another yoga and christianity commentary

[pattimax]

Originally Posted by InLove

Thomas, thank you. Excellent idea to merge the thread as well, Q.

This is why I joined CR. Understanding.

InPeace,
InLove

I whole-heartedly agree.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by InLove

Thomas, thank you. Excellent idea to merge the thread as well, Q.

I am prayerfully reading, and got lots of windows open here!

The more I can understand about the mind and heart of my fellow earthlings, the more chance there is for us to peacefully communicate. It may not be that we will agree on everything, especially in practice. But to me, the bridge of understanding extends from the heart (Spirit), and as thus is most stable.

This is why I joined CR. Understanding.

InPeace,
InLove

I regret having to move threads InLove. It is a failing.

v/r

Joshua

[InLove]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

I regret having to move threads InLove. It is a failing.

I'm pretty sure I know what you mean. But the failure is not yours. Its just how things are sometimes. I appreciate your decision. (We'll see how things go....as you know, moving a discussion does not necessarily change the end result. But maybe it will buy some time. )

InPeace,
InLove

[pattimax]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Pattimax:
"Christianity does not focus on "inner-divinity", it focuses on transforming the mind.
I would rather say it focusses on us transformning the heart, and on the Holy Spirit transforming our nature.

What if this life is just a dress rehearsal?

"Thomas

Yes, Christianity does start with the heart. Do you know if buddhism even acknowledges the heart?

Again, not a Christian perspective. Are you sure about this?
Dress rehearsals are real. They are a preliminary to find and correct mistakes. They ARE imperative and quite neccessay. Yes, life is very real and not a sideshow.

[Prober]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Prober:
I would say that with either, you focus on the "divinity" within you. Both require killing the ego (or will) in one way or another.
Not in Christian doctrine – the essential goodness of human nature calls for aligning one's own will to the Divine Will, not the cessation of individual will as such. If the will is dead, then there is no activity – no life, no love ... Christ does not want us to kill the will, but to willingly attach ourselves to God – 'in him we live and move and have our being' - if you kill the will, you kill the being.
Thomas

I guess I see it differently, ie "Not my will, but thine", etc. The individual will is dead is the same way that we die in Christ and become new creatures. We "kill" our will and become receptive to God's will. He then comes into us and attaches himself to us through the Holy Spirit.

The Buddhist kills his ego and then, when all suffering ceases, "Nirvana" "attaches" itself to the individual mind.

(I see the "divinity within" as the Holy Spirit)

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by pattimax

Yes, Christianity does start with the heart. Do you know if buddhism even acknowledges the heart?

Again, not a Christian perspective. Are you sure about this?
Dress rehearsals are real. They are a preliminary to find and correct mistakes. They ARE imperative and quite neccessay. Yes, life is very real and not a sideshow.

Yes, it does. In the Mahayana tradition the bodisattva refuses to enter nirvana untill all are liberated, so we have the idea of sacrifice for others.

Susan Salzberg has a wonderful book on Loving Kindness meditations

The way I learned it the prayer goes:

May you be filled with loving kindness
may you be well
may you be peaceful and at ease
may you be happy.

In practice we start by visualizing a "neutral person" like a stranger we see or meet and say the prayer for them
Then we move to saying the prayer for someone we are in conflict with an enemy if you will.

Jack Kornfield in his book A Path With heart outlines much more about the buddhist idea of "heart" as well.

Peace
Mark

[Thomas]

The individual will is dead is the same way that we die in Christ and become new creatures. We "kill" our will and become receptive to God's will. He then comes into us and attaches himself to us through the Holy Spirit.

I can agree ... but I would differ in my choice of terminology – less aggressive – to complement Christianity as the way of the heart/love.

Divine Union is not attained by one party ceasing to exist, by the Holy Spirit killing you or me, or by you or me committing suicide, but by the two becoming united, so I look not to killing the lower part of myself, but its transcendence through 'saving grace' which remakes it anew, and which in fact restores in it the Image of its creator.

A creator, I might add, who has no image (being the source of all image) but who images Itself in man in a more immediate and direct manner than It does in any other aspect of creation.

+++

Terminological exactitude (and I never thought I would ever say that in all seriousness) is vital in theology for the very reasons under discussion here.

Buddhism is a monism, which Christianity absolutely is not, Judaism absolutely is not, and Islam absolutely is not. This is another aspect of the 'schizophrenia' I spoke of.

A vital aspect of this is the location of 'the person' – Buddhism (and Asiatic traditions generally) regard the 'person' as part of the problem, as transient, ephemeral, and without foundation ... so nirvana involves the cessation of the individual being, and the continuity of being-as-such.

Christianity sees 'the person' as Divinely ordained, and thus Divine founded; so salvation for the Christian does not involve the continuance of some 'part' or 'fraction' of the being, it involves the continuation of that being as such. Hence the idea of bodily resurrection and restoration, signified in the Resurrection, pointed to by St Paul, and envisioned in the Book of Revelations.

Again and again, it seems to me, that whilst there are superficial correlatives – and this is hardly surprising as both traditions address the human being – the actuality between the two is fundamentally and irreconcilably different, and it is the general ignorance, or lack of importance accorded to those fundamental aspects, that allow for so much that can only be called 'loose talk' when people declare Buddhism and Christianity essentially the same. They are not, and to attempt both, or a synthesis of both, is to try and walk in opposite directions simultaneously ... or at very least negate everything one says in the moment one says it ...

The Buddhist kills his ego and then, when all suffering ceases, "Nirvana" "attaches" itself to the individual mind.

If the ego is dead, then what is left that we can call 'individual'?

(I see the "divinity within" as the Holy Spirit)

So do I, but I refrain from making statements about what the Holy Spirit says or does under my own authority.

Thomas

[Prober]

Originally Posted by Thomas

The individual will is dead is the same way that we die in Christ and become new creatures. We "kill" our will and become receptive to God's will. He then comes into us and attaches himself to us through the Holy Spirit.

I can agree ... but I would differ in my choice of terminology – less aggressive – to complement Christianity as the way of the heart/love.

Divine Union is not attained by one party ceasing to exist, by the Holy Spirit killing you or me, or by you or me committing suicide, but by the two becoming united, so I look not to killing the lower part of myself, but its transcendence through 'saving grace' which remakes it anew, and which in fact restores in it the Image of its creator.

Well said...that's what I meant, not an aggressive thing...

A creator, I might add, who has no image (being the source of all image) but who images Itself in man in a more immediate and direct manner than It does in any other aspect of creation.

+++

Terminological exactitude (and I never thought I would ever say that in all seriousness) is vital in theology for the very reasons under discussion here.

Absolutely. Many discussions here are matters of semantics.

Buddhism is a monism, which Christianity absolutely is not, Judaism absolutely is not, and Islam absolutely is not. This is another aspect of the 'schizophrenia' I spoke of.

A vital aspect of this is the location of 'the person' – Buddhism (and Asiatic traditions generally) regard the 'person' as part of the problem, as transient, ephemeral, and without foundation ... so nirvana involves the cessation of the individual being, and the continuity of being-as-such.

Christianity sees 'the person' as Divinely ordained, and thus Divine founded; so salvation for the Christian does not involve the continuance of some 'part' or 'fraction' of the being, it involves the continuation of that being as such. Hence the idea of bodily resurrection and restoration, signified in the Resurrection, pointed to by St Paul, and envisioned in the Book of Revelations.

Again and again, it seems to me, that whilst there are superficial correlatives – and this is hardly surprising as both traditions address the human being – the actuality between the two is fundamentally and irreconcilably different, and it is the general ignorance, or lack of importance accorded to those fundamental aspects, that allow for so much that can only be called 'loose talk' when people declare Buddhism and Christianity essentially the same. They are not, and to attempt both, or a synthesis of both, is to try and walk in opposite directions simultaneously ... or at very least negate everything one says in the moment one says it ...

The Buddhist kills his ego and then, when all suffering ceases, "Nirvana" "attaches" itself to the individual mind.

If the ego is dead, then what is left that we can call 'individual'?

Oops! I guess that follows...

(I see the "divinity within" as the Holy Spirit)

So do I, but I refrain from making statements about what the Holy Spirit says or does under my own authority.

Thomas

Much to think about...I've been wrong before.

[Prober]

(I put the blue parts in and the Oops. The edit miscued them)

[InLove]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Christianity sees 'the person' as Divinely ordained, and thus Divine founded; so salvation for the Christian does not involve the continuance of some 'part' or 'fraction' of the being, it involves the continuation of that being as such. Hence the idea of bodily resurrection and restoration, signified in the Resurrection, pointed to by St Paul, and envisioned in the Book of Revelations.

I understand that the individual is salvaged by the Redeemer Christ. But--and I am not preaching this, but simply throwing it out here for consideration--in the Christian view, is not all of creation awaiting perfection? Could it be that the idea of our restoration (our glorified bodies) necessarily sheds that part of each of us that must look upon and deal with temptation and evil?

Just a thought. Okay--more than that.

InPeace,
InLove

[pattimax]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Buddhism is a monism, which Christianity absolutely is not, Judaism absolutely is not, and Islam absolutely is not. This is another aspect of the 'schizophrenia' I spoke of.

Thomas

Is not monism reducing all viewpoint to one principle? Wouldn't you say that was oversimplification?
BTW- Thanks for the definition.

[earl]

My failing (and my strength? ): I don't concern myself with dogma or the figuring out of such, but merely keeping my mind and heart to the grindstone; breath in, note what's there , breath out, note what's there, let go, smile. Start all over when foregoing goes awry. Afterall, I don't believe what I believe will make any worthwhile difference in my life. Rather the quality of my being will which is much more reliant upon how I work with myself and others. (Of course, unless I believed something made good sense I wouldn't be incorporating it into my life.) But nevertheless sorrier to say I am really a closet concept junky or why would I spend as much time as I do studying and discussing concepts? Maybe I can find a 12-step group for that. But to me all contemplative approaches are really about opening up our sense of being (or as with the Buddhists doing away with any ultimate concept of being-though as with this I'm reminded of a purported Sufi saying, "there's a voice in the night telling me there's no voice in the night"- but again words, words, words don't matter-it's not about the word-concepts, nama-rupa-it's about the effect. The effect of continually seeing no conceptual boundary we place around things does justice to the Mystery) have a good one,earl

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Christianity sees 'the person' as Divinely ordained, and thus Divine founded; so salvation for the Christian does not involve the continuance of some 'part' or 'fraction' of the being, it involves the continuation of that being as such. Hence the idea of bodily resurrection and restoration, signified in the Resurrection, pointed to by St Paul, and envisioned in the Book of Revelations.

It is my understanding that prior to the canon being developed, reincarnation was largely discussed and entertained as part of Christianity.

While I read folks saying there is no 'divine within' but to me omnipresence, in our midst, all indicates to me that the divine is everywhere...which includes within. Despite the ancient notion of looking up (whether one is in Australia, Europe or America....all looking in opposing directions) I see G-d as here....and within.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by wil

It is my understanding that prior to the canon being developed, reincarnation was largely discussed and entertained as part of Christianity.

While I read folks saying there is no 'divine within' but to me omnipresence, in our midst, all indicates to me that the divine is everywhere...which includes within. Despite the ancient notion of looking up (whether one is in Australia, Europe or America....all looking in opposing directions) I see G-d as here....and within.

Woah! Re-incarnation? In Christianity? Well strike me blind...where did you find that? I really want to know Wil...

[wil]

Originally Posted by Q

Woah! Re-incarnation? In Christianity? Well strike me blind...where did you find that? I really want to know Wil...

Well my sarcasm alarm is buzzing, even without the little smileys but others may have the same question...

I've heard it for years, read it amongst a number of sources and read references to biblical passages that still imply...have nothing currently on the tip of my tongue or at my fingertips but a keyboard so I googled...