Monk--A Question

[DC]

Re: Monk--A Question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Empress_Nylah</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> but the rum is making it so that is the only word I can think to type...</div></div>

[img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/704555_dwl.gif[/img]

and u couldnt share? </div></div>

[img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img]A it mi a say, mi wouldn't mind having a sip at this time of the night..and mi nat even drink [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/70390-shhh.gif[/img]..

[Nylah]

Re: Monk--A Question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Silent_River</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Empress_Nylah</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> but the rum is making it so that is the only word I can think to type...</div></div>

[img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/704555_dwl.gif[/img]

and u couldnt share? </div></div>

[img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img]A it mi a say, mi wouldn't mind having a sip at this time of the night..and mi nat even drink [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/70390-shhh.gif[/img].. </div></div>


It's alright, I'll have your shot of rum [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img]

[DC]

Re: Monk--A Question

No sah..if it takes me all night, mi wi drink it off.. [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img]

But first, let's see if monk will offer us some...

[rudemonk]

Re: Monk--A Question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Silent_River</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can you tell me more on what it is to be 'the 35th generation disciple of the Cao Dong Sect of Ch'an Buddhism.' What does this entail? Pretty sure I can find it if I google, but a personal touch is more intriguing... [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif[/img]

</div></div>

well if you are familiar with zen buddhism, and these days it seems like you see that word everywhere and it is sort of new agey and hoky with things like zen rock gardens for your desk and such- sort of like bobble head jesus's I would imagine- well zen buddhism is a japanese derivitive of Ch'an Buddhism- which was born in Shaolin Temple. A sect of Buddhism which traces it's origin to a story of the Buddha giving a dharma talk on Vulture peak.

In this 'talk', the Buddha actually said nothing at all- sitting there in front of thousands, he simply held aloft a flower. Of all the multitudes gathered to hear him speak, only one of his disciples understood the transmission of the dharma and understood, intuitively, what the Buddha was 'talking' about. When the disciple understood the dharma being transmitted and attained, he smiled. That is considered the first mind to mind, heart to heart transmission of the Buddha's teaching.

This transmission was then passed on, referred to as a special transmission outside the scriptures, until it came to an Indian monk named Bodhidharma. He eventually travelled to China and settled in at Shaolin temple where he took on disciples. many of the teachings are characterized by mental devices and training disciplines meant to short circuit the mind and by shutting it down sort of reveal it. This kind of teaching is where you get Bart Simpson snapping his fingers to the question posed, what is the sound of one hand clapping. It seems almost nonsensical but if you understand it is perfect.

Ch'an comes from the sanskrit word for meditation/contemplation. So this kind of practice is said to achieve a direct and experiential pointing to what is called the original mind. At this stage, only those who acutally, intuitively know, know.

In Shaolin, they blend this pursuit of a transcendental pathway to attainment with various forms of meditation, we have action meditation and non action meditation.

Basically that means that while some people practice buddhism by sitting around in lotus position for hours, we practice gong fu, for example...

As an overlap, Shaolin Temple monks and disciples have built into their vow structure components of the bodhisattva principle, in that in addition to standard buddhist vows there is also the motivation and discipline to do good, don't do bad, and help others, as bodhisattvas forego ultimate nirvana until all sentient beings can join them.

This premise is interesting to me, mainly because while Yashua told his disciples and taught them what the greatest love was, and admonished them to love one another as they would wish to be, yet we have many who would see themselves in paradise before others...and as a point of fact, they hinge paradise on a point of ego, which could not possibly be a part of any saviour's schematic of salvation as it makes no sense, metaphysically speaking...in light of the teachings.

[Nylah]

Re: Monk--A Question



The way monk has separate the two points is interesting and is a good point.

I think the reason that ppl get upset with the creation story being said as untrue is because if that aspect of the bible is false then who is to say what other parts are false including the main point of Jesus being the Son of God.

[rudemonk]

Re: Monk--A Question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Silent_River</div><div class="ubbcode-body">mmmm, [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/70402-thinking.gif[/img] So, monk, there is no such a thing as a christian scientist or a scientist who believes in God?

</div></div>

no, no...see that is what I mean...

scientists can certainly believe in God. Many do.

Ken Miller, the man who routinely hands ID proponents their proverbial heads, is roman catholic. he believes in God.

But he does not literally believe in the Bible. In certain parts.

THAT ALONE is what evolution and science proves- that the Bible is not literally true en toto.

You have to divorce that from belief in God. You can believe in God and not believe in the Bible.

Since we're all around, I guess I will have to open up the good stuff...a round of Havana Club for all the guests.

Anyone care for a cigar...?

[Nylah]

Re: Monk--A Question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">in that in addition to standard buddhist vows there is also the motivation and discipline to do good, don't do bad, and help others, as bodhisattvas forego ultimate nirvana until all sentient beings can join them.

This premise is interesting to me, mainly because while Yashua told his disciples and taught them what the greatest love was, and admonished them to love one another as they would wish to be, yet we have many who would see themselves in paradise before others...and as a point of fact, they hinge paradise on a point of ego, which could not possibly be a part of any saviour's schematic of salvation as it makes no sense, metaphysically speaking...in light of the teachings. </div></div>


wow

[Nylah]

Re: Monk--A Question


I'll pass on the cigar. I have to be really drunk before I attempt to smoke one of those [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img]

so monk, you do not think it is at all possible for science at some point to prove the existence of God?

and how do you mesh/marry your beliefs as a buddist with those you hear in mass? Is it more the ritual of mass that appeals to you than the actual teachings?

[DC]

Re: Monk--A Question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Empress_Nylah</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

The way monk has separate the two points is interesting and is a good point.

I think the reason that ppl get upset with the creation story being said as untrue is because if that aspect of the bible is false then who is to say what other parts are false including the main point of Jesus being the Son of God. </div></div>

And the opposite is also true....

[Nylah]

Re: Monk--A Question


that maybe true Silent_River but I think it is more a "threat" to those that believe than the other way around.

[rudemonk]

Re: Monk--A Question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Empress_Nylah</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I'll pass on the cigar. I have to be really drunk before I attempt to smoke one of those [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img]
</div></div>

more for me and silent then! lol...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
so monk, you do not think it is at all possible for science at some point to prove the existence of God?
</div></div>

No, I don't. We would need a set of criteria to define God, and a means of testing and falsifying.

Short of God actually beyond a shadow of a doubt appearing and saying what is up, I can't think of a way to scientifically prove that there is a God. Irreducible complexity was a good attempt, however it is falsified at every turn.

So far he seems very reluctant to show up. I mean, burning bushes aside.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
and how do you mesh/marry your beliefs as a buddist with those you hear in mass? Is it more the ritual of mass that appeals to you than the actual teachings? </div></div>

well on a certain level I think it is important to understand that Buddha was just a man. He was not considered a God- although his story and myth certainly have quite a few stunning parrallels to other deities we are familiar with, lol...

From my time in the chapel I understand ritual to be an embodiment of process, a great equalizer if you will- eventually once that purpose and process is understood at an intuitive level then there is no need for the form of the function, the function is understood and manifest. I think that is why Yashua taught the last supper the way he did. I mean you have to consider, what is the passover all about, and why would Yashua say such things as this is my body, and this is my blood. How outlandish...! But of course he had a very important purpose.

So to me it is not so much that the ritual appeals over the teachings...the core teachings are what is most important, not so much the pomp and circumstance. But daily mass is much different than what most christians experience, so maybe it's not fair to say pomp and such.

[Nylah]

Re: Monk--A Question



I dont find rituals to always be about pomp and circumstance. Sometimes I find much comfort and meaning in certain rituals. It makes what I believe manifest in a physcial way.

I remember last Christmas I just wasnt feeling the spirit as it were. My cousin who attends an Anglican church invited me to come with her on Christams Eve. I felt so tight and wound up that night but decided to go just to keep her company.

Many of the Anglican rites are of course very similar to Catholic rites, so I found a sense of familiarity in that.

But you know at some point during the service, it just started to flow for me. The lighting if the candle, the reciting of the benedictions, etc. was so soothing and comforting and provided a sense of connectedness that I hadnt felt in a long time.

Trust me I was surprised at my reaction. But the act of going thru certain rituals allowed my soul just to settle on what was important and melded the physical with the spiritual for me.

[rudemonk]

Re: Monk--A Question

yes, that is it exactly, ritual is a gateway, a preperatory experience to allow the ineffable to unfold and manifest itself through a spiritual connection.

but without that, it is flat and one dimensional.

[rudemonk]

Re: Monk--A Question

p.s. catch you guys tomorrow.

[Mutty]

Re: Monk--A Question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Silent_River</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Empress_Nylah</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

The way monk has separate the two points is interesting and is a good point.

I think the reason that ppl get upset with the creation story being said as untrue is because if that aspect of the bible is false then who is to say what other parts are false including the main point of Jesus being the Son of God. </div></div>

And the opposite is also true.... </div></div>


What you quoted from Monk is exactly what I told someone the other day. If an item here and there can be proven to be false in the bible, then it hurts its credibility (well that is if you want to play fair) because now you are faced with the possibility other things can be wrong with it. In the book of Genesis which supposedly details the beginning of time leading up the forerunners of the Israelite nation, we read about the mention of kings of Israel when the Israelite monarchy did not appear until over a thousand of years later. That implies editing or later compilation and if it implies either or both who is to say what else was not edited in or out to suit later beliefs and biases.