Ten Commandments...."Rules" or "Continuum?" for living.

[pete]

loki09789, go ahead with herry and have fun... sinners usually do (lol) ...
i'm not one to prostheltize (sp?). heck, i can't even prove what i ate for dinner monday night. pete.

 

[loki09789]

loki09789, go ahead with herry and have fun... sinners usually do (lol) ...
i'm not one to prostheltize (sp?). heck, i can't even prove what i ate for dinner monday night. pete.

Sure you can prove the dinner dilema...you just might not want to 'explore the evidence'

 

[kenpo tiger]

*sigh*

At no point did I say that Buddhism teaches "the aggrandizement of the self" (which is actually the opposite of most systems of "self-development" that have any weight to them, anyway). I said, very plainly, that there is an emphasis in Buddhist doctrine on "working on" the self --- such as the concepts of right conduct, right livelihood, right speech, and so on. Y'know, the Eightfold Path?? Ring a bell?? :idunno:

And, since its relevant to the topic, one of the very basic teachings of Buddhism (attributed to Siddartha Gautama himself) is:

"Avoid all evil, do good, purify the mind."

In Buddhism, "avoiding evil" consists of:
1) no killing
2) no stealing
3) no lying
4) no sexual misconduct
5) no intoxication

The next part, "doing good", consists of six paramitas:
1) charity
2) morality
3) tolerance
4) perseverance
5) meditation
6) wisdom

The first three consist of doing good to others, the last three in doing good to oneself.

In any event, all of the above demonstrates a whole lot of "working on the self". The culminatory revelation of No-Self, or No-Mind, is just that --- a culmination of a lot of hard work. The bulk of the work consists of disciplining the self, teaching the self, getting the self to think and act and behave in a certain way. As in Pauline proto-Gnosticism, working on things like morals and tolerance and proper thinking is a stepping stone to working on things like self-transcendence, Spirit-dissolution, divine Wisdom, and all that.

Of course, I could just "be wrong", as you claim --- without, of course, any arguments or explanations as to why this is so. It could just be that I imagined the Eightfold Path, or imagined the moral prescriptions of Buddhism, or imagined paramitas or koshas or dozen other teachings of Buddhism that emphasize "self-work".

But, hey, at least I actually gave a reason as to why "I'm right" (whatever that's supposed to mean).

So Herry. Wait - first let me thank you for your suggestions for further reading. I recognized Godwin from some of your earlier posts.

Okay - etiquette has been satisfied. Now:

How, exactly, do the eleven tenets, or whatever you'd like to categorize them as, of Buddhism differ ideologically from the Ten Commandments *aside from there being eleven of these and ten of those*? Seems to me that each set is a group of guidelines for living. Additionally, and maybe a bit off-topic, in the prayer we say - the Veyohaftah - instructs us to have the words of G-d in our hearts as well as 'on the doorposts of thy house and upon thy gates; that ye may remember, and do all my Commandments' and be humble. That instruction is why we Jews have mezuzot on door lintels in our homes. The prayer contained within them blesses the occupants -- but -- it is also a reminder of G-d's presence and what is expected of us on a daily basis through G-d's commandments.

Charity is certainly something we Jews grow up practicing. Since pre-k in religious school, I was given a quarter (remember how old I am in relation to you all, please) to contribute each week to tzedakah (charity). When something good occurred in our family, I was given a dollar to contribute; sometimes more than that. I helped my mom and the other moms gather things for and organize the *rubbish* sales (which were anything but), the proceeds of which went to charity. We contribute to UJA, UJF, and through Hadassah and ORT. We buy trees to plant in Israel. Maybe that's why I'm a fund raiser today - because I believe that we should help each other (my Maccabee warrior heritage notwithstanding.)

All that being said, I don't believe it's limited to Judeo-Christian religions. Just took a detour getting here.

 

[Mark Weiser]

KT glad you brought that up about Charity. I remember an example to possible understanding I got from a Rabbi on this subject.

Your boss hands you a $1000. Do you feel obligated to pay it back to your boss? Now if your parents handed you $1000 do you feel obligated in the same way to pay repay your parents?

The Rabbi stated in a Jewish community if someone has a need he or she will be taken care of in that the members of the community will give what is needed without any thought of repayment. You may wake up the next morning and find a envelope with funds in it without any clue who gave it. It is a commandment or a way of life to take care of each other.

Also at the Shabbath Dinners we take up a collection for a charity and when we reached our families goal. We give it to that charity without asking for recognition.

 

[heretic888]

heretic888, i think you are missing the point that christianity is about faith, not facts. the message of jesus, whether you want to prove his historical existence or not, is more a "way" than a list of what not to do. its basically to stop trying to look for loopholes, exceptions and interpretations in a list and ask wwjd. if you follow the way, you'll know... pete.

Something tells me, Pete, that I know a bit more about historical Christianity than you do. In any event, there are quite a few problems with your assumptions:

1) "Faith", as referred to in the New Testament, comes from the Greek word pistis --- which has absolutely nothing to do with what you're talking about. Traditionally, pistis was regarded as laying the foundation for later gnosis (which goes back to the point I made about Buddhism before), as Paul repeatedly pointed out.

2) There is no single "the way" or "the message" of Christianity. Every one of the gospels, canonical or non-canonical, differ to degrees. The Gospel of John (which personifies Jesus as an embodiment of the divine Logos), for example, is drastically different than, say, the Gospel of Mark. Even during Paul's time, there were multiple "Christianities". This really shouldn't surprise.

3) If there was no historical Jesus Christ, then its fairly silly to ask what a myth would do in a real-life situation.

I have to go with Herrie on this one. If the foundation of Christianity is that there was a Christ and there is not sufficient proof to move you to the point of faith...well it is not going to work for you.

Personally, I would suggest conducting an in-depth study of the authentic Pauline letters (Galatians, Corinthians, Romans, etc.) to get an idea on what the early Christian may have thought about concerning "the Christ". Compare it to the rituals and philosophies of the Mystery Schools, and see if you find any fun commonalities. :uhyeah:

Even with faith, there is a foundation of information that does answer things factually (or at least informationally) that you start from, faith begins when you choose to believe in the absense of 'facts.'

Well said.

loki09789, go ahead with herry and have fun... sinners usually do (lol) ...

Eck. Typical Christian literalism: if someone disagrees with you, they must be "sinning". Must be some kinda deity that consigns people to hellfire on the basis of having "the wrong opinion".

 

[rmcrobertson]

Well, Jesting Pilate sure as hell had SOMEBODY crucified, and contemporary historical accounts sure as hell discuss the troublesome sect of them there "Christians," and we'll even leave out the weird notion that the Buddha never actually existed.

Otherwise, it looks as though we pretty much agree about that old abnegation of the self thingy. The major division, I'd say, is that I'm a lot more skeptical about the way many Americans (including your Ken Wilber guy) translate Buddhism as something that's just fine with consumerism...which I can't see for the life of me, but then I haven't the Asian languages to be sure.

It's interesting that you're adopting the tactic of a) agreeing with me, b) citing the same sources but then claiming that people need to check the same sources lest they fall into error, c) proliferating terminology as a substitute for explanation, d) pooh-poohing any sources that don't immediately reinforce your views.

It leads to goofy statemenments, like, "They took a vote!" which of course they did--it's what committees are wont to do. You don't like their conclusions, you don't respect their work, which is why you wrote:

"I personally wouldn't recommend the "Jesus Seminar". Many of their conclusions are based on laughable bases, and don't reflect an in-depth historical analysis of the context in which "Jesus" is supposed to have lived."

By the way, folks, don't be dazzled by citations of things like Mithraism, WHOEVER makes them. The level of citation and insight I've seen so far ain't a big deal--it's easily available on the Internet, or from oldies like Bullfinch's "Mythologies," and the Frazier book--both of which are going on a century old, and which have probably been superseded by recent scholarship. The Joseph Campbell is middle-brow Jungianism; flip through (and I do mean flip) the old "Hero With 1000 Faces," and you'll have all you need.

If'n ya wants to get serious about recent Biblical scholarship, let's discuss Mieke Bal's work.

For the Buddhist stuff, there's plenty available--hell the dalai lama's books have been best-sellers for a while now, as have Trich van Thanh's and several others. I prefer sources the "Heretic," (a real heretic'd go after that Wilber guy, but I cheaply digress) can't stand: D.T. Suzuki, ""Zen and Japanese Culture," (nice martial arts section!) Herrigel's "Zen and the Art of Archery," "Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind," by Shunryu Suzuki, and a couple of newbies like Herman Kauz's "A Path to Liberation," and Furuyu's "Kodo: Ancient Ways," or dave Lowry's books. Or, hell, take a look at "The Journal of Asian Martial Arts," which has a lot of great philosophy/history/culture scholarship wedged in among the articles featuring some of the editors' inept martial arts.

But the first chapter of Thoreau's "Walden," or some Allen Ginsberg, or something fun like Kerouac's "Desolation Angels," and "On the Road," will give you pretty much All ye Need to Know, including chunks of the Heart and Diamond sutras. This stuff ain't that tricky to understand--to use, there's the rub.

Like everybody else, us somewhat-scholarly types rely a lot on other people's work, are limited in terms of times and energies, and puff ourselves up. The key is not to take other puffery so seriously.

 

[heretic888]

So Herry. Wait - first let me thank you for your suggestions for further reading. I recognized Godwin from some of your earlier posts.

No problem.

How, exactly, do the eleven tenets, or whatever you'd like to categorize them as, of Buddhism differ ideologically from the Ten Commandments *aside from there being eleven of these and ten of those*?

They differ a lot, actually.

Buddhism teaches nothing about "you shall only worship this god" (that would be a violation of the paramita of tolerance) or about "observing the sabbath". The Ten Commandments, by contrast, do not emphasize tolerance, charity, wisdom, meditation, sexual misconduct (outside of adultery), or warnings against intoxication.

There are some very basic moral laws both observe --- do not lie, do not steal, do not kill, don't be greedy, don't cheat on your wife, etc. --- but, these are neither unique nor exclusive to either religious traditions.

Additionally, and maybe a bit off-topic, in the prayer we say - the Veyohaftah - instructs us to have the words of G-d in our hearts as well as 'on the doorposts of thy house and upon thy gates; that ye may remember, and do all my Commandments' and be humble. That instruction is why we Jews have mezuzot on door lintels in our homes. The prayer contained within them blesses the occupants -- but -- it is also a reminder of G-d's presence and what is expected of us on a daily basis through G-d's commandments.

Ummm... that's very nice and all, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the discussion. :idunno:

Charity is certainly something we Jews grow up practicing. Since pre-k in religious school, I was given a quarter (remember how old I am in relation to you all, please) to contribute each week to tzedakah (charity). When something good occurred in our family, I was given a dollar to contribute; sometimes more than that. I helped my mom and the other moms gather things for and organize the *rubbish* sales (which were anything but), the proceeds of which went to charity. We contribute to UJA, UJF, and through Hadassah and ORT. We buy trees to plant in Israel. Maybe that's why I'm a fund raiser today - because I believe that we should help each other (my Maccabee warrior heritage notwithstanding.)

All that being said, I don't believe it's limited to Judeo-Christian religions. Just took a detour getting here.

No, the principle of charity and altruism are not unique to any religious tradition. But, you asked about the Ten Commandments and, well, charity ain't one of them.

That being said, there are other places in the Torah where things like charity, perseverance, meditation, and even wisdom are emphasized. Hell, Proverbs is nothing but teachings about the Wisdom (Chokmah) of God. But, again, not in the TC.

Personally, I think the "meditation and wisdom" side of Judaism (as with Christianity and Islam) are more emphasized in esoteric and monastic traditions. They don't tend to be emphasized to the general public.

Laterz. :asian:

 

[pete]

Something tells me, Pete, that I know a bit more about historical Christianity than you do.

not saying much, except that you may be a legend in your own mind... remember, i offer no proof of what i had for dinner monday night, much less event over 2000 years ago.

In any event, there are quite a few problems with your assumptions: yada, yada, yada

they seem to be your problems based on history and proof, rather than faith and the way.

Eck. Typical Christian literalism: if someone disagrees with you, they must be "sinning". Must be some kinda deity that consigns people to hellfire on the basis of having "the wrong opinion".

first of all, please allow me to introduce you to the kettle, mr. black...
and second, in the immortal words of foghorn leghorn, 'its a joke son, a joke... boy's like paul revere's ride... a little light in the belfry'

st. peter

 

[Flatlander]

If you would prefer to do domething a little quicker and more efficient than reading someone else's library, try "The Teaching of Buddha". That was all I required. I was able to interpret the meaning all on my own. I'm sure you can too, if you try.

 

[heretic888]

Well, Jesting Pilate sure as hell had SOMEBODY crucified, and contemporary historical accounts sure as hell discuss the troublesome sect of them there "Christians"

Prove it, Rob.

I know this really isn't fair, since you clealry don't know too much about the historical Jesus research in question --- but, prove it. Cite some historical sources, please. I have spent quite some time looking into the "historical Jesus" stuff, but perhaps you know something I don't.

Been through Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Elder, and the Talmud. Nothing I've seen that doesn't reak of Christian forgery (can even discuss the particulars, if you're so interested). Or, perhaps you can cite the historical particulars of Pilate's reign with primary records, something no historian seems able to have gotten his hands on??

No mention is even given of the Christian sect(s) prior to 115 CE, with Tacitus. And, the context of his reference clearly does not rely on first-hand information, as opposed to hearsay. And, even then, there are no discussions of persecution or the like --- only that they're annoying. No "mass persecutions" of them poor wittle Christians til around 250 CE or so, and those lasted for all of three years (until the then-emperor died).

They're called forgeries, Rob. Pseudipigraphica, if you want to be cordial. The Church loved them.

and we'll even leave out the weird notion that the Buddha never actually existed.

Not that silly, considering "the" Buddha had nothing written about him (or his teachings) until about +200 years after he was supposed to have died. And, even then, all of the stories concerning his life are clealry mythological (such as him being born "out of his mother's left side", a serpent protecting him from rainfall, having nice little talks with the demon Mara, and so on).

But, then again, Buddhism teaches there were thousands of Buddhas before Gautama, and a thousand more after him. In fact, "the Buddha" isn't even a person or historical individual --- as opposed to a quality of consciousness inherent to all beings.

So, whether there was a Gautama or not, doesn't actually mean that much to Buddhist philosophy. They don't exactly go around, asking WWBD or anything silly like that.

Otherwise, it looks as though we pretty much agree about that old abnegation of the self thingy.

Looks like.

The major division, I'd say, is that I'm a lot more skeptical about the way many Americans (including your Ken Wilber guy) translate Buddhism as something that's just fine with consumerism...which I can't see for the life of me, but then I haven't the Asian languages to be sure.

*shrugs* At points, Buddhism could be construed as supporting "consumerism". And, at other points, it clearly opposes it.

Remember, even Buddhist priests conduct rituals for good luck, or rain for the crops, or helping one's soul reincarnate into a nice life when they die, and so on. They clearly have no problem in providing self-consoling functions for the populace, but also recognize that there is "more to" the dharma than that.

The idea, Rob, is not that Buddhism only teaches one thing for all people. But that, depending on one's level of understanding and preparation, that different types of teaching are laid out. This is a quality that, I feel, modern Christianity is lacking (unless there are thousands of hidden esoteric Christian teachers I don't know about).

Then again, I don't think all of civilization revolves around capitalism, so that may just be my ideology speaking. :uhyeah:

It's interesting that you're adopting the tactic of a) agreeing with me, b) citing the same sources but then claiming that people need to check the same sources lest they fall into error, c) proliferating terminology as a substitute for explanation, d) pooh-poohing any sources that don't immediately reinforce your views.

a) More than likely, Rob, I never actually disagreed with you. I, for example, never made the claim that Buddhism doesn't have ego-transcendence as its ultimate goal --- only that its worried about other stuff, too.

b) Never made the claim my sources were the end-all, be-all. I believe people need to read through things themselves, and come to their own decisions.

c) Nope, sorry. I expect that if somebody is asking about the particulars of a foreign philosophy like Buddhism, that they have some kind of elementary grounding in its principles. I mean, you can't really discuss the particulars without the terminology (durrr... Eightfold Path, wuzzat??).

It leads to goofy statemenments, like, "They took a vote!" which of course they did--it's what committees are wont to do. You don't like their conclusions, you don't respect their work

Sorry if that's my ideology speaking again, Rob, but I think democracy is great for deciding political leaders. Not facts about reality.

And, as I've said before, I don't have too much respect for the whole field as a whole. Its rife with theological assumptions, even among the atheists.

By the way, folks, don't be dazzled by citations of things like Mithraism, WHOEVER makes them. The level of citation and insight I've seen so far ain't a big deal--it's easily available on the Internet, or from oldies like Bullfinch's "Mythologies," and the Frazier book--both of which are going on a century old, and which have probably been superseded by recent scholarship. The Joseph Campbell is middle-brow Jungianism; flip through (and I do mean flip) the old "Hero With 1000 Faces," and you'll have all you need.

Oh yes, definately. I agree. Someone merely asked for basic introductory readings, and I cited classics. Whoopdy-dee-doo.

For the Buddhist stuff, there's plenty available--hell the dalai lama's books have been best-sellers for a while now, as have Trich van Thanh's and several others. I prefer sources the "Heretic," [...] can't stand: D.T. Suzuki, ""Zen and Japanese Culture," (nice martial arts section!) Herrigel's "Zen and the Art of Archery," "Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind," by Shunryu Suzuki, and a couple of newbies like Herman Kauz's "A Path to Liberation," and Furuyu's "Kodo: Ancient Ways," or dave Lowry's books. Or, hell, take a look at "The Journal of Asian Martial Arts," which has a lot of great philosophy/history/culture scholarship wedged in among the articles featuring some of the editors' inept martial arts.

The hell?? I can't stand the Dalai Lama, the Suzukis, or Lowry?? Where'd you get any of that from...

... although, personally, I think there is more to Buddhism than Zen and Tibetan flavors (although those are the most popular in America). I'd recommend translations of works from guys who started this stuff, like Nagarjuna (creator of the 'shunyata' doctrine).

a real heretic'd go after that Wilber guy, but I cheaply digress

A "real heretic" would take the time to actually read the writings of someone before making ignorant judgments about them. :disgust:

 

[heretic888]

they seem to be your problems based on history and proof, rather than faith and the way.

Yup. Its great to disregard reality as long as you have "faith", ain't it??

Oh, and by the way, that "the way" thing?? Yeah, that was aped from the Essenes who aped it from Cynicism.... philosophical plagiarism.

first of all, please allow me to introduce you to the kettle, mr. black...

Yup. I'm sure everyone remembers how I label everyone that disagrees with me a sinner, or how they'll burn in hellfire.

Uhhh.... kettle, pot, black, hypocrite?? :idunno:

 

[pete]

Yup. Its great to disregard reality as long as you have "faith", ain't it??

is "reality" the ability to prove, or the inability to disprove? and is faith the abililty to believe without proof, but also without evidence proving otherwise?

 

[RandomPhantom700]

and were those questions supposed to prove any point?

 

[heretic888]

is "reality" the ability to prove, or the inability to disprove?

Bit of both. Although, technically, reality is supposed to be a "thing", not an "ability".

and is faith the abililty to believe without proof, but also without evidence proving otherwise?

"Faith", in my opinion, is usually a crutch that people use to avoid exploring subjects that might undermine their rather tepid belief system. Why someone, for example, would just blithely ignore the original use of the concept, in the Greek pistis, is beyond me.

 

[raedyn]

Some people use faith to blind themselves, yes.

But some people use 'faith' to give their life meaning, to lead them in how to make choices, to comfort them in times of need. There is nothing inherently wrong with having faith, or even with using it as an explanation. It's just not particularly convincing to those that don't share it.

 

[MisterMike]

Which belief systems whould you deeem tepid? Curious...

 

[kenpo tiger]

Gee whiz. I leave for a couple hours and you boys still can't play together nicely.

Dan, I appreciate your direction vis-a-vis reading. Thanks.

Herrie, Robertson, Random and Pete - I know only one of you personally - and you can be as obstinate as the first two listed, you know - but I feel like I have a little insight as to each of the rest of you, having jousted with you all for the past few months. Name calling? Trite. You are - all four of you - well-read and able to present your thoughts in a cogent, concise and compact manner when you want to. I'm disappointed to see arguing when there's more that you all can share with the rest of us.

Herrie, You keep reminding me that I stray from the Ten Commandments in some of my replies, and you're right, to a point. Perhaps it's because I view them as guidelines, as I've stated previously, and I also view the teachings of my religion as whole cloth, not patches forming the whole. I also don't see - especially after reading some of the ripostes herein - where one can take anything at face value. It's just not that simple. You can cite history til you (and Robertson) are blue in the face. Don't you believe that civilization has evolved - and bettered itself in the past two millenia? Don't you believe in the basic goodness of humanity when given the chance?

Someone once wrote that there are only about 5 or 6 storylines which exist, and everything else is an embellishment on them. That's my point - moral code exists within all religions. It's humans who f*%# it up.

 

[PeachMonkey]

You can cite history til you (and Robertson) are blue in the face. Don't you believe that civilization has evolved - and bettered itself in the past two millenia? Don't you believe in the basic goodness of humanity when given the chance?

KT, how does having a knowledge of history contradict any of these notions?

In fact, a knowledge of history is the only factor that allows us to determine if, and how, civilization has evolved and bettered itself, and to truly analyze the "basic goodness of humanity".

 

[pete]

Herrie, Robertson, Random and Pete - I know only one of you personally - and you can be as obstinate as the first two listed...

hey herrie... time to order some more kettles...

 

[kenpo tiger]

Okay. Okay. Point to you, Petey. (A decorative handle, please.)

Peach,
History, as Herrie is using it, merely buttresses his argument that we're all barbarians with no redemption in sight (I take some license in condensing your thoughts, sir). He, like you and a few others, accuse certain people of continuing to be aggressive and warlike in spite of the admonition by their faith(s) to be otherwise.