Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We can go on discussing that...but here's a new premise to discuss: the Sermon On The Mount applies more to getting to heaven than living on earth. For example, the meek may inherit the earth (whatever that means), but in the meanwhile they'll be poor and downtrodden.
The purpose of this thread is one thing only -- for religionists, including me (a Buddhist) to bring up some principle found in the teachings and to discuss their validity. The thread is NOT about proving anything in your scriptures as being true or false. It is only to discuss various principles
I'll get us started.
Principle:
1. Dukkha: Suffering exists: Life is suffering. Suffering is almost universal (although that doesn't mean that one suffers all the time). Suffering can be caused by loss, sickness, pain, failure, and the impermanence of pleasure.
2. Samudaya: There is a cause of suffering -- attachment to things one likes/loves, all of which will eventually change or end, thus causing craving for various pleasures or lack of suffering.
3. Nirodha: These attachments can be overcome, although some only with Nibbana.
4. Magga: There is a path to accomplish this -- the Eightfold Path.
This principle is about Buddhism. A principle you might post may be christian or Hindu, etc.
As I was reading your post, a question popped up: what came first - the principle or the religion? But maybe I should keep these things to myself. From what I can tell in this post, it sounds like the goal of the principle is to decrease suffering.
Now is this valid? I think that would be difficult to measure. Do these principles come from a single source or are there different interpretations or explanations that make them more relatable? Would having a teacher be more effective in reaching the goal? Or does learning a different perspective result in less suffering?
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
We can go on discussing that...but here's a new premise to discuss: the Sermon On The Mount applies more to getting to heaven than living on earth. For example, the meek may inherit the earth (whatever that means), but in the meanwhile they'll be poor and downtrodden.
?
This sounds like an attempt to decrease suffering.
We can go on discussing that...but here's a new premise to discuss: the Sermon On The Mount applies more to getting to heaven than living on earth. For example, the meek may inherit the earth (whatever that means), but in the meanwhile they'll be poor and downtrodden.
?
Jesus' comments about the meek inheriting the earth are a direct reference to psalm 37. In this psalm the psalm writer basically says that wicked people will destroy each other and meek people, by staying out of the fray, will be all that's left.
no, it is not through "power of our minds" nor is it "overcoming" or "doing"
those imply putting forth effort, willpower, force, strength
whereas acceptance is not those at all.
accepting what is, is NOT power, it is NOT overcoming, it is NOT doing, it is NOT effort or strength.
rather it is a stillness, a calm.
above all it is NOT thinking. rather, it entails stilling the thoughts, quieting the mind, stopping the thoughts, letting thoughts float on by.
"not doing" and "not thinking" do not require putting forth effort. they are an absence. a cessation.
These are the skills that saves one from crumbling at the face of adversity, disasters, betrayal, etc.
I remember a news item in one of the asian countries, may be Thailand or Bali, the floods had created great damage to the poor, their houses were washed away. The poor are the one who suffer most in every disaster anyway. The American reporter in his ever loving way stuck a mic in front of this old man’s face and asked him how he felt. He had lost everything, just had the clothes on his back. The man’s response was basically a shrug, almost a smile on his face. It was so unexpected, and amazing, to me that it has stuck with me. That is acceptance. This is so alien to the American can-do way of living and thinking, which makes some think the poor are poor only because they want to be poor.
This kind of distancing one’s Self from the body, the world, the disaster at hand is what Buddha means by removing suffering, by removing the ego. Same as what Advaita says as well. This is like bending in the face of a storm, resilience.
As I was reading your post, a question popped up: what came first - the principle or the religion? But maybe I should keep these things to myself. From what I can tell in this post, it sounds like the goal of the principle is to decrease suffering.
Now is this valid? I think that would be difficult to measure. Do these principles come from a single source or are there different interpretations or explanations that make them more relatable? Would having a teacher be more effective in reaching the goal? Or does learning a different perspective result in less suffering?
This sounds like an attempt to decrease suffering.
When i think of it all principles in all religions at the base are about removing suffering - to oneself and in the world.
Jesus' comments about the meek inheriting the earth are a direct reference to psalm 37. In this psalm the psalm writer basically says that wicked people will destroy each other and meek people, by staying out of the fray, will be all that's left.
Good find. I just read Psalm 37 and I'm glad you brought it to remembrance.
It shows foundation and the Spirit at work just as Jesus Christ shared.
These are the skills that saves one from crumbling at the face of adversity, disasters, betrayal, etc.
I remember a news item in one of the asian countries, may be Thailand or Bali, the floods had created great damage to the poor, their houses were washed away. The poor are the one who suffer most in every disaster anyway. The American reporter in his ever loving way stuck a mic in front of this old man’s face and asked him how he felt. He had lost everything, just had the clothes on his back. The man’s response was basically a shrug, almost a smile on his face. It was so unexpected, and amazing, to me that it has stuck with me. That is acceptance. This is so alien to the American can-do way of living and thinking, which makes some think the poor are poor only because they want to be poor.
This kind of distancing one’s Self from the body, the world, the disaster at hand is what Buddha means by removing suffering, by removing the ego. Same as what Advaita says as well. This is like bending in the face of a storm, resilience.
An interesting post because it reminds me of several situations I encountered in Thailand. One in particular.
In 1992 the Black May events had occurred over Prime Minister Suchinda who had essentially clung to power by coup. Democracy riots occurred where up to 100 protesters were killed and 175 had "disappeared" (reportedly put in tractor trailer boxcars that were sunk in the Gulf Of Thailand, though that has never been proven). King Bhumipohl stepped in and, essentially, fired Suchinda, 'banishing' (LOL) him to living the rest of his life as a multimillionaire at his estate upcountry. Less than 2 months after all this went down, I was there for the summer, and one day I was walking in front of the historic Royal Hotel and some Thai college students had televisions there, showing the riots and such. I stopped to watch what they had and a couple asked me if I knew what it was, and I pointed out that what they had was CNN footage that had appeared on American television. They went on and on about how democracy had been threatened and about how so many protesters had simply disappeared. And I asked what they thought about Suchinda living as a millionaire as soon as it was over. "Mai phen rai", which is difficult to translate, but is often cited as meaning "No problem". Sort of like the "shrug, almost a smile on his face" you saw. A degree of acceptance. But the question that came to my mind was what of societal improvement. Take this country. If Blacks had been accepting of their status, they'd still be living under Jim Crow. Is that kind of acceptance simply surrender to injustice? And is that a good thing?
also, if we are going to talk about "principles only"
then why would we identify them with a religious label at all?
True. But please remember that my intent is this thread is to prove that this group of people can discuss principles INSTEAD OF arguing about 'religious facts'.
We can go on discussing that...but here's a new premise to discuss: the Sermon On The Mount applies more to getting to heaven than living on earth. For example, the meek may inherit the earth (whatever that means), but in the meanwhile they'll be poor and downtrodden.
?
I was a little surprised at the assertion bolded, because I never thought of it that way. I believed it to be mostly about this life, except for the obvious references to rewards in heaven in some of the Beatitudes, and of course there are those who believe the "kingdom of heaven" to be here and now, but that's veering off into another discussion. A little bit of searching reveals how much commentary (indeed, entire books) there is on the subject, encompassing many views. For example, Gandhi praises the idea of meekness in living (and meaning during this life on Earth) while Nietzsche saw it as a way of keeping the masses in slave mode.
For purposes of this thread, many of the messages in the SOTM are meant for this life: Forgiveness, loving your enemies/those who hurt you, the concept that your thoughts can be as wrong as the actual actions (demonstrated by "if you thought about adultery, you have done it in your heart"), which I always found particularly intriguing, and not specifically about adultery. I have thought about murder, but didn't do it. Does that make me still a murderer?
Not seeking revenge is another. Then there are the "trust God/do not worry" and "do not value material possessions" themes that run throughout Christianity
Making friends with those who accuse you before you go to court is another SOTM principle that has intrigued me and served me well; not literally, but in a business setting when I identified potential power struggle issues. I was in a position where people often saw me as the enemy because it was my job to keep people following certain rules who did not agree with those rules. Befriending them before they went off the rails went a long way toward heading off trouble and keeping a project on track. Probably not exactly what Jesus had in mind, but the teaching is what led me to that way of managing team members.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
