tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-250167092024-03-12T16:14:52.952-07:00Another Viewzingiberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08856498870095904118noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25016709.post-69522255379384731802008-08-13T14:22:00.001-07:002008-08-13T14:52:59.471-07:00<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/SKNQ4KuY7BI/AAAAAAAAAVc/I7RmZDpXAJM/s1600-h/Pastor.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/SKNQ4KuY7BI/AAAAAAAAAVc/I7RmZDpXAJM/s200/Pastor.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5234116117816470546" border="0" /></a><span style="font-weight: bold;">YOU EITHER BELIEVE IN GOD OR YOU DON'T !!</span><br /><br />Do you remember that judge in Georgia or Alabama who installed a large stone "statue" of the Ten Commandments in his county's courthouse? Eventually, he was forced to remove it much to the gnashing of teeth and shredding of garments of the "true believers" who felt --- this showed just how <span style="font-weight: bold;">Godless</span> America had become.<br /><br />I remember seeing this judge being interviewed on television by Bill Press, a liberal political writer and journalist. Bill was the soul of courtesy --- and showing extreme deference asked the judge what "God" did he mean when he said that the USA was founded on the belief of God and his teachings and commandments. The judge was absolutely <span style="font-weight: bold;">dumbfounded</span>.<br />He grasped his Bible and holding it aloft said something like: <span style="font-style: italic;">The God Who is found within the covers of this book!<br /><br /></span>Personally, I think it is close to blasphemous to believe that God is found within a single book by any name. Or any group of words, no matter how large. Words are written or spoken expression s-- much of the time -- of concepts. And, for my money, a God that can be encapsulated in a concept --- just can't be God.<br /><br />Yes, the word God has many meanings. Bill Press's inference along these lines when he asked the jurist his question --- pointed to this.<br /><br />I found recently some wonderful quotes from -- above all -- a Baptist minister who has been heading a church in Evanston, IL since 1980. I don't know exactly what kind of Baptist church this is --- but it's the kind I might like to visit.<br /><br />Here are some exciting and enlightening comments from Reverend Robert V. Thompson:<br /><br /> <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">"If I'm being asked about whether or not I believe in some supreme being with an extreme ego who insists that people conform to a rigid dogma, I say, 'No, I don't believe in that God'."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"> "If I'm asked if I believe in a God whose abode is in a heaven, separated from the earthly domain, the answer is, 'No, I don't believe in that God'."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"> "If the question is if I believe in a god who uses coercive power to make things happen a certain way, I reply, 'Not that one either'."</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"></span><br /><span style="text-decoration: underline;">I may not agree with everything the Pastor says, but he is rather refreshing.<br /><br />P.S. The photo at the top is the minister -- not the judge.<br /><br /><br /><br /></span>zingiberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08856498870095904118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25016709.post-7875246150524024632008-07-13T12:20:00.000-07:002008-12-09T13:27:57.403-08:00<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/SHpYXOHCcCI/AAAAAAAAAUE/_E2WzYrPbYs/s1600-h/belief2450.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/SHpYXOHCcCI/AAAAAAAAAUE/_E2WzYrPbYs/s320/belief2450.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5222583873837363234" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Don't Blame Everything on Religion !<br /><br /></span>The New Atheists: Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et al point to the damage caused by religion and its adherents down through history: wars, pogroms, inquisition, massacre, intolerance, cruelty.<br /><br />They do not spend much time on the good that has come from religion: peace both within the mind and outside it; feeding the poor; ministering to those suffering and misunderstood; charitable works; pointing towards ideals and virtues that -- when followed ---- have made things better for the world and mankind.<br /><br />They have not spent much time on the destructive forces unleashed under the banner of reason and science. Consider the horrors unleased by the Industrial Revolution; by the utopian atheists of the Soviet Union; by the Nazis; by Capitalism; by the means Science has developed to harm both mankind, other species and this planet.<br /><br />The Enlightenment itself -- usually pictured as the beginning of that great, positive evolution which is taking all of us to higher and higher levels of human development. Partly true, since there stemmed from it a greater emphasis on human dignity, on individual liberty, on attacking ignorance and combating injustice.<br /><br />The problem with the Enlightenment and the secular humanism which it spawned is that it led people to believe that with the emphasis on Reason we could realize the perfectibility of humanity. Reason though can become dictatorial and unreasonable.<br />Stemming from the belief that through reason, science and sound thinking we can make a utopia --- spawned the horrors of the French Revolution; the cruelties and massacres of colonization; the barbarism of our own suppression and attempts to eradicate the Native Americans.<br /><br />The story of mankind is not one of continual progress. History is not progressive.<br />History is basically cyclical. Science and Reason can make things much worse instead of much better. What makes the difference is the amount of Compassion and Wisdom there is inherent in our lives. The ability to eliminate millions more persons in war today is an example of Science. Would you call this --- an advancement?<br /><br /><br />When I read Harris and Hitchens and other New Atheists, their tone is vituperative, angry, intolerant and filled with hatred and outrage. I get the same feeling when listening to the Christian evangelist, John Hagee.<br /><br />Must we choose between the zealots who worship at the shrine of Reason & Science or the dogmatists who follow a fundamentalist interpretation of the Koran or Bible?<br /><br />Do we really believe in the "purity of the rational mind".<br /><br />IMO, humans are simply not naturally good. There is evil, and most of it stems from people. The planet would not be harmed to a great extent, but probably enhanced --- if by some chance ---- mankind disappeared entirely.<br /><br />What have we really contributed? What have we really "messed up"?<br /><br />People are not going to evolve into some kind of perfected tribe by following reason. Reason is the mother of rationalization, and we know how prevalent it is. In fact, we have the ability to use Reason and even Science to justify our own lack of wisdom, inner forces of hatred, lust, greed, anger...<br /><br />Whether there is a God or not --- we can be absolutely sure that Reason + Science is not It !<br /></span>zingiberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08856498870095904118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25016709.post-54128907061451751372008-06-10T13:16:00.000-07:002008-12-09T13:27:57.608-08:00<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/SE7hh2OYq1I/AAAAAAAAARk/z79McCQ_jVo/s1600-h/yoga-1.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/SE7hh2OYq1I/AAAAAAAAARk/z79McCQ_jVo/s400/yoga-1.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5210349790522026834" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >Hindu Yoga as Seen in the Gita<br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;">The photo show a practitioner of Hatha Yoga involved in the <span style="font-style: italic;">Sun Salutation</span>. A series of <span style="font-style: italic;">asanas</span> (postures) which serve to welcome the return of the Sun -- the provider of light, warmth and energy.<br /><br />When the average person thinks of<span style="font-style: italic;"> Yoga</span>, he/she believes it is a form of physical exercise. He may know its name, <span style="font-style: italic;">Hatha</span> Yoga. Yet Hatha Yoga's purpose is not to make the practitioner a more perfect physical specimen, but to make his mind/body ready for other practices of morality, ethics, meditation ...that will lead to Yoga --- Union with God. Yoga means union. So Hatha Yoga is a tiny part of the vast system called Yoga.<br /><br />In the <span style="font-style: italic;">Bhagavad Gita</span>, one chapter of the <span style="font-style: italic;">Mahabharata</span> -- one of the two Hindu epics -- God in the form of the <span style="font-style: italic;">avatar</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">Krishna</span>, teaches <span style="font-style: italic;">Arjuna</span> (who stands for us) the way to union with God. The Gita focuses on three of the most important yogas: <span style="font-style: italic;">Jnana</span> (Wisdom), <span style="font-style: italic;">Bhakti</span> ( Devotion), and </span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Karma</span> (Service).</span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Jnana Yoga</span> is making use of the mind and intellect to approach, and hopefully, attain union with Brahman (God). The Jnani Yogi aims to see behind and beyond the mind through the use of <span style="font-style: italic;">viveka</span> (discrimination). In the words of the revered Sri Swami Sivananda: <span style="font-style: italic;">"Jnana is knowledge. To know Brahman as one's own Self is Jnana. To say, 'I am Brahman, the pure, all-pervading Consciousness, the non-enjoyer, non-doer and silent witness,' is Jnana. To behold the one Self everywhere is Jnana."<br /></span>One technique commonly used is <span style="font-style: italic;">"neti, neti" -- "</span>not this, not this". The student of Jnana Yoga dismisses each thought, image, concept, sound or sense distraction with<br />"not this, not this". Eventually he/she realizes, knows that Brahman is not any of these. One then, in a sense, moves backwards into the realization of Brahman -- the Absolute Reality which cannot be seen, heard, conceived or captured. This approach leads to dispassion by which the yogi should be able to detach oneself from all that is temporary --- all that is not Brahman. The Jnana yogi still, though is left with Everything since Brahman is the only Absolute Reality.<br /><br />Some Jnana Yogis, like the great and highly regarded Ramana Maharshi recommended concentrating on asking the question, <span style="font-style: italic;">"Who Am I?" </span>over and over again -- until one reaches the "knowing" of and union with Brahman.<br /><br />The Gita depicts Jnana Yoga as the spiritual path for the few -- those of strong intellect and the discipline to use it with discimination and steady focus.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"Therefore, just keep thinking of me. Fix your entire mind on me. Continuously direct your discriminating intellect to consider who I am, and you will soon know that we are united forever; there is no doubt about it." </span><span>(from The Gita)</span><span style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span>---------------------<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Bhakti Yoga </span>is recommended for most people who have a devotional soul, those for whom feelings and affection is easier to come by than intense mental focus. Christianity is basically a bhakti religion.<br /><br />Within Hinduism -- Bhakti Yogis show their devotion and love usually to a personal form of the Absolute (Brahman) --- Krishna, Rama, the Divine Mother, Shiva, Ganesh. Jesus and Buddha can also be used. Devotion within Hinduism usually is expressed through chanting, prayer, singing of <span style="font-style: italic;">bhajans</span> (spiritual songs) and <span style="font-style: italic;">japa</span> -- reciting one of the names of God over and over again, frequently using a mala (beads, rosary) to keep count and to keep focused.<br /><br />In Bhakti Yoga the devotee surrenders herself/himself completely to the Lord --- and thereby escapes the impediment to Union which is the Ego.<br /><br />The Gita (Bhagavad Gita) emphasizes Bhakti in Chapter 12. For Example:<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"On the other hand, those who being solely devoted to Me, and surrendering all actions to Me, worship Me - the manifest divine - constantly meditating on Me with single minded devotion; these O Arjuna I speedily rescue from the ocean of birth and death."<br /><br /><br />--------------------<br />Karma Yoga </span><span>i</span><span>s a path which also will lead to union with God; however, instead of using devotional practices, or the discriminating use of a disciplined intellect --- it is the Yoga of service. The Karma Yoga considers everything he does as an offering to God. His everyday actions are performed because they are part of his "dharma" -- his duty-- however, she/he does not seek the fruits of these actions -- the fruits belong only to the Lord. Whether in a worldly sense his/her actions are "successful" is due entirely to God. It is the dedicated performance of duties that leads eventually to union with God. All of the yogi's actions are offerings or sacrifices to the Divinity. The yogi is -- in a sense -- indifferent to the results.<br /><br />If a Karma Yogi is a businessman and works at developing his particular enterprise -- he does this because it is her/his role in life which God has proscribed for him/her --- not for fame, money, or possessions.<br />These belong to God.<br /><br />(Some passages on Karma Yoga from The Gita)<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"And if one has not developed the necessary self-discipline to practice yoga (e.g. Jnana/Bhakti) regularly, -- he can also attain perfection just by conscientiously dedicating all of his actions to me."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"As for you, do the work that comes to you -- but don't look for the results. Don't be motivated by the fruits of your actions. nor become attached to inaction."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"Whoever desires me above everything else, and (thus) completely devotes himself to me, and (thus) offers me all his actions, and (thus) sheds all personal (selfish) attachments and feelings of ill-will toward any other creature, that person surely comes to me."<br /><br />---------------------<br /></span>There is another major form of Yoga, <span style="font-style: italic;">Raja Yoga</span>, which many commentators/ scholars believe is also referred to in the Gita. This Yoga is the way of focusing the mind on a single "object" to achieve quietness -- and with continued practice -- will lead to union with God. The major Hindu scripture devoted to Raja Yoga is the great <span style="font-style: italic;">Yoga Sutras</span> by <span style="font-style: italic;">Patanjali</span>. In this book Patajali describes a complete form of Raja Yoga that includes morality, ethics, virtue as well as various stages of mental discipline.<span style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span><br />(Quotations from The Gita are mostly by Swami Satchidananda)<br /><br /><br /></span><span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br /></span></span>zingiberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08856498870095904118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25016709.post-4782873335335597032008-06-09T13:16:00.000-07:002008-12-09T13:27:57.918-08:00<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/SE2aznnEF_I/AAAAAAAAARc/tof-QSLwawA/s1600-h/karma_purple.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/SE2aznnEF_I/AAAAAAAAARc/tof-QSLwawA/s400/karma_purple.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5209990555534366706" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"> Hindu Karma: No Escape from Cause and Effect</span><br /><br />Karma is <span style="font-weight: bold;">not</span> Fate. This is a common but mistaken belief.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Karma is Action.</span> Every action of a being capable of knowing right from wrong lays the seeds for the future. Good Karma paves the way for a happier life, especially one with a greater opportunity for union with God. Bad Karma's seeds will result in suffering and more difficulty in achieving liberation.<br /><br />Humans, though, still have free will. Although, as I understand it, the wise exercise of free will will be easier for those with a greater amount of good Karma.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Karma is a form of cause and effect. </span><br /><br />Some seeds of Karma will sprout in this life; some in one's future lives. Hindus, generally, believe in reincarnation. You cannot escape your Karmic residue through death. You continue on your rounds of birth and death -- until you learn the lesson of Dharma and Karma. Then upon death the atman, that drop of divinity which is the real "you" becomes one with the Ocean of Brahman.<br /><br />God cannot excuse one's Karma or dilute it. (However, some segments of Hinduism may disagree with this, or so I've read.)<br /><br />Karma is part of Dharma, part of the cosmic law which is part of the "body" of Brahman (God). For this reason, it seems as though Karmic effects would have to come to pass.<br /><br />A popular way of defining Karma: <span style="font-style: italic;">What goes around, comes around.</span><br />Or as the Bible says: <span style="font-style: italic;">As you sow, so shall you reap.<br /><br />(Caveat: </span></span></span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" ><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Hinduism is enormously variegated and complex. This is just my attempt to give you a sense of the meaning of Karma.)</span></span>zingiberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08856498870095904118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25016709.post-35887355425146698032008-06-08T13:23:00.000-07:002008-12-09T13:27:58.118-08:00<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/SExAGvKYniI/AAAAAAAAARU/C5dWDnlUU3I/s1600-h/Dharma_River1.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/SExAGvKYniI/AAAAAAAAARU/C5dWDnlUU3I/s400/Dharma_River1.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5209609353444236834" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Hindu Dharma ---- the Framework of the World</span><br /><br />The word, "'dharma" is used in both Hinduism and Buddhism. Some meanings are similar and some are not.<br /><br />Dharma within Hinduism is seen as the universal law that governs everything and everyone. The idea of dharma arose from the most ancient sacred scriptures of Hinduism or <span style="font-style: italic;">Santana Dharma</span>. There were four <span style="font-style: italic;">Vedas</span>, the most well known being the <span style="font-style: italic;">Rig-Veda</span>. The four contain the bedrock of morality, religion, philosophy, ritual ... in present day Hindu life and belief. The four Vedas may have been gathered together around 1500 BCE, and, are, generally considered the oldest religious texts in continuous use. Somewhat later appeared the <span style="font-style: italic;">Upanishads </span>and finally the <span style="font-style: italic;">Bhagavad Gita</span> -- which ended those texts considered most authoritative and basic in the Hindu faith.<br /><br />Dharma holds everything together. It is not so much a set of commandments as a word for the very nature of all existence. It is the "cosmic norm" --- which when deviated from brings unhappiness, instability, and malevolence. In Hinduism, especially in <span style="font-style: italic;">Vedanta</span> --- <span style="font-style: italic;">Brahman</span>, the Supreme Absolute is considered impersonal, but not in the sense Westerners might think. For example, Brahman is the essence of being, existence and bliss (<span style="font-style: italic;">satchidananda</span>), but Brahman cannot be conceptualized. Therefore nothing we can say is what Brahman is. If we could do this --- Brahman would not be the Absolute.<br /><br />Many Hindus do not believe the world was created as those of the three monotheisms of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam do. Reality --- the universe, the earth, sentient creatures -- are all Brahman. They all are expressions of Brahman, and, have no real self-identity. Some followers of Santana Dharma (Hinduism) consider that observable world as maya -- illusion. In reality it is Brahman. How could Brahman construct things, people, animals? All there is -- is Brahman. Brahman is All.<br /><br />This universal framework, law "holds" or "sustains" the world and its beings. Dharma -- these ways of living, principles of ethics, qualities of compassion, wisdom and equanimity form a web that sustains stable, healthy, beneficent life. This dharma, IMO, is really a visible (to us) aspect of Brahman. Dharma is not Brahman's commandments or rules --- dharma is Brahman, Absolute Reality's Nature. This is why Dharma is absolute as Brahman is.<br /><br />When a nation departs from Dharmic behavior and values, when man mistreats the natural world, when he shows cruelty and oppression ---- Dharma weakens and <span style="font-style: italic;">Adharma</span><br />becomes dominant. Adharma destroys harmony, creates conflict. Things begin to fall apart. Evil and misery become rampant.<br /><br />To restore Dharma, Hindus believe, the Absolute "projects" or "emanates" <span style="font-style: italic;">avatars </span>or incarnations of divinity -- at various times and places -- to lead mankind back to Dharma and restore order and harmony. Among these avatars, Hindus include Krishna and Rama, but many also regard Buddha and Jesus as avatars.<br /><br />Another related meaning of Dharma is one's personal "Dharma" --- or the role that "God" wants you to play in the Divine Drama. Dharma in this sense is similar to "duty". The Bhagavad Gita says that it is better for one to fulfill his/her designated dharma imperfectly -- that that of another --- perfectly. This makes me wonder about all the persons we see from time to time on television talking about <span style="font-weight: bold;">their</span> plans for who they wany to be. If the actors in a play decided that they wanted to play someone else's part ---- it would be chaos.<br /><br />Westerners are mostly centered in their egos. Hindu's believe that the ego is fundamentally an illusion. Oh, it may be relatively "real". The inner true reality of a person is the <span style="font-style: italic;">atman</span> which can be thought of as the "soul" --- but for many Hindus it is a drop of divinity (Brahman) and upon one's death --- if one's <span style="font-style: italic;">karma</span> permits --- the individual returns to the Ocean.zingiberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08856498870095904118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25016709.post-75617057443409239382008-04-20T13:15:00.000-07:002008-12-09T13:27:58.312-08:00<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/SAuscbVlqRI/AAAAAAAAAQ0/YZW_11pNY9M/s1600-h/Oxen.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/SAuscbVlqRI/AAAAAAAAAQ0/YZW_11pNY9M/s400/Oxen.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5191432599849249042" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:verdana;">Today I read Carolyn Hax's column of advice in the local newspaper:<br />In case you missed it, here it is:<br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Being ‘driven’ is simply overrated</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">By Carolyn Hax</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Dear Carolyn: My wife and I have been married four years. We share a mortgage but don’t have kids or other significant debt. My wife works a lot harder than I do. Her company pays her $100,000 a year, but she is always exhausted. I have a publishing business that pays me $150,000 annually. I have been building my business since before we married and now enjoy the passive income it provides us.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">My wife is resentful that she has to work so hard and she sees me kicking back. I would love to travel by myself once in a while or do a guys’ trip, but I get nothing except guilt from her, which in turn makes me angry and resentful. It feels like there is a constant cycle of resentment because of it.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">She stays in her job because there may be potential to move up, and because she enjoys the challenge and responsibility. She is also making terrific contacts — she likes working hard. I’ve always told her that if she doesn’t like her job, I support anything she would choose to do, regardless of her income.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">I feel that I carry my weight financially. Shouldn’t I enjoy the fruits of my labor without feeling guilty, and shouldn’t she give me the freedom to enjoy it once in a while? She has vacation days she can use if she wants. I would need to get a second job to make more money, which we don’t need right now. She implies that I am lazy and not driven. I disagree, I built my business with hard work and drive. Doesn’t my income count heavily toward that argument?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">— J.L.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Dear J.L.: I suppose, but I would make a different argument entirely: that being “driven” is seriously overrated. Certainly I’m glad some people are. We all enjoy — in fact, take for granted — countless fruits of other people’s elective 80-hour work weeks.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">I simply reject the implication that everyone has to be driven, or even ought to. People pulling elective 80-hour weeks certainly enjoy the fruits of other people’s rejection of that life. It’s not just poets, volunteers, and people who make sure they have nothing more pressing to do than walk at their toddler’s pace. It’s people who think 40 hours more than suffice.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">You have a sweet life. Whether you earned it or picked it up off the sidewalk is, I think, immaterial. You are content with what you have. If your wife envies your contentment, then she needs to do something to find more — with your cooperation, of course. Her insistence that you lessen your contentment, by taking on equal stress, of all things, is appalling. A stunningly selfish solution.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">You don’t mention any ways you apply your spare quality of life toward improving hers — chores, cooking, social planning, to cite a few examples. If you don’t do this, then do this. “I support anything she would choose to do” isn’t a promise kept only in few possible futures, it’s one to make good on daily.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">If you already do pamper her, though, and a thoughtful, happy, well-paid spouse isn’t enough to make her happy, then it’s time for you both to start asking what is.<br />-------------------<br /></span>I used to have on my school desk two quotes:<br /><br /> There are two ways of being rich:<br /> To have great wealth -- or --<br /> To have few needs.<br /><br /> Happiness is not getting what you want, but<br /> Wanting what you have.<br /><br />In today's Western world -- contentment is a four letter word. Real men and real women are driven -- constantly, relentlessly driven. This is the true sign of "having the right stuff"--endless desires for more degrees, more money, more prestige, higher positions. And, what about at the end of all this, i.e. Death? Well, as the bumper sticker used to say:"The guy with the most toys at the "end" wins." Really??<br /><br />Who says so? And who cares? This "drivenness" is a "dis-ease" which the Buddha diagnosed as the chief cause of human suffering. Contentment is good. Never being satisfied is crippling and absolutely destructive of peace + joy which are the chief ingredients of happiness.<br /><br />As I see it, the husband is on the right path. He has a sane and healthy attitude toward life. His wife is upset because she cannot break her addiction of perpetually proving herself through rising another rung up the corporate ladder and grasping the next larger salary. For her --enough can never be enough. She is strapped to the treadmill the Buddhists call -- <span style="font-style: italic;">samsara</span>.<br /><br />Part of the problem that many modern people have is that they really believe that this life is the End --- that they must hurry to gain everything of material worth possible -- before the end.<br /><br />However, some persons who don't belief in an afterlife --- do wisely take the perspective of seeing this life in terms of real values: relationships, inner peace, giving not always taking, enjoying each moment and appreciating each experience.<br /><br />The wife's attitude and values are not just hers but those of the corporations, many politicians, "our leaders," and unfortunately that of millions of persons especially in the "First" World --- and are the cause of so much misery not just to people, but harm to our planet.<br /><br />I was once told by a Buddhist monk that the way to achieve real happiness is >>> <span style="font-style: italic;">always maintain an attitude of non-grasping</span>.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"></span><br /><br /></span></span>zingiberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08856498870095904118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25016709.post-88740225140914548212008-03-30T09:58:00.000-07:002008-12-09T13:27:58.835-08:00<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/R-_3S0W0RbI/AAAAAAAAAQU/JkfvmNnvkyI/s1600-h/Societal-Machine.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/R-_3S0W0RbI/AAAAAAAAAQU/JkfvmNnvkyI/s200/Societal-Machine.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5183633598790780338" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/R-_Je0W0RYI/AAAAAAAAAP8/ZmGg-oXlazQ/s1600-h/Everything+Must+Change.png"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/R-_Je0W0RYI/AAAAAAAAAP8/ZmGg-oXlazQ/s320/Everything+Must+Change.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5183583227414332802" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/R-_Je0W0RZI/AAAAAAAAAQE/7ABnnuUIm0g/s1600-h/Brian.png"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/R-_Je0W0RZI/AAAAAAAAAQE/7ABnnuUIm0g/s320/Brian.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5183583227414332818" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">A WONDERFUL BOOK<br /><br />I have read at least three other of Brian's books, and I believe he is one the greatest forces of good both in and outside Chistendom.<br /><br />In the book before this one, <span style="font-style: italic;">The </span> <span style="font-style: italic;">Secret Message of Jesus</span>, Brian discloses the essence of Jesus' communication to us.<br /><br />In this book -- he tackles the answers to two primary questions:<br /><br />---What are the biggest problems in the world?<br /><br />--- What do the life and teachings of Jesus have to say about the most critical global problems in our world today?<br /><br />I expected Brian to have something significant to say about the answer to the second question.<br /><br />However, I had already lowered my expectations for the significance of his description and analysis of the first question's answers.<br /><br />What a surprise! He does a marvelous job of answering the first question. As good or better than those experts in more "relevant" disciplines whose books contain many more pages than McLaren's. And, McLaren is a tremendously engaging writer -- one who keeps you turning pages.<br /><br />He sees our world as a machine -- The Societal Machine --- which in truth is a<br />"Suicide Machine".<br /><br />There are three components of this machine: Prosperity System, Security System and Equity System. The black cog in the middle, Brian calls -- The Framing Story.<br /><br />McLaren spends ample time discussing the problems and then makes a convincing presentation of how Jesus' message and life could be the antidote for the poisonous predicament prevailing today.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></span></span>zingiberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08856498870095904118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25016709.post-83062865535633801102008-03-28T11:42:00.000-07:002008-12-09T13:27:59.127-08:00<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/R-0-SUW0RWI/AAAAAAAAAPs/25JUVQ-Uhuw/s1600-h/Hindu+panethon,sri-srinivasa-perumal-temple.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/R-0-SUW0RWI/AAAAAAAAAPs/25JUVQ-Uhuw/s400/Hindu+panethon,sri-srinivasa-perumal-temple.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5182867230596285794" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/R-0-SkW0RXI/AAAAAAAAAP0/f6BF4JZyojA/s1600-h/Hindu+Pantheon.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/R-0-SkW0RXI/AAAAAAAAAP0/f6BF4JZyojA/s400/Hindu+Pantheon.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5182867234891253106" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />EACH GOD IS GREAT<br /><br />For me, there is much that is appealing and meaningful within Hinduism. For many westerners ii is difficult to get beyond the exotic imagery of the Hindu deities. A few experts say that the Hindu tradition is basically for those born into and raised within a Hindu culture, where Hindu customs, mythology, and ritual are second nature. I can understand this point of view, but I don't believe it should prevent those who sense something very special within Sanatana Dharma (the official name of Hinduism) --- from pursuing their attraction to this most primordial of living faiths.<br /><br />There are a very large number of deities in the Hindu Pantheon. Each individual usually has one or, perhaps, several to whom he gives special devotion. However, he/she does not denigrate the forms of God dear to others. Each God Is Great. Each God represents the totality of the "God-Head". The God, Vishnu is said to have a thousand names, a thousand perceptions. Yet, the totality of the "thousand" is in no way greater than that of just one of the names.<br /><br />Hymns of praise (mahatmya) express devotion not to just that particular aspect of God -- but to the fulness of Divine Reality. <span style="font-style: italic;">In and through the particularity of this one god and image, the fulness of Reality is seen. Thus, to speak of many does not diminish the fact that the fulness of Divine Reality can still be seen through a single lens." </span>(from Encountering God. Diana L. Eck)<span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br /></span>Max Muller, a great German student of Eastern religions, said that he could not say that Hinduism was either polytheistic or monotheistic. Each god when the subject of a religious festival or of daily puja (personal worship) is the total object of devotion. Each god is as good as all the others. Each god is the conduit for the personal devotion of the worshiper towards the Ultimate Reality -- whatever name you give --it, her, her.<br /><br />Hindus do not believe or feel that the murti (image) of the deity (Krishna, Kali, Shiva, Ganesh, Rama ...) IS that deity. To do so would be idolatrous.<br /><br />They know that the Ultimate Reality cannot be grasped by a single name, image, idea. That humans must express their feeling towards the undefinable God through their own perceptions and imaginations.<br /><br />An ancient South Indian folk song puts it this way:<br /><br /> "Into the bosom of the great sea<br /> Flow streams that come from hills on every side,<br /> Their names are various as their springs,<br /> And thus in every land do men bow down<br /> To one great God, though known by many names."<br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span></span></span></span>zingiberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08856498870095904118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25016709.post-11771378324444044182008-02-17T15:15:00.000-08:002008-12-09T13:28:00.437-08:00<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/R7jBBfQEZ9I/AAAAAAAAAPE/hyWiW0pGz4g/s1600-h/Amy+Goodman.gif"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/R7jBBfQEZ9I/AAAAAAAAAPE/hyWiW0pGz4g/s200/Amy+Goodman.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5168092803720570834" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/R7jBBvQEZ-I/AAAAAAAAAPM/j2_fhTTQIUo/s1600-h/ehrenreich_265x285.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/R7jBBvQEZ-I/AAAAAAAAAPM/j2_fhTTQIUo/s200/ehrenreich_265x285.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5168092808015538146" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/R7jBBvQEZ_I/AAAAAAAAAPU/fXMCrNpjfvY/s1600-h/Grieder,+William.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/R7jBBvQEZ_I/AAAAAAAAAPU/fXMCrNpjfvY/s200/Grieder,+William.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5168092808015538162" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/R7jBB_QEaAI/AAAAAAAAAPc/8_H9tSxvzZo/s1600-h/Hedges,-Chris.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/R7jBB_QEaAI/AAAAAAAAAPc/8_H9tSxvzZo/s200/Hedges,-Chris.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5168092812310505474" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/R7jBCPQEaBI/AAAAAAAAAPk/BjsglPN5TRQ/s1600-h/Hersh,+Seymour.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/R7jBCPQEaBI/AAAAAAAAAPk/BjsglPN5TRQ/s200/Hersh,+Seymour.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5168092816605472786" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Advice from a College Professor<br /><br />While going for my Master's at Oxford (Ohio, Miami U.), I took all my "free" classes in political science. Dr. Black, the department chair, was my professor, and the classes were almost pure delight.<br /><br />One bit of advice he gave us was this:<br /><br />Unless you become a political scientist or a journalist, you will not have the time to check out all the pertinent news an nuances of current events. You should, therefore, discover for yourself a group of journalists who you trust in pursuing the necessary facts and background ---- and --- who share your world view, your values, philosophy. You will not have the time to read everyone, so read those who look at the scene through perspectives that you have found true and with which you are comfortable.<br /><br />Now, I know that some of you think that a liberal should read as much conservative pundits as he/she does liberal. I think this is a waste of time. My core values and frame of reference is mine --- arrived at through thought, feeling and living. This does not mean I never read people like George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Michael Barone and Pat Buchanan. I don't, though, waste my time entirely and raise my blood pressure unnecessarily by reading or listening to such silly persons as Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity.<br /></span>zingiberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08856498870095904118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25016709.post-14919049335165782512008-02-02T12:55:00.000-08:002008-12-09T13:28:00.662-08:00<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/R6TZhD6tG2I/AAAAAAAAAOc/ngbYq7fpzEQ/s1600-h/Luther,+Martin.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/R6TZhD6tG2I/AAAAAAAAAOc/ngbYq7fpzEQ/s320/Luther,+Martin.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5162490234883873634" border="0" /></a>Luther the Reformer--- Some Thoughts About the Man and His Career<br /><br />I have always been interested in religion, which does not mean I am necessarily a religious person.<br /><br />As I arrive towards the end of Luther's biography by James M. Kittelson, I felt like sharing my thoughts with myself, and anyone else who reads my blogs.<br /><br />Being brought up a Roman Catholic, I had a dismal view of the mischief maker and heretic -- Luther.<br />I did not know much about him except he was one 0f the bad guys.<br /><br />I left the Catholic church, went through a stint with the Episcopalians, sparred briefly with the Unitarians --- before 1974 when I came across eastern spirituality, especially Buddhism.<br /><br />Nevertheless, I find myself reading books about Jesus written by people like Marcus Borg, Brian McLain, Dominic Crossan, Alan Jones, Albert Nolan, Gesa Vermes, Richard Rohr and others. One would expect me to join some Christian church. It would be nice to have some special place to go on Sunday and to have a community, really an automatic one by virtue of membership, preferably faithful attendance. Then if I needed prayers when I was sick or someone to pick up groceries for me --- they would be there.<br /><br />I have not tried a great many Christian churches since I left Christianity in 1975. The biggest problem is that I don't think many Christian churches follow or emulate the Jesus I have discovered through my reading 0f alternative views, especially those who delve into the "historical" Jesus. In other words, I might be a fish out of water. Most Christian churches, I think, follow Christ -- a product, IMHO, largely of accretions layered onto the original Jesus stemming from theologians, The Creeds, the Canon which specified the only authenic scriptures --- and especially St. Paul.<br /><br />However, I did feel somewhat at home in Peace Lutheran Church here in Las Cruces, I attended<br />about three times with much discomfort due to my nerve problems in the back and legs. Then it became just too difficult and I quit going.<br /><br />The people seemed normal and friendly. I was pleased when I heard at coffee hour that Peace Lutheran (ELCA) was the "bluest" church in town. The pastor gave intelligent, insightful, sermons -- rather than the usual drab, prosaic, and doctrinaire ones I heard much of the time as a Catholic. The service pleased me: it was liturgical, yet simple and down to earth. The pastor donned vestments for the Lord's Supper -- that I liked. And the church followed the liturgical year -- the same as the Catholics and the Episcopal churches do.<br /><br />However-- what about --- Luther !! I needed to read a good, respected, and readable biography. I had read a book on Lutheranism and discovered that the Lutherans may be as immersed and obsessed with theology and doctrinal matters as the Catholics.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Luther the Reformer: The Story of the Man and His Career </span>by James M. Kittelson a professor of Church History, and with many other credits to his name --- has done a fine job. His subject, Luther, is a most interesting, and very human man. Kittelson not only vividly sets Luther's life in the events of his time, but deals in a clear and engrossing manner with the debates over theology and the devel0pment of Luther's religious views.<br /><br />Luther came of humble origins. His father originally was a peasant, but through hard work bettered himself. Martin a religious lad -- concerned with questions about God, morality and salvation had a frightening experience which convinced him to join an Augustinian monastery. He was caught in a horrendous thunderstorm and he took it as a sign from God to become a monk. His father was opposed to Martin's decision --- but accepted it.<br /><br />Martin was an ardent and serious monk: fasting, praying, carrying out his daily duties faithfully. However, he felt -- he sensed -- he knew -- that God was not satisfied. Martin's salvation was in doubt. His health suffered; he became depressed. But he persevered.<br /><br />Luther was highly intelligent and possessed strong emotions. Although likable -- he could be quick to anger. His superior and friend convinced him to become a professor of theology. Luther might have preferred more pastoral duties, but he acquiesced --- and eventually gained his doctorate in theology.<br /><br />The Catholic Church particularly in Rome was very corrupt --- the popes often focused on building a worldly institution of magnificent edifices, and the higher clergy generally led rather luxurious lives --- not in keeping with Jesus -- who clad in simple garments, his feet shod in plain sandals walked the dusty roads of Galilee --- associating with the lowest levels of society.<br /><br />Luther was sent by his monastery on a mission to Rome and he was dismayed at the Christianity he found at the Vatican.<br /><br />The next shock and irritant for Luther was the advent of Tetsel, a Dominican preacher, sent to Germany on money raising mission for the building of St. Peter's --- by selling indulgences -- pieces of paper which would guarantee that relatives detained in Purgatory until their sins were expunged --- would immediately gain release.<br /><br />There was a jingle at that time: "Once the coin into the coffer clings, a soul from Purgatory heavenward springs!"<br /><br />Luther was so angry that he composed 95 Theses --- the famous 95 -- and nailed them to the<br />door of the castle church in Wittenberg.<br /><br />(to be continued) bobzingiberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08856498870095904118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25016709.post-43749674328601108762007-10-24T12:59:00.000-07:002008-12-09T13:28:00.844-08:00<span style="font-size:100%;">THE ARAMAIC JESUS<br /><br /></span><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/Rx-kidPsAvI/AAAAAAAAAKg/aL_dt6b1Epk/s1600-h/Jesus,+Aramaic.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/Rx-kidPsAvI/AAAAAAAAAKg/aL_dt6b1Epk/s320/Jesus,+Aramaic.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5124995812843848434" border="0" /></a><br /> I have begun reading “The Hidden Gospel,” by Neil Douglas-Klotz. Klotz is a scholar of religious studies and psychology and a spiritual practitioner. One of his interests is probing into the Aramaic Jesus. Jesus was a first century Aramaic speaking Jew from the Middle East, specifically that part that has come to be known as the Holy Land.<br /><br /> Jesus had the mind set and mental processing formed by his Jewish heritage, shaped by the Aramaic language he spoke. Each person’s perspective of the world and the way he sees it is greatly affected by the language he speaks: its vocabulary; its grammar; perhaps, even the sounds themselves. A native Greek speaker in the period in which Jesus lived would perceive reality and formulate it differently than a person born an Aramaic speaker. (Jesus probably knew enough Hebrew to read the scriptures although there is some doubt he was able to read.)<br /><br /> When the words and thoughts of Jesus conceived in Aramaic were translated into Greek---this transposition was a radical one from the intuitional, earth based Aramaic to the intellectual, conceptualizing Greek.<br /><br /> The subtitle of this book is “Decoding the Spiritual Message of the Aramaic Jesus”.<br /><br /> Klotz uses the Peshita, the Bible of the Eastern Christians which is written in Western Aramaic sometimes known as the Syriac. Even this Bible probably in most cases does not contain the actual Aramaic words of Jesus -- but if there is a more or less unbroken line between the time of Jesus and the Peshita -- the Peshita should have a closer content and feeling to the original words of Jesus than the Greek Bible.<br /><br /> Moving the gospels from the Aramaic world of the first century to the Greek world was about as radical a move as would be possible.<br /><br /> During the first two centuries after Jesus’ death there were many more groups in the Jesus movement than Christian churches and denominations today. Call them Christian Jews or Jewish Christians but there was not a single group among the many that could be labeled “orthodox”. And for the first three centuries there hundreds of “gospels” used by these numerous and varied gatherings of believers.<br /><br /> At first there was just the oral tradition --- the memory of what Jesus said and did. Earlier people seemed to be quite good at preserving their traditions through memory.<br />However, there were many “Christian” groups each with their traditions. Eventually, some of them began to be put their traditions in writing. This transmission involves selection of materials and the words to be transcribed. The end result is a loss of variety with no assurance that the most faithful or accurate memories were the ones ending up in written form.<br /> <br /> Constantine a Roman Emperor converted to some variety of Christianity in the 4th<br />Century. He “...realized that a stable empire could not be built upon hundred of conflicting interpretations of who Jesus was. In 325 CE he ordered a council of bishops and theologians to gather at Nicaea (in what is now Turkey) to settle once and for all who Jesus was and what he said and did.”<br /><br /> Pressure was upon the various church leaders to come to an agreement acceptable to Constantine. If they did not, he might even rescind his decision to make Christianity the State Religion.<br /><br /> The prelates also drew up the Nicene Creed which uses the methodology and words of the Greeks and their philosophy to encapsulate what these clerics felt needed to be believed and assented to by all persons who wanted to be considered Christians. The Creed makes use of obscure language and concepts from the Greek to express its dogmas ---<br />for example, that Jesus was “...begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father.”<br /><br /> The doctrine of The Trinity was announced despite many present, perhaps the majority, believing that God was One, a Unity -- a key belief in the Jewish tradition from which Christianity rose.<br /><br /> The author in this book is attempting to re-discover some of the spirit, world view and teachings of the original Jesus -- before he was dwarfed and submerged in the institutionalization of Christianity.zingiberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08856498870095904118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25016709.post-23164175676533494262007-10-03T15:07:00.000-07:002008-12-09T13:28:01.199-08:00<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/RwQUq9PsAtI/AAAAAAAAAKQ/1FSJqJp3lHY/s1600-h/034-god.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/RwQUq9PsAtI/AAAAAAAAAKQ/1FSJqJp3lHY/s320/034-god.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5117237804827149010" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/RwQUq9PsAuI/AAAAAAAAAKY/6QiArGuM9oM/s1600-h/Buddha.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/RwQUq9PsAuI/AAAAAAAAAKY/6QiArGuM9oM/s320/Buddha.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5117237804827149026" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /></span> <span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" > Do Buddhists Believe in God?</span><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /><br /> Recently a friend posed the above question to me in this way: </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" >"I have always had a problem with the Buddhists because I thought they had no 'god'. True they believe in self development and walking the path, but not focused on a single or multiple 'power greater than themselves', and certainly not a 'creator god' like the Christians. Have I got it all wrong? "<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;"> I suppose I could give a quick and simple answer, but as frequently is my case, I found there is more to the answer than simplicity.<br /><br /> First of all not all "Buddhists" are the same. There are either two or three major traditions and within each there are sub sets.<br /><br /> However, in the early Buddhist scriptures written in Pali, we could say that Buddhism appears as "non-Theistic". This does not mean the Buddha was an "atheist," -- one who does not believe in "God". Nor, does it mean he was an agnostic -- one who does not believe that God can be known. He taught a way that was non-theistic --- in which the idea of a God does not appear. Why? Because in the India of his time and for years before---debating about God seemed to take up a terrible amount of time. People were lost in trying to define God and had no time for living a wise and compassionate life.<br />When I think about it --- this problem has been with Christianity for centuries.<br /><br /> In his search for the answer to "suffering" the Buddha came to conclusion reached by his own experience as to the nature of reality and the "antidote" for suffering (not pain). He discovered that ultimately his path led to a state called "nirvana". Nirvana, IMO, may just be another name for the presence of God.<br /><br /> In an <a href="http://siochanleat.blogspot.com/2006/03/god-plus-or-minus-i-am-not-going-to.html">earlier blog</a> -- I wrote this:<br /></span> <span style="font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" >"The most important thing --- as I see things, is that if you believe in God or Allah or Brahman or Sacred Emptiness ----whatever term you use for the sacred core of things--- you must experience The Sacred. God cannot be described, but this being can be experienced. Knowledge of "God" comes through intuition, through feeling, through sensing this presence---which you know is Reality itself --- but which you cannot encase in a conceptual capsule."<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;"> The book "The Good Heart" is based on a conference between Christian (mostly Catholic priests, nuns and lay people) sponsored by the Benedictines and featuring the Dalai Lama as the center of the proceedings. The Dalai Lama had never read The New Testament. He was asked to comment on selected passages each day of the conference which led to interesting and enlightening interchanges.<br /><br /> During these sessions the Dalai Lama said that Buddhists do not believe in a Personal Creator God as Christians do. However, he had no objections to the Christians believing this way since it appeared to provide spiritual growth and the development of compassionate living. In addition, he said that he felt Christians should attempt to plumb the depths and explore the variety within their Christian Faith --- before considering other religions, including Buddhism.<br /><br /> Jim Pym an English layman, who is both a Shin Buddhist and a Quaker, in a book he wrote says that many Western Buddhists believe in God --- simply because it is so much a part of their culture and background. He doesn't believe this hampers their Buddhism. He also points out that many non-Western Buddhists pray. Go to the temples in Thailand and Burma where you will see thousands of lay Buddhists at prayer. From both reading and personal experience, I know that Tibetan Buddhists pray. When I was doing a Tibetan practice there were prayers, e.g. for the long life of the Dalai Lama and other teachers. Then there are prayers to the Medicine Buddha.<br /> Jim also points out that a number of well known Buddhist teachers like Thich Nhat Hanh and Joshu Sazaki Roshi. The latter, now in his eighties once said that all of his life he had been nursing at the breast of God.<br /><br /> Does "God" have to be a Personal Creator God? The Hindus may have the "highest" thought of God: Brahman. Brahman is impersonal, without identity-- and yet nothing like a "rock" --- but full of all life and energy. Brahman's manifestations appearing as creating; nourishing and redeeming; purifying and destroying. Hence, the Hindus have Brahma (God the Father); Visnu (The Redeemer); and Shiva (The Purifier). IMO, the Absolute by whatever name one bestows upon it --- is not like us. God's identity or personality is something we humans provide -- for our own benefit. We, by nature are anthropocentric -- so our God is seen to be like us. We say that we are created in God's image. It may be more true that we have created God -- in our image.<br /> As to the necessity of a Creator. Again, I look at Hinduism a religion I greatly respect. It stems from the very beginnings of human civilization -- when their great seers lived in a time when the Absolute may have been easier to perceive and to find unity with through meditation. Brahman "created" the "world" from Brahman. The world is the "dream" or the "play" of Brahman. Nothing was really created because there was and is nothing but Brahman.<br /><br /> Leaving what some would call the esoteric beliefs of Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism) --- I, personally, do not believe the world was created, but that reality in some form or the other has always and will always exist. It is said that every effect must have a cause, ergo, the World needs a cause. That cause is "God". The question springs instantly to mind: "Who or what created God?" The answer given by creationists is --"God is the First Cause."<br /> For me, this response is---unsatisfactory. I am content to live in a world without a creator, and I feel that his belief is perfectly plausible.<br /><br /> Mahayana Buddhism speaks of </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" >"sunyata"</span><span style="font-size:130%;"> --- which might be thought of as sacred emptiness. If you probe deeply enough you will experience this underlying reality. In the very early Pali suttas of Buddhism the Buddha spoke of the necessity for the existence of "the Unborn, the Uncreated, the Unconditioned" -- as far as I know he only did this once.<br /><br /> Shin Buddhists -- and I feel I am part of this tradition -- put their enduring trust in Amida -- the Buddha of Infinite Life and Light. We know that as </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" >bombu </span><span style="font-size:130%;">or foolish and weak beings -- we cannot achieve enlightenment, liberation or salvation through our personal efforts. So, we step aside -- and rely entirely on the compassionate and loving embrace of Amida. Our simple prayer is short: Namo Amida Butsu --- I take refuge in Amida Buddha -- the spiritual being of wisdom and compassion (who is NOT a Creator God).<br /><br /> One final point---There are those who have this attitude: "If you don't believe in a Personal Creator God you are not open to spiritual or supernatural realities. You are also, in all likelihood, an immoral person.<br /><br /> And, you will end up in Hell. Some of these persons say further than you must believe in the Nicene or Apostles' Creed word for word; or you must believe that Jesus died on the Cross for our sins; or that the Bible is the literal words of God. And, depending on the sect or denomination --- there are more and more criteria.<br /><br /> Swami Satchidananda claimed that if all the scriptures of the world would be destroyed -- including the Hindu ones -- the Absolute could be found in Nature.<br /><br /> If there is a Personal Creator God--then I believe he will condemn no one to Hell ---- his grace will grant salvation to all.<br /><br /> As for Buddhists, they all take "refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma (the teaching) and the Sangha (the fellowship). Some also have special devotions and connection to other spiritual beings: Green Tara, Chenrezig, Amida etc. Buddhists, in general, have at least the faith in the spiritual and the sacred that Christians, in general do.<br /><br /> Buddhists believe in another life to come -- and this, in itself, makes this life more special in many ways.</span>zingiberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08856498870095904118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25016709.post-40227406156891126492007-07-29T12:52:00.001-07:002008-12-09T13:28:01.362-08:00<span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:verdana;"><br /><br /></span></span><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/RqzwI8DJJAI/AAAAAAAAAG4/y9BCHstpwDo/s1600-h/Word+of+God.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 396px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/RqzwI8DJJAI/AAAAAAAAAG4/y9BCHstpwDo/s320/Word+of+God.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5092709314998117378" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-size:130%;">IS THE BIBLE THE WORD ---- OF GOD?<br /><br />(Italics are used for quotes from Marcus Borg's<br />book, </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" >Reading the Bible Again -- for the First Time --Taking the Bible Seriously But Not Literally.)<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;">It's probably happened to you that you opened a book and were pleased to find the ideas which had been circulating in your head for many years were not only dealt with, but supported and expanded upon.<br /><br />For many years, I have not believed that the Bible's words were the "words of God". This would mean that God dictated the actual words to the author of the text much as an executive dictates his next letter to his secretary. Or, it might be argued that God did not dictate -- he inspired the author of the gospel to express God's exact thought or feeling --- but framed in the evangelist's style. This did not seem sensible either.<br /><br />However, being "sensible" is not the politically correct word to use. Can we judge the ways of God by our own "common sense"? There is some validity to this point. On the other hand, I don't believe that humans can conceptualize God or the Absolute to begin with. Well, we do it, but what hope is there that we hit the mark, we don't catch the fish. Even more to the point: can a concept, a mental form used by humans, encapsulate the Divinity?<br /><br />If one has the need or the inner sense that The Bible is to some extent a "sacred text," then my position would be Borg's: </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" >"... to see the Bible as a human product --- the product of two ancient communities." </span><span style="font-size:130%;">It is sacred because these communities deemed it so; they sensed that these writings contained within them their human experience of God.<br /></span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" ><br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;">The Bible, therefore, is the account of a part of mankind's interaction with the Absolute. Let's accept the existence of God (or whatever name you wish to use) and that human beings have had and still do have experience of the divinity, the holy, the sacred, the numinous. The Bible contains examples of the human expression of these experiences and the actions that resulted. Some of the Bible -- how much I don't know -- is not the result of an encounter with the sacred.<br />As readers -- we must decide on our own.<br /><br />The fundamentalists who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible have to find some way to justify the parts of the Bible that contradict one another; that no longer apply; that seem incongruous with the main thrust. One way they do this is to state that we cannot comprehend the mind of God who was the source of the word of God. If we had Divine insight or perspective --- everything fits.<br /><br />This is a general characteristic of fundamentalists: they depend on a kind of faith that postulates: The Bible is the Word of God. Jesus is God. Jesus meant to found a church.<br />The church guided by the Holy Spirit picked just the right books for the Canon of Scripture, and avoided the false ones. Once a person lays down a list of beliefs, and then lays everything on Faith --- well, there is no room for discussion. It does give fundamentalists a strong sense of security.<br /><br />I simply don't believe the Absolute acts, behaves this way. In fact, my present position is that -- God is not a Person. God does not have an "identity" as we are supposed to have.<br />The formulation of God's non-personal nature closest to my thinking is within Hinduism.<br />The Absolute, Brahmin is called Satchidananda or Being-Consciousness-Bliss. Of course, this is inadequate because human words and concepts are used, but it is a better finger pointing at the moon than the one that points at scripture, the church fathers, and the church councils. That is a human desperately reaching for Security.<br /><br />God is a mystery. Anything less than this diminishes God.<br /><br />The Bible can be a valuable tool in spiritual growth. However, "..</span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" >. a close and careful reading of the Bible makes it impossible to think that what it says comes directly or indirectly from God." "...the Bible tells us about how <span style="font-weight: bold;">they</span> saw things, not about how <span style="font-weight: bold;">God</span> sees things."<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;">The Bible is not sacred because God is its origin. It is sacred because it was deemed this by the ancient communities from whom it originated. <br /><br />The Bible is the framework or the spiritual landscape that Christians live within. Christians must actively operate within this spiritual story, but must use judgment as to what does not need to be honored because it was relevant to ancient times and peoples, and from their cultural and social environment or </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" >"...because that they were never the will of God."<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;">The Bible can act as a "sacrament," a vehicle that generates within us the divine experience.<br />"Lectio Divina" is a method of reading passages from the Bible slowly, allowing them to resonate within us so that some kind of experience of the holy ensues. It dates back at least to the Middle Ages and is being rediscovered today.<br /><br />Finally, </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" >"...calling the Bible the Word of God refers not to its origin but to its status and function."</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"></span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"></span><span style="font-style: italic;"></span><span style="font-style: italic;"></span></span></span>zingiberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08856498870095904118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25016709.post-75941553915699070132007-07-28T16:17:00.001-07:002008-12-09T13:28:01.534-08:00<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/RqvO2cDJI_I/AAAAAAAAAGw/yUs5xTWBlYM/s1600-h/Latin-Scene.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/RqvO2cDJI_I/AAAAAAAAAGw/yUs5xTWBlYM/s320/Latin-Scene.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5092391238310110194" border="0" /></a>MEXICANS ARE DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND<br /><br />I received this painting on a card my oldest daughter, Suzanne, sent to me recently.<br /><br />The image mentally triggered a conversation I had about ten years ago with one of the better artists here in <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Las</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Cruces</span>. Paintings with closeups of persons, IMO, are tricky. This was her forte. When we talked it was outside her gallery in <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Mesilla</span>, a small historic town adjacent to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Las</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Cruces</span>.<br /><br />She mentioned to me that <span style="font-style: italic;">"Mexicans are hard to understand. They seem happy as long as they have food, shelter, their family and times to enjoy simple things like these. We </span><span style="font-style: italic;" class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">anglos</span> (Caucasians) are always seeking better things: cars, houses, and so on. Anglos have goals. Unlike the Mexicans we always want more. We are ambitious. And, if you travel down inside Mexico --- the people are even stranger there. They want <span style="font-style: italic;">so little from life."</span><br /><br />I did not know exactly what to say. I thought, <span style="font-style: italic;">"Mexicans may be on the right track. Happiness, peace, joy, contentment actually do come from the simpler things of life -- and living in the present."</span><br /><br />I used to have a small sign on my desk at school: <span style="font-style: italic;">"Happiness is not getting what you want. It's wanting what you have."</span> Getting is endless. Endless desires are one of the three causes of suffering according to the Buddha.<br /><br />How did Anglos get on this track many seem to be on? There used to be a Nissan car <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">television</span> ad; the slogan was --- <span style="font-style: italic;">"We are driven."</span> Anglos are driven. Is that good especially when it seems to be an obsession? And others who take time to smell the roses are deemed --- strange or shiftless.<br /><br />While attending a workshop on dealing with violence (I worked for the District Attorney then.)<br />the Roman Catholic archbishop of southern NM gave a talk. One thing he said has stayed with me. <span style="font-style: italic;">"Three things are important to Hispanics: their church, their family, and respect."</span><br /><br />I seem to get along very well with Hispanics. I always offer them respect.zingiberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08856498870095904118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25016709.post-52751187531557011252007-07-21T15:53:00.000-07:002008-12-09T13:28:01.789-08:00<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/RqKPasDJI6I/AAAAAAAAAGI/aIxAiimjtQM/s1600-h/Benedict.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 96px; height: 142px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/RqKPasDJI6I/AAAAAAAAAGI/aIxAiimjtQM/s320/Benedict.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5089788217545794466" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/RqKPasDJI7I/AAAAAAAAAGQ/Yayld0R5uaI/s1600-h/johnxxiii.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 111px; height: 143px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/RqKPasDJI7I/AAAAAAAAAGQ/Yayld0R5uaI/s320/johnxxiii.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5089788217545794482" border="0" /></a>MOVING AHEAD --- BACKWARDS<br /><br />There was fear and trepidation among religious progressives both Catholic and others following the selection of Cardinal Ratzinger, a German theologian and former head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith for almost twenty five years. In 2005, he was elected Pope to replace the recently deceased John Paul II. He chose the title -- Benedict XVI.<br /><br />Progressives worried that the new pope might oppose such movements as a married clergy, woman priests, granting more power to the bishops -- and to the laity.<br /><br />This seems to be happening. One example is Benedict's allowance for the use of the old Latin mass on a somewhat, for now, limited basis.<br /><br />His most disturbing statement other than irritating Muslims by bringing up the highly critical remarks towards Islam made by a Byzantine ruler a 1000 years ago, was followed by his unfortunate remarks in Brazil when he said that the native people should be grateful for the colonization of their continent by Portugal and Spain.<br /><br />As alarming or more so is his declaration that the Catholic Church is the only true church as reported in the following news item of July 10th:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Pope Says Catholicism Only True Church</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Benedict XVI Approves Document Saying Orthodox Churches Defective</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy -- Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document that says Orthodox churches are defective and that other Christian denominations are not true churches.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">The document, released Tuesday, restates key sections of a 2000 document that set off a firestorm of criticism among Protestant and other Christian denominations. It said they were not true churches but merely ecclesiastical communities and therefore did not have the "means of salvation."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">In the new document and an accompanying commentary it says "Christ 'established here on earth' only one church." It says the other communities "cannot be called 'churches' in the proper sense" because they do not have the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ's original apostles.<br /><br /></span>Not exactly an ecumenical statement. And a clear indication that the new Pope may be working on undoing the progressive ideas of Vatican II.<br /><br />Many in Islam can understand such a statement because Islam, in general, believes that it is the "truly true" religion. And, in the case of the three monotheistic religions of the "West", those faiths sometimes referred to as the religions of the book -- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam --- Islam considers itself the ending of revelation and God's final word on true religion.<br /><br />Perhaps, Muslims believe the Pope is confused or mistaken in his idea of what the truth faith is.<br /><br />It would seem as though we have returned to the days of the Crusades with each side considering the other --- <span style="font-weight: bold;">infidels!<br /></span><br />The Church seems to be going ahead by going backwards. With Benedict at the helm of the bark of Peter it won't be long before the Catholic Church sailing in reverse will go back in time past the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) which had attempted to move the Church into modern times without sacrificing the basics.<br /><br />Pope John XXXIII who convened this council was only Pope from 1958 to 1963. In contrast to Benedict, John was a pastoral type figure, a man of simplicity and foresight. Too bad he did not live longer. However, the College of Cardinals chose him partly -- because of his age. They could not come to an agreement on the well-known figures amongst the College of Cardinals --- so they chose an old man who could not be expected to live long, and would allow them in a few years to come to agreement on a man more to their liking.<br /><br />You can imagine the chagrin among the conservative princes (cardinals) of The Church, when John quickly moved to make possible some needed reformation within the The Church. Totally unexpected, I feel sure, was his audacity at calling a council of all the bishops of the church.<br />These councils have the potential of making meaningful changes.<br /><br />One document that came out of Vatican II was <span style="font-style: italic;">Nostra Aetate</span>. It starts by affirming that "<span style="font-style: italic;">all peoples comprise a single community, and have a single origin...One also is their final goal, God. His providence, his manifestation of goodness, and his saving designs extend to all people."<br /><br /></span>Also in this same document it states that all religions are struggling with the same mystery as Christians are struggling with. <span style="font-style: italic;">"The Catholic Church rejects nothing which is true and holy in these religions. She looks with sincere respect upon these ways of conduct and life, these rules and teaching which, though differing in many particulars from what she holds and sets forth, nevertheless often reflect a ray of truth which enlightens all people.."<br /><br /></span>The statement although not perfect, IMHO, was moving in the right direction: forwards. And certainly not - backwards.<br /><br />The following statement is much more to my personal liking:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Different People, Different Paths</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">As the different streams</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Having their sources in different places</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">All mingle their water in the sea,</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">So, O Lord, the different paths which</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">people take,</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Through various tendencies</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Various though they appear</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Crooked or straight,</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">All lead to thee.</span><br /><br /> -- Sanskrit Hymn<br /><span style="font-style: italic;"></span><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"></span>zingiberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08856498870095904118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25016709.post-47023312218557243942007-06-22T16:02:00.000-07:002008-12-09T13:28:01.985-08:00<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/Rnxhhq91HaI/AAAAAAAAAC4/cH18DE2bJQk/s1600-h/finger_pointing_at_the_moon.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_bElh8-dF0-s/Rnxhhq91HaI/AAAAAAAAAC4/cH18DE2bJQk/s200/finger_pointing_at_the_moon.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5079041710864276898" border="0" /></a><br /><br />HISTORICITY VERSUS MYTH<br />I have concluded that one large difference between the "Eastern Religions" of Taoism, Buddhism and Hinduism is that none of them are fixated, or even terribly interested in historicity. Whereas for the three monotheistic "religions of the "book: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam the matter of what happened when, where and whether the "chain" was unbroken are of great importance and often extreme interest; at least to the majority.<br /><br />For example, the division between Sunni and Shia stems from the succession to the Prophet Mohammed. The bishops and popes of R.C. Christianity claim to have an unbroken succession to Peter. The Protestants are fixated on the words of the Old and New Testament. Many of the fundamentalists among them are very upset with, e.g. the 70+ scholars of the Jesus Seminar, who after much discussion and examination of the actual texts, historical background, linguistic clues, etc. and, I should mention their collective knowledge and wisdom as Christian scriptural scholars---said that they believe only 20% of the words spoken by Jesus in the New Testament were actually spoken by him! This has created OUTRAGE among those who believe that the entire New Testament was inspired directly by God.<br /><br />This is a tremendous blow to their faith. It is a call to arms and denunciations are hurled at these enemies of the faith.<br /><br />This is one reason why Hinduism and Buddhism appeal to me, i.e. history is not of great concern. The truth -- not whether it can be pinned down in chronology -- is the focus. The Pure Land Sutra and the Lotus Sutra are both major scriptures in Mahayana. Both are classed (usually) as myths by Buddhist scholars. A myth may contain much greater truth than centuries of apostolic succession or volumes of scriptures that are true because God inspired them and which are destroyed if they can be questioned on a historical and linguistic analysis.<br /><br />The simple truth is that Truth may be best expressed in a story (myth) that is designed to be a kind of "finger pointing to the moon".zingiberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08856498870095904118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25016709.post-1159297921590000452006-09-26T11:59:00.000-07:002006-09-26T12:12:01.606-07:00<span style="font-weight: bold;"><br />Beatitude 4 <br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"Happy are those who are hungry and thirsty for goodness, for they shall be satisfied!"</span><br />----- J.B. Phillips translation<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"Happy those who hunger and thirst for what is right; they shall be satisfied."</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">----- Jerusalem Bible translation</span><br /><br />My thoughts:<br /><br />This is a difficult beatitude for me to understand. I realize most Christians believe in the Last Judgment, The Second Coming in which the scales of justice will be balanced: the wicked will suffer and perish, perhaps, into everlasting fire; the faithful will be exalted and see their hunger for justice and righteousness will be satisfied.<br /><br />As for me, those who seek goodness, liberation, enlightenment, salvation will have a very good chance of being satisfied; certainly, more so than those who don't. In Jodo Shinshu Buddhism, the sect in which I seem to be---at least primarily----those who seek to attain the Pure Land, but realizing their inability because of past karma and general moral weakness---answer the call of Amida Buddha, the Buddha of Compassion, by saying in a sincere manner: Namo Amida Butsu (I take refuge in Amida) will be delivered by Buddha's merit and action. We step aside and allow Amida to take over -- so to speak.<br /><br />From another viewpoint: there is a satisfaction from hunger for goodness and justice and do what they can in social activism, in their church, among their neighbors --- will know that they tried their best to make things right. This is all we can really do --- anyway. This, in itself, is satisfying.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></span>zingiberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08856498870095904118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25016709.post-1159212172133026262006-09-25T12:19:00.000-07:002006-09-25T12:34:32.200-07:00<span style="font-weight: bold;">AN EVENING WITH RABBI HAROLD KUSHNER</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Last Tuesday Eloise and I heard a very worthwhile talk from the author of the best seller, "When Bad Things Happen to Good People".</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Rabbi Kushner dealt with the perennial question: if God is just and compassionate --- why is there evil in the world? And -- why do bad things happen to good people?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">He framed the answer based as three parts:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"> >>> God is all powerful.</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"> >>> God is all compassionate</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"> >>> A good person to whom misfortune occurs</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">He said that when his young son died many years ago he was devastated. During that time he thought about this question of a good God and a world in which evil is a reality.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">He concluded that one of the three elements above must be eliminated or erased.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">His conclusion was (and is) that God is not All Powerful.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"> God has limited his power in establishing the laws of Nature and in allowing humans to have free will.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"> Disasters like Katrina that take the lives of innocent persons and make many more miserable is an act of Nature. God does not and cannot interfere because this is the way he established the world.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"> When an innocent person is killed by one who hates him --- the murderer is excising his free will.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"> In both the above cases God cannot interfere since he has chosen to limit his power.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"> As an example, Kushner said </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">"it's the doctor's job to heal people. God's job is to make sick people, brave."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"> I would say that in the case of Katrina --- it is job of the community: national, state and local to keep the levees strong and repaired, and when preventative measures do not work to be ready to come quickly and effectively into the disaster areas with all the help needed.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"> In the case of 9/11 it is our country's duty too protect us, but also to engage in a foreign policy that works towards a world in which there is sufficient shelter, food, and clothing -- and adequate employment for all. Mankind must deal with the root causes of misery that breeds violence.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"> In both cases --- God is not going to intervene. However, God is constantly present and available with grace that people can tap into to deal with bad situations that God is not responsible for.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"> "If I must choose between an all-powerful God who is not very loving and compassionate, or a loving and compassionate God -- who isn't in control of everything, I'd rather worship God for being compassionate and just. I'd rather be a part of society that revered God more for his compassion than his power ...God doesn't do 'bad' things to people." </span>zingiberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08856498870095904118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25016709.post-1158939241519925652006-09-22T08:24:00.000-07:002006-09-22T08:34:01.900-07:00<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6862/1566/1600/Sermon-on-the-Mount-Giclee-Print-C12016216.1.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6862/1566/320/Sermon-on-the-Mount-Giclee-Print-C12016216.1.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">BEATITUDE 2</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br />"How happy are those who know what sorrow means, for they will be given courage and comfort!"</span> J. B. Phillips translation</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br />"Happy are those who mourn: they shall be comforted."</span> Jerusalem Bible</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br />My Thoughts--</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;"> We are told at times of sorrow or loss by some people that we should "get on with our lives," "move ahead," "put the past behind you".</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;"> Yet, not to feel deeply a significant loss, e.g. of a loved one, is a loss in itself, -- a deficiency in our humanity. Vulnerability is part of being human.<br /><br /> Recently I finished a book about aging and death in which the author said that it is possible (and desirable) that although we move ahead with the rest of our lives---yet we continue we have a tender and poignant spot in our heart for the loss of loved ones. These two realities don't preclude each other.</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;"> This approach to personal loss is both both realistic and healing.</span> <br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The Buddha told a woman who had lost a loved one and could not longer could face ordinary life that she should visit a number of people in her town and ask for a mustard seed from every household in which there had been no loss of a loved one. She returned empty handed and realized that change and loss are part and parcel of existence.</span><br /><br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;">For many persons -- no matter what their religious or spiritual beliefs are -- there is comfort to be found whether in Jesus, God, Torah, Krishna, Bhagavad Gita, Amida Buddha,etc. This is one advantage of having some spiritual belief.</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br />As for a strictly Christian interpretation---it is difficult to express a<span style="font-style: italic;"> strictly</span> Christian view because I believe there are a variety of understandings.</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;">One that occurs to me which may come from my Roman Catholic upbringing:</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;">Jesus mourned the lack of faith and weak understanding of his mission even among his closest disciples. He mourned the coming destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem. Yet, he could find comfort in his heavenly father and that in the long run -- God's will --- shall be done.</span>zingiberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08856498870095904118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25016709.post-1158601974804264382006-09-18T10:25:00.000-07:002006-09-18T10:52:54.840-07:00<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6862/1566/1600/Hinduism.1.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6862/1566/320/Hinduism.1.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br />RANDOM RAMBLINGS --- HINDUISM: THE NATURE OF THE ABSOLUTE</span> <br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Is Hinduism polytheist, theistic, deist, monotheist, monist, pantheist, panentheist?</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;">Answer: A case might be made for saying, "'Yes. All of them."</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br />However, I would like to focus mainly on two -- the extremes: polytheism and monism?<br /><br /></span> <span style="font-weight: bold;">Many Hindus conduct puja (worship) before the images of several gods. However, most Hindus have a central divine image on their altar. For example, they might have Krishna as the central deity, but also have images or statues of Ganesh, Hanuman, Lakshmi, etc. present. There are many traditional deities; however, these are not innumerable.<br /><br /></span> <span style="font-weight: bold;">Most Hindus have a ishta devata, or a chosen deity, one that is their main, personal deity and holds a special place for them in the pantheon of deities.<br /><br /></span> <span style="font-weight: bold;">Regardless, the vast majority of Hindus consider all of these deities as aspects of </span> <span style="font-weight: bold;">Brahman. The Absolute or Brahman is beyond form and conception. This is the reason for having a personal deity, an interface with Ultimate Reality.</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;">Moving from the polytheistic to the monist aspects of Hinduism -- from the monist view, there is only one Reality, usually called Brahman. Nothing else. People, animals, mountains, rivers are forms of Brahman. They are "relatively real" not "absolutely real."<br /><br />Monists, strict monists known as followers of Advaita Vedanta consider what we might call "creation" as "maya" almost an illusion because all of it is Brahman. What happens in the world is referred to as "lila" or the "play" of Brahman. Christians speak of the God's plan for the world.</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;">Many Hindus speak of "God's" play. </span> <span style="font-weight: bold;">The role of each person and, for that matter, everything in "creation" is to play their parts in God's game or "play".</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br />I studied for a short time with a teacher of Vedanta. She gave me a poem written by one of her other students. The poem presents our lives as playing our parts in the drama or theatrical production of God (Brahman). We cannot understand this play, its purpose or meaning because we cannot comprehend the mind of God. So, in a sense, this is the theater of the absurd. Our task in life is simply to play our role as well as we can. Our life's task is referred to as our dharma. Here dharma, which has a number of different means, can be translated as fulfilling our duty in life, playing the role which has fallen to us---not the one chosen by us.</span> <br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">In the Bhagavad Gita, the most widely read and quoted Hindu scripture, it is stated that it is better for a person to fulfill his/her dharma imperfectly --- than to perform another person's dharma -- perfectly.</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br />This Absolute/Brahman within Vedanta, the monist category of Hinduism, is the recipient indirectly of all the puja performed before the image of any deity --- </span><span style="font-weight: bold;">is the most perfect formulation of the Divine. In most religions "God" is viewed through the eyes of man resulting in a somewhat anthropomorphic Absolute, i.e. God is father, son, lover, friend, etc. The Hindus also regard the intermediary images of The Absolute this way: father, son, etc., but they in their depths know that behind all this -- is Brahman.</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;">Creation, then, is the manifestation of Brahman in various forms which are relatively real, but in their absolute nature --- Brahman.<br /><br /></span> <span style="font-weight: bold;">Sometimes Brahman is depicted as a circle. Within this circle there is a smaller one. The smaller one is the phenomenal universe. Brahman is greater than the "world" but also within the world.</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;">Transcendent and yet immanent.</span> <br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Some quotes on Brahman:</span> <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">"The Vedas compare creation to a spider's web, that the spider creates and then lies within. God is both the container of the universe and what is contained in it."</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;"> --- Ramakrishna</span> <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;"><br /><br />"The moon is one, but on agitated water it produces many reflections. Similarly ultimate reality is one yet it appears to be many in a mind agitated by thoughts."</span> <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;"> --- Maharamayana</span> <br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">"My mind fell like a hailstone into the vast expanse of Brahman's ocean. Touching one drop of it --- I melted away and became one with Brahman. This is wonderful indeed! Here is the ocean of Brahman, full of endless joy. How can I accept or reject anything? Is there anything apart or distinct from Brahman?"</span> <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;"> --- Sankara</span>zingiberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08856498870095904118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25016709.post-1158191935173821472006-09-13T16:48:00.000-07:002006-09-13T16:58:55.186-07:00<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6862/1566/1600/swami-a.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6862/1566/320/swami-a.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6862/1566/1600/Sermon-on-the-Mount-Giclee-Print-C12016216.0.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6862/1566/320/Sermon-on-the-Mount-Giclee-Print-C12016216.0.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;"><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Beatitude 3 from Matthew's Gospel</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Jerusalem Bible: <span style="font-style: italic;">"Happy the gentle: they will have the earth for their heritage."</span></span> <span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br />J.B. Phillips, The New Testament in Modern English:<span style="font-style: italic;"> "Happy are those who claim nothing, for the whole earth will belong to them."</span></span> <span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br /></span> <span style="font-weight: bold;">(Just by chance as I was looking through a book I have had for many years, <span style="font-style: italic;">Vedanta for Modern Man,</span> I came across the passage below from a teacher within the Hindu tradition,his words, I believe, touch the heart of this Beatitude.)</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">"God is the searcher of our hearts. He knows all our inner motives. We can draw His sympathy only through self-surrender and humility of spirit. We cannot move Him by eloquence or fine words. To the proud and the arrogant He is an all-exacting master. But to the meek and gentle He is the ever-forgiving Father, kind and generous beyond human understanding. One who approaches Him on bended knee and perfect resignation will surely be uplifted and brought within the orbit of His grace."<br /><br /></span> <span style="font-weight: bold;">-----Swami Aseshananda</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;"> (1899=1996, member of the Ramakrishna Monastic Order,</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;"> head of the Portland, OR Vedanta Society from 1955 until</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;"> his death)<br /><br /></span> <span style="font-weight: bold;">(What about "the whole earth will belong to them"? It can be argued that if one is accepted by God -- in having God, one has everything.)</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;">(I don't have a copy of the <span style="font-style: italic;">Tao Te Ching</span> here in Ohio, but this work praises the person who is one of "non-action," i.e. acts without acting, does without doing----in harmony always with the Tao. This small book supposedly written by Lao Tzu, an ancient Chinese sage, speaks highly of the soft, the flexible, and the hidden.)</span><br /></span>zingiberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08856498870095904118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25016709.post-1158080320924695482006-09-12T09:53:00.000-07:002006-09-12T09:58:41.000-07:00<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6862/1566/1600/Hinduism.0.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6862/1566/320/Hinduism.0.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br />HINDUISM: It's Origins and Nature<br /><br />I like to think of Hinduism's origins as primeval -- arising from the mists of the past. Some scholars believe Hinduism, more properly called The Sanatana Dharma (Eternal Religion or Truth) as beginning around 5000 BCE.<br /><br />Unlike many religions, Hinduism has no founder, no person that can be pointed to as the one who started the faith. God did not speak from a mountaintop surrounded by flashes of lightning and the reverberations of thunder. Ancient seers, rishis through ritual and especially deep meditative contemplation came in contact with the Absolute. Entered in to its very substance and came to know and relate what they had found.<br /><br />Hinduism came out of India and its people. So, it is also a culture, a way of life, as well as an insight into the ultimate and the ways we can find union with it.<br /><br />There are no heresies in Hinduism. No Creed that all who claim its name must know, recite and believe. This religious path evolved in an almost organic manner: some roots went in one direction and some in another.<br /><br /> Hindus accept The Vedas, of which there are four and are the most ancient. These are descriptions of ritual, passages of poetry, hymns, maxims, etc.<br /><br />The Upanishads followed The Veda and were created around 800-400 BCE. Upanishad means to sit close to and refers to the students sitting next to their teacher. The re are 200 of these religious/philosophical works; thirteen are considered the most important.<br /><br />From one of these Upanishads comes the three lines recited as an introductory purification before puja (worship) ----<br /><br /> Lead me from the Unreal to the Real,<br /> Lead me from the Dark to the Light,<br /> Lead me from Death to Immortality.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span>zingiberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08856498870095904118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25016709.post-1158020853385209912006-09-11T17:16:00.000-07:002006-09-11T17:30:04.010-07:00<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6862/1566/1600/Sermon-on-the-Mount-Giclee-Print-C12016216.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6862/1566/320/Sermon-on-the-Mount-Giclee-Print-C12016216.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">THE BEATITUDES, #1 from the Gospel of St Matthew 5:+</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Some translations:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The Jerusalem Bible: </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">"How happy are the poor in spirit; theirs is the kingdom of heaven."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">King James, Authorized Version: </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">"Blessed are the poor in spirit; theirs is the kingdom of heaven."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The New Testament, J.B. Phillips: </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">"How happy are the humble-minded, for the kingdom of heaven is theirs!"</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Holy Bible from the Ancient Eastern Text*: </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">"Blessed are the humble for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"> *This is the Holy Bible translated directly from the Aramaic (Syriac) text --the language of Jesus -- by renowned scholar, George M. Lamsa.</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">***********</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The Sermon in the Mount and Jesus' teachings known as the Beatitudes are more complete in Matthew than they are in Luke. Some scholars believe Jesus chose a high spot from which to the deliver this core message to make a connection with the Temple in Jerusalem which was also situated on a "mount". Jesus' new community, the kingdom of God, was to be the replacement for the Temple in this new dispensation or covenant. Jesus' teachings although not replacing The Torah would have the more preeminent position.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">These ruminations on the Beatitudes are just my own and at this point of time. I certainly don't claim for myself any real scholarly background in this area.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">**********</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">What is so fortunate, so lucky, so blessed to be poor in spirit? Why does this condition make it easier for people to find God, the Truth, the Absolute?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">A person could have a high position in the land or even possess wealth and land and still be poor in spirit -- although I think this would be much more difficult.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">To be poor in spirit, IMO, is to be humble, to have the virtue of humility. Both these words derive from the Latin for earth or earthy. Perhaps in the sense of being "down to earth"; not being full of oneself; not being self-promoting; not feeling that one is "special" or the center of the universe.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Such people could be said to be, in a sense, "empty," open. Empty vessels in which the wine of wisdom or grace can find a home.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The old Chinese Zen story of the self-important magistrate who visits a respected Zen master in search of profound wisdom: the Zen teacher pours tea into the magistrate's cup, but when the brim of the cup is reached, he continues pouring, the tea flooding over the table. When the important official asks what the master is doing --- he is told </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">"Wisdom can only be imparted to one who is empty of pre-conceived ideas and self. Come back when you are a suitable vessel."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Jesus spoke of the last becoming the first when the disciples were vying for positions in the coming kingdom. Their minds were on themselves; they were self assertive.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Jesus used children as an ideal example of those who are open. People who have this childlike attitude of being receptive, not having made up their minds about everything ---- are much easier for God's grace to penetrate.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The important thing to hear clearly to listen with awareness to be present with reality, with grace, with the presence of God. To enter the kingdom of heaven is to be transformed in an essential way, and is easier when one has simplicity, openness and a receptive heart.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">A person filled with self, striving to assert himself continuously in his pursuit of wealth or power has little chance of becoming a member of Jesus' kingdom, of his community. Such a person may be amassing much in the eyes of the world, but at the cost of his soul.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">**********</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">How would Hinduism and Buddhism possibly respond to the first beatitude? What would they think of Jesus' saying the the humble-minded/ poor in spirit/those who possessed humility are truly blessed?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">In Hinduism's Bhagavad Gita Arjuna objects to fighting a war to defend righteousness, Arjuna, the warrior, objects to fighting a battle in which so many will be killed on both sides, with relatives and friends in both camps. Krishna, an avatar of Vishnu, the second person of the Hindu trinity convinces him that he, Krishna is God in human form and that Arjuna should have the humility to listen to Krishna's answers to Arjuna's questions and surrender to his duty as a warrior.</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"> *Avatar---a being who is a manifestation of God or the Absolute</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">In the Jodo Shinshu school of Buddhism, it is believed that Amida, the Buddha of Compassion sincerely seeks to save all beings, especially the worst, who need salvation the most. All that is needed is to have the humility to accept one's inability to achieve salvation, to step aside and allow Amida to take over.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">In both cases, faith and trust iareneeded, but without humilty and humble-minded the divine message does not have a chance to penetrate the proud ego.</span>zingiberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08856498870095904118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25016709.post-1157914236793597922006-09-10T11:34:00.000-07:002006-09-10T12:13:38.466-07:00<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6862/1566/1600/Hinduism.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6862/1566/320/Hinduism.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br />RANDOM RAMBLINGS ---- ON HINDUISM<br /><br />For most of my life, I have an interest in religion including the broader term --spirituality.<br /><br />This morning I've decided to start, which may, or may not, develop into a series of occasional blogs on Hinduism.<br /><br />Hinduism, in general, is a very tolerant religion. This is what Mahatma Gandhi said:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> "Religions are different roads converging on the same point. What does it matter that we take different roads as long as we reach the same goal? I believe all religions of the world are more or less true. I say 'more or less' because I believe that everything the human hand touches, by reason of the very fact that human beings are imperfect, become imperfect."</span><br /><br />(Of course there are religions that feel otherwise. For example, to my knowledge Islam, generally, considers itself the culmination of the only really correct path to God -- the Abrahamic tradition which includes Judaism, followed by Christianity and then God's last word on the subject of the "true" religion --- Islam.)<br /><br />(Some writers instead of Gandhi's metaphor use the peak of the mountain as the goal, and the many trails up to the summit the various religions.)<br /><br />(Somewhere in the New Testament, I believe in John's Gospel, it is said that Christ is the only gate or path through one reaches the Father/God. Some Christians may assume because of this passage that all other religions are false. However, this is not the attitude of either Hinduism or Buddhism.)<br /><br />(Finally, I am always a little wary of using the words <span style="font-style: italic;">perfect</span> or i<span style="font-style: italic;">mperfect</span>. I don't know whether they can be defined except by having some supposed standard that the mind has worked out as "the Perfect". Can the human mind deduce "The Perfect?" I doubt it although I suspect it might be experienced. )<br />-----<br />In the Rig Veda one of four Vedas or ancient scriptures upon which the Sanatana Dharma, commonly known as Hinduism is grounded, composed, perhaps, 3000 B.C. (B.C.E.)---- is found that most common expression of Hinduism's tolerance:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> "Faith is One and the wise call it by many names."</span><br /><br />----- ----- ----- -----<br /><br />Another feature of Hinduism (and Buddhism) is the belief in the<span style="font-weight: bold;"> primary place of experiencing</span> the Absolute (God, Brahman, Yahweh, Allah.....). The only way to really "know" God is experientially. Analyzing the nature of God with the intellect will simply be inadequate.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"What can be gained by thinking about the scriptures? What fools? They think themselves to death with information about the path, but never take the plunge."</span><br /><br /> ---Ramakrishna - revered religious figure or saint (1836-66 CE)<br /><br />(This quote makes me think of Christians who believe if they know the scriptures backwards and forwards, and have studied commentaries on them-------they have come very close to God. Their activity may be one tiny step towards God --- or possibly, even a digression.)<br /><br />(In Zen there is the oft quoted saying: "Words are only fingers pointing to the Moon.")<br /><br />-----<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"Illness is not cured by saying the word 'medicine,' but by taking medicine. Enlightenment (salvation) is not achieved by repeating the word 'God' but by directly experiencing God."</span><br /><br /> ---Sankara - one of Hinduism's greatest religious teachers and philosophers (788-820 CE)zingiberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08856498870095904118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25016709.post-1154048860368816002006-07-27T18:00:00.000-07:002006-07-27T18:07:40.383-07:00<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6862/1566/1600/No%20God.0.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6862/1566/320/No%20God.0.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6862/1566/1600/Twilight%20of%20Atheism.0.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6862/1566/320/Twilight%20of%20Atheism.0.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br />FAITH ---- IN ATHEISM OR THEISM<br /><br /> Contrary to the claims of atheism's loyalists --- atheism takes faith.<br /><br /> Questions such as---how did intelligent life develop? how did life originate? does life have meaning? why something rather than nothing? are good and evil -- realities?<br /><br /> We don't know the answers to any of these questions for certain. Both a Christian's and an atheist's answers stem from FAITH.<br /><br /> It's fine for the Christian or the Atheist to be satisfied with their respective answers--but they should not say faith has no part in reaching them.<br /><br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;">Some problems --atheists face:</span><br /><br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;">1. Is there a need for meaning in life? If so, how do we find it?</span><br /><br /> The existentialists, like Sartre searched for meaning in a world without God and came up --- empty handed. Everything was just so much meaningless stuff.<br /><br /> There is something in humans that makes us seek meaning -- especially when life does not go well. Victor Frankl, a survivor from a Nazi concentration camp, authored the book, "The Unheard Cry for Meaning". In it he says: <span style="font-style: italic;">"The will to meaning is really a specific need not reducible to other needs, and is in a greater or smaller degree present in all human beings." </span> <br /><br /> Tolstoy said <span style="font-style: italic;">"I know everything that science so much wants me to know; but this path will not lead me to an answer to the question of the meaning of my life." </span> And, if he lived in the year 2006, I am convinced this quote would remain unchanged. Science does not provide meaning to personal life.<br /><br /> If you are content with this----then atheism may be right for you.<br /><br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;">2. History would have been so much better without religion, without the belief in God.</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><br /> From the killing fields of Cambodia to the death camps of the Nazis, we can see that godless ideologies do not result automatically in a happy and peaceful world.<br /><br /> Can most people continue to live "good" lives, lives of honesty, fairness, compassion and wisdom without some spiritual path or religion? It would seem that our individual lives and the world would head downhill.<br /><br /> I am reading a book on the Roman Empire, especially, though not entirely, about the rule of Augustus. When Augustus assumed leadership, he felt to keep the empire intact, strong and at peace -- he needed to restore faith in the gods, and to stress the need for virtue if Roman were to be happy and fulfilled.<br /><br /> Separation of church and state, IMO, is desirable. I don't want specific religions taught in the schools, nor the monuments to the 10 Commandments outside/inside public buildings----but I do think schools should stress some basic virtues, the qualities of a human life.<br /><br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;">3. Are the problem of suffering and evil solved by the Atheistic faith?</span><br /><br /> How can a merciful, just and all-powerful God permit suffering and evil?<br />This has been a key question throughout history. When things turn ugly---some people blame God. They try to make sense out of their personal and their nation's disasters.<br /><br /> Would eliminating God make it easier to explain suffering and evil?<br /><br /> Picture a world without any belief in God whatsoever. how would we go about understanding evil and suffering? Would it be simpler? More satisfying?<br /><br /> Do we merely say---there is no explanation, no meaning, no consolation.<br /><br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;"> 4. What happens to the words -- wrong, right, justice, injustice, good, evil without some belief in an Absolute?</span><br /><br /> We have no yardstick. Do we rely on anyone and everyone's opinion or tastes? The United Nations' declares a war --- unjust, ruthless, and humane.<br />So what? Our courts hand down verdicts -- based on what foundation? A married couple goes into counseling to avoid a divorce. How can any mediation take place---if there are not some fundamentals?<br /><br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;"> 5. One of the singular features of humans felt by all to some degree is a spiritual longing, a reaching out to something deep within us, and yet beyond us.</span><br /><br /> We could just write off this urge, this need to ---wishful thinking. But isn't that stretching the atheists' faith rather thin?<br /><br /> This argument means a great deal to me. The fact that I have a hunger or thirst for a spiritual reality--for me -- indicates that there is a reality to satisfy it.<br /><br /> McLaren in his book mentioned earlier, quotes a short passage from Richard Selzer's book, "Wittenburg Door":<br /><br /> <span style="font-style: italic;">"My entire life has been one long search for faith. I haven't found it. I do not believe in God. Having said that, ...I want you to know that I love the idea of God. I love piety. Without it, you live your life unmoored, in a state of isolation. You are a tiny speck in a vast universe. I'm jealous, frankly. I feel as though I've missed out on the greatest thing that can happen to a person --- faith in God. It must be wonderful."</span><br /><br /> As Brian McLaren says: <span style="font-style: italic;">"Atheism is a faith option open to you, but there are reasons to at least consider other options."</span><br /><br />* Much of this essay is based on Brian McLaren's recent book, "Finding Faith".zingiberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08856498870095904118noreply@blogger.com