Unless one has realized their Buddha-nature, by whatever name, they have not realized the truth.
Not having realized the truth, they cannot consciously and deliberately adhere to the truth. They may, of course, accidentally (or perhaps from sheer good-will) adhere to the truth without realization.
Having realized the truth, they may follow its pathways under various words and names and forms (formal expressions). The words and names and forms are not themselves the truth; they are only words and names and forms.* Words and names and forms are written on maps, not on the territory.
Maps are useful; they are not the territory. No map fully describes the territory, without being an exact replica of the territory. An exact replica of the territory would also include the mapmaker and the process of mapmaking. The territory is larger than any map.
Believing in this or that map, however good a map it might be, is not the same as staking one’s faith boldly on the unfolding territory.
Since one is already in—and of—the territory, there is no need of any map to “get there”. The most a map can do is help you to realize where you already are. More than one map can do this. (These words, of course, are also no more than a kind of map. They, too, must be put down in order to realize your place in the territory.)
Then, you put the map down.
Fighting over who has the “right” map is silly. Imagine two people arguing: “You have to follow route Ixybix from A6 to G5!” “No, no, no! You have the wrong map. You have to follow route amnyam from B3 to H17!” And they both just want to get from this ridge to that larger, nameless hill over there; but they are so caught up in the markings of their maps that they don’t even see that nameless hill over there. “Where are you?” “I’m at M24.” “That’s the wrong ‘place’!”
But—and this is the secret—since you are already of all that is, there is really no place to go. You might wander off the map; you can’t fall off the territory. You yourself are a manifestation of the territory, just like that nameless hill over there, or that cloud, or that creek. You are a manifestation of That “than which there can be no ‘whicher’”, to borrow a phrase from Alan Watts.
Salvation is nothing but the dissipation of illusion; and there is no illusion in the territory, only the maps we have learned, and our idolatrous clinging to them, cause illusion.
Put down your belief-maps. The territory will reveal itself without words. Then you will know that you also are That. You will realize your Buddha-nature, your Tao-nature. And you can use whatever words and names and forms to express creatively That which you already are, as you continuously unfold with the continuously unfolding Tao. For neither the Tao nor you (who are a form of the Tao) are fixed, static. And neither you nor the Tao of which you are have been thoroughly mapped, and possibly will never be.
Therefore, even words such as “realization” or “enlightenment” can be deceiving.
How can I know who I am
when I am not finished yet?
How can I know who you are
when we are both unfolding?
I will call you Unfolding Buddha
in the unfolding Tao.
When Buddha meets Buddha
we bow.
________________________________________
* Apologies to LemonJello and Starrman for once again violating the principles of a coherence theory of truth.
Originally posted by black beetleYou are sure that I am praying to my "god" and that my "god" does not exist. I am also sure that you are following your truth and that your truth is incomplete.
I am sure that you are praying to your god. Your god does not exist. Why you cannot see my thesis?
Neither of us is under any obligation to accept the others thesis. Your thesis implies that I am praying to a god without realising that there is no god. My thesis implies that you are being supplied with the power you need to live a life of goodness without realising the grace of God is with you.
Both of us are being entirely consistent with what we say we believe. If you believe Atheism is true then you must logically believe that it's true for me , just as I believe we are all under God's grace , whether we realise it or not
Originally posted by knightmeisterKM,
You are sure that I am praying to my "god" and that my "god" does not exist. I am also sure that you are following your truth and that your truth is incomplete.
Neither of us is under any obligation to accept the others thesis. Your thesis implies that I am praying to a god without realising that there is no god. My thesis implies that you are bein ...[text shortened]... rue for me , just as I believe we are all under God's grace , whether we realise it or not
I told you earlier in this thread that I am not following blindly my "truth" . In the contrary, you are the one that follows blindly his "truth", a truth which you consider that is not a subject of any change.
Surely I don't accept your thesis, but this is not the point. The point is that epi and you, you are both quite sure of your "truth" (that's why I said that I am sure that you believe to your "god" ), but in the same time your "god" does not exist because your opinion regarding your "god" is based on your religionism (your theological view and not to your philosophical ability). This specific religionist attitude of yours makes you feel sure that a Christian is superior than everybody else, atheits included. This is nonsense and also socially dangerous.
BTW, this opinion regarding "the superiority of the faith" is claimed from every religionist regardles his religion. The fact that your religious thoughts are consistent with your beliefs does not seem to change your thought into a rational one. But the worse is that you are really unable to realise that epi's claim, along with yours, is not only illogical but pure driscrimination too, and that therefore is unacceptable.
I am done with this. Keep up believing whatever you want, but stop pretending that your theological view is rational or philosophically accepted.
Originally posted by vistesdI don't subscribe to subjectivism nor to the Coherence theory of truth. Both seem self-contradictory and irrelevant. Rejecting the subject-object, knower-known dualism merely introduces a linguistic confusion. Thus, your finding it insightful to disregard the significance or relevance of being born again according to the bible.
However, if you were to compare the life of someone truly 'born of God' with the life of an atheist committed to virtue, there is no comparison. The quality of holiness genuinely born-again people possess is on a different level altogether. The life of virtue one is capable of in one's own power cannot hold a candle to what the power of God is able to pro Buddha”, before any names?
Who are “you”, before your making
of any labels, words or names?
I reject your QED. 🙂
Originally posted by epiphinehasTheir new nature makes obeying Christ's commands easy
[b]Can you be more precise?
God gives a new nature - a holy nature - to those who believe in His Son.
Their new nature makes obeying Christ's commands easy.
Without being born again such obedience is impossible.[/b]
As I said earlier, if a large sampling of both groups would be "roughly equal in virtue"; and there is "no comparison" between someone "truly born of God" and an atheist committed to virtue; and non-Christians cannot be "truly born of God"; then it follows that the number of Christians "truly born of God" is insignificant.
In light of this, is it fair to say that you believe being "truly born of God" requires much more than "professing belief" and/or being baptized?
If the number of Christians "truly born of God" is insignificant, then it also follows that the vast majority of Christians claiming to be "born of God" are not.
You should read Romans 7 and ask yourself if Paul speaks as one whose "new nature makes obeying Christ's commands easy". You should also read Matthew 7:15-20 and ask yourself what Jesus is really saying there and where Paul fits in light of Romans 7.
Anyone committed to truth , love and justice (born or not born of God) who has goodness within them and shares love with others does so because God's grace is with them and his love is flowing through them . They are but a channel for his love , and their virtue is such because they have allowed themselves to be a channel for that love.
We are not the source of Love , we are but refelctions , any virtue created in us is by His grace.
Originally posted by black beetleVirtually everything you are saying bears no relationship to what I actually believe and bears all the hallmarks of a whole load of stuff from your past.
KM,
I told you earlier in this thread that I am not following blindly my "truth" . In the contrary, you are the one that follows blindly his "truth", a truth which you consider that is not a subject of any change.
Surely I don't accept your thesis, but this is not the point. The point is that epi and you, you are both quite sure of your "truth" (th ...[text shortened]... pretending that your theological view is rational or philosophically accepted.
I don't remember saying that I was superior to you or that Christians were superior in particular. That part is entirely in your own imaginings which is no doubt based on some bad experiences.
I find your assertion I am discriminatory bizarre. All I have done is state that if I believe that I am under God's grace then it's only logical that I would believe you are as well. I am not saying that you have to believe this , it's simply inconsistent of me to believe anything else. You believe that God doesn't exist , and you therefore believe that that he doesn't exist for me also . I entirely expect this. It would be naive of me to expect anything else.
All Christians know that Atheists think we are a bit potty for praying to the empty sky. It's not a big deal for us , why does the reverse argument bother you?
So what's your problem? Everybody who has a belief projects that belief out on to others. You can believe what you like , but I will always believe you are under grace. To not believe that would be utterly ridiculous and you would accuse me of being inconsistent. Why do you think I should believe that you are not under grace?
Originally posted by vistesdI don't subscribe to a coherence theory of truth, but rather a form of the correspondence theory of truth.
Unless one has realized their Buddha-nature, by whatever name, they have not realized the truth.
Not having realized the truth, they cannot consciously and deliberately adhere to the truth. They may, of course, accidentally (or perhaps from sheer good-will) adhere to the truth without realization.
Having realized the truth, they may fo ...[text shortened]... LemonJello and Starrman for once again violating the principles of a coherence theory of truth.
Good post though!
Originally posted by knightmeisterWe had an open conversation regarding the quote of epi: "The life of virtue one is capable of in one's own power cannot hold a candle to what the power of God is able to produce in the heart of a born-again believer."
Virtually everything you are saying bears no relationship to what I actually believe and bears all the hallmarks of a whole load of stuff from your past.
I don't remember saying that I was superior to you or that Christians were superior in particular. That part is entirely in your own imaginings which is no doubt based on some bad experiences.
...[text shortened]... e of being inconsistent. Why do you think I should believe that you are not under grace?
I firmly believe that this quote is merely a profound theological, illogical stupidity and I showed it to you asap-but you are so full of your religionism that you cannot let yourself think rationally. This quote of epi -with which you agree- is clearly a discrimination, it is a socially dangerous attitude because you separate the human beings to "believers" and "unbelievers" whilst you are not promoting the slightest bit of consensus.
So you want me to accept that thanks to your religion alone you are the "chosen"; you declare that you are the best just because of your religion, and you want me to accept it!
Your religionism and your absolute absence of respect to everybody else that he decided not to be a Christian, is obvious. Fine. Now feel free, along with epi (the Cook) and the other "Chosen Christians", to enjoy your superb righteousness and virtue, dear KM.
Originally posted by black beetleI 'm afraid that opinions like this very one that you expressed are backing up perfectly the primal impression of ToO.
edit; "The life of virtue one is capable of in one's own power cannot hold a candle to what the power of God is able to produce in the heart of a born-again believer."
Unfortunately you understand not that religionism is dangerous. I 'm afraid that opinions like this very one that you expressed are backing up perfectly the primal impression of ToO.
...[text shortened]... e "right" one, as is well known that your religion is suffering of countless heresies?
So? 🙂
So really, you appear to believe that Xenophanes, Zenon, Socrates and every other philosopher and human being before Jesus was not a man/ woman of virtue!
I never said these men weren't men of virtue.
And everybody else after Jesus is not a man/ woman of virtue if he/ she was or is not Christian.
This is your conclusion, not mine. Anybody is capable of virtue, Christian or otherwise.
You separete the human beings to "believers" and "unbelievers" and you expect to be taken seriously?
When did I ever say that I expected to be taken seriously?
Human beings are either born-again or they are not, according to God's word - this is not my opinion.
Originally posted by epiphinehasHi epiphinehas, I love cooking too🙂
[b]I 'm afraid that opinions like this very one that you expressed are backing up perfectly the primal impression of ToO.
So? 🙂
So really, you appear to believe that Xenophanes, Zenon, Socrates and every other philosopher and human being before Jesus was not a man/ woman of virtue!
I never said these men weren't men of virtue.
...[text shortened]... ther born-again or they are not, according to God's word - this is not my opinion.
OK, so let’ s go a bit back to see what you said. You quoted:
What do you mean by "truly born of God"?
Born again of water and the Spirit (John 3:5). A new birth wrought by the Holy Spirit and signified by water baptism.
At what point is a Christian "truly born of God"?
The moment a person is quickened/regenerated/resurrected in his or her spirit by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Roughl God"?
Can a non-Christian be "truly born of God"?
Absolutely not.
Then, you said “My guess would be that in a large sampling both groups would be roughly equal in virtue. People are people, and generally have the same capacity for virtue regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof. Assuming these folks, atheist and Christian alike, are expecting themselves to adhere to truth, love, humility, compassion, justice, etc. to the best of their ability (i.e., in their own power; without divine aid of any sort).
However, if you were to compare the life of someone truly 'born of God' with the life of an atheist committed to virtue, there is no comparison. The quality of holiness genuinely born-again people possess is on a different level altogether. The life of virtue one is capable of in one's own power cannot hold a candle to what the power of God is able to produce in the heart of a born-again believer.”
So here we are, and I quoted that you appear to understand not that your religionism is dangerous. If you check the conversation I had with our friend KM you will see that your claim regarding the so called “superb virtue of a truly born of God” is a pure discrimination and on the other hand illogical and false. Now that you stated that you disagree with me we may check the whole matter again.
For starters, now your thesis is “Anybody is capable of virtue, Christian or otherwise.” Fine, but earlier you said that “The life of virtue one is capable of in one's own power cannot hold a candle to what the power of God is able to produce in the heart of a born-again believer.”, therefore I assumed that some “virtues” (ie like the “pure Christian virtue&rdquo😉 are higher, at a different level than the virtue of ie an atheist or anybody else who is “not truly born of God”. Is this what you really mean or I misunderstood you due to my poor English and therefore my assumption is wrong?
...And you really believe that "Human beings are either born-again or they are not, according to God's word - this is not my opinion."
Ok epi, I accept that this quote is not your "opinion". Who is the God that expressed this very opinion to you and by what means? I ask you this question because it looks like you have evaluated this "opinion" as true and stable and divine and that therefore you stand for it with your true faith and with the power of your heart and of your spirit, and also you appear to be able to spread correctly His Message as a real and generous priest does. Are you a Christian priest?