Constantin Brunner

[David Quinn]

Barrett wrote:

[Brunner] establishes a hierarchy, and he does indeed count Buddha among the great geniuses.

Who else does he regard as great geniuses?

I love these sayings. They do indeed go to the heart of his teachings. They are about making a commitment to adhere to spiritual life, which means accepting that the things of practical life (money, family) are relative.

"Relative" ? Are you saying that we can have it all - money, family, wife, worldly contentment, as well as God - so long as we place God at the very top of our list of priorities? Or do you agree with Jesus that we must wholeheartedly abandon these worldly attachments altogether?

There is no void here. There is only Truth, and Truth perverted; the call is to choose.

Sure, but I don't know what you mean by "void" and why you bring it up in the context of Kierkegaard.

It's much like Plato's parable of the cave. The difference is that where Plato likens the Truth to the sun, Christ says "I am the Truth". This is the fiery, absolutizing mysticism that Brunner recognizes as the summit of genius.

When Jesus says, "I am the Truth", what do you think he means by it? Can you be more specific?

If a raving lunatic says, " I am the Truth", how does he differ from Jesus?

I have been fortunate in having close contact with some very young, very bright and very committed Christians. All of them root their faith in Kierkegaard.

Really? Can you invite them on this forum? I would love to talk with them.

Their elders might not realize to what extent the future of their institutions rests on Kierkgaard's confession of doubt.

Confession of doubt? I'm not sure what you mean by this.

-

[Kevin Solway]

David wrote:

I still can't distinguish him from an ordinary Christian. Can you, Kevin?

He does seem more mystical in his approach, and slightly more rational than the average Christian.

But all that stuff about Jesus being perfect and other sages like the Buddha being lesser, I find very ordinary.

If we judge the wisdom of a man according to how many wise men have been spawned from their teachings, then we would have to say that the Buddha was many times more wise, since the number of truly wise Buddhist thinkers are quite many, and the number of wise "Christians" (eg, Kierkegaard and Spinoza) can be counted on one hand.

But this may only be because the bulk of Jesus's best teachings, namely his philosophical teachings, never made it into print, whereas there are thousands of pages of philosophical instructions supposedly from the Buddha.

Regarding Kierkegaard, since he did tend to use the word "God" a lot in his writings, a number of modern Christians (eg, the "Sea of Faith" crowd) tend to see him as a Christian, and they turn a blind eye to all of his anti-Christian writings.

That was a fault in Kierkegaard. He should have made his case much clearer.

[Barrett Pashak]

Who else does he regard as great geniuses?

Christ and Spinoza are at the top of his list, the former in the domain of mysticism, the latter in philosophy. Brunner's third category of spiritual creativity is art, and here he mentions Goethe, Shakespeare, Bach, Beethoven. A quick look at the personal name index of his book on Christ provides a quick overview of the many individuals that come under his scrutiny.

"Relative" ? Are you saying that we can have it all - money, family, wife, worldly contentment, as well as God - so long as we place God at the very top of our list of priorities? Or do you agree with Jesus that we must wholeheartedly abandon these worldly attachments altogether?

For me the meaning of these words is very simple and clear: my family and my money are only of relative importance, ie. they are important only relative to me, not to you or anyone else. If there is a conflict between them and my understanding of my duty to the Spirit, well, the Spirit comes first because that is absolutely important. At the same time, we need a praxis, a way of acting in the world that is consistent with our understanding of Spirit, and which operationalizes our thought of the Spirit to enhance our practical living. This is the role of philosophy. Christ was no philosopher and provides no praxis. We have to look to Spinoza and Brunner for our praxis. By developing a praxis that assigns absolute value only to the absolute itself, we can live in relative harmony with the relative world. Above all, we must relativize ourselves, for that is the only way to establish our lives on a realistic basis: "He that findeth his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for me, shall find it." (Mt. 10:38)

Sure, but I don't know what you mean by "void" and why you bring it up in the context of Kierkegaard.

From the Encyclopedia Britannica article on "Leap of Faith" (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9047525):

metaphor used by the 19th-century Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard in his Afsluttende uvidenskabelig Efterskrift (1846; Concluding Unscientific Postscript) to describe commitment to an objective uncertainty, specifically to the Christian God. For Kierkegaard, God is totally other than man; between God and man there exists a gulf that faith alone can bridge.

There have been numerous comments here about Brunner's vanity and his ponderous style. On the first point, let me say that I found this site because I was looking for information about Karl Kraus, a contemporary of Brunner. I don't know (yet) if they knew of each other, but I do know that they had disciples in common. I would suggest that those who find Brunner vain read Kraus's essay on self-admiration, available in No Compromise: Selected Writings of Karl Kraus. On the second point, let me say that Brunner is attempting to destroy the intellectual foundations for superstition, and he wants to make sure that there is no gate left open for misinterpretation as has happened with so many other thinkers.

[Blair]

Brunner is a know nothing dickwad, and so are you.

[Kevin Solway]

Brunner is a know nothing dickwad, and so are you.

I think Brunner knows more than most. When you compare him to the society he lives in, he seems quite intelligent and sensible.

[David Quinn]

Barrett wrote:

Christ and Spinoza are at the top of his list, the former in the domain of mysticism, the latter in philosophy.

Spinoza's okay. I mean, he kind of had the right idea in that he realized that God is everything, there is no free will, etc. But the way he tried to express these simple truths was quite atrocious, in my view.

For example, the fact that he used geometry, of all things, to try and prove these philosophic truths indicates that he was either a very naive, ignorant man, or that he was still smitten by the academic community and felt a need to impress them. Probably a mixture of both.

At bottom, I see Spinoza as a wasted talent, rather than as a genius.

Brunner's third category of spiritual creativity is art, and here he mentions Goethe, Shakespeare, Bach, Beethoven.

There is no connection between art and spirituality. Brunner is deluding himself here. Art is nothing more than egotism spewed onto canvas.

As far as we know, Jesus never picked up a paint brush. And why would he?

DQ: "Relative" ? Are you saying that we can have it all - money, family, wife, worldly contentment, as well as God - so long as we place God at the very top of our list of priorities? Or do you agree with Jesus that we must wholeheartedly abandon these worldly attachments altogether?

Barrett: For me the meaning of these words is very simple and clear: my family and my money are only of relative importance, ie. they are important only relative to me, not to you or anyone else. If there is a conflict between them and my understanding of my duty to the Spirit, well, the Spirit comes first because that is absolutely important.

So when Jesus categorically stated that one cannot serve two masters, you interpret this to mean that we can indeed serve many masters, so long as we elevate God to the position of number one master, above all the other masters?

How does having emotional attachments to things in this world square with Jesus' exhortation to give up everything we hold dear and serve God alone?

Above all, we must relativize ourselves, for that is the only way to establish our lives on a realistic basis: "He that findeth his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for me, shall find it." (Mt. 10:38)

What does "relativizing ourselves" mean, exactly? Can you give a specific example?

Jesus constantly called himself the Son of God. Is that an example of relativizing oneself?

DQ: Sure, but I don't know what you mean by "void" and why you bring it up in the context of Kierkegaard.

Barrett quotes Encyclopedia Britannica: [The leap of faith is a] metaphor used by the 19th-century Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard in his Afsluttende uvidenskabelig Efterskrift (1846; Concluding Unscientific Postscript) to describe commitment to an objective uncertainty, specifically to the Christian God. For Kierkegaard, God is totally other than man; between God and man there exists a gulf that faith alone can bridge.

You need to realize that Concluding Unscientific Postscript was written pseudonymously and doesn't really represent Kierkegaard's views. He used this book, rather, to explore the postmodernist mentality and how such a mentality might begin to value truth.

There is no question that Kierkegaard knew exactly what God was and what it meant to lead a spiritual life. His "doubts" centered around the difficulties for humans to lead a spiritual existence and serve God alone. It requires such an enormous sacrifice that he doubted that he himself was capable of it. Hence, the need for a "leap of faith".

The leap of faith has nothing to do with objective uncertainty or the like. It wan't a knowledge issue for Kierkegaard, but rather a character issue.

There have been numerous comments here about Brunner's vanity and his ponderous style. On the first point, let me say that I found this site because I was looking for information about Karl Kraus, a contemporary of Brunner. I don't know (yet) if they knew of each other, but I do know that they had disciples in common. I would suggest that those who find Brunner vain read Kraus's essay on self-admiration, available in No Compromise: Selected Writings of Karl Kraus.

What, in your opnion, was the wisest thing Kraus ever said?

-

[Dan Rowden]

A couple of things regarding Spinoza: 1) Spinoza was a Jew, not a Christian. He was expelled from his particular Jewish sect for his "atheism"; 2) I agree with David that he overdid his geometric proof methodology and this seeming deference to academia was a real black mark against him. Though, it must be noted that he always adamantly refused offers of academic postings for the sake of intellectual freedom. Of course, that geometric method of argument deliniation is appropriate in some matters; I have used it and so has David. But Spinoza's philosophical prose is infinitely more interesting and of good quality on every subject including love, emotions and women.


Dan Rowden

[David Quinn]

I didn't know Spinoza wrote about women, Dan. What did he have to say about them?

-

[Barrett Pashak]

At bottom, I see Spinoza as a wasted talent, rather than as a genius.

Art is nothing more than egotism spewed onto canvas.

I can't help you here, dude. Sorry.

DQ: "Relative" ? Are you saying that we can have it all - money, family, wife, worldly contentment, as well as God - so long as we place God at the very top of our list of priorities? Or do you agree with Jesus that we must wholeheartedly abandon these worldly attachments altogether?

Maybe it would help if I use the words of Kierkegaard:

The paradox of faith is this, that the individual is higher than the universal, that the individual (to recall a dogmatic distinction now rather seldom hear) determines his relation to the universal by his relation to the absolute, not his relation to the absolute by his relation to the universal. The paradox can be expressed as saying that there is an absolute duty toward God; for in this relationship of duty the individual as an individual stands related absolutely to the absolute. (Fear and Trembling with The Sickness Unto Death. Trans. Walter Lowrie. New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc, 1954, p. 80)

The leap of faith has nothing to do with objective uncertainty or the like. It wan't a knowledge issue for Kierkegaard, but rather a character issue.

Kierkegaard wants men to attain to spiritual lives through Christ. So far so good. But who is Christ? Kierkegaard's Christology is weak:

Yet if he does not become the object of faith, he is not true God; and if he is not true God, then he does not save people either. (Practice of Christianity).

I cannot make Christ the object of faith. I have to know Christ. That is why I prefer Brunner and Spinoza.

[Beingof1]

ksolway

How can we, or Brunner, know that Jesus was in fact "perfect"? Firstly, we would need to have much accurate information about Jesus's life and teachings, and it would need to cover all aspects of his life. And secondly, we would need to be near perfect ourselves to be able to make a valid judgement of the data.

There is accurate information about his life and teachings but you must "seek and you will find".
There is no ancient sage including Gautama, Lao - Tzu, or anyone else that we have "all aspects of his life" covered.

Kevin said -

With regard to the Buddha, it is important to remember that we are reading stories about a man who lived 1500 years ago, and they are stories which weren't written for hundreds of years after Buddha died. So we can't hope for a terribly accurate portrayal of how the Buddha was as a human being in his everyday life. It's not like we have him captured on reality tv in real time, picking his nose and all.

Why do you require this of Jesus and not the Buddha?
I agree that it takes perfection to reckognize perfection - well said.

It might be justified to suggest that Jesus may have had a perfect understanding of God/Reality/the Infinite, but that's not nearly the same as being "the perfect mystical-spiritual prophet".

Why?
If someone has perfect understanding and lives accordingly, whats the difference?

The Buddha, for example, may have had a much better expression of reality, though he existed 500 years earlier.

Why separate and make comparisons of judgment between the two? Why not see the correlation.

Kevin said - "It seems to me that he is making unnecessary judgement calls concerning things about which he has necessarily limited knowledge. "

I would only say it has an Indianness. The style of Indian philosophy is stillness and eternity, whereas the Western style emphasises action and change. I think both approaches are valid. They are two sides of the same coin.

Wisdom flowing from you sir. Both halves must be combined to transcend conventional thinking.

Even the countless and seemingly dry repetitions of books like "The large sutra on the perfection of wisdom" are actually 100% mystical when you understand them.

Absolutely, the same can be said of Christ`s teachings.

But all that stuff about Jesus being perfect and other sages like the Buddha being lesser, I find very ordinary.

I agree. Rather than making judgmental comparisons, why not combine the thought of East and West and see the whole picture?

If we judge the wisdom of a man according to how many wise men have been spawned from their teachings, then we would have to say that the Buddha was many times more wise, since the number of truly wise Buddhist thinkers are quite many, and the number of wise "Christians" (eg, Kierkegaard and Spinoza) can be counted on one hand.

How often have you tried to relay some profound truth to someone who just doesn`t get it? Is that your fault?
Look behind the curtain of Romanized Christianity and get a true view of the real Christ.
You could compare the limb of the tree where the Buddha was enlightened. They still have that tree alive and do more to preserve the tree than his teachings - what a misconception.

I think MKFaizi summed up the dogma well

The millions in greeting cards and coffee mugs alone must be astounding.

DavidQuinn000

After all, Jesus is very dogmatic about the need to give up all of one's attachments and serve truth alone.

Ah - you found the only dogma I know of concerning Jesus.
The same could be said of Gautama.

As far as we know, Jesus never picked up a paint brush. And why would he?

I laughed for a long time when I read this. He did hammer nails tho :) isn`t that kinda like art?

_________________

[Kevin Solway]

There is accurate information about his life and teachings

There are long periods of Jesus's life where we don't know what he did. We don't know if he was married, whether he had girlfriends, took drugs, got depressed, etc, etc.

So we can't hope for a terribly accurate portrayal of how the Buddha was as a human being in his everyday life. It's not like we have him captured on reality tv in real time, picking his nose and all.

Why do you require this of Jesus and not the Buddha?

I don't require it of anyone.

Even for people who are still living, it's impossible to know everything about them.

It might be justified to suggest that Jesus may have had a perfect understanding of God/Reality/the Infinite, but that's not nearly the same as being "the perfect mystical-spiritual prophet".

Why?
If someone has perfect understanding and lives accordingly, whats the difference?

It is possible to have a perfect knowledge of God (the Infinite) but still be unable to live fully in that knowledge for every second of every day, effortlessly.

For example, Jesus reportedly said on the cross, "My God, why have you forsaken me", which would indicate that he struggled with his wisdom, and was therefore not perfect - not that we can believe that story.

For a perfect person, such a notion would never enter their head.

The Buddha, for example, may have had a much better expression of reality, though he existed 500 years earlier.

Why separate and make comparisons of judgment between the two? Why not see the correlation.

It's always important to see similarities as well as differences.

But since we don't have record of Jesus's detailed philosophical teachings, if he gave any such teachings, it's difficult to make a comparison.

[Dan Rowden]

I didn't know Spinoza wrote about women, Dan. What did he have to say about them?

He didn't say all that much actually, which of itself expressed his view. Basically he was dismissive of women and regarded them as lesser beings. When speaking about democracy he said this:

But, perhaps, someone will ask, whether women are under men's authority by nature or institution? For if it has been by mere institution, then we had no reason compelling us to exclude women from government. But if we consult experience itself, we shall find that the origin of it is in their weakness. For there has never been a case of men and women reigning together, but wherever on the earth men are found, there we see that men rule, and women are ruled, and that on this plan, both sexes live in harmony. But on the other hand, the Amazons, who are reported to have held rule of old, did not suffer men to stop in their country, but reared only their female children, killing the males to whom they gave birth.1 But if by nature women were equal to men, and were equally distinguished by force of character and ability, in which human power and therefore human right chiefly consist; surely among nations so many and different some would be found, where both sexes rule alike, and others, where men are ruled by women, and so brought up, that they can make less use of their abilities. And since this is nowhere the case, one may assert with perfect propriety, that women have not by nature equal right with men: but that they necessarily give way to men, and that thus it cannot happen, that both sexes should rule alike, much less that men should be ruled by women. But if we further reflect upon human passions, how men, in fact, generally love women merely from the passion of lust, and esteem their cleverness and wisdom in proportion to the excellence of their beauty, and also how very ill-disposed men are to suffer the women they love to show any sort of favour to others, and other facts of this kind, we shall easily see that men and women cannot rule alike without great hurt to peace.

And a somewhat radical feminist said this of his views:

Spinoza argues that an ethic that falls short of the Intellectual Love of God or Nature, as feminist nurturance and the various versions of the ethics of care do, is simply not in our ultimate interest. They offer neither liberation from oppression nor the attainment of the widest interrelations. Such an ethic may serve a pressing need to overcome the effects of being devalued as women but our vision for ourselves, our engagement with the world, Spinoza warns, would suffer thereby painful constriction. Some feminist ethical theorists thus recommend what would be classified in Spinoza's schema as an intermediate stage of group life and group-think. Such solutions falls short of full liberation, and hence, ultimately of ethics. For Spinoza identifies the aim of the ethical project as Freedom. Stereotypes ­in our case, e.g., the nurturing mother, the supportive wife-- he warns us, can be either negative or positive, denigrating or valorizing. But as social constructions that we passively adopt or even embrace, they are always personally constricting and oppressive to others. Spinoza uses a normative model of human being as an intermediate ethical strategy (that of Reason/Ratio) but never as ethics' ultimate form (as Intuition). This is a warning we feminists ought especially to heed. We are far too quick to valorize and romanticize the stereotype of the Nurturant Mother ­no doubt an important temporary corrective after decades of the vilification of mothers (hah! D.R.). I suspect that this is more likely than not a generational temptation. Virginia Held acknowledges this possibility but still recognizes nothing beyond or between the dichotomy of a liberal atomic individualist ethics of impartial rational principles versus an ethics which "sees the world and society and everything in it from the points of view of women" and our stereotypic endeavors, values, and engagements. Spinoza offers us a way to escape the horns of this dilemma both theoretically and practically.

Basically Spinoza saw women as an "underclass", worthy of liberation but not really worthy of much else. His attiutude to marriage was essentially pragmatic - a practicall means by which to raise children. The core thing with him was that anything less than an intellectual love of God did not meet the base requirement of the notion of "ethical".

Like almost all philosophers he didn't really go into any indepth analysis of the feminine or "Woman". I think other than Weininger, "QRS" are probably the only thinkers in history to see the benefit of such a thing.


Dan Rowden

[Barrett Pashak]

Jesus reportedly said on the cross, "My God, why have you forsaken me", which would indicate that he struggled with his wisdom, and was therefore not perfect - not that we can believe that story.

Here is what Brunner has to say on this:

The pains of the crucified are very great. They are so great that from the cross he cries out in the words of the psalm: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (p 291)

Christ's words are the human response to acute physical pain. Still, he has enough presence of mind to sing a psalm, as have millions of other suffering souls. Brunner makes clear that there is no waivering in Christ's spiritual strength:

He has gone beyond life, he has no eyes for it. Now he inhabits the deep stillness in the pure song of the One and Eternal--and is there anything else but the Eternal and the One? (p 282)

Brunner devotes many pages to meditating on Christ's death. Here is another sample:

Indeed, why should the truly great men not use their death to manifest their true character and their great quality of life? Why should they not employ the ultimate, the strongest means to illustrate the idea? Death does not end their life: now, released from its particular body and alive on a cosmic scale in the body of humanity, their life can reveal its immense proportions. Socrates and Christ must die into mankind like seed-corn planted in the earth. It is not a death: it is birth, expansion, proliferation. In them, death itself dies. Christ was to give his flesh as food, his blood as drink for the life of mankind. He is even able to die in agony. He is the mystic endowed with a gigantic will, perfectly able to suffer, and just as perfectly able to act. Christ's superior and sovereign will--how we still feel it, even today! (pp 279-80)

[Barrett Pashak]

I think other than Weininger, "QRS" are probably the only thinkers in history to see the benefit of such a thing.

Brunner wrote a book called Liebe, Ehe, Mann und Weib (Love, Marriage, Man and Woman). It has been translated into French with the title L'Amour. Selections are available in English in the compilation Science, Spirit, Superstition. There simply is no greater work on the question of gender relations.

[Dan Rowden]

Brunner wrote a book called Liebe, Ehe, Mann und Weib (Love, Marriage, Man and Woman). It has been translated into French with the title L'Amour. Selections are available in English in the compilation Science, Spirit, Superstition. There simply is no greater work on the question of gender relations.

Hmm, that's a pretty bold claim, trust me. Can I find this on the website you originally posted? If not do you know where I might get a look at it?


Dan Rowden

[Barrett Pashak]

Hmm, that's a pretty bold claim, trust me. Can I find this on the website you originally posted? If not do you know where I might get a look at it?

Yeah, I know. Let me tell ya, I am an intense Brunner fan, but this book is so intense I haven't been able to read all the way through it. I just have a couple of ideas from it that have been the guiding lights of my life, and have served me very well indeed. I'm not going to quote, but here are some ideas that I keep with me at all times:

1) the sexual urge is the survival drive of the species, and it overwhelms the survival drive of the individual. The conflict between the species drive and the individual drive is the origin of sexual deviance like prostitution and homosexuality.

2) Marriage at its best is the means for the spiritual liberation of the partners.

I haven't put any of the stuff from this book up on my website, although I think it is probably the most practically important of Brunner's works. I have been gambling on attracting people with Brunner's work on Christ. The compilation Science, Spirit, Superstition, which as I said has some of the book, is available in most university libraries.

[David Quinn]

Why didn't Jesus marry?

-

[Beingof1]

ksolway

There are long periods of Jesus's life where we don't know what he did. We don't know if he was married, whether he had girlfriends, took drugs, got depressed, etc, etc.

Me

Why do you require this of Jesus and not the Buddha?[/u]

Kevin

I don't require it of anyone.

Even for people who are still living, it's impossible to know everything about them.

I can only say that even the brightest souls among us, at times, have invested in attachment and create contradiction as a result.
You need to know if Jesus was a party animal but you are OK with not knowing much at all about Siddharta?
Could you clarify or reconcile your thoughts?

"My God, why have you forsaken me"

How else was he going to die except through surrender of choice? He did not screw up - it was a conscious choice.
He quoted David in the scripture - his ancestor - and submitted to that prophetic wisdom by allowing himself to be abandon by God. He had to invoke the thought for it to transpire in reconciliation of the experience.

He had seven sayings on the cross - six were quoting scripture.


I have heard virtually every criticism by the best that could be found in finding contradiction in the scripture and Jesus. I have never once heard the most blatant contradiction of all.

"Take up your cross and follow me"

"He that believes in me will never die"

If you solve this conundrum, you understand the mind of Jesus to a great degree.

David: The Buddha, for example, may have had a much better expression of reality, though he existed 500 years earlier.


Me: Why separate and make comparisons of judgment between the two? Why not see the correlation.


David: It's always important to see similarities as well as differences.

OK - lets compare
Buddha said there are three things that are inescapable for humanity. We are all going to get sick, grow old, and die.

Jesus said he was not going to be bound to sickness, he was not going to grow old, and he was going to transcend death through resurrection.

In my experience of pondering the thought of both of these blessed souls what has helped me in Buddha`s teachings was the obliteration of my ego - centered life. The teachings of Jesus replaced temporary desire and like a laser, replaced it with eternal desire.

I think they compliment each other in that Siddharta was a master at pointing out what truth was not. He could remove the stumbling blocks better than anyone I have ever read or studied.
Equally important is to have a crystal clear perception of what desire empowered by and through truth is possible to attain. Nature abhors a vacuum and the life of Jesus is like a mirror of our heart of hearts desire.

[Kevin Solway]

Marriage at its best is the means for the spiritual liberation of the partners.

:-) . . . at its best! . . ?

Yes, well, "at its best" murder, drug addiction, crime, and war would be the means for spiritual liberation . . . "at its best".

I'd truly like to hear from a couple who managed to become enlightened Buddhas because they got married.

[Kevin Solway]

You need to know if Jesus was a party animal but you are OK with not knowing much at all about Siddharta?
Could you clarify or reconcile your thoughts?

I would like to know as much as possible about people such as Jesus and the Buddha. The more we know, the better decisions we can make. I am more curious about Jesus, since we know a lot more about the Buddha.

"My God, why have you forsaken me"

How else was he going to die except through surrender of choice? He did not screw up - it was a conscious choice.

He is saying "God, why have you abandoned me?"

But it is simply not possible for God to abandon anyone. It is only possible for a person to abandon God.

There are no excuses for this - no matter that he might have wanted to quote scripture.

"Take up your cross and follow me"

"He that believes in me will never die"

That's easily explained. The former means that you must abandon your ego/self, and abandon all delusions that fuel the ego. In doing so you are sacrificing your false self for your true self. The latter means that in abandoning your false self you become identified with your true self, which is infinite.

David: It's always important to see similarities as well as differences.

That was me actually, not David.

Buddha said there are three things that are inescapable for humanity. We are all going to get sick, grow old, and die.

Yes, but he also teaches that life has no beginning or end.

Nature abhors a vacuum and the life of Jesus is like a mirror of our heart of hearts desire.

I don't believe we know enough about Jesus's life to make any hard and fast judgements.

The Jesus in most people's minds is a total fantasy. For example, most people think of him as being white, and don't care one iota what he was really like.

[Beingof1]

I apologize for quoting as if it were David. I was thinking about King David of Israel(who Jesus was quoting) and my mind associated with David Quinn.


I wanted to address something you said earlier Kevin,

But since we don't have record of Jesus's detailed philosophical teachings, if he gave any such teachings, it's difficult to make a comparison.

You said yourself that Eastern writings tend to be very descriptive and almost methodical in its approach. The intention was once described by a teacher of wisdom. It is the attempt to think for the reader, to actually control the thought so it does not wander from truth.
Very valuable knowing how the uncentered mind tends to wander.
(I was just recently experiencing a wandering mind in confusing your name ;)

Jesus used the method of the parable or allegory, to allow the listener to ponder truth in their mind and experience. He also taught by and through example, so that those who witnessed his manifestation could see the validity of the truth. That is why it is equally important to understand what he did not just what he said.

He is saying "God, why have you abandoned me?"

Do you know what the victim of crucifixion almost always dies of? Suffocation; The person would have to push themselves up on the nails in their feet to breathe, it was much more difficult to speak.

If you wanted the listeners to think about a paticular set of scriptures while being crucified what would quote to draw the attention to that chapter? Would not the first phrase or sentence be the choice?

Psalm 22 - a psalm of David - written 1000 years before Jesus
(selected text)

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning?
I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint. My heart has turned to wax; it has melted away within me. My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth; you lay me in the dust of death. Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet. I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.
For he has not despised or disdained the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help.

If a flawless being wants to be crucified, how would he make that happen?

That's easily explained. The former means that you must abandon your ego/self, and abandon all delusions that fuel the ego. In doing so you are sacrificing your false self for your true self. The latter means that in abandoning your false self you become identified with your true self, which is infinite.

You are amazing, I mean that dude. You solve the most difficult enigmas in seconds that most never understand in an entire lifetime and you puzzle at Jesus abandoning himself to allow himself to experience others karma for them.

Yes, but he also teaches that life has no beginning or end.

Yes that is true but with regards to this point Buddha was a ball pin hammer and Jesus was a sledge hammer.

The Jesus in most people's minds is a total fantasy. For example, most people think of him as being white, and don't care one iota what he was really like.

You are right and I could not agree more. What is missing is not information but understanding. The essentials are all there to give us a mirror of the essential nature of our true reality and being.
Once a person is free from any misconception of mortality being the final judge of their total existence, they are free to truly live.

It is like watching a parade from street level, you can only see what is directly in front of you. Ascend to a thirty story high rise and you can see the beginning and the end of the parade. You see the totality of the entire parade all at once.

When we lose our mortality we are free to be eternal.

[Kevin Solway]

It is the attempt to think for the reader, to actually control the thought so it does not wander from truth.

I would call it is an attempt to state clearly truths which the mind wants to avoid at any cost. Once you read such philosophic kind of teachings, such as those by Nagarjuna, you realize the importance of them. For most people, such teachings are an absolutely essential tool in helping to clarify their thoughts.

Jesus used the method of the parable or allegory, to allow the listener to ponder truth in their mind and experience.

The problem with this type of teaching, if unsupported by more direct teachings, is that these parables can be interpreted anyhow you want. That is why the teaching of Christianity haven't produced any quality human beings (with one or two exceptions), and have produced countless very bad ones.

He also taught by and through example, so that those who witnessed his manifestation could see the validity of the truth. That is why it is equally important to understand what he did not just what he said.

"What he did", people understand as:

1. Walking on water.
2. Healing the sick with magic
3. Claiming to be God
4. Turning water into wine.
5. Physically rising from the dead.

etc.

All these things are completely senseless and worthless.

He is saying "God, why have you abandoned me?"

Do you know what the victim of crucifixion almost always dies of? Suffocation;

Suffocation is said to be one of the least painful ways to die.

Do you think he said "Why have you forsaken me?", and "Why are you so far from saving me?" (if he did) even though he didn't believe it?

If he did believe it, then he was less than perfect.

If he was just quoting scripture for his followers, even though the words didn't apply to him personally, then I find that very ordinary.

If a flawless being wants to be crucified, how would he make that happen?

I'm not sure what you are asking. If anyone wanted to be crucified in the time of Jesus, as thousands of men were, all you would have to do would be to break the law in the appropriate manner, or upset the authorities enough.

You solve the most difficult enigmas in seconds that most never understand in an entire lifetime and you puzzle at Jesus abandoning himself to allow himself to experience others karma for them.

I find your latter statement too vague to make any sense of.

By experiencing enlightenment a person can fully understand the karma of others, and he himself goes beyond karma in the process. But he is not able to make everyone's karma evaporate. That's why everyone on earth is suffering from karma and ignorance today - just as much as at any other time. In fact there is much more suffering today than in Jesus's time, since there are many times more people.

The suffering a man experiences as he goes through the process of abandoning his ego, and the suffering he experiences at the hands of the world because his existence causes them discomfort, is done ultimately for the benefit of all - but it doesn't rid the Universe of all ignorance and suffering.

Yes, but he also teaches that life has no beginning or end.

Yes that is true but with regards to this point Buddha was a ball pin hammer and Jesus was a sledge hammer.

I disagree.

[Beingof1]

Kevin Solway

Me: Jesus used the method of the parable or allegory, to allow the listener to ponder truth in their mind and experience.


Kevin: The problem with this type of teaching, if unsupported by more direct teachings, is that these parables can be interpreted anyhow you want. That is why the teaching of Christianity haven't produced any quality human beings (with one or two exceptions), and have produced countless very bad ones.

The teaching has not been found difficult to understand and so abandoned. It has been found difficult to surrender into one`s life and so abandoned. "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Love your enemy" is not hard to comprehend - it is difficult to master.

What, according to you being the judge is a "quality human being"?
What, according to you being the judge is a "very bad one"?

Out of all, there is only one and at the most two that have ever lived, out of the billions, that have adhered to the teachings of Christ that have been quality and the rest are very bad?

"Go and learn what this means, They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick."
- Jesus

"What he did", people understand as:

1. Walking on water.
2. Healing the sick with magic
3. Claiming to be God
4. Turning water into wine.
5. Physically rising from the dead.

etc.

All these things are completely senseless and worthless

You have just pulled off a greater miracle than all those listed above.
You are able to judge billions of human beings, throughout two thousand years of history and can only find one and at the most two that were quality. All the rest are very bad.

In order to be the judge of billions of humans (living and dead), you have to be omniscient and your mind and being transcends time and space.

Suffocation is said to be one of the least painful ways to die.

If you ignore the part about pushing up on the nails in your feet to breathe. The Romans were experts at torture.
What is your purpose at diminishing the anguish of the experiene?

If he did believe it, then he was less than perfect.

If he was just quoting scripture for his followers, even though the words didn't apply to him personally, then I find that very ordinary.

You are making a conscious choice to see what you want to see. It is coloring your perception and so you find what you are looking for.
Now what good is the riddle to you, you who search for the origins of all understanding? Are you seeking for illumination and light?
Is this what you have been making every effort to learn and be - to be the critic or the one who understands? If there is one who does not open their mind and heart, this one does not have the (capacity to be) persuaded. He is to full and so there exists no room for answers.

The Solution appeared so as not to leave anything hidden, but to reveal all things openly concerning existence including death and life.
How can those that feel alone in the universe(without understanding) and abandon by God possibly understand without an example?

He did believe he was abandon by God - he also quoted the scripture for his followers and applied it to himself personally.
I find that extra ordinary.

Since you say this quoting of scripture, that describes in precise detail the method and experience while dying in torture is so "very ordinary" it should not be hard to provide us with another example.

I'm not sure what you are asking. If anyone wanted to be crucified in the time of Jesus, as thousands of men were, all you would have to do would be to break the law in the appropriate manner, or upset the authorities enough.

If you did not break the law and it could not be proven you had done anything deserving of the most humiliating capital crime(which only the Romans could carry out), how would you accomplish this?

The suffering a man experiences as he goes through the process of abandoning his ego, and the suffering he experiences at the hands of the world because his existence causes them discomfort, is done ultimately for the benefit of all - but it doesn't rid the Universe of all ignorance and suffering.

To put it in another way - If you are perfect and flawless, how can you invoke the law of karma to be beaten and tortured to death?
If it is done ultimately for the benefit of all does it succeed?

By experiencing enlightenment a person can fully understand the karma of others, and he himself goes beyond karma in the process. But he is not able to make everyone's karma evaporate.

Then why do you write (which I enjoyed reading BTW) books and post in a forum? If it has no hope of eradicating karma why do you attempt the futile?

[Kevin Solway]

Kevin: The problem with this type of teaching, if unsupported by more direct teachings, is that these parables can be interpreted anyhow you want. That is why the teaching of Christianity haven't produced any quality human beings (with one or two exceptions), and have produced countless very bad ones.

The teaching has not been found difficult to understand and so abandoned.

It has never been abandoned because it has never been discovered.

It has been found difficult to surrender into one`s life and so abandoned. "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Love your enemy" is not hard to comprehend - it is difficult to master.

Those teachings are completely impossible for the ordinary person to understand, since the ordinary person has no understanding whatsoever what is meant by "love".

If you don't understand what is meant by love, in the spiritual context, those teachings are impossible to comprehend.

If people knew what spiritual love was, they would recoil from it in repulsion.

What, according to you being the judge is a "quality human being"?

A person who respects truth.

What, according to you being the judge is a "very bad one"?

A person who doesn't respect truth.

Out of all, there is only one and at the most two that have ever lived, out of the billions, that have adhered to the teachings of Christ that have been quality

Yes.

and the rest are very bad?

They are bad to varying degrees.

Suffocation is said to be one of the least painful ways to die.

If you ignore the part about pushing up on the nails in your feet to breathe. The Romans were experts at torture.
What is your purpose at diminishing the anguish of the experiene?

Because it is irrelevant. Of the thousands of men who were crucified, you can bet your life that there would have been many score of men who faced their death in a more manly and dignified fashion than Jesus is supposed to have done. Pain and anguish are only in the mind, but Jesus is supposed, by Christians, to have been defeated by it - to the extent that he bemoaned his fate. Other men would have been stronger.

Not that I believe these stories in any case. I don't believe they are historically accurate.

How can those that feel alone in the universe (without understanding) and abandon by God possibly understand without an example?

An example is not necessary. A person simply seeks the truth and then finds it. That is all. Even the "example" must necessarily follow that exact same path, otherwise they would never be an example.

He did believe he was abandon by God - he also quoted the scripture for his followers and applied it to himself personally. I find that extra ordinary.

If that's true, then he wasn't perfect, since a perfect person never abandons God.

If you did not break the law and it could not be proven you had done anything deserving of the most humiliating capital crime(which only the Romans could carry out), how would you accomplish this?

As I've said, all you would need to do would be to upset the authorities enough. It appears that that was Jesus's intention, since he was trying to fulfull prophesy. It seems he would read the script first, and then go out of his way to make it look like he was fulfilling it. . . . If the stories can be believed.

The suffering a man experiences as he goes through the process of abandoning his ego, and the suffering he experiences at the hands of the world because his existence causes them discomfort, is done ultimately for the benefit of all - but it doesn't rid the Universe of all ignorance and suffering.

To put it in another way - If you are perfect and flawless, how can you invoke the law of karma to be beaten and tortured to death? If it is done ultimately for the benefit of all does it succeed?

I don't understand your question.

By experiencing enlightenment a person can fully understand the karma of others, and he himself goes beyond karma in the process. But he is not able to make everyone's karma evaporate.

Then why do you write (which I enjoyed reading BTW) books and post in a forum? If it has no hope of eradicating karma why do you attempt the futile?

A wise person can eradicate some karma, but by no means all of it.

[Beingof1]

Kevin

It has never been abandoned because it has never been discovered.

Do you mean by you?
Kevin said "Still, many of the Buddha's teachings are in the form of parables and other fanciful stories, just like the teachings of Jesus."

Those teachings are completely impossible for the ordinary person to understand, since the ordinary person has no understanding whatsoever what is meant by "love".

If you don't understand what is meant by love, in the spiritual context, those teachings are impossible to comprehend.

If people knew what spiritual love was, they would recoil from it in repulsion.

It is so simple it is hard to understand, because it is so simple.
"Love thy neighbor as thyself" is a perfect avenue for finding truth, and the really beautiful thing, is its simplicity.

1- How can I love my neighbor if I cannot love myself?
2- Who is my neighbor?
3- What is love?

1- In order for me to love myself, I must know who it is I am loving.
2- Once I know who I am, I know who my neighbor is.
3- Once I know who I am, I know what love is.

It could not be more logical and elegent. Because it is so simple it remains hidden to all but the one seeking truth. It can also remain hidden to one who overshoots by complication.

Me: What, according to you being the judge is a "quality human being"?

Kevin: A person who respects truth.

Kevin said

I don't require it of anyone.

Even for people who are still living, it's impossible to know everything about them.

So only one or two Christians that have ever lived respect truth?
Even though it is impossible for you to know everything about a person like say - their heart, mind, and intentions.

Me: Out of all, there is only one and at the most two that have ever lived, out of the billions, that have adhered to the teachings of Christ that have been quality


Kevin:Yes.

How many Buddhists have been "quality humans"?

Because it is irrelevant. Of the thousands of men who were crucified, you can bet your life that there would have been many score of men who faced their death in a more manly and dignified fashion than Jesus is supposed to have done. Pain and anguish are only in the mind, but Jesus is supposed, by Christians, to have been defeated by it - to the extent that he bemoaned his fate. Other men would have been stronger.

Yup, I have never thought of it that way, what a wimp. He should have died more dignified like from food contamination. Even his followers died with smiles on their faces, whats up with the leader?
Or better yet take a few out before he went because if he could really do magic he would have shown it right then - I mean his life was at stake.
Yup, if I were writing fiction, I could think of hundreds of more noble and remarkable ways to die. I would have made him steller in the end.

Not that I believe these stories in any case. I don't believe they are historically accurate.

Ok, so the sum is:

The legend of Jesus is a nice story, but Buddha and his story are true.

:-) Very funny.

You give credence to the account of Gautama even when the records were written some five hundred years after his life.
Kevin said

One of the reasons for all the categories and repetitions are that for hundreds of years all the teachings only survived orally, and had to be formulated in a way that was easy to remember.

The record of Christ is unreliable even though it was written near contemporary and there exists a literal mountain of textual evidence.

Are you sure you are respecting the truth of this matter?
It seems to me that you are making unnecessary judgement calls concerning things about which you have limited knowledge.

An example is not necessary. A person simply seeks the truth and then finds it. That is all. Even the "example" must necessarily follow that exact same path, otherwise they would never be an example.

How does one raise children?

If that's true, then he wasn't perfect, since a perfect person never abandons God.

You choose to see and believe what you want to - OK.

As I've said, all you would need to do would be to upset the authorities enough.

This statement tells me you do not understand the political situation that existed.

It appears that that was Jesus's intention, since he was trying to fulfull prophesy. It seems he would read the script first, and then go out of his way to make it look like he was fulfilling it

Yes; somehow from the cross he made the soldiers gamble for his garment. He probably bribed them beforehand from all the drug dealing money that is never talked about. He was probably a manic type with a messiah complex and since he hung out with prostitutes, you know he was not "all that".
I mean, even the religious leaders said he was a drunkard and a sinner type, why didn`t people listen sooner. If you wanted to find Jesus, all you had to do was go to the nearest den of iniquity. You know what they say - if you want to know what someone is truly like, look at their friends, and their you go. What a pathetic thing to be, a friend of all sinners.

If the stories can be believed

Yes; thousands of people conspired to write down in over four hundred different accounts the 'said story'. And then had the audacity to think the world would believe that he actually resurrected without a shred of proof just merely several hundred eyewitness accounts. They went so far to support this 'myth' that they said they actually saw him with their own eyes and died for not simply denying this.

I can understand someone dying for what they believe to be true, but to throw your life away for a lie is just beneath the pale. How could they believe that the world was not so gullible? I mean that is a whopper of a story - how could you possibly, logically, soundly believe something so fanciful - unless of course some substantial number of people actually did see him after his death.
Psshaw

Me: To put it in another way - If you are perfect and flawless, how can you invoke the law of karma to be beaten and tortured to death?

Kevin: I don't understand your question.

No doubt about that.

A wise person can eradicate some karma, but by no means all of it.

Why do you put so many limits on yourself, what you can and cannot do, and what the universe is capable of?

Especially noteworthy is the belief that in achieving Enlightenment, the Buddha acquired supernatural powers. These powers were:

1. Psychokinesis, the power to move objects with the mind;
2. Clairaudience, the power to hear sounds at extraordinary distances;
3. Telepathy, the power to read the minds of others;
4. Retrocognition, the power to know one's own previous existences;
5. Clairvoyance, the power to see and know things at a distance; and,
6. Knowledge of the destruction of the defiling impulses, such as would lead to Enlightenment and Nirvân.a.

http://www.friesian.com/buddhism.htm