Christianity, Buddhsim, Religious Taoism

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Are the laymen of these three religions trying to get to the same place? Mystics and monks will vary, but are the rest of us all seeking the same result?

 

Are The Enlightened, The Superior Man, and the True Christian not each a person who:

 

 

has overcome clinging to the self, cultivated a humility that they happily serve their fellow man and fellow woman

 

are generous and selfless in their actions despite the actions of others

 

who, by having a true heart will automatically embody all doctrinal moralities

 

who communicates with the source of creation, works with It/Him/Her to make things happen for others and occasionally themselves

 

Seeks not to fall out of harmony with natural law

 

 

A lot of people like to hate on Christians, but the True Christians are very humble and generous people. There are plenty of people who just go to church, the same as there are in the other religions, but those who really embody the message, I feel like this selflessness is the same goal that Buddhist laymen are trying to reach by dissolving the ego, and the religious Taoists as well. There is a Christian Hatian woman in Montreal, 113 years old, who laughingly said "I'm still here because I love people." Is this the same spirit to be cultivated by religious Taoists who attain longevity?

 

 

Most here probably know the story about Jesus possibly learning Buddhism in the Himalayas, but He did come from the Assines who were very shamanistic so he may have merely been learning more about his same path, like a Native American healer learning from Polynesian healers. He would have already cultivated the selflessness of a shaman before going on this journey.

 

 

Some would also point to the Paternalism of "God the Father" but keep in mind that Jesus also spoke of "The Holy Spirit" in the inseparable Holy Trinity.

 

I know there are many correlations to Ancient Egyptian religion, but this myth is all over the world in different ways, and Jesus wouldn't have been the first nor the last to be witnessed by followers after his death. So, say what you will about mythologizing and political agendas of the Vatican, but the Story behind Christianity is neither unheard of in other traditions, nor implausible to those who know about shamanism (edit I should probably add "especially Taoist healers, considering the Assines practice something "similar to Reiki", and there are many stories of Taoist healers removing serious disease by energy manipulation--).

 

 

So without twisting this into a spiteful political debate, if possible, what would YOU add to or take away from this?

 

H.E.

[Sunya]

In terms of cultivating qualities of compassion, patience, loving-kindness, humility, etc. sure I think the goal is the same. As for enlightenment, I don't see how a dualistic path via monotheism can lead to nondual realization.

[hyok]

it's all the same, man. people can and will debate and argue and nitpick over the little things, but when they die it's all the same in terms of where they go and why they came to earth to begin with, generally speaking that is. Virtue is virtue and that is what all of us seek to develop whether we know it or not.

 

I know that some Taoists and Buddhists don't believe in a Paternal "Father"/God nor the Maternal Holy Spirit, but all religions discuss some sort of creator and spirit of some kind so there has to be something to it. To me this is all about perceptual interpretation of what actually is. The idea of God or the Godhead can be so subjective based on each person's perspective and point of view that it's almost pointless in discussing them even with those who have experiential knowledge. And what is experiential knowledge? How is this even determined? who has advanced farther spiritually? who has developed relationships with the Tao? And just what is used to measure these things? One person's word? A group of people agreeing with each other? How many dvds they've sold? How many ass kissers are surrounding them? How much fluffy garbage they can churn out in a minute? The ability to move shit with your mind and electrocuit someone's balls?

 

I don't know, pal. But what I do know is that weird ass shit happens and sometimes there is no apparent rhyme or reason... yet underneath it all is order, and that means something.

[doc benway]

I think that each of these traditions ultimately lead to the same place.

Right here.

[3bob]

There are monks but there are also nuns:

 

Sister Glenda

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wXjT5uGEv4

[Vmarco]

Are the laymen of these three religions trying to get to the same place? Mystics and monks will vary, but are the rest of us all seeking the same result?

 

Are The Enlightened, The Superior Man, and the True Christian not each a person who: has overcome clinging to the self, cultivated a humility that they happily serve their fellow man and fellow woman ....

 

A lot of people like to hate on Christians, but the True Christians are very humble and generous people.

 

 

I would say most people who study the Abrahamic religions, that is, discern the holy books of theo-belief systems critically, rather than deliberating on them solely for display and devotion (Devotional reading is not Bible study), would agree with Gore Vidal, who said "I regard monotheism as the greatest disaster ever to befall the human race. I see no good in Judaism, Christianity, or Islam."

 

Christians and the Inter-faith supporters of Christianity may find that harsh,...but the facts show it to be true. So, I'll mention just a few facts regarding Christianity, and the reader can decide if that looks even vaguely like a path to enlightenment.

 

John C. Green, director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron in Ohio, said that despite many variations, Christians generally adhere to four core beliefs: the Bible is without error, salvation comes through faith in Jesus and not good deeds, individuals must accept Jesus as adults and all Christians must evangelize. Oops! don't see anything about enlightenment there.

 

Most Christians believe the God they invoke while spreading their faith, is love. However, in the whole of their Holy Book, the Bible, it only suggests the idea that their God is love at the very end, in the late 2nd Century apology 1John. In fact, when viewing the full length and breadth of the Bible, their Patriarch is clearly a murderous, pro-slavery, vacillant, petty, racist, conditional God. And amazingly, a God who is so insecure, that it demands to be worshiped, obeyed and prayed to.

 

Christian love is often considered the highest love, but that too is merely a conditional love. To better understand this type of love, simply consider the Great Love Chapter of Christendom, Corinthians 13; for example, "love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things", 1 Cor 13:7. Although this form of love, that is, bearing, believing, hoping and enduring is more commitment orientated then fleeting, it isn't Unconditional Love, but the submission, devotion, expectation and suffering to the conditions of their religions brewed beliefs. Oops! don't see anything about enlightenment there either.

 

And I have to comment on the statement that a "true Christian....happily serve their... fellow woman"

 

Whereas in Wisdom Cultures, women are held in great esteem,...not so with Christianity.

 

"For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does..." 1Corinthians 7:4

 

"For man was not made from woman, but woman from man." 1 Corinthians, 11:8

 

"Girls begin to talk and to stand on their feet sooner than boys because weeds always grow up more quickly than good crops." Martin Luther

 

"Every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman." Clement of Alexandria

 

"For woman is not the image of God. Man alone is the image of God." Augustine

 

Oops! don't see anything about enlightenment in those!

 

Christianity is about faith. Nietzsche was correct when he said, "When people say 'I have faith', what they really mean is 'I don't want to know the truth'."

 

What do at least some Buddhists think about Christianity? Click on the below link,...go to Chapter 8 ....scroll down to the last couple paragraphs.

 

http://www.uq.net.au...udchr0.htm#cont

 

V

[Vmarco]

[Birch]

it's all the same, man. people can and will debate and argue and nitpick over the little things, but when they die it's all the same in terms of where they go and why they came to earth to begin with, generally speaking that is. Virtue is virtue and that is what all of us seek to develop whether we know it or not.

 

I know that some Taoists and Buddhists don't believe in a Paternal "Father"/God nor the Maternal Holy Spirit, but all religions discuss some sort of creator and spirit of some kind so there has to be something to it. To me this is all about perceptual interpretation of what actually is. The idea of God or the Godhead can be so subjective based on each person's perspective and point of view that it's almost pointless in discussing them even with those who have experiential knowledge. And what is experiential knowledge? How is this even determined? who has advanced farther spiritually? who has developed relationships with the Tao? And just what is used to measure these things? One person's word? A group of people agreeing with each other? How many dvds they've sold? How many ass kissers are surrounding them? How much fluffy garbage they can churn out in a minute? The ability to move shit with your mind and electrocuit someone's balls?

 

I don't know, pal. But what I do know is that weird ass shit happens and sometimes there is no apparent rhyme or reason... yet underneath it all is order, and that means something.

 

 

"How many ass kissers are surrounding them? How much fluffy garbage they can churn out in a minute?"

I don't think it's just a$$ ki$$ing. I sometimes wonder why I didn't grow up under shamanism (well I did, but probably the wrong kind ) and why when we consider 'religion' we're mainly referring to monotheisms (I sort of include Buddhism under this because of all the 'Buddha says' stuff.) I'm trying to figure out why a pretty consistent set of principles are taught. I'm starting to think they're taught because alongside them other things are also taught. And it's the other things that are the intent/focus of the teaching and exercise of religion.

[Vmarco]

it's all the same, man. people can and will debate and argue and nitpick over the little things, but when they die it's all the same in terms of where they go and why they came to earth to begin with, generally speaking that is. Virtue is virtue and that is what all of us seek to develop whether we know it or not.

 

 

I wouldn't say it's all the same,...not for Mahayana or Vajrayana Buddhism for example.

 

According to the Tantric tradition, "everyone experiences the Clear Light of the Void shortly after death. Its brilliance, however, is so overwhelming that the departing consciousness usually recoils in fear and is drawn instead into another samsaric rebirth. By learning to recognize the transcendent Light of the Nirvanic Buddha Consciousness during his lifetime, an adept may return to it without difficulty when the shock of death threatens to disorient him." Naropa

 

For Christians, Muslems, and Jews, they are said to remain in samsara: the ordinary reality of fear and hope, and an identification with the cyclic existence of birth, death, and rebirth,...being stuck in the lower Fifth Density of consciousness,...what researcher Robert Monroe called religious terminus. People of the Abrahamic beliefs remain in samsara, until they can let go of their beliefs.

 

Only honesty can rise above the lower fifth density,...and no one attached to a beliefs system for their identity is honest.

 

As Osho said, "Start knowing what you really know, and stop believing what you really don't know. Somebody asks you. "Is there a God?" and you say, "Yes, God is." Remember: Do you really know? If you don't know, please don't say that you do. Say, "I don't know.". . . False knowing is the enemy of true knowledge. All beliefs are false knowledge."

 

V

[Aaron]

[Harmonious Emptiness]

In terms of cultivating qualities of compassion, patience, loving-kindness, humility, etc. sure I think the goal is the same. As for enlightenment, I don't see how a dualistic path via monotheism can lead to nondual realization.

 

Good first comment

 

 

I'll add, from Zibo, 16th Century China:

 

"But say, when the One Mind is unborn, is it Buddhist, or Taoist, or Confucian? If you are immediately clear and without doubts about this then in Confucianism you are called a true Confucian, Taoism you are called a True Taoist, and in Buddhism you are called a true Buddhist... If you have clearly understood this Mind, then you can be a Confucian, a Buddhist, or a Taoist. If you do not understand this Mind then if you are a Confucian you are not a real Confucian; if you are a Taoist, you are not a real Taoist; if you are a Buddhist, you are not a real Buddhist. Work on it!"

 

I posit that the non-dual non-clinging mind has much to do with attachment to the self, and without the attachment to self and things , there is peace love and harmony; where is there duality in the middle of that? Peace and harmony are mentioned more in Zen, but when there is no attachment to the self, there is immense generosity and openness.

 

So what is meant by the vague word Love, in my estimation, is that generosity and openness that follows non-attachment to the Self.

 

For other non-attachments, note how much attachment to money was denounced by Jesus, who gave up all his possessions and his followers had to leave their attachment to power and money, if not the power and money itself, to follow his path.

 

So not being attached to all these things, would that not make for non-dual experience too?

 

So, judging Christians by Zibo's standard, to have the True Heart of Christianity, or the True Mind of Buddhism (.....sweet; I think I just contributed a term ?!) Heart and Mind are easily interchangeable, especially when the Mind was believed to reside in the Heart.

 

hmm.. this has been meditative

 

People generally miss Jesus' message

[Informer]

I think that they were meant to, but were prone to much human error along the way.

 

Like Murphy's Law combines with man desire for power at any means.

 

What you will get is a distorted version that is still suitable to the one with power, and may even increase his power more.

 

With keen eyes you can see this pride that is present with power, another attachement.

 

What good has pride ever really done? It creates divisions and people who think they are more special or less special. Then spirals out of control and weaves an illusionary web infinitely divided.

 

Really it doesn't matter what it says. Does your heart prove it to be true?

[Vmarco]

[Aetherous]

I think that each of these traditions ultimately lead to the same place.

Right here.

 

Boom. Steve dropped the bomb on the whole thing! So true.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

There are monks but there are also nuns:

 

Sister Glenda

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=3wXjT5uGEv4

 

meaning monks from a non-dual perspective, like waiters and actors? wups..

[C T]

[rex]

Maybe they originate from the same place?

 

[Vmarco]

Yeah, apparently it reflects on everything except your own blindness.

 

 

Here you go again,...what is your problem? Again, you rudely attack a messenger, and TOTALLY ignore the message.

 

I have not shared a single dishonest thing in this thread,...so I must conclude that your intention is that the ad hominem will play well with other ignorants.

 

Just amazing! Not even a single remark about the content of the message/posts,...just attack the messenger. As for me, I'd love to discuss some message with you, but your only message is ad hominem,...and thus that is the only message I can respond too. And the only response such a message/post as yours brings to mind, is why would such a person, obviously devoid of any meaningful contribution to the evolution of sentient beings, be here rudely attacking those whose message he obviously fears.

 

Go figure!

V

[Sunya]

why would such a person, obviously devoid of any meaningful contribution to the evolution of sentient beings, be here rudely attacking those whose message he obviously fears.

 

 

You've admitted here that you're not fully enlightened. So you do not have full clarity of the enlightened state and complete wisdom, nor omniscience on how to help others in the best way. Could it be possible that you're actually not helping anyone either but only continuing an ego projection? Maybe your 'message,' though it agrees with your experience, is entirely wrong. Perhaps it would be best if you focus and get fully enlightened before you act like an avatar to help us mere mortals.

[paulno]

I almost think it depends on the person more than the faith, religion, philosophy etc. The journey to get to a place of nonattachment and wanting to be a smaller part of something bigger takes a lot of ego killing and work. Its a journey I'd say most are not willing to take the first step towards.

 

I often wonder if someone who doesn't believe in the supernatural, in ancient philosophy, in any tradition, ceremonies etc. Could this person reach the same stages as those we see as enlightened or holy?

[Vmarco]

You've admitted here that you're not fully enlightened. So you do not have full clarity of the enlightened state and complete wisdom, nor omniscience on how to help others in the best way. Could it be possible that you're actually not helping anyone either but only continuing an ego projection? Maybe your 'message,' though it agrees with your experience, is entirely wrong. Perhaps it would be best if you focus and get fully enlightened before you act like an avatar to help us mere mortals.

 

The devoid in support of the devoid? Although I have not said I was enlightened (and in fact posted that I do not see myself as enlightened, more than once), in addition, I do not even seek enlightenment. Buddha did not seek enlightenment, he sought the problem of suffering.

 

So why would someone like yourself, responding to an honest statement, "why would such a person, obviously devoid of any meaningful contribution to the evolution of sentient beings, be here rudely attacking those whose message he obviously fears" assume that is indicative of someone not enlightened, when neither the message, nor messenger declared such?

 

The reality is that posts #6 #7 and #9 are informative and on-message with the Thread,...what do you have to offer? That anyone who doesn't agree with you is unenlightened and must be rudely beat up? That you're just a "mere mortal" disturbed because your friend (or sock-puppet) gets called on his ad hominem?

 

Come on,...honestly,...if you're this mild, humbled "mere mortal" what right have you to challenge anyone as you did? Many "mere mortals" at least have some common decency and respect to address what they find offensive in a message before judging and condemning another.

 

A respectful Buddhist for example, may have read some comment responding to his friend, but wouldn't then react and attack the victim just because his friend did,...but go back, read posts #6 #7 and #9 fully, and attempt to uncover what his obviously upset friend was attacking the messenger about in the first place.

 

Since you've done none of that, I would suggest that your post is simply a meaningless "echo rant", similar to many mob mentalities. Wouldn't you agree?

 

V

[Vmarco]

I almost think it depends on the person more than the faith, religion, philosophy etc. The journey to get to a place of nonattachment and wanting to be a smaller part of something bigger takes a lot of ego killing and work. Its a journey I'd say most are not willing to take the first step towards.

 

I often wonder if someone who doesn't believe in the supernatural, in ancient philosophy, in any tradition, ceremonies etc. Could this person reach the same stages as those we see as enlightened or holy?

 

Would you think that the Abrahamic belief systems are in any way nonattached, or seek unattachment?

 

Did you ask if someone who doesn't believe in Traditions or the supernatural, can reach enlightenment?

 

http://www.buddhanet.net/ans73.htm

[Sunya]

In addition, I do not even seek enlightenment. Buddha did not seek enlightenment, he sought the problem of suffering.

 

Enlightenment is the end of suffering, but yes full enlightenment goes beyond that. Since you follow the teachings of the mahasiddhas of Mahamudra who did in fact seek enlightenment and attained it, then you are seeking the same state as they describe, which is the state of enlightenment. If your goal is to help the evolution of humanity, and that it seems to be since you condemn others here as not contributing to that goal, then the best way to do that is for you to become fully enlightened, not just seek the end of your suffering. As others here have pointed out, the best way for you to become enlightened is to meet enlightened teachers and learn from them. "Freethinking Buddhism" will lead you nowhere since you seem to be interpreting everything you read through your own lens. You need an enlightened guide to help you, and yes they do exist.

[paulno]

Would you think that the Abrahamic belief systems are in any way nonattached, or seek unattachment?

 

Did you ask if someone who doesn't believe in Traditions or the supernatural, can reach enlightenment?

 

http://www.buddhanet.net/ans73.htm

 

I also said ancient philosophy, traditions, or ceremonies. Part of nonattachment is nonattachment to views. I think its beyond just religious experience. Just wonder if its the person more than the system. Also, if someone without a "system", so to speak, could achieve the same results through utter humility and compassion?

[Sunya]

I also said ancient philosophy, traditions, or ceremonies. Part of nonattachment is nonattachment to views. I think its beyond just religious experience. Just wonder if its the person more than the system. Also, if someone without a "system", so to speak, could achieve the same results through utter humility and compassion?

 

Nonattachment to views is for those who are very advanced and have gone beyond views. They have eradicated the view of duality (split between mind and objects) and the view of inherent existence (that things including self and mind exist independently). It is impossible to eradicate these deep tendencies without deconstructing them through right view. Nonattachment to view comes naturally as a result of right view, but you can't start off with it. It is a result not a cause.

 

Humility and compassion, while very good virtues and very helpful, are not deconstructive. One can be very compassionate and humble but still cling to a self.