3bob

I'd say: with a heaven there is a hell, and with or per attached karmas what we can do is limited by same...

the catch is knowing who that one and single we is... while all the rest can be said to be created and bound in time and space until dissolution.

Chang, I'd say an intellectual description based on understanding that does not get in the way and which can act as part of a pointing finger is not to be written off... also I see nothing wrong with an intellectual approach that does not get in its own way and is smart enough to recognize its own limitations after struggling to and reaching a threshold from which things may go further or proceed.

"neti, neti" "fear not"

they can do whatever the spirit moves them to do, more or less in the public or behind the scenes without much interaction with the public.

there are days when we say to ourselves, "there is a God!" - other days we say to ourselves "everything is going to hell in a hand-basket!" How does your of tally of each add up or balance out?

yea it's not easy to imagine only one of us at the core of all of us as alluded to in many teachings, for instance in the Upanishads with the term Brahman or Atman. and in the end only Atman can or will satisfy Atman.

well one point I'd make is that ego can't really see all of itself, some parts and angles that are here and there yes, but only a "higher self" as you put it can really see all of ego for what it is and isn't... Btw, I don't think to much about my higher self or my consciousness, it's more like the higher self, the consciousness and the mind being that a "my" or mine is only apparent as revealed by the The, so to speak. Om

"attain" can be tricky in meaning if it becomes getting in an egotistic sense, while I think the idea and or term of 'synchronizing' (to Spirit) has advantages compared to it. Also getting down on ego can be tricky since it can be said we need to have an ego to surrender an ego or have a will to surrender a will. As for illusion and or delusion those terms are bandied about quite a bit around this site... one might question and see value in the meanings of faith and hope and their various aspects and degrees without resorting to downer declarations.

the simplicity of it all - and without a doubt

on another hand we wouldn't want to inflate ourselves into thinking we could transform ourselves into the body of perfect enlightenment would we? For oneself can do nothing without the power of Spirit also choosing them...its a two or three way street for a long ways.

belief in the "noble eight fold path" could also fall under such a guillotine in the belief of destroying beliefs (thus some kind of catch 22) while we are at it, but I'd say no, imo beliefs have a place and a use and can also be called vehicles...(a very common Buddhist term)

The title of this thread also relates to a moment some may have after things have gone very badly and then turn around for the better, and they say, "there is a God" (sometimes in the context of an 'after-all' or in recognition of greater forces at work)

Bud, I think that was a Zen saying I borrowed (?), a Buddhist permutation that took place quite some time after the historic Buddha passed. Also your quote is part bad baloney since Islam, which did not exist around 2500 years ago, was mentioned in the quote. Also if the historic Buddha played his version of hide and seek with people for various reasons with various effects, well that is nothing new under the sun.

First there is a God, then is no God then there is....(to borrow and swap words to a saying)

.

it's a good thing for Buddhists that a "God" came along and helped a doubtful and ambivalent historic Buddha get his act together post "enlightenment".

yea but nature can't lie or dilly dally

and gods are creating different people for themselves while we are at it...

Chang, Subtle gods hiding behind subtle ways sometimes make cosmic level errors, and guess what - shit goes down-hill. ("as above so below" which heavenly includes blunders)

just a tidbit I found floating on the internet which is sometimes a valid observation of our human nature...

no-thing is a much better pointer, for no-thing is not bound by the laws of things even the greatest of things

wrong on both counts Michael, unless you are going by your own made up version.

Umm MH I'd suggest not mixing up or using the term "Tao" from Taoism of the TTC with constant change as some Buddhists might mistakenly do - if that is what you are doing? (they can make up or use another word that meets their own fancy) For there is TTC Chapter 25 and several other directly along the lines of: "Standing alone without change"

Buddhism and Christianity really don't mix much at all.... per doctrines and many meanings, although in non-violence there is a lot of common ground. Otherwise in trying to correlate major concepts which don't match one will get into gumbo mud up to their eyeballs.