Last judgement

[Azramin]

Suffering is really all a state of mind or all in our minds.

Your entire comment offered great insight and this statement in particular can't be overstated.

As uneasy as some may feel about parallel lines of thought, it might be helpful to realise that somebody immersed in a state of grace is unlikely to experience suffering.

True grace and acceptance of salvation is akin to the ability to acknowledge a thought, emotion or experience in meditation or day to day experience and let it go.
Why?
For Buddhists who understand impermanence, ego and non-grasping, they can realise peace of mind understanding impermanence and the principal of emptiness correct?

For those in a state of grace, their mind is eased in the knowledge that no matter what immediate misfortune or discomfort befalls them, they have divine grace. Somebody to watch over and ultimately protect them.

It is your state of mind that makes this thing good or that thing bad. If all you can accomplish is truly comprehending this to the extent you can apply it in day to day life, your experience of life will improve dramatically.

I can say of myself that I don't take things to heart and that makes a dramatic difference in my life.
I don't get upset because somebody considers me a long winded Luddite. I probably am. I'm a happy mostly not suffering Luddite. If in some way I can help somebody else to that state of being, what a great accomplishment. One less person in the world caught up in their own insecurities and wellness at the expense of others.

[Sherab]

That is probably true for some sects of Christianity but definitely not all. Many believe one is saved entirely through grace -- it doesn't matter how hard one tries or not.

Ah, but many do not know that they are made to suffer entirely through grace as well. Personally, I'd rather be "graceless".

Suffer in what sense? Being saved by grace means that you will be allowed into the "kingdom of Heaven" no matter what (rather than some big daddy telling you you didn't do enough, and you're now going to hell for eternity etc...).

Being saved by grace doesn't mean your life in the here and now becomes carefree, or that one doesn't have bad things happen to them. There's a correlation of sorts to the person who truly believes, in a Christian sense, and a person who has a deep understanding of Buddhism. Suffering is really all a state of mind or all in our minds.

If you believe in the saving grace of a Creator God, you should also believe in the endangering grace of the Creator God when he gave all a life of suffering.
So No Thank You to grace. It is really an amazing dis grace and one that I am happy to be without.

[Sherab]

... Somebody to watch over and ultimately protect them....

You may be fine with an eternal Father watching and protecting you. I'd rather not because it means that I will never grow up and I can never be independent.
In Buddhism, to be independent is to be free. To be subjected to dependencies is to be in bondage.

[uan]

In Buddhism, to be independent is to be free. To be subjected to dependencies is to be in bondage

What is independent? Does it matter if one believes in a creator God or not? So there's no God, there is no predestination, etc. You are totally on your own. As is each of us. Does that make you free? Look at your dependencies - food, water, air. You depend on the ground to hold you up. Clothes to keep you warm. We all have layers and layers and layers of dependencies that tie us to samsara. Some paths peel those layers, like the layers of an onion, one at a time. There are some paths that cut through them all at once. But if only one layer remains you still have dependencies. Samsara is bondage.

As long as we have conceptual mind, we have no freedom. It's all illusory.

[Azramin]

In Buddhism, to be independent is to be free. To be subjected to dependencies is to be in bondage.

Herein lies a great dilemma for individuals. If you can't prove the validity of something for yourself, you're at the mercy of the integrity of a third party and your faith in them.

Put another way, if you accept something you yourself can't validate through personal experience, you entrust yourself to another being right about their insights. So it is with any faith or religion.
I perceive the reason religions are so precious about their holy texts is because they in themselves are the only piece of integrity they have. You must trust the keepers of those texts not to have altered them. Translators to have fully understood and accurately translated them. The original author to have impartially communicated all that was revealed to them. That is an enormous amount of trust and faith you're bestowing on a vast array of people.

I believe an important aspect of human nature to bear in mind is that if any one person is capable of something, all other humans are capable of the same thing with the right focus of mind.
That is, the ability to learn and play guitar, juggle or do complex mathematics is within the grasp of any able bodied person. Some have a natural predisposition, but most have the ability to develop those skills.

I point this out because it underlines everyone is capable or has the potential to discern the truth for themselves. There is no exclusion from enlightenment, therefore little reason not to pursue it. In so doing you improve your own situation and therefore other's being able to assist them in the same process.

[Sherab]

In Buddhism, to be independent is to be free. To be subjected to dependencies is to be in bondage

What is independent? Does it matter if one believes in a creator God or not? So there's no God, there is no predestination, etc. You are totally on your own. As is each of us. Does that make you free? Look at your dependencies - food, water, air. You depend on the ground to hold you up. Clothes to keep you warm. We all have layers and layers and layers of dependencies that tie us to samsara. Some paths peel those layers, like the layers of an onion, one at a time. There are some paths that cut through them all at once. But if only one layer remains you still have dependencies. Samsara is bondage.

As long as we have conceptual mind, we have no freedom. It's all illusory.

Does it matter if one believes in a Creator God or not? Yes, it certainly does. It has everything to do with right view.

[Sherab]

In Buddhism, to be independent is to be free. To be subjected to dependencies is to be in bondage.

Herein lies a great dilemma for individuals. If you can't prove the validity of something for yourself, you're at the mercy of the integrity of a third party and your faith in them.

Put another way, if you accept something you yourself can't validate through personal experience, you entrust yourself to another being right about their insights. So it is with any faith or religion.
I perceive the reason religions are so precious about their holy texts is because they in themselves are the only piece of integrity they have. You must trust the keepers of those texts not to have altered them. Translators to have fully understood and accurately translated them. The original author to have impartially communicated all that was revealed to them. That is an enormous amount of trust and faith you're bestowing on a vast array of people.

I believe an important aspect of human nature to bear in mind is that if any one person is capable of something, all other humans are capable of the same thing with the right focus of mind.
That is, the ability to learn and play guitar, juggle or do complex mathematics is within the grasp of any able bodied person. Some have a natural predisposition, but most have the ability to develop those skills.

I point this out because it underlines everyone is capable or has the potential to discern the truth for themselves. There is no exclusion from enlightenment, therefore little reason not to pursue it. In so doing you improve your own situation and therefore other's being able to assist them in the same process.

The four reliances in Buddhism:
1.Do not rely on the individual, but on the Dharma
2.Do not rely on the words, but on the meaning
3.Do not rely on the provisional meaning, but on the definitive meaning
4. Do not rely on the ordinary mind, but rely on wisdom

The three arguments:
Argument from authority (weakest)
Argument from logic and rational reasons
Argument from direct knowledge (best)

Even though one may not have actual experience of the truth, one can still rely on logical argument and rational reasoning. This is my basis of whether I accept an argument, a teaching, etc. I cannot speak for you, but as far as I am concerned, I do not accept argument from authority blindly or with faith alone. Whatever I accept is provisional. I will change my mind if someone can give me a better argument or reasoning, or when I have direct experience.

As far as holy texts are concerned, I don't accept unquestioningly whatever is in them because there can be so many sources of errors in these texts. Texts also have to be understood in context. For example, I would not accept the explanation of world system in the form of Mt Meru, four continents etc. As far as I am concerned, these are provisional explanations based on what the people at that time believed to be true. People at that time are not equipped to understand modern cosmology. Even now, many people are not equipped to understand modern cosmology and modern science.

[muni]

As long as we are concerned about own minds' wrong view, we make a chance. By seeing others' wrong view not.

[Simon E.]

In Buddhism, to be independent is to be free. To be subjected to dependencies is to be in bondage.

Herein lies a great dilemma for individuals. If you can't prove the validity of something for yourself, you're at the mercy of the integrity of a third party and your faith in them.

Put another way, if you accept something you yourself can't validate through personal experience, you entrust yourself to another being right about their insights. So it is with any faith or religion.
I perceive the reason religions are so precious about their holy texts is because they in themselves are the only piece of integrity they have. You must trust the keepers of those texts not to have altered them. Translators to have fully understood and accurately translated them. The original author to have impartially communicated all that was revealed to them. That is an enormous amount of trust and faith you're bestowing on a vast array of people.

I believe an important aspect of human nature to bear in mind is that if any one person is capable of something, all other humans are capable of the same thing with the right focus of mind.
That is, the ability to learn and play guitar, juggle or do complex mathematics is within the grasp of any able bodied person. Some have a natural predisposition, but most have the ability to develop those skills.

I point this out because it underlines everyone is capable or has the potential to discern the truth for themselves. There is no exclusion from enlightenment, therefore little reason not to pursue it. In so doing you improve your own situation and therefore other's being able to assist them in the same process.

The four reliances in Buddhism:
1.Do not rely on the individual, but on the Dharma
2.Do not rely on the words, but on the meaning
3.Do not rely on the provisional meaning, but on the definitive meaning
4. Do not rely on the ordinary mind, but rely on wisdom

The three arguments:
Argument from authority (weakest)
Argument from logic and rational reasons
Argument from direct knowledge (best)

Even though one may not have actual experience of the truth, one can still rely on logical argument and rational reasoning. This is my basis of whether I accept an argument, a teaching, etc. I cannot speak for you, but as far as I am concerned, I do not accept argument from authority blindly or with faith alone. Whatever I accept is provisional. I will change my mind if someone can give me a better argument or reasoning, or when I have direct experience.

As far as holy texts are concerned, I don't accept unquestioningly whatever is in them because there can be so many sources of errors in these texts. Texts also have to be understood in context. For example, I would not accept the explanation of world system in the form of Mt Meru, four continents etc. As far as I am concerned, these are provisional explanations based on what the people at that time believed to be true. People at that time are not equipped to understand modern cosmology. Even now, many people are not equipped to understand modern cosmology and modern science.

You are utilising arguments from mundane philosophy and implying that they can and should be applied also the Buddhadharma.
We need look no further than your statement about the ' weakness ' of argument from authority...no matter how applicable that is to mundane matters...and no doubt it is in that context wise advise..it goes clear against much of the Vajrayana..which is posited entirely, intially, on the acceptance of genuine authority at the expense of our individual rationalisations.
The Four Reliances take their authority from an entirely different world view than does the 'the three arguments'..at some point it will be seen that this particular circle cannot be squared.

[gloriasteinem]

Azrsmin,

Your image is of a sorcester among the ice (hell, Naraka in some scriptures is not only in fire but also in cold for some beings).

Your philosophy is relativistic and rather closer to animism, you are regardless of any religion trying to impose your luck of trust to it to others.

You don't understand essence, emptiness of essence will only make you die, just like emptiness of sence, energies are energies but the world is not made of senseless energies floating around, the Gods sparkle and the advantage to the higher of species is what makes sense, if you don't see sense into the world and call that 'peace' of mind I'd call it depression underneath apathy.

[Azramin]

Your philosophy is relativistic and rather closer to animism

I can appreciate how you derive that opinion of me.

Your image is of a sorcester among the ice (hell, Naraka in some scriptures is not only in fire but also in cold for some beings).

I could explain the avatar image. I doubt it would sit well with you however so I will respectively desist from agitating you any further than I already seem to have.

My apologies.

[uan]

You are utilising arguments from mundane philosophy and implying that they can and should be applied also the Buddhadharma.
We need look no further than your statement about the ' weakness ' of argument from authority...no matter how applicable that is to mundane matters...and no doubt it is in that context wise advise..it goes clear against much of the Vajrayana..which is posited entirely, intially, on the acceptance of genuine authority at the expense of our individual rationalisations.
The Four Reliances take their authority from an entirely different world view than does the 'the three arguments'..at some point it will be seen that this particular circle cannot be squared.

Great insight Simon. Thank you.

[Mkoll]

You are utilising arguments from mundane philosophy and implying that they can and should be applied also the Buddhadharma.
We need look no further than your statement about the ' weakness ' of argument from authority...no matter how applicable that is to mundane matters...and no doubt it is in that context wise advise..it goes clear against much of the Vajrayana..which is posited entirely, intially, on the acceptance of genuine authority at the expense of our individual rationalisations.
The Four Reliances take their authority from an entirely different world view than does the 'the three arguments'..at some point it will be seen that this particular circle cannot be squared.

Great insight Simon. Thank you.

I am not a Vajrayana practitioner but I agree with the gist of what you're saying here. I think that people coming to Buddhism on their own, i.e. not taught it by their parents, are often surprised to find the concept of faith/confidence/trust (saddhā, śraddhā) playing an important role in most, if not all, Buddhist traditions

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

...the concept of faith/confidence/trust (saddhā, śraddhā) playing an important role in most, if not all, Buddhist traditions

There are different styles of faith. The confidence a Therevadan has in the teachings is a type of faith, otherwise they would not engage in it. That is the type of confidence one has in one's doctor or airline pilot, but we would not ordinarily say we have "faith" in our doctor. The Sutrayana/Paramitayana has a similar type of confidence. Paramitayana goes all the way up to sutra Mahamudra, so there is nothing lacking there. (I do not know if there is a sutrayana Dzogchen.) Zen seems to require little or no faith. Pure Land unambiguously requires faith we would recognize as religious. My trolling position was that Vajrayana deity practice requires a type of faith most resembling Pure Land, however with the additional issue of guru-yoga. That is not commonly accepted by Westerners.

So the issue has a wide gamut of styles in "all Buddhist traditions"--even for my most provocative trolling position. If the issue is a non-starter for someone there are plenty of "refuges" that will not offend.

[Sherab]

You are utilising arguments from mundane philosophy and implying that they can and should be applied also the Buddhadharma.

I am using arguments which are reasonable and rational. Because they are reasonable and rational, they should apply to Buddhadharma as well. How else would anyone who is yet to attain enlightenment going to evaluate any religion, let alone Buddhadharma?

We need look no further than your statement about the ' weakness ' of argument from authority...no matter how applicable that is to mundane matters...and no doubt it is in that context wise advise..it goes clear against much of the Vajrayana..which is posited entirely, intially, on the acceptance of genuine authority at the expense of our individual rationalisations.

In vajrayana, one is supposed to observe the teacher properly before making a commitment to that teacher. It is a big decision. Like any big decision, secular or otherwise, it has to be based on good reasons and rationality. Once the decision is made, hopefully based on sound grounds, the acceptance of argument from the authority of your guru takes centre stage and not before.

The Four Reliances take their authority from an entirely different world view than does the 'the three arguments'..at some point it will be seen that this particular circle cannot be squared.

Your conclusion is puzzling. The four reliances and the three arguments overlap each other quite a bit actually.

[Mkoll]

...the concept of faith/confidence/trust (saddhā, śraddhā) playing an important role in most, if not all, Buddhist traditions

There are different styles of faith. The confidence a Therevadan has in the teachings is a type of faith, otherwise they would not engage in it. That is the type of confidence one has in one's doctor or airline pilot, but we would not ordinarily say we have "faith" in our doctor.

I think that's a false analogy but I'm not going to argue the point. We're free to our opinions.

So the issue has a wide gamut of styles in "all Buddhist traditions"--even for my most provocative trolling position.

I would agree with the first part as that's what I'm getting at, but I don't understand the second. No need to explain though.

If the issue is a non-starter for someone there are plenty of "refuges" that will not offend.

Indeed. But I think the pertinent question there is: is it the refuge the Buddha taught? If one doesn't care about or want to take the refuge the Buddha taught, then the question doesn't matter. But if one does, the question is important and a seeker will search to find what he believes is the "right" one. I think that's a place where saddhā/śraddhā can come into play.

[Wayfaring_Man]

What is there to be judged? What is there to do the judging?

Every moment, in this moment, the causes and conditions of this very moment are arising. Future phenomena arise only as a result of the causes and conditions in those moments, past phenomena arose as a result of those causes and conditions, none of those exist presently. How can there be a final judgment when there is only this present moment, and even that is illusory?

It is of course important to practice the path, but it is not important to be fretful over future lives and final judgments, especially because unlike in the Christian tradition you mention in the OP, there is no belief in any kind of permanent "final" state. Great compassionate Bodhisattvas have promised to remain in this samsara to guide sentient beings to enlighenment, even until the hell realms are completely empty. So while momentary suffering is inevitable, what fear should one have of hell? Cultivating bodhicitta, even rebirth in a hell realm can be an opportunity to help others. This opportunity is lost without bodhicitta, so for that reason we should practice the path now, while we have the chance, and not wait a single moment.

But I think this should be because of a genuine desire to benefit sentient beings, not because of some kind of misguided fear of future suffering.

[Kim O'Hara]

and nice to have a new member here - welcome!
You could pop over to Introductions if you want - http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewforum.php?f=10 - so that we all learn a bit more about you.


Kim

[gloriasteinem]

I really searched for a delightful image of Guan Yin for my signature. Indeed I pray to Avalokitesvara a lot.

I have a deep fondness for Guan Yin even though she's not part of my practice. I think I feel the most for her of any deity. I read Bloefeld's "Bodhisattva of Compassion" and it flavored my understanding of her, and all deities really. She's the same deity as Avalokitesvara since the share the same mantra, but I am moved when I see her image in a way that I'm not when I see his. That's a little karmically odd since I practice Tibetan style and she's not part of it.

[gloriasteinem]

In Buddhism, to be independent is to be free. To be subjected to dependencies is to be in bondage

What is independent? Does it matter if one believes in a creator God or not? So there's no God, there is no predestination, etc. You are totally on your own. As is each of us. Does that make you free? Look at your dependencies - food, water, air. You depend on the ground to hold you up. Clothes to keep you warm. We all have layers and layers and layers of dependencies that tie us to samsara. Some paths peel those layers, like the layers of an onion, one at a time. There are some paths that cut through them all at once. But if only one layer remains you still have dependencies. Samsara is bondage.

As long as we have conceptual mind, we have no freedom. It's all illusory.

I don't usually like the idea of predestination, I don't embrasse astrology much, yet, I read Book of Daniel and some of things happened obviously and are happening. For example, Russian kgbists although innerly not believing in religion started to talk too much religiously therefore lying and misleading, this is getting worse these days, we have one or two even here in my country trying this, I am afraid they will try Putin as 'messiah', what scares me is that the whole process is slower than described in the Bible's Apocalypse predictions, and very painful to me lol , I wish it ends up quicker because it is very humiliating since people lol honestly don't believe me and don't care of any Apocalypse or judgement. Even I get confused and bored but things develop slowly. Not that I wish bad, I never even believed before in these things, not in the big Judgement too, I thought of it as a metaphors of justice in all. And than it started happen especially on local grownd and in ex soviet block people internationally don't know of it, would never believe it happens right here. Or they perceive the merely political aspects of it while no church authority shows worries of kgbs talks even the pope met with Putin which is scandalous to me. After all I warry that apocalipse is happening for a few suffering and few disobeying gods words people and I look strange for anyone outside of it. And than how and when the true knew Buddha will come? Will I be there, will I be still obscure and strange for anyone outside? Or invisible? These are the questions I ask myself.