Prog wrote:
"The Buddha said he gained absolutely nothing from complete and unexcelled enlightenment. Would Maitreya the Future Buddha tell us differently??"

I think not. But I can't speak for Maitreya. I certainly am no authority. He has, however, spoken to some Swamis in London about certain subjects, and some of those teachings are published in the book "Maitreya's Teachings: The Laws of Life", edited and introduced by Benjamin Creme.

He emphasizes a "strong dose of detachment": "The moment you personify the spiritual force in you, a process of destruction begins." "The mind is not to be personified. The spirit is not to be personified". (p.18) Also, "if you personify Me, run after Me, you will create nothing but confusion, chaos, destruction. Even My signs create only momentary happiness. The happiest moment is when you see Me within your heart." (p19) "I have not come to found a new religion. Each of you should continue to develop within your own religious tradition. I have not come to create followers. Even when you see Me, do not run after Me. If you run after Me, you will lose Me. I have come to teach the art of Self-realization. I belong to everyone." (p25)

Huang Po, a noted Tang dynasty Zen master was asked if the Buddha really liberates sentient beings.

He replied, 'In reality there are no sentient beings to be delivered by the Tathagata.
If even self has no objective existence, how much less has other-than-self! Thus, neither Buddha no sentient beings exist objectively....the 32 signs of a Buddha are illusory.......

If you will conceive of a Buddha, you will be obstructed by that Buddha!! And when you conceive of sentient beings, you will be obstructed by those beings.......

All such dualistic concepts as 'ignorant' and 'enlightened', 'pure' and 'impure' are obstructions. It is because minds are hindered by concepts that the Wheel of the Law must be turned.......

Just as apes spend their time throwing things away and picking them up again unceasingly,
so it is with humans and learning......

All anyone need do is give up all concepts, as such things are a mere convenience, mere ornaments within the one Mind. Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi is a name for the realization that the Buddhas of the whole universe do not in fact possess the smallest perceptible attribute.....

Buddhas and sentient beings do not mutually perceive one another. All is Thusness and functions beyond words and concepts. There exists just the One Mind. Truly there is no multiplicity of forms, no Celestial Brilliance, no Glorious Victory over samsara, or submission to the Victor'.

The Buddha said he gained absolutely nothing from complete and unexcelled enlightenment. Would Maitreya the Future Buddha tell us differently??

Prog wrote:
"Followers of any faith tend toward the reverential, and do seem to have a tendency to deify their leaders and spiritual founders."

So what do we expect of Deity, or God, assuming that Deity or God exists? When all is said and done, do we need Deity or God? I think so. And I think we are god too.

I love that song "What if God is one of us"..."just a stranger on the bus"..can't remember whose song it is.

"It now seems anomalous that Japan as a Buddhist/Shinto nation was so pro-active as an agressor in WWII, but the ascendance of martial arts culture in Japan may serve to help explain the phenomenon. The famed Shaolin monks, so noted for their martial arts mastery, were in fact followers of Zen."

What I understand happened is that Shinto was made the official state religion of Japan in the 1860's, and they outlawed (or at least de-emphasized) Buddhism, ostensibly to unify the country against Western influences. It eventually became the religious trappings of the hyper-nationalist Empire that we all know about. Another good example of what happens whe the government declares an "official State religion".

Peace, compassion and passivity are so deeply etched in the Buddhist psyche that followers of the Buddha actually do turn the other cheek. Non-offensiveness functions at an almost instinctual level. Buddhism is the ultimate non-agressive religion/philosophy.

It now seems anomalous that Japan as a Buddhist/Shinto nation was so pro-active as an agressor in WWII, but the ascendance of martial arts culture in Japan may serve to help explain the phenomenon. The famed Shaolin monks, so noted for their martial arts mastery, were in fact followers of Zen.

On the other hand, while the Abrahamic faiths preach the same pacific values, in the real world peace is always (theoretically) achieved through religious and political self-righteousness via the mechanisms of war, superior weapons and winning strategies or finally when all fails, temporary stalemates. The agression and the agressive instinct never really disappears, but hides out for the next best opportunity to assault the enemy.

Since Japan was reduced to rubble in WWII, they apparently fell back on their better Buddhist nature and became the world's second largest economy instead of waiting for the usual opportunity for revenge.

While doctrinally speaking neither Mohammed or Gautama Buddha were considered divine, they are effectively treated as such by many followers, contrary to the teachings. Initially Jesus wasn't considered divine either, and his divinity was only later mandated as a fundamental church doctrine in the early centuries of Church history.

Followers of any faith tend toward the reverential, and do seem to have a tendency to deify their leaders and spiritual founders.

Buddhism is both atheistic and humanist at the same time and this is indeed very different from the religions and host cultures that perpetuate much of the world's conflict today.

My point about cause and effect has nothing to do with karma. I was suggesting that cause and effect are practical applications of morality, not moral stances in and of themselves. If one knows that a contemplated action may have the effect of harming others, then one would use the principle of morality to avoid taking that action.

And yes, some moral choices are difficult ones, such as Betsy's example of a president facing an invasion. But that's really about the inevitability of a certain amount of suffering in such situations and the causing of some suffering to prevent other suffering.

The issue is that moral decisions require knowledge of the effects of our actions on others. Many religions deem some actions as wrong or sinful even though the actions do not cause harm to the self or to others. How odd.

JT:

Interesting description of the "spiritual" person who, with eyes uplifted, gentle smile playing about the lips.... ah yes. But I'm suggesting that there is no free pass at all,
except for the mitigating action of real, altruistic, self-sacrificing service to one's fellowmen and women. Even what you think sets causes in motion, the effects of which you will experience sooner or later. Hence the need for total harmlessness, for honesty, sincerity and detachment. Simple, but maybe not so easy.

As for the relativistic view (which you imply is a bad thing) generated by spirituality, I suggest that we in the West are just beginning to give ourselves permission to ask those questions...who are you, why are you here and what is the purpose of your life. Fabulous, liberating questions! Questions which expand your awareness and, if asked with rigorous interest (and leading to meditation), can lead you to know your own soul (which of course is who you really are). We in the West are used to being told who we are by the priests, our teachers, certainly our parents and most of all by those who pay us a wage. No wonder we are ready to grow up and be ourselves.

Consider at least the possibility that there is no such thing as Objective Truth, which is true for all people for all time. There is only the law of Love, the law of cause and effect, the law of reincarnation, and the fact that humanity is one family, fully interconnected with one another and with Nature.

Betsy wrote:

'Tonio wrote: "The principle of cause and effect is really part of the concept of morality, which is about how one's actions help or harm others."

'Yes, I understand, but I think the law of cause and effect is amoral or neutral. All it describes is the fact that whatever you think or do comes back to you."'

I agree with you, Betsy.

Tonio, as you most probably know, "the law of cause and effect" is the basic definition of, and synonym for, "karma", a key Buddhist concept.

Tonio wrote:" The principle of cause and effect is really part of the concept of morality, which is about how one's actions help or harm others."

Yes, I understand, but I think the law of cause and effect is amoral or neutral. All it describes is the fact that whatever you think or do comes back to you. It might be good or bad. Or it might be both...maybe 60%/40%. Sometimes there are really difficult choices to make. For example if you are the President of a country and your country is invaded, you must decide whether to send troops into harm's way, and probably to die and ruin some families in order to protect others. We like to think that such a decision is "moral" because it involves self-defense. But the law of cause and effect comes into play and you will at some time experience the effects of that cause you initiated.

I think we're to the point where all war should be totally eliminated, no matter what condition or reason.

I've greatly enjoyed reading this post as well as the other comments.

I'd like to add that among the "spiritual" folks I know, I've noticed that the strong, though unspoken lure, of spiritualism is the desire to "just get along." That is, by classifying yourself as "spiritual," you immediately get a free pass on any potentially offensive doctrne or creed, but also enjoy all the adulation for being a good person. In a word, you avoid offense. Thus, spiritualism is a product and function of our increassingly politically correct culture.

The problem, at least in my mind, is that spiritualism engenders, and, in a sense, cultivates, a realtivistic view of the big questions in life (i.e., who we really are; why we are here; and what is the purpose of life).

I've alway believed in objective truth. We see it in math (as above referenced) and in other physical sciences. But spiritualism, with its leanings toward relativism, contradicts my view of objective truth.

I'd love to hear (er... read) your thoughts.

JT

I've greatly enjoyed reading this post as well as the other comments.

I'd like to add that among the "spiritual" folks I know, I've noticed that the strong, though unspoken lure, of spiritualism is the desire to "just get along." That is, by classifying yourself as "spiritual," you immediately get a free pass on any potentially offensive doctrne or creed, but also enjoy all the adulation for being a good person. In a word, you avoid offense. Thus, spiritualism is a product and function of our increassingly politically correct culture.

The problem, at least in my mind, is that spiritualism engenders, and, in a sense, cultivates, a realtivistic view of the big questions in life (i.e., who we really are; why we are here; and what is the purpose of life).

I've alway believed in objective truth. We see it in math (as above referenced) and in other physical sciences. But spiritualism, with its leanings toward relativism, contradicts my view of objective truth.

I'd love to hear (er... read) your thoughts.

JT

Tonio,

You wrote:

"Max, my understanding is that Buddhism in East Asia elevates the Buddha to godhood. Is that not true elsewhere?"

Sorry, Tonio, it's not true anywhere.

There is no God of any kind anywhere in Buddhism.

Regards.

Tonio,

You wrote:

"Max, my understanding is that Buddhism in East Asia elevates the Buddha to godhood. Is that not true elsewhere?"

Sorry, Tonio, it's not true anywhere.

There is no God of any kind anywhere in Buddhism.

Regards.

The principle of cause and effect is really part of the concept of morality, which is about how one's actions help or harm others. Without knowledge of cause and effect, we would never know which of our actions are helpful and which are harmful. Morality is not about following rules, which is merely about submitting to the rule maker. One can either value other people's happiness or suffering, or one can either value the pleasure of the rule maker, but not simultaneously. Religious rules often run into two problems. One, many of those rules have little or nothing to do with interpersonal morality. Two, the religions claim that the rules came from supernatural beings, and the issue here is with falsifiability.

NS

Good point. It certainly is true that, in America especially, we want instant gratification without consequences. I wonder if that is because Christianity has, in my view, erroneously conditioned so many people. Many churches say that whatever you have done, you can instantly get a pass by stating your belief in Jesus. But what about the sowing and the reaping? Of course, if one rejects religion, that somehow exempts one from the law of cause and effect. But that argument is just more of the same wishful thinking. Its like thinking you can "visualize world peace" and presto there it is. If that were true we would have had world peace many years ago..in the 70's I think.

Youngsters are wonderful, indeed. I have a couple myself. However, if a parent fails to teach the law of cause and effect, children later make serious misjudgements and experience seriously painful consequences. If your child spits into the wind, don't put your hand up to protect him or her. Let it happen in the small cases and teach the law of cause and effect, and maybe your child won't make the serious mistakes later on in life. Youngsters must learn that failure is a part of life, and that you learn the lesson and keep on going...as long as a failure is not life-threatening.

Why is it so difficult to accept that there may be rules you can't opt out of? The customization of american consumer life has devalued faith to mean what is intrinsically true only for the person who holds that faith. This is silly; math is the same for everyone. Shouldn't there be some actual applicable truth to everyone too?

I think americans dislike the idea that there is something (1) bigger than them and (2) that this thing (God, forces, truth) could say something in opposition to what americans think. we believe in what we WANT. It is a sad state of affairs. We don't want to work or grow or believe, we just want to want.

Wow - so many typos in my previous post. I'll try again...

"I think we will find that there are 'basic truths' common to all religions, and applying to life outside of any religion. You could call them the laws of life."

If so, those are human-created concepts to define and codify our life experiences, such as cause and effect in human relations. The truths would have no inherent existence outside the human mind.

"I'm not sure we 'create' that meaning although you raise an interesting philosophical if not semantic question."

I chose the word "create" because it is wrong for one to define another person's meaning or purpose. And that is exactly what religions do. Even the word "why" is problematic because it implies that a supreme being is deliberately creating meanings for humans' lives. Such a claim is a claim about the physical universe and thus must be analyzed scientifically and not spiritually or philosophically.

"I think we will find that there are 'basic truths' common to all religions, and applying to life outside of any religion. You could call them the laws of life."

If so, those are human-created concepts to define and codify our life experiences, such as cause and effect in human relations. The truths would have no inherent existence outside the human mind.

"I'm not sure we 'create' that meaning although you raise an interesting philosophical if not semantic question."

I chose the word "create" was that it is wrong to define another person's meaning or purpose. And that is exactly what religions do. Even the word "why" is problematic because it implies that a supreme being is deliberately creating meanings for humans lives. Such a claim is a claim about the physical universe and thus must be analyzed scientifically and not spiritually or philosophy.

Tonio? Anonymous?

I think we will find that there are "basic truths" common to all religions, and applying to life outside of any religion. You could call them the laws of life. Like the Law of Gravity,
they are not imposed, but things go better if they guide our lives. For example, cause and effect..that whatever I say or do (hurtful or helpful)eventually comes back to me, and those effects make my life what it is. It doesn't matter if you go to any church or not..

I think that "why we are here" is an instinctual question..therefore has an important role to play in human psychology. The search for meaning is just that...a search. We discover the meaning of our lives..I'm not sure we "create" that meaning although you raise an interesting philosophical if not semantic question. I suppose that if you believe that the universe is a chaotic irrational soup without inherent meaning, you would want to "create" some meaning out of that chaos. Whoops, we have just slipped into the question of God. Well, this is why we have minds, yes?

That was me at 1:55 p.m.

Betsy, I agree with most of your post. I would avoid defining "basic truths" as objective and not subjective, because that is a big part of the problem with religious doctrine.

Also, "why are we here" can be misinterpreted as imposing meanings on people's lives instead of people creating their own individual meanings for their lives. That's part of my point - we are all asking the same questions, but the answers will necessarily vary from person to person. Your idea of enlightenment would require the widespread recognition that spirituality is ultimately an individual endeavor.

Max, my understanding is that Buddhism in East Asia elevates the Buddha to godhood. Is that not true elsewhere?

Tonio,
The Buddha is not considered divine. He was an ordinary human being and all living beings can achieve enlightenment just as the Buddha did.
That's the main goal of every Buddhist.

Tonio,

If you take the supernatural out of religion, you have spirituality. If you take the dogmas out of religion, you have spirituality. All the great spiritual teachers like Gautama Buddha, Mohammed, Jesus, Krishna, were teachers, men whose consciousness was sufficiently evolved to
speak to the spiritual needs of the times. They were not Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, Hindu. Those religions were begun by their followers. Religion is man made and as such, over the thousands of years becomes encrusted with dogmas and distorted almost beyond recognition. It's time to return to basic truths common to all.

We are in a new period of enlightenment, and as in the past, the teachers have returned to show humanity the way forward. This new enlightenment is so broad, so inclusive that it is not limited to any particular field of human endeavor, but includes all of them: art, science, religion, social/economic/political
thought. It describes the basic constitution of mankind...who we are, why we are here, how we can share resources and so end the violence and the culture of death in which we live. Knowingly or not, we will transform all life on Earth just by realizing who we really are. As one of the teachers, the head of their group, says: "by love alone will this Earth be sustained".
See: www.justice4peace.org

I would like to see a completely naturalistic religion, one that includes no beliefs at all about gods or forces. What would the world's religions be like without supernaturalism? How about a version of Christianity without Yahweh or Original Sin or the Resurrection, where Jesus was a mortal who had insights into the human condition? How about Islam without Allah and with Muhammed being a teacher instead of a divinely appointed prophet? How about Buddhism without Buddha being divine? What ideas can we draw from these religions and apply to their own lives, while honoring the principles of naturalism and empiricism in the physical universe? Why have beliefs at all?

The laws of life are not defined by religion, therefore if one is spiritual but not religious, one is still bound by them. They apply to everyone.

a. This life is not your only life. You are a soul in incarnation, and have lived many, many lives, and will yet live many, many lives.

b. Whatever you think or do comes back to you, if not in this life, then in your lives to come.

c. Your soul incarnates for a variety of purposes: but in each lifetime, one purpose is to increase your expression of Love. Love is the energy of attraction, not a feeling.

d. All men and women are part of the same Soul, and therefore are subjectively one, a family of brothers and sisters of the one God. What happens to one of us, happens to all of us.

See: Maitreya's Teachings:The Laws of Life, by
Benjamin Creme.

There is a lot of practices that can fall under the 'spiritual' heading. Like Meditation, which has been shown to have great benefits to the body including lower blood pressure and reduced stress. It doesn't have to be connected to any religion unless the practitioner desires it to. I've heard of people who meditate on an idea of Jesus or a teaching of his or the Buddha or the Goddess. Doesn't take religion to do that.

A lot of the people I've talked to said that they didn't want someone else telling them how to pray or worship Deity if in fact they had one. Once they did it on their own they found it worked for them in a more personal way than having someone spell it out for them.

It doesn't mean that people have no morality, it may just be a way for them to find a peacefulness within themselves that for some may be lost with all the fire and brimstone type of dogma. It tends to leave people out, and people feel that something is wrong because in some places people are left out of the discussion. It even happens here in the US.

America has traditionally BEEN more spiritual than religious- at least when it comes to religion in the public square. People kept it private. If you look at Jefferson, Franklin and others you'll find out more about Deism and the Freemasons. It's only more recently, namely within the past 20 years or so that it had become in fashion to be Christian, and to proclaim it in public.

I find the most spiritual people to be the ones out in the trenches helping those who need it without preaching or expecting anything in return. It is those people whether they Christian or Pagan or Jewish or whatever that make me want to do better as well. It's a work in progress.

Blessed be.