|
Post by phaedron on Mar 13, 2012 19:33:34 GMT -8
Alright. So, since Buddhists don't believe in a deity, per say, they believe in the general power of the universe. Who or what decides what you're reincarnated into? I mean, what decides how you lived your life? There are yogis who claim to attain enlightenment through rigors of body and mind alone, there are others who say you must do good works as well, and still others who believe you must spend your life in a monastery. It's completely subjective, and yet always adheres to the general principles of the Eightfold Path. Everyone I've spoken with in my particular sect of Zen Buddhism believes the path isn't a single path, but rather is all about finding the right path for each individual. The interesting thing about Gotama Siddartha is that he may never have had a chance to become the Buddha had he not been born to a lower royal family in what was essentially feudal India during the Axial Age. But not everyone is so fortunate, individual paths will vary. But there's no singular deciding entity, except for the most severe of near-cultish traditions. Yes, Buddhism has its sects that attempt to assign near-deity to living beings. India is indeed a Hindu-majority country, and I do believe that is their state religion, although I have not studied government there nearly as much as I should. So I dunno whether or not their huge numbers of poor people living in slums is a reflection of a belief in reincarnation, or simply a factor of their very recent rise from 3rd world status, with income inequities approaching America of the mid-to-late 1800's. The latter would be my guess, but I really know nothing of modern Indian governance. In my readings, Gotama taught that by shedding possessions and living the life of a monk (celibacy is mainly what he meant there), one could shed attachment to wanting, to desire... and that would be one step closer to enlightenment. But I don't think he ever said anything about the poor, other than in reference to what a Bodhisattva (a lay-person with a "normal job" on the path to enlightenment) should do -- feed, clothe, and shelter them.
|
|
|
Post by Maximillian Thorton on Mar 13, 2012 20:04:30 GMT -8
How much influence does the Dali Lama have over the Buddhist faith? You mentioned a few sects, so I'm wondering how much influence he wields.
|
|
|
Post by phaedron on Mar 13, 2012 20:35:26 GMT -8
Only over his own sect. Other Buddhists have other leaders... and Zen Buddhism really focuses more on those who have taken and mastered certain precepts.
While the Kwan Um school reveres the enlightenment of Master Seung Sahn, who founded the school in Rhode Island in the early 70s, he constantly reminded people that even he was fallible, and that they should seek their own paths in addition to his instructions. So while we try follow his teachings, we don't consider them sacred in and of themselves.
Similarly, the Dalai Lama may or may not be enlightened, but either way, he has no direct affect on my spirituality.
PS: Kinda amazing that one of the only huge things to come out of Rhode Island other than maybe Pell Grants is completely unknown to the majority of its residents.
|
|
|
Post by Maximillian Thorton on Mar 13, 2012 20:41:56 GMT -8
Well, that's very, very interesting. Thanks for sharing!
|
|
|
Post by Randalla on Mar 13, 2012 21:16:28 GMT -8
WOW this really took off while I've been miserable with a rampaging supervisor and subsequent migraine. LMAO
Trying to catch up, so briefly:
On men/women:
"It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him."
and
"The woman Thou gavest to be with me..."
I just grabbed a couple of things real quick, so maybe there's a different translation, but that seems to be indicative of equal partnership?
And I thought I saw a snippet earlier from Max, about agnostics:
I'd heard it discussed once in this sort of way. Where gnosis is "knowledge", and a gnostic is a seeker of knowledge or "one who knows", Agnostic doesn't claim any knowledge that there is, or isn't, a higher being as The Creator. It's not to say they're athiests, who don't believe in a higher creator at all. Agnostics simply don't claim to know whether there is one, or if there isn't one.
I don't identify myself as agnostic, either. I really am some sort of heinz 57 or something. Or just indecisive. Or both. LOL
|
|
|
Post by Maximillian Thorton on Mar 13, 2012 21:41:46 GMT -8
That's what I thought. I had heard similar things on agnostics.
As to the equal part. Christians believe in a family structure based on the imitation of Christ. I'll explain in a little bit. The father is the leading figure, one who shows his children how to become wholesome people. The mother supports her husband's decisions. But, most people forget the crucial, crucial connection between mother and child that is not there between father and child.
"Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body. As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. So also husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church. In any case, each one of you should love his wife as himself, and the wife should respect her husband."
A rather long one, but it accurately expresses how Christians view marriage and the family. Even back in the Old Testament there were scriptures of such deep love; of a bridegroom and bride. As Christ came to fulfill the Scripture, we see know how Christ was the bridegroom, and the church his bride. If we are to imitate Christ we must imitate him in all things. Marriage, then, follows this logic.
Now, don't confuse subordinate to slave. That's not necessarily what it means. It's to show how the father is the leader. Of course, women always have influence on their husbands, as they should.
Does that help?
|
|
|
Post by Randalla on Mar 13, 2012 23:23:38 GMT -8
The explanation makes sense, even if I'm WAY too head strong to do it, myself. LOL I suppose this ties into that whole stink Bachman got herself into when she said she was submissive to her husband. I would NOT have voted for a submissive woman as President, but that's bringing politics into this thread, and I don't necessarily want to derail this one. You triggered something I was going to ask about, but forgot earlier. Mysteries. Pls 2 explain these Mysteries I've heard other Catholic coworkers of mine touch on.
|
|
|
Post by Maximillian Thorton on Mar 14, 2012 8:49:01 GMT -8
The mysteries of faith are miracles that, quite fankly, we just don't know how they happened. Quite literally mysteries, but we accept them as fact out of faith.
They are commonly prayed and contemplated while praying the rosary. There are four categories of mysteries, the newest set created by Blessed Pope John Paul II.
The Five Joyful Mysteries 1. The Annunciation 2. The Visitation 3. The Birth of Jesus 4. The Presentation 5. Finding of the Child Jesus in the Temple
The Five Sorrowful Mysteries 1. The Agony of the Garden 2. The Scourging at the Pillar 3. The Crowning with Thorns 4. The Carrying of the Cross 5. The Crucifixion
The Five Glorious Mysteries 1. The Resurrection 2. The Ascension 3. The Descent of the Holy Spirit 4. The Assumption 5. The Coronation
The Five Luminous Mysteries 1. Christ's Baptism in the Jordan 2. Christ's Self-Revelation at the Wedding of Cana 3. Christ's Proclamation of the Kingdom of God 4. Christ's Transfiguration 5. Christ's Institution of the Eucharist
Did you want an explanation of each? I'd be more than happy to, but I'm running a bit late here.
|
|
|
Post by phaedron on Mar 14, 2012 12:09:43 GMT -8
Man, as much love as I have for the basic tenants of Christianity, there's something about that whole "subordinate" thing that I'll never understand either. This is me trying.
Is the idea that women are somehow inferior to men in their decision making process because they are less like Jesus Christ? I mean, I get that the church doesn't support spousal abuse in this day and age, but what practices does it condone if the wife refuses to support the husband on a given topic or decision?
I just don't get why the woman isn't allowed to make decisions that the husband supports. If the woman is supposed to have a sacred relationship with the child, wouldn't she have the best understanding of how to raise said child?
|
|
|
Post by Kippa Tarxien on Mar 14, 2012 12:24:12 GMT -8
I think that this female subordinate thing will be eradicated by evolution. If they tell their future wife how those women have to follow/obey them, they won't be very succesfull propagating. Hopefully the problem will solve itself.
If you guys ever end up in Belgium, don't proclaim your theories, you'll very likely end up in jail for infringements on the anti-racism or equal opportunity legislation.
And why are you guys following Randalla? Shouldn't she be following your decisions?
|
|
|
Post by Maximillian Thorton on Mar 14, 2012 12:27:53 GMT -8
Precisely the point. We believe that the mother should raise the children because of that connection. The major decisions of the house are given to the father.
Again, don't confuse subordinate with complete compliance. Language is a tricky thing, especially when translations have multiple levels including numerous dead languages.
We are all to act and live our lives like Christ. All of us. But we recognize the role of the father and the mother in certain way. That doesn't make one less inferior than the other: rather, they share responsibilities in different ways.
|
|
|
Post by Maximillian Thorton on Mar 14, 2012 12:42:28 GMT -8
Kippa, I think you take things outta context. In regards to the church and family, there are certain roles. But outside that, we've seen women our superiors--this game, work, school, etc.
|
|
|
Post by phaedron on Mar 14, 2012 13:34:41 GMT -8
Watch how cool my powers have become (I think)...
(Edit) Yup, new thread created. Tried to save Max and Kippa's discourse that was on-topic here.
|
|
|
Post by Maximillian Thorton on Mar 14, 2012 15:42:17 GMT -8
Wee!
More questions, more involvement!
|
|