but was outside.

therefore, illusion pa rin ang object na yun...merong hindi, merong oo. can you list all that is illusion and all that is real? para malinaw

I have heard about MATRIX having a spiritual intonation, pagan nga lang. Who will get you out of the illusion? Si Neo ay si Morpheus. He needed outside help. He can't do it alone.

[sweetscrazy]

separation of conciousness is the illusion, therefore we are real, contradictory to your former statements. so the pain and suffering is real. my nerves are real. sabi mo illusion lang...therefore, illusion pa rin ang object na yun...merong hindi, merong oo. can you list all that is illusion and all that is real? para malinaw
To understand 'illusion' better, you have to think of The Matrix. Everything in the created Universe is an illusion, except for the consciousness in each sub-sub-atomic particle. In the movie, this was represented by the 1's and the 0's. Everything in the Matrix was digital (made up of 1's and 0's). Likewise, Everything in the Universe is made up of consciousness (Shiva) which Nature (Shakti) converts into solid, gas, heat, light, etc, just like 1's and 0's make up programs in The Matrix.

you did not answer the question...again. kako why, (BAKIT) should man worship your god? an insensitive god who created man for selfish motives. gets na?
Remember that the reason God created the Universe was to add value to Himself. By always thinking of Him, then you do as what God wanted. If you have done your task of adding value to God in the way that He wishes, then there is no more need Him to keep you in the Illusion.

you said before your god is shiva + shakti = maya the creator, there was no kali before. people pala is more powerful than god for they gave them gendersShakti (personified by Kali) is the Creator, Shiva is the Createe, Maya is the resulting Creation.

Shiva is like a huge ball of flour (one big perfect entity). Shakti is the force that smashes the ball of flour to the ground which causes it to burst into billions of tiny flour specks (billions of entities). The resulting mess is Maya.

At the time when this philosophy was taught, writing was not invented yet, so the only way to pass the knowledge from one generation to another was through personification and story-telling. It's very hard to make illiterate people understand 'consciousness', 'illusion', 'force', so they replaced it with gods and goddess stories to help them understand.


I am not asking about worshipping. Explain why would she hear and how to man's pleas.Because She is ever-present and dynamic. Every cell that gets born or dies is caused by Shakti. Evolution is caused by Shakti. Mother Nature is Shakti. The Law of Gravitation is Shakti. Karma is Shakti.

therefore, nirvana is real, you said everything/all is illusion
"god in pure form", therefore meron siyang UNPURE form. ano yung form na iyon?
God in the form of the Maya, the Created Universe. Since everything is in the Universe, then everything is 'unpure', unless that thing has broken through Maya (attained Nirvana / Enlightenment). In The Matrix, these are the people that can go outside of the Matrix on their own.


I have heard about MATRIX having a spiritual intonation, pagan nga lang. Who will get you out of the illusion? Si Neo ay si Morpheus. He needed outside help. He can't do it alone.
You need someone who is able to go beyond the illusion (someone who has attained Enlightenment / Nirvana). In Hinduism they are called gurus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guru). In Buddhism, they are called buddhas or boddhisattvas.

[alexb]

To understand 'illusion' better, you have to think of The Matrix. Everything in the created Universe is an illusion, except for the consciousness in each sub-sub-atomic particle. In the movie, this was represented by the 1's and the 0's. Everything in the Matrix was digital (made up of 1's and 0's). Likewise, Everything in the Universe is made up of consciousness (Shiva) which Nature (Shakti) converts into solid, gas, heat, light, etc, just like 1's and 0's make up programs in The Matrix.

I know about the movie, just answer the question.
Your statements are contradictory. The sub-sub-atomic particle is also an illusion since kamo EVERYTHING is illusion.
Nasaan ang list?

Remember that the reason God created the Universe was to add value to Himself. By always thinking of Him, then you do as what God wanted. If you have done your task of adding value to God in the way that He wishes, then there is no more need Him to keep you in the Illusion.

That is a good example of BLIND BELIEF! Saan nasusulat na sambahin si maya dahil ito ang gusto niya na madagdagan ang kulang niyang kahalagahan?

Shakti (personified by Kali) is the Creator, Shiva is the Createe, Maya is the resulting Creation.

Shiva is like a huge ball of flour (one big perfect entity). Shakti is the force that smashes the ball of flour to the ground which causes it to burst into billions of tiny flour specks (billions of entities). The resulting mess is Maya.

At the time when this philosophy was taught, writing was not invented yet, so the only way to pass the knowledge from one generation to another was through personification and story-telling. It's very hard to make illiterate people understand 'consciousness', 'illusion', 'force', so they replaced it with gods and goddess stories to help them understand.

People are more powerful than your god since they ascribe them genders.

“they replaced it with gods and goddess stories” therefore, there are no real gods. Contradictory ka na naman.

Because She is ever-present and dynamic. Every cell that gets born or dies is caused by Shakti. Evolution is caused by Shakti. Mother Nature is Shakti. The Law of Gravitation is Shakti. Karma is Shakti.

Are you saying she have compassion? Answer the HOW part.

God in the form of the Maya, the Created Universe. Since everything is in the Universe, then everything is 'unpure', unless that thing has broken through Maya (attained Nirvana / Enlightenment). In The Matrix, these are the people that can go outside of the Matrix on their own.

Then why do you worship maya the unpure? maya is unpure, maya is a demon…hmmm, lumilinaw lalo kung sino ang maya.

You need someone who is able to go beyond the illusion (someone who has attained Enlightenment / Nirvana). In Hinduism they are called gurus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guru). In Buddhism, they are called buddhas or boddhisattvas.

"you NEED someone"...therefore, mali ang pinaniniwalaan mong turo ni buddha na "depend on no one". contradictory na naman

[alexb]

"Shiva - Shakti - The Spousal pair Shiva-Shakti (Yab-Yum) is a tantric consort image. At once the most sacred and the most mysterious path to higher consciousness, tantra is the Sacred Union of opposites. Taoists refer to these energies as yin (from yoni, i.e., the active principle) and yang (the recumbent principle). Bly, Jung and Nin point out that each individual must achieve an inner marriage of their masculine and feminine natures to encounter true balance. Hindu consort pairs epitomizing this psychic symbolism are superb representations of the social, sexual, and sacred interconnectedness of women and men. This conjunction of Shiva and Shakti expresses the sacredness of sexuality as a path to spiritual union."

What on Earth is a "tantric consort image"? Hold on to your hats, because once you know, you will be changed forever by your opinion of the Roman Catholic Church and its Pope! The New Age Dictionary defines "tantra" as, "meditative sexual union (the female is active, male passive, in Hindu tantra; the male active, the female passive, in Buddhist tantra)."

The word "consort" also has great meaning when used in this context. The Tormont Webster's Illustrated Dictionary defines "consort" as a "companion or partner". Thus, the term "tantric consort" literally means engaging in sex with a partner as a means of worshipping their god! Folks, this is pure Satanism. If you really want an eye-opening experience, go into a New Age bookstore and look at the books on Tantric Sex. You will discover page after page of drawings that can only be described as pornographic, accompanied by lurid writing that would make any author of pornographic literature proud. This is all done in the name of "worship" and "religion". This perverted worship is nothing more than the full Biblical definition of Paganism, "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up ..." [Romans 1:25-26a]. This religion is literally worshipping the creature through sex, rather than the Creator.

FROM: www.cuttingedge.org

http://www.sacredsource.com/images/ss.jpg

http://www.sacredsource.com/images/ps-ss.jpg

[sweetscrazy]

I know about the movie, just answer the question.
Your statements are contradictory. The sub-sub-atomic particle is also an illusion since kamo EVERYTHING is illusion. Nasaan ang list?...That is a good example of BLIND BELIEF! Saan nasusulat na sambahin si maya dahil ito ang gusto niya na madagdagan ang kulang niyang kahalagahan?ANSWER: Bhagavad Gita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(illusion)#Unde rstanding_Maya_throu gh_Bhagavad_Gita_ver ses)

People are more powerful than your god since they ascribe them genders.
Christians invented the Trinity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity#The_Origin_o f_the_Formula) when Jesus didn't even mention it. Does that make them more knowledgable or powerful than Jesus? :D

The doctrine of the divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit was developed by Athanasius in the last decades of his life.[21] In 325, the Council of Nicaea adopted a term for the relationship between the Son and the Father that from then on was seen as the hallmark of orthodoxy; it declared that the Son is "of the same substance" (ὁμοούσιος) as the Father.

Are you saying she have compassion? Answer the HOW part.since She is also Braman then yes. But relative to Shiva, She has less compassion and is relatively a blind force. A single human cannot change the course of a typhoon (Shakti as Mother Nature), but if he has intuition (Shiva as Consciousness) then he will know where it will strike and he can avoid it by simply moving away. Even if the whole planet prays to Jesus and all the Saints, it will not stop the Sun from swallowing the Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Life_cycle) in the future :eek:

Then why do you worship maya the unpure? maya is unpure, maya is a demon…hmmm, lumilinaw lalo kung sino ang maya.Maya is also God since everything is God and the 'demon' concept arises from the 'duality illusion' which is common in unenlightened people. That which binds you can also free you. "Essentially, Mahamaya (great Maya) both blinds us in delusion (moha) and has the power to free us from it." :cool:

"you NEED someone"...therefore, mali ang pinaniniwalaan mong turo ni buddha na "depend on no one". contradictory na naman [/B]
nope hindi malabo 'to. You need someone to teach you how to gain enlightenment but it is up to you to attain enlightenment. You need your teacher to teach you math but it is only you who can take the math exam, and you cannot rely on anyone else to take the test for you.

"meditative sexual union (the female is active, male passive, in Hindu tantra; the male active, the female passive, in Buddhist tantra)."
actually, it is the female (Shakti) that is active since She is the Creator. That's why Kali (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali) is pictured as 'stepping' on 'dead' Shiva. Dead Shiva represents God in His most Imperfect form --> solid (atoms). To a normal person, atoms do not have life (dead). But in reality, atoms are also God, though in an Imperfect form through the action of Shakti (Kali, since it's Her job to render God Imperfect in order to create the Universe). The interaction between Shiva and Shakti in atoms is seen as 'vibrations' by psychics as it denotes struggle between two opposing forces. ;)

[adechan]

Christians invented the Trinity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity#The_Origin_o f_the_Formula) when Jesus didn't even mention it. Does that make them more knowledgable or powerful than Jesus? :D

The doctrine of the divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit was developed by Athanasius in the last decades of his life.[21] In 325, the Council of Nicaea adopted a term for the relationship between the Son and the Father that from then on was seen as the hallmark of orthodoxy; it declared that the Son is "of the same substance" (ὁμοούσιος) as the Father.

;)
The question regards to your religion, so you must better keep away mentioning others.

I think you don't have the right to do this because you don't know yourself what's in the Bible.
The word trinity was not there, but there was more that one character that was been there since the creation. God is not alone, "we" is always there.
When He created the universe and the Earth there is His Word who is another Person/entity and the His Spirit that hallowed the earth. Even on the story of Tower of Babylon Genesis chapter 11, God is not alone.

God's Word became flesh and He is Jesus. And now Jesus came back to God, and anyone who believes in Christ, will receive the Holy Spirit coming from God. And that's why all who believes in Christ are One Body, receiving same spirit, the Holy Spirit of God, different distinct characters but ONE. And so is the Holy Trinity. It's not an invention.

Peace unto you.

[alexb]

ANSWER: Bhagavad Gita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_%28illusion%29# Understanding_Maya_t hrough_Bhagavad_Gita _verses)

pls post it here, yoko ng wikipedia, post mo yung exact words sa bhagavad gita

Your statements are contradictory. The sub-sub-atomic particle is also an illusion since kamo EVERYTHING is illusion. Nasaan ang list? -NO ANSWER

“they replaced it with gods and goddess stories” therefore, there are no real gods. Contradictory ka na naman -NO ANSWER
[/URL]

Christians invented the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity#The_Origin_o f_the_Formula"]Trinity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_%28illusion%29# Understanding_Maya_t hrough_Bhagavad_Gita _verses) when Jesus didn't even mention it. Does that make them more knowledgable or powerful than Jesus? :D

The doctrine of the divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit was developed by Athanasius in the last decades of his life.[21] In 325...


tama si adechan...wag ka kasi iwas sa tanong.

sino ba nauna, genesis o si athanasius? sagot
ano ang difference ng "developed" sa "invented" the trinity doctrine? sagot


since She is also Braman then yes. But relative to Shiva, She has less compassion and is relatively a blind force. A single human cannot change the course of a typhoon (Shakti as Mother Nature), but if he has intuition (Shiva as Consciousness) then he will know where it will strike and he can avoid it by simply moving away. Even if the whole planet prays to Jesus and all the Saints, it will not stop the Sun from swallowing the Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Life_cycle) in the future :eek:

yung How di mo sinagot...again


nope hindi malabo 'to. You need someone to teach you how to gain enlightenment but it is up to you to attain enlightenment. You need your teacher to teach you math but it is only you who can take the math exam, and you cannot rely on anyone else to take the test for you.


therefore, the guru (teacher) will also judge you? sino ba ang magche-check ng papel mo sa math exam? di pala ang dios ang judge kundi ang tao rin.


actually, it is the female (Shakti) that is active since She is the Creator. That's why Kali (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali) is pictured as 'stepping' on 'dead' Shiva. Dead Shiva represents God in His most Imperfect form --> solid (atoms). To a normal person, atoms do not have life (dead). But in reality, atoms are also God, though in an Imperfect form through the action of Shakti (Kali, since it's Her job to render God Imperfect in order to create the Universe). The interaction between Shiva and Shakti in atoms is seen as 'vibrations' by psychics as it denotes struggle between two opposing forces. ;)

do you worship your god thru sex? that is what occultists do regarding shiva/shakti. tingnan mo na lang ang ginagawa nila. (walang malisya tanong ko ha)

[sweetscrazy]

The question regards to your religion, so you must better keep away mentioning others.

ah, but you see, the same reason the ancient Indians interpreted their philosophy into gods and goddesses is the same reason why Christians interpreted (http://stjohnofthedesert.co m/Trinity.htm) the God and Jesus as the Trinity. It's to simplify and try to make sense of a complicated idea (i.e. the Nature of God).

Jehovah's Witness (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006040515 684), Unitarians, Mormons, etc DO NOT believe in the Trinity, but they consider themselves Christians. If 'all who believe in Christ are One Body' then why is this 'Body' so divided?!? :D :D :D

pls post it here, yoko ng wikipedia, post mo yung exact words sa bhagavad gita..Nasaan ang list?...“they replaced it with gods and goddess stories” therefore, there are no real gods.
basahin mo na lang dito (http://www.san.beck.org/Gita2.html#18). baka may matutunan ka pa ;)

yung How di mo sinagot...againhehe secret na yan. For now, all you have to know is why. The 'how' will be taught only by monks :halo:

therefore, the guru (teacher) will also judge you? sino ba ang magche-check ng papel mo sa math exam? di pala ang dios ang judge kundi ang tao rin.It is God who will judge if you pass the test or not. If you fail, then you reincarnate and do review then take the test again.

do you worship your god thru sex? that is what occultists do regarding shiva/shakti. tingnan mo na lang ang ginagawa nila. (walang malisya tanong ko ha)
no. the best form of worship is to love and think of God in every second (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhakti_Yoga), because this is the reason why God created the Universe in the first place.

[adechan]

ah, but you see, the same reason the ancient Indians interpreted their philosophy into gods and goddesses is the same reason why Christians interpreted (http://stjohnofthedesert.co m/Trinity.htm) the God and Jesus as the Trinity. It's to simplify and try to make sense of a complicated idea (i.e. the Nature of God).

Jehovah's Witness (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006040515 684), Unitarians, Mormons, etc DO NOT believe in the Trinity, but they consider themselves Christians. If 'all who believe in Christ are One Body' then why is this 'Body' so divided?!? :D :D :D


Bahala ka kung ano ang gusto mong paniwalaan.

The answer to that is also in the Bible. Well, to explain it, it's not for you, because if i will explain it, you will never ever understand.

Peace!

[alexb]

Your statements are contradictory. The sub-sub-atomic particle is also an illusion since kamo EVERYTHING is illusion. Nasaan ang list? -NO ANSWER

“they replaced it with gods and goddess stories” therefore, there are no real gods. Contradictory ka na naman -NO ANSWER

sino ba nauna, genesis o si athanasius? -NO ANSWER

ano ang difference ng "developed" sa "invented" the trinity doctrine? -NO ANSWER

ibig sabihin hindi mo alalm ang sagot sa HOW?


Ilang personality ang nasa verse na ito?

Come near to Me, listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret, From the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit. -Isaiah 48:16

-----------------------------

Seek from the book of the LORD, and read: Not one of these will be missing; None will lack its mate. For His mouth has commanded, And His Spirit has gathered them. --Isa 34:16

[sweetscrazy]

Your statements are contradictory. The sub-sub-atomic particle is also an illusion since kamo EVERYTHING is illusion. Nasaan ang list? -NO ANSWER --> Bhagavad-Gita (all chapters) :cool:

“they replaced it with gods and goddess stories” therefore, there are no real gods. Contradictory ka na naman -NO ANSWER --> Bhagavad-Gita (all chapters) :cool:

sino ba nauna, genesis o si athanasius? -NO ANSWER - duh. why ask me this? what should i know about genesis or athanasius aside from what's in wiki? you should ask this to the protestants, mormons, unitarians, etc :D

ano ang difference ng "developed" sa "invented" the trinity doctrine? ANSWER: wala :D

ibig sabihin hindi mo alalm ang sagot sa HOW? ANSWER: alam ko ang sagot sa HOW. bawal lang sabihin sa mga tao na hindi pa handa sa pag-alam sa HOW. Before the HOW is taught to you, you will have to go through 'tests' to prove your worthiness and sincerity (http://sealevel.ns.ca/milarepa/milarepa7.html).

Ilang personality ang nasa verse na ito? --> i can't comment until I've read the whole book of Isaiah, which i don't have time to do

[alexb]

-NO ANSWER --> Bhagavad-Gita (all chapters) :cool:

-NO ANSWER --> Bhagavad-Gita (all chapters) :cool:

-NO ANSWER - duh. why ask me this? what should i know about genesis or athanasius aside from what's in wiki? you should ask this to the protestants, mormons, unitarians, etc :D

ANSWER: wala :D

ANSWER: alam ko ang sagot sa HOW. bawal lang sabihin sa mga tao na hindi pa handa sa pag-alam sa HOW. Before the HOW is taught to you, you will have to go through 'tests' to prove your worthiness and sincerity (http://sealevel.ns.ca/milarepa/milarepa7.html).

--> i can't comment until I've read the whole book of Isaiah, which i don't have time to do


:eek::confused: your faith is based on wikipedia

[sweetscrazy]

:eek::confused: your faith is based on wikipedia
nope. it's based on regular, real-time, direct personal experiences of God, which is supported by Scriptures (Vedas, Bhagavad-Gita, Guru Granth Sahib (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guru_Granth_Sahib), Koran, Bible, etc) which wiki has some snippets of.

As a Christian, I would pray and pray but never / rarely got answers from God. But now, because of Eastern spiritual disciplines and techniques, I get responses from God instantly :halo:

[itchay]

nope. it's based on regular, real-time, direct personal experiences of God, which is supported by Scriptures (Vedas, Bhagavad-Gita, Guru Granth Sahib (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guru_Granth_Sahib), Koran, Bible, etc) which wiki has some snippets of.

As a Christian, I would pray and pray but never / rarely got answers from God. But now, because of Eastern spiritual disciplines and techniques, I get responses from God instantly :halo:

hi, sweetscrazy,

curious lang....and how did you know the responses came from God? :D
did He tell you it came from him?

[alamagawa]

hmmmmm.instantly? nag-yym ata or skype?:coffee:

[KikoyBalayon]

instant ba? 3 in 1 yata.. hmmm.. that reminds me.. kape muna ako.. :D

[kakkoii_daw]

I get responses from God instantly :halo:

for me, it took a long time to get a response from him...

[sweetscrazy]

curious lang....and how did you know the responses came from God? did He tell you it came from him?
yup. it's called intuition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition_%28knowled ge%29).

God talks to everyone all the time, but very few have the ability to listen to Him, because people are taught just to talk to Him. Prayer is an outbound phone line and Meditation is an inbound phone line to God. Balance both and you can have real-time experiences / conversation with God, at will. :halo:

[alexb]

HINDUISM/BUDDHISM/VEGETARIANISM INTELLECT IN ACTION...


sweetscrazy - Everything in the created Universe is an illusion, except for the consciousness in each sub-sub-atomic particle.

me - Your statements are contradictory. The sub-sub-atomic particle is also an illusion since kamo EVERYTHING is illusion. Nasaan ang list? -NO ANSWER

sweetscrazy - bhagavad gita

-------------------------------

sweetscrazy - It's very hard to make illiterate people understand 'consciousness', 'illusion', 'force', so they replaced it with gods and goddess stories to help them understand.

me - “they replaced it with gods and goddess stories” therefore, there are no real gods. Contradictory ka na naman -NO ANSWER

sweetscrazy - bhagavad gita

---------------------------------------

sweetscrazy - The doctrine of the divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit was developed by Athanasius in the last decades of his life.[21] In 325...

me - sino ba nauna, genesis o si athanasius? -NO ANSWER

sweetscrazy - duh. why ask me this? what should i know about genesis or athanasius aside from what's in wiki?

(then why quote something/someone like athanasius that YOU DO NOT KNOW?)

----------------------------------------

sweetscrazy - Christians invented the Trinity when Jesus didn't even mention it.... The doctrine of the divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit was developed by Athanasius in the last decades of his life.[21] In 325...

me - ano ang difference ng "developed" sa "invented" the trinity doctrine? -NO ANSWER

sweetscrazy - wala

(spelling lang iba na)

-------------------------------------

me -ibig sabihin hindi mo alam ang sagot sa HOW?

sweetscrazy - alam ko ang sagot sa HOW. bawal lang sabihin sa mga tao na hindi pa handa sa pag-alam sa HOW.

(talaga lang ha)

----------------------------------------

me - Ilang personality ang nasa verse na ito? Isaiah 48:16

sweetscrazy - i can't comment until I've read the whole book of Isaiah, which i don't have time to do

(that's a lie, alam mo yan, but you have time for unreliable wiki)

THERE IS TIME FOR EVERYTHING...

"THERE is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven" -Eccl 3:1



--------------------------------------

No man has a right in America to treat any other man "tolerantly" for tolerance is the assumption of superiority. -Wendell L. Willkie