Value of Non-Christian religions

[fbg36]

Rossum wrote:

"My theory is Mahayana; extract Madhyamika from all the Tibetan trimmings and read a lot of Nagarjuna."

======================================== ==

Nagarjuna has been my guide too but it took a while to (begin to) understand what he was talking about. Several years ago I came across a good introduction that finally turned a light on for me. Maybe you know it : "The Emptiness of Emptiness" by C.W. Huntington. I've got a pile of related books but keep coming back to Huntington's.

Anyway, yes, Madhyamika does appear to be Buddhism's bottom line. For meditation discipline I settled on Zen, though I've got a lot of respect for vipassana and have practiced it and spent some time at it in Sri Lanka and Thailand.

Eventually I guess we just gravitate to what makes the most sense to us privately.

~ Frank


.

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Originally Posted by fbg36

About the demons, I've always had trouble believing in them literally because they seem to be symbols of stuff in the mind -- fears, dread, guilt, etc. For me, anyway, much of the beauty and appeal of religion in in this symbolic dimension, but I try to remind myself that symbols are representations. In themselves they're empty, they stand for mental goings-on. Especially in the case of so-called demons, the more seriously we take them, the more we get stuck in a private emotional world that can short-circuit the more important work of a spiritual life.

I think it's incorrect to say there are no demons, because they have presented themselves, and we know that there were angels who rebelled against God and fell to earth and became the demons. Yet it is correct to say "they're empty" in the sense that the demons only have as much power as we let them. Saint John Damascene, in his excellent Exposition of the Orthodox Church, has two whole chapters dedicated (respectively) to angels and demons, why they are different and what they each are capable of individually.

Originally Posted by Anna Scott

However, I do disagree that objects and symbols are harmless.

I'm going way out on a limb here--but I have found that spirits can follow objects, regardless of our intention in possessing them.

I only know a few Christians who have had experiences in this area. I don't talk about it very often. If a person has not had an experience in this area, it is difficult to believe.

I've never had an experience in this personally. I think too often in the modernistic Christian world we give demons "too much credit" in certain things. As I quoted St. Anthony earlier, the demons are performers on a stage, and too often actors have to employ "props" to perform their act - no doubt the demons take certain symbols for that as well. Yet if we see the string on a spaceship in a movie, it loses the believability - likewise, if we know a symbol has no real power over us, then it is of no harm to us in that regard.

Even holy symbols can mean nothing. Many people, when they see the cross, reverence and feel hope and joy. Others feel nothing - to put a moot point on it (as blasphemous as this may sound), even some porn stars wear crosses while performing. This was the problem found behind the iconoclast controversy that plagued the church for centuries and only resolved itself with the Seventh Ecumenical Council: some saw icons as idolatry, others recognized it as an essence of worship. Right now I've got an iconostasis with many icons, and I use them to pray. There are probably some (especially here in Georgia) that would think I'm demon possessed. They can believe what they want, but when I make the sign of the cross it's before an icon of Christ and my words are directed towards my Lord.

The discernment of the spirits, as written in the NT and interpreted by the Fathers of the Church, is really, as the apostle John instructs, to "test the spirits" to see if they be of God (1 John 4:1) - but this can mean not only, say, literal spirits, but the deeds of the spirits as well: a sermon by Jeremiah Wright may not come from the spirit of holiness, but a sermon by Charles Stanley might.

[firstmode]

Originally Posted by crazzeto

Welcome to CAF (fairly new m'self lol), and thanks for sharing! I totally agree, a lot of us knee jerk to "there's no value in religion xyz, it's all lies"... But is it? Or did God plant the seeds of truth in other religions pointing back to Christ?

An interesting story I learned from an Irish (for real) Priest on EWTN, a fact of Zoroatrianism which plays into the tradition that the 3 "kings" in the naitivity story were of that fatih. The founder of that faith made a prophacy several hundred (thousand?) years before Chirst's birth, that a divine child would be born and that a new star would mark this event. Consequently many followers of that faith became accomplished astrominers, and looked for the new star. The 3 kings knew to come to Christ, because they had been watching the skys for that star!

Later, after the crusifixion St. John would run into them while preaching the gosple, and they would both convert and serve as powerful witnesses to the truth of the Gospel.

THE PROTEVANGELION OF JAMES


CHAPTER 15
1. Wise men come from the east. 3. Herod alarmed; 8. tells them if they find the child, to bring him word. 10. They visit the cave and offer the child their treasure, 11. and being warned in a dream, do not return to Herod, but go home another way.

1. Then Joseph was preparing to go away, because there arose a great disorder in Bethlehem by the coming of some wise men from the east,

The arrival of the wise men from the east and their meeting with Herod is also in Matthew 1:1ff.

2. Who said, Where is the king of the Jews born? For we have seen his star in the east and have come to worship him.
3. When Herod heard this, he was exceedingly troubled, and sent messengers to the wise men, and to the priests, and inquired of them in the town-hall.

Herod was troubled because he was the representative appointed by the Roman government and mention of the birth of a king portended sedition.

4. And said to them, Where have you found it written concerning Christ the king, or where should he be born?
5. Then they said to him, In Bethlehem of Judaea; for thus it is written: And you Bethlehem in the land of Judah, are not the least among the princes of Judah, for out of you will come a ruler, who will rule my people Israel.

The Old Testament prophecy is in Micah 5:2, which adds the messianic intimation that the king would be the Son of God, whose "goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."

6. And having sent away the chief priests, he inquired of the wise men in the town-hall, and said to them, What sign was it you saw concerning the king that is born?
7. They answered him, We saw an extraordinary large star shining among the stars of heaven, which so out-shined all the other stars, so that they became invisible, and we knew thereby that a great king was born in Israel, and therefore we are come to worship him.
8. Then said Herod to them, Go and make diligent inquiry; and if you find the child, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.
9. So the wise men went forth, and behold, the star which they saw in the east went before them till it came and stood over the cave where the young child was with Mary his mother.

Here is an apparent discrepancy of time or place. Matthew 2:11 says the wise men found Mary and the babe in a house, not a cave, indicating they arrived at a later time. Christian art has reconciled the cave with the manger by putting the manger in a kind of cave, but depicting the wise men there is probably an anachronism.

10. Then they brought forth out of their treasures, and offered to him gold and frankincense, and myrrh.
11. And being warned in a dream by an angel that they should not return to Herod through Judaea, they departed into their own country by another way.

CHAPTER 16
1. Herod enraged, orders the infants in Bethlehem to be slain. 2. Mary puts her infant in an ox manger. 3. Elizabeth flees with her son John to the mountains. 6. A mountain miraculously divides and receives them. 9. Herod incensed at the escape of John, causes Zacharias to be murdered at the altar, 23. the roofs of the temple rent, the body miraculously conveyed, and the blood petrified. 25. Israel mourns for him. 27. Simeon chosen his successor by lot.

1. Then Herod perceiving that he was mocked by the wise men, and being very angry, commanded certain men to go and to kill all the children that were in Bethlehem, from two years old and under.

Herod was a resentful descendant of the Idumeans who had been forcibly converted to Judaism. His cruelty was prefigured at Moses' birth, when Pharaoh attempted to destroy the firstborn males (Exodus 1:16, 22). This event is also in Matthew 2:16-18, where it indicates the event was a fulfillment of prophecy: "Thus saith the Lord: A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not." (Jeremiah 31:15) He records that as the Jews were on their sad pilgrimage to an alien land, they passed Ramah, where Rachael, who had long been dead, is pictured weeping even in her tomb for the fate that had befallen the people, her children. As Rachael was tod her children would return from exile in Babylon (Jeremiah 31:16, 17), so Jesus will return from his exile in Egypt.

[firstmode]

Originally Posted by crazzeto

An interesting story I learned from an Irish (for real) Priest on EWTN, a fact of Zoroatrianism which plays into the tradition that the 3 "kings" in the naitivity story were of that fatih. The founder of that faith made a prophacy several hundred (thousand?) years before Chirst's birth, that a divine child would be born and that a new star would mark this event. Consequently many followers of that faith became accomplished astrominers, and looked for the new star. The 3 kings knew to come to Christ, because they had been watching the skys for that star!.

THE FIRST GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY OF JESUS CHRIST


CHAPTER 3
1. The wise men visit Christ. Mary gives them one of his swaddling clothes. 3. An angel appears to them in the form of a star. They return and make a fire, and worship the swaddling cloth, and put it in the fire, where it remains unconsumed.

1. And it came to pass, when the Lord Jesus was born at Bethlehem, a city of Judaea, in the time of Herod the King; the wise men came from the East to Jerusalem, according to the prophecy of Zoradascht, and brought with them offerings: namely, gold, frankincense, and myrrh, and worshipped him, and offered to him their gifts.

The wise men, or Magi, who came from "the east," that is, outside Israel and probably from Persia, were scholars of their time. They were followers of Zoradascht, that is, Zoroaster, a Persian religious figure in the sixth or seventh century before Christ, who taught that Ahura Mazda created the universe. His divine nature was composed of two opposite (but not opposing) principles or forces, one constructive and beneficent, the other destructive and maleficent. These forces were conflicting only in name, for the resulting good or evil was brought about by the free agent, man.

(Zoroastrianism is often confused with Manicheanism, which was an absolute dualism of the leaders of darkness and light. Zoroastrianism was a mixture of old Babylonian and Oriental elements raised to the maximum; Manicheanism, condemned by the Church as a heresy, was Gnosticism with Christian elements reduced to a minimum, an Oriental dualism under Christian names.)

2. Then the Lady Mary took one of his swaddling clothes in which the infant was wrapped and gave it to them instead of a blessing, which they received from her as a most noble present.

Swaddling clothes were bands of cloth used to wrap infants. A similar custom is still used by North American Indians, who tightly wrap their babies (papooses) and carry them about bound to a board until they are two or more years old. This does not retard their muscular development, but actually aids it; their straining against the wrappings provides isometric exercise so they do not go through a "toddling" stage, but are ready to walk as soon as the practice is discontinued.

3. And at the same time there appeared to them an angel in the form of that star which had before been their guide in their journey; the light of which they followed till they returned into their own country.

If "an angel in the form of that star" seems a too facile explanation, nothing in astronomy accounts for the movements of the star. In any case, in ancient times a star signified a god, a deified king; see Numbers 24:17.

4. [New paragraph in the original] On their return their kings and princes came to them inquiring What had they seen and done? What sort of journey and return they had? What company they had on the road?
5. But they produced the swaddling cloth which St. Mary had given to them, and they made a great feast because of that.
6. According to the custom of their country, they made a fire and worshipped it.
7. And casting the swaddling cloth into it, the fire took it, and kept it.
8. And when the fire was put out, they took forth the swaddling cloth unhurt, as much as if the fire had not touched it.
9. Then they began to kiss it and put it on their heads and their eyes, saying, This is certainly an undoubted truth, and it is really surprising that the fire could not burn and consume it.
10. Then they took it, and with the greatest respect laid it up among their treasures.

Fire was a Zoroastrian symbol of the constructive force in the divine nature. Today's Zoroastrians are the Parsees; it would be interesting to know whatever happened to this miraculously imperishable cloth that "with the greatest respect was laid up among their treasures."

CHAPTER 4
1. Herod intends to put Christ to death. 3. An angel warns Joseph to take the child and its mother into Egypt. 6. Consternation on their arrival. 13. The idols fall down. 15. Mary washes Christ's swaddling clothes, and hang them to dry on a post. 16. A son of the chief priest puts one on his head, and being possessed of devils, they leave him.

1. Now Herod, perceiving that the wise men did delay and not return to him, called together the priests and wise men and said, Tell me in what place the Christ should be born?
2. And when they replied, in Bethlehem, a city of Judaea, he began to contrive in his own mind the death of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Herod the Great, the king of Judea (37-4 B.C.), was an underling of Rome who knew little of Messianic prophecies. According to Matthew 2:4, he had to consult "the chief priests and scribes." The political and religious leaders of the Jews, the chief priests (which included the high-priest), seemed to have had no idea that the Messiah had been born. The scribes, high cabinet officers (II Kings 22, Jeremiah 36:10), seemed the ones who knew not only the Messiah was to be born, but where, from Micah 5:2.

3. But an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in his sleep and said, Arise, take the child and his mother, and go into Egypt as soon as the cock crows. So he arose, and went.

Compare with Matthew 2:13.

[firstmode]

Originally Posted by crazzeto

Welcome to CAF (fairly new m'self lol), and thanks for sharing! I totally agree, a lot of us knee jerk to "there's no value in religion xyz, it's all lies"... But is it? Or did God plant the seeds of truth in other religions pointing back to Christ?

An interesting story I learned from an Irish (for real) Priest on EWTN, a fact of Zoroatrianism which plays into the tradition that the 3 "kings" in the naitivity story were of that fatih. The founder of that faith made a prophacy several hundred (thousand?) years before Chirst's birth, that a divine child would be born and that a new star would mark this event. Consequently many followers of that faith became accomplished astrominers, and looked for the new star. The 3 kings knew to come to Christ, because they had been watching the skys for that star!

Later, after the crusifixion St. John would run into them while preaching the gosple, and they would both convert and serve as powerful witnesses to the truth of the Gospel.

Clementine Homilies:

9.4 -- Zoroaster.

"Of this family there was born in due time a certain one, who took up with magical practices, by name Nebrod, who chose, giant-like, to devise things in opposition to God. Him the Greeks have called Zoroaster.

"He, after the deluge, being ambitious of sovereignty, and being a great magician, by magical arts compelled the world-guiding star of the wicked one who now rules, to the bestowal of the sovereignty as a gift from him. But he,3 being a prince, and having authority over him who compelled him,4 wrathfully poured out the fire of the kingdom, that he might both bring to allegiance, and might punish him who at first constrained him."

9.5 -- Hero-Worship.

"Therefore the magician Nebrod, being destroyed by this lightning falling on earth from heaven, for this circumstance had his name changed to Zoroaster, on account of the living (zosan) stream of the star (asteros) being poured upon him.

"But the unintelligent amongst the men who then were, thinking that through the love of God his soul had been sent for by lightning, buried the remains of his body, and honoured his burial-place with a temple among the Persians, where the descent of the fire occurred, and worshipped him as a god. By this example also, others there bury those who die by lightning as beloved of God, and honour them with temples, and erect statues of the dead in their own forms.

"Thence, in like manner, the rulers in different places were emulous of like honour, and very many of them honoured the tombs of those who were beloved of them, though not dying by lightning, with temples and statues, and lighted up altars, and ordered them to be adored as gods. And long after, by the lapse of time, they were thought by posterity to be really gods."

9.6 -- Fire-Worship.

"Thus, in this fashion, there ensued many partitions of the one original kingdom. The Persians, first taking coals from the lightning which fell from heaven, preserved them by ordinary fuel, and honouring the heavenly fire as a god, were honoured by the fire itself with the first kingdom, as its first worshippers.

"After them the Babylonians, stealing coals from the fire that was there, and conveying it safely to their own home, and worshipping it, they themselves also reigned in order.

"And the Egyptians, acting in like manner, and calling the fire in their own dialect Phthaë, which is translated Hephaistus or Osiris, he who first reigned amongst them is called by its name. Those also who reigned in different places, acting in this fashion, and making an image, and kindling altars in honour of fire, most of them were excluded from the kingdom."

[fbg36]

Anna Scott wrote:

"A friend recently asked if she should buy a voodoo doll in New Orleans; I told her so long as she saw it as a toy and nothing else, she should be fine."

======================================== =========

That goes right to the heart of it. A person is prone to get from things what he/she expects of them. Most people hardly ever give a thought to demons, and so they're not bothered by them. Those who are troubled by demons are in some way predisposed to the problem. So it's that predisposition that needs to be looked at.

Once during an intensive retreat I had visual hallucinations. This had never happened before and it never happened again. I had really thrown myself into those meditations, blocked everything else out. It took plenty of mental energy, so I wasn't surprised when emotional stuff started boiling up. In Zen this is called "makyo" -- involuntary mental reactions to prolonged concentration. They aren’t important and should be ignored.

In fact, the teacher at this retreat (it was a vipassana retreat, in the Theravada tradition) explained before we got started that any extraordinary or nutty experiences that might come from meditation are a kind of mental jetsam, so don't take them seriously. He said that the more successful a person becomes at the hard work of this kind of meditation, so much more does the "unconscious” begin to rise, and a purgation begins to take place, a kind of purification.

In other words, the lid that's usually on the unconscious mind with its store of repressions, anger, fear, etc., needs mental energy to stay in place. So when a generous amount of of this energy is suddenly diverted to something else, like intense concentration, the lid opens and the "spooks" of one's life emerge in various forms.

But it's not always scary stuff. My halluciations included some underwater spectacles -- fantastic fish, coral reefs, sunlight slanting down from above, and before that a redwood forest beneath a night sky with millions of stars, and I could see all these things with my eyes open or closed, no difference.

It was a great performance of Makyo.

~ Frank

[Anna Scott]

Originally Posted by Byzantine_Wolf

. . . .I've never had an experience in this personally. I think too often in the modernistic Christian world we give demons "too much credit" in certain things.

As I quoted St. Anthony earlier, the demons are performers on a stage, and too often actors have to employ "props" to perform their act - no doubt the demons take certain symbols for that as well. Yet if we see the string on a spaceship in a movie, it loses the believability - likewise, if we know a symbol has no real power over us, then it is of no harm to us in that regard.

Even holy symbols can mean nothing. Many people, when they see the cross, reverence and feel hope and joy. Others feel nothing - to put a moot point on it (as blasphemous as this may sound), even some porn stars wear crosses while performing.

This was the problem found behind the iconoclast controversy that plagued the church for centuries and only resolved itself with the Seventh Ecumenical Council: some saw icons as idolatry, others recognized it as an essence of worship. Right now I've got an iconostasis with many icons, and I use them to pray.

There are probably some (especially here in Georgia) that would think I'm demon possessed. They can believe what they want, but when I make the sign of the cross it's before an icon of Christ and my words are directed towards my Lord.

The discernment of the spirits, as written in the NT and interpreted by the Fathers of the Church, is really, as the apostle John instructs, to "test the spirits" to see if they be of God (1 John 4:1) - but this can mean not only, say, literal spirits, but the deeds of the spirits as well: a sermon by Jeremiah Wright may not come from the spirit of holiness, but a sermon by Charles Stanley might.

Mr. Wolf:

Interesting viewpoint.

I think our experiences in the spiritual realm affect our views of angels, demons, and iconography. Through numerous experiences with objects, I am more and more inclined to abandon iconography. But, that is an individual decision.

I do agree that demons are in some sense "performers"; and I believe they can change form.

I hold to the power of Christ, who enables us to overcome all things.

I also agree that the Biblical passages regarding the "discernment of the spirits" can have more than one meaning. I do believe that power has both a divine source and an evil/demonic source.

There may come a time when you do actually encounter a demon. I can say, that once such an encounter happens, some of your views may change.

I really can't imagine someone saying you are "demon possessed," because you make the sign of the cross before an icon of Christ.

I have no doubt that your prayers are directed towards our Lord.

Take care Mr. Wolf.

In Christ,
Anna

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Originally Posted by Anna Scott

I think our experiences in the spiritual realm affect our views of angels, demons, and iconography. Through numerous experiences with objects, I am more and more inclined to abandon iconography. But, that is an individual decision.

That's unfortunate

Originally Posted by Anna Scott

I do agree that demons are in some sense "performers"; and I believe they can change form.

I hold to the power of Christ, who enables us to overcome all things.

I also agree that the Biblical passages regarding the "discernment of the spirits" can have more than one meaning. I do believe that power has both a divine source and an evil/demonic source.

There may come a time when you do actually encounter a demon. I can say, that once such an encounter happens, some of your views may change.

I've had instances where I believe I was dealing with demonic forces. I've never seen anything like The Exorcist, but there have been things I could not explain quite rationally. But I don't share these experiences (let alone the divine ones) quite openly, that is for more private discussion.

Originally Posted by Anna Scott

I really can't imagine someone saying you are "demon possessed," because you make the sign of the cross before an icon of Christ.

You'd be surprised. Some of the people down here think anything is demon possessed.

[Anna Scott]

Originally Posted by Byzantine_Wolf

That's unfortunate

I've had instances where I believe I was dealing with demonic forces. I've never seen anything like The Exorcist, but there have been things I could not explain quite rationally. But I don't share these experiences (let alone the divine ones) quite openly, that is for more private discussion.

You'd be surprised. Some of the people down here think anything is demon possessed.

If I were not writing under a pen name, I doubt I would reveal so much about personal experiences. The spiritual issues are some of the most difficult to discuss.

See you around, Mr. Wolf.

Anna

[Janet1983]

Originally Posted by fbg36

Anyway, I wonder if other people at this forum have had experience in non-Christian religion, and have benefited from it, and still draw from its insight and good sense.

Hi Frank,

I have some experiences outside of Christianity...
Well my parents are divorced and after their separation I lived with my father. His first girlfriend was Catholic and very active at church (and we went to church every Sunday, which was unusual for us... I was the only one who did something like that before we met her).
The thing was that she actually had another religion on the side... she actually followed a guru named Satya Sai Baba in India and she had traveled there quite a few times. She and her daughters had little altars in their rooms and had pictures and little statues of Hindu gods... It was very weird for me and even though us kids were trying to keep "the parents" (as we called them) together it did not work out in the end...
Years after that however I had a religion on the side for myself... It was after I had graduated from High School and I was still very much active in the church... at that time I did dabble into Wicca for about a year and as this is not a common phenomena in Germany I was basically alone doing my little thing...
I dropped it once I got a steady job and was too busy, but it taught me something: There are things out there that are evil and we should not tamper with them. It made me sensitive for God's hand around me but it also showed me that the devil is the prince of this world and that he sure knows what he is doing. The experiences I gathered back then are still with me today because I learned of the dangers.
I don't see the devil lurking behind everything, but he does do quite a bit around us...
I will not go into detail about this... this is not the right place to do so...

[Andrew1983]

Originally Posted by rossum

My practice is mostly Theravada. My theory is Mahayana; extract Madhyamika from all the Tibetan trimmings and read a lot of Nagarjuna. Some Zen is useful as well - it helps in getting rid of the Tibetan trimmings. Some people like all the ritual in Tibetan Buddhism, I find it gets in the way so I dropped it.

rossum

Thank you for your reply, Rossum. By any chance, is there a specific holy book or text that is used by Theravada such as the Tanakh for the Jews and Qu'ran for the Muslims?

From what I've glossed over, Theravada is oldest surviving form of Buddhism where Mahayana is very different.

To put it frankly, on a website that gave a brief comparison claimed that the variation in Buddhist teachings isn't like the differences of the sects of Christianity but is more like the diversity of the Abrahamic religions.

[rossum]

Originally Posted by Andrew1983

Thank you for your reply, Rossum. By any chance, is there a specific holy book or text that is used by Theravada such as the Tanakh for the Jews and Qu'ran for the Muslims?

The Theravada use the Pali Canon, or Tipitaka, and much of it can be found at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/. The whole Canon comes in 70 odd volumes, though initially you can probably ignore much of the Vinaya (rules for monks) and Abhidhamma (lots of boring lists). Look at the Sutta Pitaka first.

For a flavour of the Mahayana try the Vimalakirtinirdesa sutra. Chapters 3 and 4 are the funniest - the Arhats and Bodhisattvas making excuses why they should not go and visit Vimalakirti.

From what I've glossed over, Theravada is oldest surviving form of Buddhism where Mahayana is very different.

The Theravada often claims to be oldest. IMHO it has just tended to be more conservative which is both a strength and a weakness. All the elements emphasised in the Mahayana can be found in the Theravada, in at least embryonic form.

To put it frankly, on a website that gave a brief comparison claimed that the variation in Buddhist teachings isn't like the differences of the sects of Christianity but is more like the diversity of the Abrahamic religions.

A reasonable position, though no comparison is exact.

rossum

[fbg36]

Originally Posted by rossum

The Theravada often claims to be oldest. IMHO it has just tended to be more conservative which is both a strength and a weakness. All the elements emphasised in the Mahayana can be found in the Theravada, in at least embryonic form.

I've often wondered about Theravada and any possible connection to Mahayana's bodhisattva ideal. What do you think? The bhikkhus I used to talk to in Sri Lanka were adamantly sure that the bodhisattva business of Mahayana was pure heresy. To them, "bodhisattva" referred to certain past lives of the historical Buddha, not to anything like the self-sacrifice of the Mahayana's bodhisattva who -- according to the teaching -- pours himself/herself out for the benefit of all beings, to ease their suffering and push them along toward a human rebirth. You may be right that this can be found in embryonic form in Theravada, though right now I wouldn't be able to qoute any suttas to support it.

Any ideas?

Be Well.

~ Frank



.

[rossum]

Originally Posted by fbg36

I've often wondered about Theravada and any possible connection to Mahayana's bodhisattva ideal. What do you think? The bhikkhus I used to talk to in Sri Lanka were adamantly sure that the bodhisattva business of Mahayana was pure heresy. To them, "bodhisattva" referred to certain past lives of the historical Buddha, not to anything like the self-sacrifice of the Mahayana's bodhisattva who -- according to the teaching -- pours himself/herself out for the benefit of all beings, to ease their suffering and push them along toward a human rebirth. You may be right that this can be found in embryonic form in Theravada, though right now I wouldn't be able to qoute any suttas to support it.

As well as the past lives of the historical Buddha the Theravada also has the Maitreya/Mettaya, the future Buddha, who is currently a Bodhisattva residing in the Tushita/Tusita heaven.

The ideal of self sacrifice is already present in many of the Jataka tales of the previous lives of the historical Buddha, when he was still a bodhisattva. Both Theravada and Mahayana agree that there are many lives to be lived between becoming a bodhisattva and attaining enlightenment.

A Theravada arhat works to attain his or her own enlightenment. A Mahayana bodhisattva having attained his or her own enlightenment remains in the world to help others along the path. Arhats help others by showing an example and leading along the path - "follow me". Bodhisattvas help by pushing along from behind and helping over the difficult bits - "go that way". Different means to the same end.

rossum

[fbg36]

Originally Posted by rossum

A Theravada arhat works to attain his or her own enlightenment. A Mahayana bodhisattva having attained his or her own enlightenment remains in the world to help others along the path. Arhats help others by showing an example and leading along the path - "follow me". Bodhisattvas help by pushing along from behind and helping over the difficult bits - "go that way". Different means to the same end.

Hi, Rossum. That pretty much sums it up. Each of the paths can "work" for somebody who honestly follows it with faith and effort. I think this includes the Tibetan way (though you've expressed some disfavor). My own experience with the Tibetans is is fairly limited -- one intensive retreat with a lama -- but I have a lot of respect for the heart-driven practice and way of understanding, which was for me a contrast to the conceptual and rational approach in Theravada, though there's nothing wrong with that. The lama taught that bells, gongs, prayer wheels, clouds of incense, etc., are not the essence but only outward manifestations (as are rosaries, holy water and so on in Catholicism). The actual foundation is sunyata/emptiness, as it is in Theravada and Zen -- and the realization that one's true home is right in the midst of cause and effect and universal suffering. Then the holy vocation begins.

Be Well.

~ Frank


.