Nowhere in the Bible does it state that Satan is the author of evil, for this is blasphemy. Rather, God is author of good-and-evil, which is the complement of good and evil.
For man is not only capable of great evil but also great good.
All that the devil can do is accuse or tempt us. We are perfectly capable of making mistakes on our own when temptation leads to desire.
Of course, the devil exists in Christendom. However, the devil never made a person do anything. That's merely an excuse for being wicked until one is damned by ill will.
This is why it's important to attend church regularly, and serve the church selflessly to renew your covenant with God.
That's what repentance is about.
Although God is the author of good-and-evil, people are the authors of their own destiny.
Showing posts with label good and evil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label good and evil. Show all posts
20141021
20140913
Outer Darkness and Inner Light
Here are my thoughts on Outer Darkness, which might seem heretical to the orthodox Mormons, who believe it to be a place rather than also a state of mind. The Inner Light of the soul that God created is incorruptible, even when a human being is cast into Outer Darkness by his apostasy through acts of rebellion (sins).
Outer Darkness consists of the behavioral and mental negativity such as hate-love, happiness-indifference, sadness-indifference, anger-kindness, jealousy-equanimity, lying-sincerity, miserly-generosity, lust-chastity, and other dualities.
God is the author of good-and-evil, which is not a duality but complementary opposites, for indifference is the true evil. Thus all things are neutral in essence until MAN judges some of them good and their true opposites evil.
This is why acting amorally is evil and acting morally is good.
However, neither acting good or evil but indifferently is a greater sin than picking either good or evil. Choosing devil over God is only a sin when you worship the devil and forget Jesus is lord of us all, but acting devilishly in ignorance is forgiven when you repent of it.
In the final analysis though, Outer Darkness is like wearing black: when you shed the darkness through prayers of earnest repentance, your Inner Light shines.
Outer Darkness consists of the behavioral and mental negativity such as hate-love, happiness-indifference, sadness-indifference, anger-kindness, jealousy-equanimity, lying-sincerity, miserly-generosity, lust-chastity, and other dualities.
God is the author of good-and-evil, which is not a duality but complementary opposites, for indifference is the true evil. Thus all things are neutral in essence until MAN judges some of them good and their true opposites evil.
This is why acting amorally is evil and acting morally is good.
However, neither acting good or evil but indifferently is a greater sin than picking either good or evil. Choosing devil over God is only a sin when you worship the devil and forget Jesus is lord of us all, but acting devilishly in ignorance is forgiven when you repent of it.
In the final analysis though, Outer Darkness is like wearing black: when you shed the darkness through prayers of earnest repentance, your Inner Light shines.
20140725
Evil Means Nothing to Me (satire)
Of all the good that is in the world, love is especially treasured.
When love comes without conditions, it can only be shared. Hopefully we may put no conditions on it, lest love lose its power to overcome the trials in this journey called life.
Having said this, I only hope that love reflects all that is good without me hating what I may mistake for evil.
For that which is not good is not always evil. Even though it is not good to hate, hatred for what is not good may become like another evil when the hater is biased about evil.
Since unconditional love inspires me not to hate but to love without attaching conditions to that Love, I am the wiser for remaining aloof to what is not good and not consider it truly evil.
True evil thus is not worth my hatred, lest I lose myself to that hatred. Though it would be equally foolhardy to love evil!
It would be best for my sake to ignore evil, and to desist from contemplating it at all. In loving that which is good, be it beauty or the pure heart, I love both because of what they mean to me.
Therefore evil has no place in my heart, and is thus meaningless to me.
Murder, lust, rage, mayhem — these acts and feelings seem exciting and sometimes attractive to a few people, but not to me. I see them all as abstract concepts, for they are not a part of my immediate reality.
Evil means nothing to me because I do not naturally contemplate acting and thinking evil. Instead I gravitate towards good, due to the power of unconditional love.
Though it would seem that I am suggesting unconditional love makes evil irrelevant, I deny this. For good and evil have their place in the world.
It is evil to harm other people, and especially evil to kill them. Likewise, the contemplation of murder is an evil thought. For killing other sentient beings violates the precept against killing.
However, it is good to treat other people with kindness. Though unconditional love does not blind us to evil. We do good to other people not merely to benefit ourselves, but mainly to help other people.
Even so, the act of causing harm to another sentient being cannot be due to unconditional love.
Sometimes we do not act to stop harm to another person. This inaction is the cause of evil, rather than calculated malevolent intent.
This is why the opposite of love and hate is actually indifference.
I do not like to hate another person or even a group of people. Rather, my hatred is directed toward their actions when it violates my moral code. If they bully other people, then I have less sympathy for them and more sympathy towards their victims.
I will hate what they do but certainly not hate them.
My attitude towards them is mitigated by unconditional love. For it is their limitations which lead them to bully someone for reasons known only to them.
Still, I admit to being a hypocrite since in the past I might have been a bully to the bullies for their heinous acts. For I am human, and sometimes my feelings of outrage may get the best of me, especially when the callousness of other people becomes so apparent to me.
In any case, the power of unconditional love inspires me to remember not to hate other people for the evil that they do, but to hate their evil actions.
This is why evil means nothing to me, and good means all the world to me.
When love comes without conditions, it can only be shared. Hopefully we may put no conditions on it, lest love lose its power to overcome the trials in this journey called life.
Having said this, I only hope that love reflects all that is good without me hating what I may mistake for evil.
For that which is not good is not always evil. Even though it is not good to hate, hatred for what is not good may become like another evil when the hater is biased about evil.
Since unconditional love inspires me not to hate but to love without attaching conditions to that Love, I am the wiser for remaining aloof to what is not good and not consider it truly evil.
True evil thus is not worth my hatred, lest I lose myself to that hatred. Though it would be equally foolhardy to love evil!
It would be best for my sake to ignore evil, and to desist from contemplating it at all. In loving that which is good, be it beauty or the pure heart, I love both because of what they mean to me.
Therefore evil has no place in my heart, and is thus meaningless to me.
Murder, lust, rage, mayhem — these acts and feelings seem exciting and sometimes attractive to a few people, but not to me. I see them all as abstract concepts, for they are not a part of my immediate reality.
Evil means nothing to me because I do not naturally contemplate acting and thinking evil. Instead I gravitate towards good, due to the power of unconditional love.
Though it would seem that I am suggesting unconditional love makes evil irrelevant, I deny this. For good and evil have their place in the world.
It is evil to harm other people, and especially evil to kill them. Likewise, the contemplation of murder is an evil thought. For killing other sentient beings violates the precept against killing.
However, it is good to treat other people with kindness. Though unconditional love does not blind us to evil. We do good to other people not merely to benefit ourselves, but mainly to help other people.
Even so, the act of causing harm to another sentient being cannot be due to unconditional love.
Sometimes we do not act to stop harm to another person. This inaction is the cause of evil, rather than calculated malevolent intent.
This is why the opposite of love and hate is actually indifference.
I do not like to hate another person or even a group of people. Rather, my hatred is directed toward their actions when it violates my moral code. If they bully other people, then I have less sympathy for them and more sympathy towards their victims.
I will hate what they do but certainly not hate them.
My attitude towards them is mitigated by unconditional love. For it is their limitations which lead them to bully someone for reasons known only to them.
Still, I admit to being a hypocrite since in the past I might have been a bully to the bullies for their heinous acts. For I am human, and sometimes my feelings of outrage may get the best of me, especially when the callousness of other people becomes so apparent to me.
In any case, the power of unconditional love inspires me to remember not to hate other people for the evil that they do, but to hate their evil actions.
This is why evil means nothing to me, and good means all the world to me.
20140706
Normalizing Mental Illness (satire)
"By foregrounding intrinsic evil (the diagnosis of) psychopathy marginalizes social problems and excuses institutional failures at rehabilitation. We need not understand a criminal's troubled past or environmental influences. We need not reach out a hand to help him along a pathway to redemption. The psychopath is irredeemable, a dangerous outsider who must be contained or banished. Circular in its reasoning, psychopathy is nonetheless alluring in its simplicity." --- Karen Franklin, researcher in ethics of forensic psychology
Though there is intrinsic evil in unsuccessful psychopaths, this is a fallacy because successful sociopaths show that they are not always evil.
If a parent neglects a child for "being evil", then perhaps a psychopathy might be accidentally nurtured. However, not all child sociopaths become serial killers.
Therefore, it is a fallacy to assume a sociopath is evil. Rather, the assumption that what we fear in other people denotes evil is magical thinking.
Perhaps the concept of good and evil needs be rethought without reliance on the magical thinking inherent in attributing it to moral character.
Perhaps mental illness needs to be normalized.
Though there is intrinsic evil in unsuccessful psychopaths, this is a fallacy because successful sociopaths show that they are not always evil.
If a parent neglects a child for "being evil", then perhaps a psychopathy might be accidentally nurtured. However, not all child sociopaths become serial killers.
Therefore, it is a fallacy to assume a sociopath is evil. Rather, the assumption that what we fear in other people denotes evil is magical thinking.
Perhaps the concept of good and evil needs be rethought without reliance on the magical thinking inherent in attributing it to moral character.
Perhaps mental illness needs to be normalized.
20140406
Life Is All Smoke and Mirrors (satire)
Nothing is either good or evil. There just is Yin and Yang. All good and evil is is just smoke and mirrors.
Yet Westerners love to delude themselves by believing good and evil have been here from the beginning. The only thing that is here from the beginning is the Tao.
When humanity becomes extinct, the Tao will remain. Then a new champion will arise take our place.
My bet is on the cockroaches...
Thus all of creation is neither solely good nor solely evil. Instead, all of it but the balance of Yin and Yang, dark and light as one.
This is why it is impossible for me to accept Christianity or even Islam completely. Christianity makes it seem as good and evil pre-date Creation. If you're not good enough for Islam, then the Fire is your destination. It all seems black and white to the ʍuslim.
However, by not being Jewish or Christian, but somewhat touched by the Quran, ɪ still am going to spout words that would get me stoned in the Middle East, mainly because I have outed myself as an unbeliever in strict Muslim eyes and an apostate to Christian and Jewish ideals.
However, it is all an illusion, this concept of good versus evil. For in each of us is the potential for great evil and also great good.
Few of the religionists will grasp my meaning, because they take sides on the concept of good and evil, falsely tainting it as "good versus evil" which is a fallacy if one believes that "forces of good" and "force of evil" predate humanity.
Each of us creates by our actions good or evil, depending on whether each act leads to confusion or to understanding.
In Buddhism, it is said that evil is the result of actions that create confusion and pain. All good actions result from creating conditions that favor peace and understanding. It is impossible to be a goody-two-shoes, because when you least expect it, your good actions might result in suffering for other living beings.
One of the Buddhist precepts is about not killing a living being. Bacteria are living beings, but if we do not kill them with antibiotics, then we might end up dead. This is why we wash our hands.
Yet killing a living being is against the Buddhist precepts. However, because a bacteria is causing us harm, we allow ourselves the right to defend ourselves to kill it. Once ɪ continue my thoughts on this topic, the line between good and evil becomes fuzzy. It is no longer a question of black and white anymore.
Good and evil exist together. You cannot have one without the other. They are not opposites; they are complements.
In my opinion, the same applies to the Absolute and the Void. They coexist to form Space. Yes, I am saying being and nothingness coexist to form the whole universe, reality and unreality, the whole existence, and life as we know it.
Therefore the end of the world story of all evil being consumed by Fire is only half the story of that time, because the brimstone is a clue that the Fire cleans everything of the darkness that is Evil. Once cleans, the goodness of all souls God create remains to return to him in the Absolute. This is known as returning to the Godhead.
Only the wise will understand what I just said. Those people who think ɪ am babbling, their understanding is limited.
This is why it is best for you who understand to just forget what I just said. Truth like this only sounds like babbling but is known to the depth of the souls of the wise.
Originally postedː ʍarch 31, 2014 03ː18 PDT
Yet Westerners love to delude themselves by believing good and evil have been here from the beginning. The only thing that is here from the beginning is the Tao.
When humanity becomes extinct, the Tao will remain. Then a new champion will arise take our place.
My bet is on the cockroaches...
Thus all of creation is neither solely good nor solely evil. Instead, all of it but the balance of Yin and Yang, dark and light as one.
This is why it is impossible for me to accept Christianity or even Islam completely. Christianity makes it seem as good and evil pre-date Creation. If you're not good enough for Islam, then the Fire is your destination. It all seems black and white to the ʍuslim.
However, by not being Jewish or Christian, but somewhat touched by the Quran, ɪ still am going to spout words that would get me stoned in the Middle East, mainly because I have outed myself as an unbeliever in strict Muslim eyes and an apostate to Christian and Jewish ideals.
However, it is all an illusion, this concept of good versus evil. For in each of us is the potential for great evil and also great good.
Few of the religionists will grasp my meaning, because they take sides on the concept of good and evil, falsely tainting it as "good versus evil" which is a fallacy if one believes that "forces of good" and "force of evil" predate humanity.
Each of us creates by our actions good or evil, depending on whether each act leads to confusion or to understanding.
In Buddhism, it is said that evil is the result of actions that create confusion and pain. All good actions result from creating conditions that favor peace and understanding. It is impossible to be a goody-two-shoes, because when you least expect it, your good actions might result in suffering for other living beings.
One of the Buddhist precepts is about not killing a living being. Bacteria are living beings, but if we do not kill them with antibiotics, then we might end up dead. This is why we wash our hands.
Yet killing a living being is against the Buddhist precepts. However, because a bacteria is causing us harm, we allow ourselves the right to defend ourselves to kill it. Once ɪ continue my thoughts on this topic, the line between good and evil becomes fuzzy. It is no longer a question of black and white anymore.
Good and evil exist together. You cannot have one without the other. They are not opposites; they are complements.
In my opinion, the same applies to the Absolute and the Void. They coexist to form Space. Yes, I am saying being and nothingness coexist to form the whole universe, reality and unreality, the whole existence, and life as we know it.
Therefore the end of the world story of all evil being consumed by Fire is only half the story of that time, because the brimstone is a clue that the Fire cleans everything of the darkness that is Evil. Once cleans, the goodness of all souls God create remains to return to him in the Absolute. This is known as returning to the Godhead.
Only the wise will understand what I just said. Those people who think ɪ am babbling, their understanding is limited.
This is why it is best for you who understand to just forget what I just said. Truth like this only sounds like babbling but is known to the depth of the souls of the wise.
Originally postedː ʍarch 31, 2014 03ː18 PDT
20140107
Buddhism as Non-Religion (satire)
Buddhist practice centres around meditation, and as such, is not concerned with good and evil, apart from following simple precepts which have service to others as their inspiration.
This is in stark contrast from the fanatical forms of other religions, which sometimes claim to be on the side of the ages-old religious battle between good and evil. Whether this person roots for good while that person roots for evil, good and evil is but a form of dualism. At the root of this dualism is the Western logic of "one is either good or evil; anything less than this is evil", which condemns people who see life not as either good or evil but in terms of shades of grey as being wishy-washy or, much worse, considers them to be evil.
With neo-Pagans being at odds with Christians, in popular culture they have been demonized in Hollywood, and supposedly has influenced the rise of satanic cults and counterculture fashion trends such as Goth.
However, neo-Paganism is not Satanism, nor are the deaths and ritual sacrifices done in Satan's name truly Satanic, being committed by people who may have been drug users rendered psychotic through such use.
Nor has paganism influenced Goth fashions. Rather, the reality of high school has left a few teenagers with a healthy dose of rebellion. Besides, wearing black is a powerful antidepressant.
In contrast, American Satanism, is at heart a disguised cult of ego which incorporates parts of Ayn Rand's philosophy regarding the ego combined with mantras using a dead language for theatric effect.
Thus, Satanism is not about ritual sacrifice, despite what the Catholics claim in their anti-Satanic propaganda, much of which makes up the themes of many movies (The Exorcist and its copycats).
In contrast, Neo-Pagans tend to be anti-Christian yet their practice is still within the Christian domain in that few few see the need to study deeply Buddhism of any form.
Because Buddhism teaches that good and evil are relative, and that Asian culture as a rule tends to follow a form of ethics dependent on the situation one finds oneself in (situational ethics), much of it is anathema to a strict following of the Wiccan rule to "do what you will as long as it harms none".
Buddhism itself does not teach this: instead, it explains how the mind works, and gives the one tool to control it: meditation. More than a way of perfecting oneself, the Buddhist precepts serve as a guide to help settle mental unrest. Indeed, Buddhism encourages each of us to be of service to others. While it does expect its adherents to battle evil and side with good, Buddhism does so subtly. Additionally, there is no millennialism in Buddhism.
So at its root, Buddhism provides a mind tool (meditation) used to control one's mind through non-coercive means. No one is forced to meditate, yet its use is generally encouraged only when the novice Buddhist is ready.
Yet meditation itself is useful to all religions because the more one practices meditation, the more one realizes Buddhism to be a non-religion.
When religious people of all faiths reflect on their favorite book in their holy books, and then are inspired to become caring and loving people by treating other people with compassion, I feel that they have meditated on loving-kindness.
It may be called another name, but meditation is the precious gift that helps to transform people lost in their own worlds into caring and compassionate people.
Originally posted: June 21, 2010 03:02 PM
Reference:
Grey in popular culture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey#In_popular_culture
The Greyness of Living: http://gandhara.blogspot.com/2010/06/greyness-of-living-thoughts-on.html
This is in stark contrast from the fanatical forms of other religions, which sometimes claim to be on the side of the ages-old religious battle between good and evil. Whether this person roots for good while that person roots for evil, good and evil is but a form of dualism. At the root of this dualism is the Western logic of "one is either good or evil; anything less than this is evil", which condemns people who see life not as either good or evil but in terms of shades of grey as being wishy-washy or, much worse, considers them to be evil.
With neo-Pagans being at odds with Christians, in popular culture they have been demonized in Hollywood, and supposedly has influenced the rise of satanic cults and counterculture fashion trends such as Goth.
However, neo-Paganism is not Satanism, nor are the deaths and ritual sacrifices done in Satan's name truly Satanic, being committed by people who may have been drug users rendered psychotic through such use.
Nor has paganism influenced Goth fashions. Rather, the reality of high school has left a few teenagers with a healthy dose of rebellion. Besides, wearing black is a powerful antidepressant.
In contrast, American Satanism, is at heart a disguised cult of ego which incorporates parts of Ayn Rand's philosophy regarding the ego combined with mantras using a dead language for theatric effect.
Thus, Satanism is not about ritual sacrifice, despite what the Catholics claim in their anti-Satanic propaganda, much of which makes up the themes of many movies (The Exorcist and its copycats).
In contrast, Neo-Pagans tend to be anti-Christian yet their practice is still within the Christian domain in that few few see the need to study deeply Buddhism of any form.
Because Buddhism teaches that good and evil are relative, and that Asian culture as a rule tends to follow a form of ethics dependent on the situation one finds oneself in (situational ethics), much of it is anathema to a strict following of the Wiccan rule to "do what you will as long as it harms none".
Buddhism itself does not teach this: instead, it explains how the mind works, and gives the one tool to control it: meditation. More than a way of perfecting oneself, the Buddhist precepts serve as a guide to help settle mental unrest. Indeed, Buddhism encourages each of us to be of service to others. While it does expect its adherents to battle evil and side with good, Buddhism does so subtly. Additionally, there is no millennialism in Buddhism.
So at its root, Buddhism provides a mind tool (meditation) used to control one's mind through non-coercive means. No one is forced to meditate, yet its use is generally encouraged only when the novice Buddhist is ready.
Yet meditation itself is useful to all religions because the more one practices meditation, the more one realizes Buddhism to be a non-religion.
When religious people of all faiths reflect on their favorite book in their holy books, and then are inspired to become caring and loving people by treating other people with compassion, I feel that they have meditated on loving-kindness.
It may be called another name, but meditation is the precious gift that helps to transform people lost in their own worlds into caring and compassionate people.
Originally posted: June 21, 2010 03:02 PM
Reference:
Grey in popular culture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey#In_popular_culture
The Greyness of Living: http://gandhara.blogspot.com/2010/06/greyness-of-living-thoughts-on.html
20140104
Kick the Devil Out of The House of God, Christians! (satire)
If God is the author of good and evil, then the devil cannot be the embodiment of evil.
Therefore, the New Testament's "devil / Satan as embodiment of evil" along with the misappropriated demon "myths" are erroneous doctrines which is mistakenly turned into dogma for the sole reason of controlling a Christian church's congregation.
I contend that these myths are not Biblical and may have been inserted into the Bible or into church doctrine during the days of the Early Church up to and past Augustine's time.
However, in the process of using the devil as a way of using fear to control the congregation, church leaders are actually promoting a subtle devil worship by inculcating an unconscious respect for Satan, often unknowingly.
It is this fear of the devil which violates the commandment of worshiping only the Lord God, and thus opens any church with a doctrine which supports the dualism of good or evil.
For the true church of God is better off with the doctrine of good and evil and respect its Creator.
Indeed, the devil has no place in a house of the Lord. Thus, the good versus evil scenario as predating man is erroneous and un-Biblical.
In teaching the congregation to fear the devil and to love Jesus in diety with Lord God, Christian churches are teaching them satanic dogma, which should have no place in the house of the Lord God.
For God is solely the author of good and evil, and the devil has no authorship for evil.
Only in man is there potential for great evil and for great good.
Being a supernatural being, the devil has no power over us. His actions can only be discerned working through the behavior of our fellow man, and even then it is questionable if the evil of a person's act is due to satan or his own free will.
Indeed, the devil's influence is little — he just makes suggestions that only fools commit as acts which are designed to destroy that fool's self esteem.
Thus the devil's true purpose is to suggest to the fool selfish acts of delusion, to either get him to forget about God through shame or to learn through such failure how to succeed as a man of God.
Indeed, the choice is up to each of us to choose God or the devil, but emphasizing the duality of God or the devil is like playing with fire.
For the Christians have paid dearly for inserting that erroneous duality into their dogma.
Originally posted: January 12, 2013 8:28 PM
Therefore, the New Testament's "devil / Satan as embodiment of evil" along with the misappropriated demon "myths" are erroneous doctrines which is mistakenly turned into dogma for the sole reason of controlling a Christian church's congregation.
I contend that these myths are not Biblical and may have been inserted into the Bible or into church doctrine during the days of the Early Church up to and past Augustine's time.
However, in the process of using the devil as a way of using fear to control the congregation, church leaders are actually promoting a subtle devil worship by inculcating an unconscious respect for Satan, often unknowingly.
It is this fear of the devil which violates the commandment of worshiping only the Lord God, and thus opens any church with a doctrine which supports the dualism of good or evil.
For the true church of God is better off with the doctrine of good and evil and respect its Creator.
Indeed, the devil has no place in a house of the Lord. Thus, the good versus evil scenario as predating man is erroneous and un-Biblical.
In teaching the congregation to fear the devil and to love Jesus in diety with Lord God, Christian churches are teaching them satanic dogma, which should have no place in the house of the Lord God.
For God is solely the author of good and evil, and the devil has no authorship for evil.
Only in man is there potential for great evil and for great good.
Being a supernatural being, the devil has no power over us. His actions can only be discerned working through the behavior of our fellow man, and even then it is questionable if the evil of a person's act is due to satan or his own free will.
Indeed, the devil's influence is little — he just makes suggestions that only fools commit as acts which are designed to destroy that fool's self esteem.
Thus the devil's true purpose is to suggest to the fool selfish acts of delusion, to either get him to forget about God through shame or to learn through such failure how to succeed as a man of God.
Indeed, the choice is up to each of us to choose God or the devil, but emphasizing the duality of God or the devil is like playing with fire.
For the Christians have paid dearly for inserting that erroneous duality into their dogma.
Originally posted: January 12, 2013 8:28 PM
20131223
Further Thoughts on Good and Evil
For the record, I refuse to believe the devil or satan or whoever you call this dark angel, created by God represents evil. In my eyes, even the devil's original nature is good.
For God is actually the creator of good and evil. Check the Old Testament.
As well, neither the devil nor satan actually are mentioned to in the New Testament except as statement made by Jesus and others e.g. "Satan get behind me" which implies an internal moral struggle to control egoistic impulses with respect to power and control that Satan promised if Jesus were to exercise his divine powers to control others and become "King of the Jews".
Ergo, this duality of God as representative of Good and the devil as representative of Evil is neo-Platonian and thus was influenced Christian doctrine to the point of becoming dogma. The sames goes for the concept of an immortal soul, which has almost become a doctrine which is non-Biblical.
As well, Good and Evil never existed before human existence. Rather, good and evil are concepts thought up by men, and this includes the thought of good and evil existing before man's existence. Thus, I am sympathetic to the Jewish God.
Perhaps the real reason for Jesus was God's way of making up for all the violence he either meted on humanity or got his followers to mete on other people. However, I refuse to be a martyr for Christ.
As a Buddhist, I object to the violence done in the name of Jesus. This includes child abuse done in the name of Jesus, which is not Christian.
For any fundamentalist Christian parents who subject their children to violence in the name of their God, but call it discipline do not know what discipline actually means. Indeed, discipline done in anger too is violence.
Hopefully from this little rant of mine you can understand that a parent who disciplines their child in anger is not doing God a favor.
What has this to do with good and evil? Well, I tend to believe that a person is capable of great evil yet also of great good.
Even so, I also believe that if a person who is good shall become a good person, so too may a bad man, once he turns over to the cause of good, be it as a Christian, Jew, or Muslim, as well as a Buddhist, a Hindu, a pagan, a Wiccan, or even a La Vey Satanist.
Originally posted December 20, 2012 at 0310H
For God is actually the creator of good and evil. Check the Old Testament.
As well, neither the devil nor satan actually are mentioned to in the New Testament except as statement made by Jesus and others e.g. "Satan get behind me" which implies an internal moral struggle to control egoistic impulses with respect to power and control that Satan promised if Jesus were to exercise his divine powers to control others and become "King of the Jews".
Ergo, this duality of God as representative of Good and the devil as representative of Evil is neo-Platonian and thus was influenced Christian doctrine to the point of becoming dogma. The sames goes for the concept of an immortal soul, which has almost become a doctrine which is non-Biblical.
As well, Good and Evil never existed before human existence. Rather, good and evil are concepts thought up by men, and this includes the thought of good and evil existing before man's existence. Thus, I am sympathetic to the Jewish God.
Perhaps the real reason for Jesus was God's way of making up for all the violence he either meted on humanity or got his followers to mete on other people. However, I refuse to be a martyr for Christ.
As a Buddhist, I object to the violence done in the name of Jesus. This includes child abuse done in the name of Jesus, which is not Christian.
For any fundamentalist Christian parents who subject their children to violence in the name of their God, but call it discipline do not know what discipline actually means. Indeed, discipline done in anger too is violence.
Hopefully from this little rant of mine you can understand that a parent who disciplines their child in anger is not doing God a favor.
What has this to do with good and evil? Well, I tend to believe that a person is capable of great evil yet also of great good.
Even so, I also believe that if a person who is good shall become a good person, so too may a bad man, once he turns over to the cause of good, be it as a Christian, Jew, or Muslim, as well as a Buddhist, a Hindu, a pagan, a Wiccan, or even a La Vey Satanist.
Originally posted December 20, 2012 at 0310H
20131124
Another Rant about Good and Evil (satire)
When I was a young pup, public school had some weird creepy video to scare kids into being paranoid about pedophile killers by showing forested areas that the Earth Day people later said was sacred.
At the time, out in suburbia in the South Fraser region, we'd read about the riot that the Beatles almost caused in Metro Vancouver. That ruined it for rock and roll for me, and I was too naive to fathom the music that the RIAA pimps to us.
Even so, the Beatles was a different matter. We borrowed an album from a neighbor in the late 60s. Today any Beatles song comes on, I can sing to it, albeit tone deaf and off key. :)
What does that have to do with the creepy propaganda to get kids to be aware of pedo bears?
Well, Canada was up in arms over rock music in the 60s. The fans were worse, and only calmed down after the shadowy Cannabis czar fled America for the safety of Vancouver BC. Rock music was rumored to corrupt people who listened to it. Even men who do evil used it to cozy up to their prey.
Today, nobody cares about rock and roll. The new threat is reality TV, with a crazy guy kicked off one show and a cat fight on another. Imagine if some poor lass decided Snooki is her role model in Lotusland! >:)
As for videos we were forced to watch for our own good, they only led to the politically correct climate that sniffs out the disturbed characters in our post modern world.
Music isn't the threat nor is TV. It is within each of us to choose between the greater good or the greater evil.
When we choose to create evil karma, society reacts, sometimes against the evil doers and sometimes neglecting to discover them.
When we choose to create good karma, society may praise us and nominate us as treasures. If that happens, then we shall work even harder for the greater good of us all.
At the time, out in suburbia in the South Fraser region, we'd read about the riot that the Beatles almost caused in Metro Vancouver. That ruined it for rock and roll for me, and I was too naive to fathom the music that the RIAA pimps to us.
Even so, the Beatles was a different matter. We borrowed an album from a neighbor in the late 60s. Today any Beatles song comes on, I can sing to it, albeit tone deaf and off key. :)
What does that have to do with the creepy propaganda to get kids to be aware of pedo bears?
Well, Canada was up in arms over rock music in the 60s. The fans were worse, and only calmed down after the shadowy Cannabis czar fled America for the safety of Vancouver BC. Rock music was rumored to corrupt people who listened to it. Even men who do evil used it to cozy up to their prey.
Today, nobody cares about rock and roll. The new threat is reality TV, with a crazy guy kicked off one show and a cat fight on another. Imagine if some poor lass decided Snooki is her role model in Lotusland! >:)
As for videos we were forced to watch for our own good, they only led to the politically correct climate that sniffs out the disturbed characters in our post modern world.
Music isn't the threat nor is TV. It is within each of us to choose between the greater good or the greater evil.
When we choose to create evil karma, society reacts, sometimes against the evil doers and sometimes neglecting to discover them.
When we choose to create good karma, society may praise us and nominate us as treasures. If that happens, then we shall work even harder for the greater good of us all.
20131016
The Humanity of No-Self
According to Buddhist doctrine, the self is as artificial as a car, a house, or even money. It only exists as a concept because a Greek philosopher wrote "pneumos" when speaking about the soul and "autos" for the self.
Such abstract notions have no existence in reality nut only in the mind. As such, they have been reified, taking shape as valid concepts in religions other than Buddhism.
Even where one thinks the soul or the self is discussed in Buddhism, it is only because of confirmation biases that the higher two of the eight consciousnesses theorized by the Yogachara school of Buddhism appear to be similar, but are not.
By denying the existence of the self, Buddhism only remains true to the doctrine of no-self, in which no permanent self exists apart from the body.
Instead, it substitutes the six consciousnesses of modern Buddhism, and rarely discusses the two higher consciousnesses, lest those people who believe in a permanent soul mistake them for the self and the soul.
For those who hold firm to the concept of a permanent soul, and declare that a self exists independent of a body, also claim our humanity with its good works is due to a soul, and falsely assert that the lack of a soul is the reason for evil.
In truth, this fallacy is disproved by the fact that it is humanity's creations which may be deemed good or evil, including the pernicious fallacy called "immortal life".
Indeed, belief in immortal life is a satanism since millions of innocent lives have been sacrificed to it in the name of a Higher Power, be it Allah, G*d or Adonai. In comparison, post-modern human sacrifice to the devil has been proven again and again to be a myth.
Even without a soul, a person may be compassionate and loving, just as one may be uncaring and full of hate, depending on what has been made.
Without a soul, even an animal is capable of creating good. Is not a kitten proof of this? As well, an animal is capable of creating evil. Every time a bear comes to town, its predation is proof of this.
Likewise, what a man creates determines the good of his deed; what he creates also determines the evil of his deed.
What does this have to do with the self? We create, not because of the existence of a self nor do we act out of the goodness of our hearts because of a soul. We act because we are human, and quibbling over its origin in some permanent self or the benefit of a soul is animism.
For the existence of a soul does not make one man good and its absence, another man evil. This kind of fallacy leads to thinking the world is evil because it lacks capacity for a soul.
Yet nature itself is filled with life, and does not need one soul or many souls to exist. Since nature creates itself, and judges not itself, what good will soul be to it?
Since humanity is a vital part of nature, it follows too that humanity can do without soul, since the acts of its members may be judged good or evil without referring to soul.
As for the self, it is but a vain concept that only egocentrics would love to exist, despite not truly being the centre of the world at all.
Such abstract notions have no existence in reality nut only in the mind. As such, they have been reified, taking shape as valid concepts in religions other than Buddhism.
Even where one thinks the soul or the self is discussed in Buddhism, it is only because of confirmation biases that the higher two of the eight consciousnesses theorized by the Yogachara school of Buddhism appear to be similar, but are not.
By denying the existence of the self, Buddhism only remains true to the doctrine of no-self, in which no permanent self exists apart from the body.
Instead, it substitutes the six consciousnesses of modern Buddhism, and rarely discusses the two higher consciousnesses, lest those people who believe in a permanent soul mistake them for the self and the soul.
For those who hold firm to the concept of a permanent soul, and declare that a self exists independent of a body, also claim our humanity with its good works is due to a soul, and falsely assert that the lack of a soul is the reason for evil.
In truth, this fallacy is disproved by the fact that it is humanity's creations which may be deemed good or evil, including the pernicious fallacy called "immortal life".
Indeed, belief in immortal life is a satanism since millions of innocent lives have been sacrificed to it in the name of a Higher Power, be it Allah, G*d or Adonai. In comparison, post-modern human sacrifice to the devil has been proven again and again to be a myth.
Even without a soul, a person may be compassionate and loving, just as one may be uncaring and full of hate, depending on what has been made.
Without a soul, even an animal is capable of creating good. Is not a kitten proof of this? As well, an animal is capable of creating evil. Every time a bear comes to town, its predation is proof of this.
Likewise, what a man creates determines the good of his deed; what he creates also determines the evil of his deed.
What does this have to do with the self? We create, not because of the existence of a self nor do we act out of the goodness of our hearts because of a soul. We act because we are human, and quibbling over its origin in some permanent self or the benefit of a soul is animism.
For the existence of a soul does not make one man good and its absence, another man evil. This kind of fallacy leads to thinking the world is evil because it lacks capacity for a soul.
Yet nature itself is filled with life, and does not need one soul or many souls to exist. Since nature creates itself, and judges not itself, what good will soul be to it?
Since humanity is a vital part of nature, it follows too that humanity can do without soul, since the acts of its members may be judged good or evil without referring to soul.
As for the self, it is but a vain concept that only egocentrics would love to exist, despite not truly being the centre of the world at all.
20131014
Saying No to Naysayers The Most Positive Thing to Do
Sometimes negative people present a false downside to positivity e.g. its inability to prevent the downside, which also applies to naysayers.
Additionally, negative people claim that by being negative one prepares oneself for the worst.
Yet they certainly do not appear to enjoy the best of times either.
How can one prepare for the worst and ignore the tiny blessings in life? That is not only disastrous to longterm goals but doomed to breed failure on the short term.
However I am not trying to be negative about the people who are negative.
Indeed everything I said about them so far is the most positive I wish to say about the naysayers.
We need more "fuck yes" and less "no"! We need less "raining on the parade" and more "sunshine and lollipops!"
Indeed, life is too short to spend in woe.
If the naysayers are too busy investing in misery to have fun, I say "No" to their seriousness, and to fun, a big "fuck yes!"
Additionally, negative people claim that by being negative one prepares oneself for the worst.
Yet they certainly do not appear to enjoy the best of times either.
How can one prepare for the worst and ignore the tiny blessings in life? That is not only disastrous to longterm goals but doomed to breed failure on the short term.
However I am not trying to be negative about the people who are negative.
Indeed everything I said about them so far is the most positive I wish to say about the naysayers.
We need more "fuck yes" and less "no"! We need less "raining on the parade" and more "sunshine and lollipops!"
Indeed, life is too short to spend in woe.
If the naysayers are too busy investing in misery to have fun, I say "No" to their seriousness, and to fun, a big "fuck yes!"
20130730
Why My Buddhism Turned the Devil into a Dharma Protector (Satire)
This morning I am moved to write about religion, both Buddhist and Christian. If you have an aversion to such things, feel free to stop reading right now because the following prose is beyond your comprehension. Otherwise, please be warned: I am writing from the viewpoint of a Japanese Buddhist. All I can add to this, is in my writing, anything is possible. >:)
So I'm going to start with Jesus, because his story gets a lot of press these days.
Suffice it to say, Jesus did these things: feed the poor, clothe the homeless, cure psychosomatic illness.
Not once in the Bible did I read about him saying, "Persecute homosexuals and other sinners." He never diabolized sin to that extent. Rather, this is dogma of church people who mix up the Old Testament stories about Lot with the New Testament.
In fact, he freed sinners from the diabolizing of people that the Jews did to sinners, which led the early Jewish nation to become a tribe of warriors.
IMO Christianity borrowed heavily from pagans such as Plato and Aristotle, so much so that good and evil became personified as god and satan -- as though they were friend and enemy of Christians.
For Christians, good and evil ae extremes; there is no middle ground.
It's stuff like that makes me glad I was born Buddhist, because Buddhism is the middle ground, and good and evil the result of what each sentient being create.
I don't open myself to spiritual attack from demons by meditating because such a thing is ridiculous to a Buddhist -- we are not devil worshippers; we are worshippers of truth.
Yes, I am suggesting that Christians who use the satanism card to diabolize other faiths as pagan are authors of lies, because their lies began with denying the syncretic roots of Christianity.
In contrast, Buddhism was not founded by the Buddha. Rather, it was renamed by Christian and secular scholars alike in the modern age. For it is the Buddhadharma that was founded by the Buddha over 2500 years ago to address the problems of the nascent Hindu religion called Santanadharma, which was renamed Hinduism by modern Western scholars.
Dharma has many meanings to a Buddhist such as law or teaching. Its meditative techniques work, even without the spiritual teachings of the Dharma. However, meditation works more efficiently with those teachings to guide the meditator.
In contrast, the history of Christianity shows the Church declaring Gnostics to be anathema to their cause, solely because Gnosis is not subject to the control and power of Christians e.g. only elite members of the Church are allowed to "know God" so thoroughly that you become a Bishop or even the Pope.
Gnostics were considered enemies of the State to both Byzantium, the Eastern Roman Empire that followed Greek rituals of Christianity, and the Western Roman Empire that followed Roman ones, but mainly to Byzantium. For the Western Roman Empire's enemies were mainly Gothic, Norman and Vandal mercenaries who practiced a heretical form of Christianity.
Suffice it to say that under these conditions, Gnostic meditative practices were forgotten when Byzantine armies crushed them in the Middle East. It is even said that the libraries of Alexandria in Egypt were put to the torch by a Coptic Pope to ensure that Gnosis was never to be freely available to Gnostics, let alone pagans.
Meanwhile in India, wherever the Buddhadharma spread, local gods were subjugated and added to the Buddhist pantheon of divinities who pledged to protect the Buddha. Thus, when Western civilization entered the Dark Ages, the East became enlightened by the Buddhadharma with the Santanadharma advocates making the Buddha one of its many gods, leading to the famous Hindu-Buddhist university of Nalanda and the spread of Santanadharma into Southeast Asia (Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines).
Perhaps, the proto-Polynesians may have took to the sea so that their gods would not be subject to control by invaders.
In any case, by the time the darkness that befell Western civilization was cast off during the Renaissance, religious ignorance forced Galileo to recant and corruption arose within the Papacy to the point where bestiality, incest and murder became part and parcel of intrigues arising from Christianity's inability to control human desire. IMO this was because Christianity considered the world evil and especially the body as a tool of sin.
Yet, if God made the world, then everything in it is his creation, and thus is good. This even includes the human soul, if both it and God exist. Furthermore, sin is not the same as evil. It is alike to evil karma i.e. the fruit of actions associated with the negative emotions and feelings such as anger, fear, lust, and other confusing feelings.
Even ignorance of god does not make a person evil. Only what he creates by what he does and says may cause the rise of confusion due to negative emotions. This is known as "evil passions" to the Buddhists, and also includes the mental calculations a person makes before she acts on them to make it so in the world.
To a Buddhist, a god being a Dharma protector of the Buddha is the protector of the Buddhadharma. Thus such a divine being is a friend of the Buddha, much as Jesus is a friend of Christians, whose angels protect them from birth. The only difference is, the bodhisattvas, gods and other Dharma protectors all protect the Buddhadharma. A wise Buddhist knows that they do not exist in this reality and that he would thus be foolish to worship any one of them including the Buddha.
If the cosmology of Buddhism actually exists, then it is not in the real world but in the mind of fervent worshippers who may not grasp the symbolism but worship them out of respect for all things divine, especially the Buddhadharma which enshrine the Four Noble Truths.
Such respect is sometimes mistaken by Christians as blind worship akin to paganism, due to their ignorance about Buddhism, which sadly is due to their sole reliance on the Bible. More enlightened Christians have studied Buddhism and have compared it to the Protestant form of Christianity called Methodism minus Jesus.
Indeed, in most Asian countries where Christianity is preached, the word "God" is often replaced with that Asian nation's most often worshipped god, e.g. in Chinese Taoism with the lesser gods being akin to angels and saints. Though, in Japan, Christianity is not as easy to sell because of the Japanese myth that their people are born of the gods.
Thus many of the New Religions in Japan have a corrupted form of God speaking through the founder and even his edicts are made through spirit writing, which predates Pentacostalism's corruption by occultism when they added shamanistic practices to their worship. Of course, most Pentacostals will deny occultism and shamanism in their religious practice, because Christians deny that their religion is of this world.
Yet most of the successful Protestant sects borrow heavily from worldly sources e.g. Billy Graham and other televangelists. Though, Mr. Graham's Christianity is his own, and is thus non-denominational. He actually believes in an immortal soul which is derived from neo-Platonism (a form of paganism developed before the Dark Ages which was revived during the Renaissance. It's not Biblical though, because the New Testament only mentioned "everlasting life", which has nothing to do with immortality, which is more associated with alchemy (an occult art) than with religion.
In Buddhism, the closest one gets to immortality is reincarnation, which has nothing to do with souls reincarnating because Buddhism denies the existence of a soul. Therefore, reincarnation is not about immortality of a soul but it is about karma. For only one's actions are affected by time itself: the karma (actions) I created in the past affect my present condition and my present actions (karma) affect my future (destiny). Indeed, there is no fixed point in time as far as karma goes.
Today, I am a Buddhist, quite possibly due to past karma, both in my lifetime and in the lifetimes of previous incarnations. I might have been a god, a demon, a man or woman, an animal, a hungry ghost or even a hell being. When I die, I am sure to be reborn in the Pure Land. But for now, just sitting is enough for me.
Posted via Blogaway
20130617
Enlightenment as Liberation from Judgment (humor)
In the beginning was the universe, immaculate and free.
Then one day, humankind arose and through their superior intellect, created gods to support their elites' lust for dominance.
Through further refinement, a few of these elites simplified polytheism into monotheism and religion was created in humankind's image.
Later, good and evil was socially constructed as pre-existing human history with two distinct avatars called God and Satan, following a neo-Platonic model, despite the fact that before human existence, whatever that happened in the universe was most likely neutral i.e. neither good nor evil.
Yet nobody in their right mind would yearn for a world free of good and evil. At the best, the ideal is to be nonjudgmental. For this is the greater good.
To achieve that then is to reject religion because of its inherent reliance on an imaginary friend, and to choose an atheism which allows a few of its adherents to sit on their ass in contemplation of a universe that is the ideal of the greater good.
By doing so, these contemplative atheists help establish the art of being nonjudgmental to free others of prejudice.
Then one day, humankind arose and through their superior intellect, created gods to support their elites' lust for dominance.
Through further refinement, a few of these elites simplified polytheism into monotheism and religion was created in humankind's image.
Later, good and evil was socially constructed as pre-existing human history with two distinct avatars called God and Satan, following a neo-Platonic model, despite the fact that before human existence, whatever that happened in the universe was most likely neutral i.e. neither good nor evil.
Yet nobody in their right mind would yearn for a world free of good and evil. At the best, the ideal is to be nonjudgmental. For this is the greater good.
To achieve that then is to reject religion because of its inherent reliance on an imaginary friend, and to choose an atheism which allows a few of its adherents to sit on their ass in contemplation of a universe that is the ideal of the greater good.
By doing so, these contemplative atheists help establish the art of being nonjudgmental to free others of prejudice.
20130611
I'm no Fan of Halloween and Michael Myers
In order to be a fan of the Halloween series, you would have to believe that psychic powers is a fact, that evil causes a human to live forever, and that a druid cult is the reason why Michael Myers killed his family members.
Truth is, psychic powers are fake. Good or evil may come of what a human being creates, and satanic cults cannot cause a child to kill his family from afar.
Ain't make believe fun? >:)
Seriously though, Halloween is not a credible source to base anyone's belief in good and evil. As for satanic cults, what the Halloween movie series is promote propaganda for impressionable minds.
Anyone who uses horror films to base their moral values in and believes in the supernatural only believes in an imaginary and undead avatar of evil, but that's not how evil works.
For evil may come of what a human being creates.
Belief in evil in the reified form of Michael Myers may make great horror, but to take it seriously as a fan may lead one to question the consensual reality and perhaps invent an abnormal one.
FWIW I find truth and a firm grip on reality a lot more fun than make believe.
Truth is, psychic powers are fake. Good or evil may come of what a human being creates, and satanic cults cannot cause a child to kill his family from afar.
Ain't make believe fun? >:)
Seriously though, Halloween is not a credible source to base anyone's belief in good and evil. As for satanic cults, what the Halloween movie series is promote propaganda for impressionable minds.
Anyone who uses horror films to base their moral values in and believes in the supernatural only believes in an imaginary and undead avatar of evil, but that's not how evil works.
For evil may come of what a human being creates.
Belief in evil in the reified form of Michael Myers may make great horror, but to take it seriously as a fan may lead one to question the consensual reality and perhaps invent an abnormal one.
FWIW I find truth and a firm grip on reality a lot more fun than make believe.
20130605
Meditation on People Who Do Evil to Children
May all evil people that perpetuate evil upon children suffer as a result of the evil that they create, equal to the depth of their denials. The Hells has a special place for them.
Excluded are those people who have been caught and are sincerely filled with remorse, and readily admit to their wrong-doing. When they turn about and give up creating evil, dedicating themselves to perpetuating good on all people, their time in the Hells will be a brief reminder of what their afterlife might have been.
However, it is up to them to decide whether they wish to be reborn in the Realms of Desire or choose to be reborn in the Pure Land.
If the latter, then burning off evil karma is as simple as many utterings of the name of Amida Buddha.
Why would anyone choose to reincarnate in the Realms of Desire?
Excluded are those people who have been caught and are sincerely filled with remorse, and readily admit to their wrong-doing. When they turn about and give up creating evil, dedicating themselves to perpetuating good on all people, their time in the Hells will be a brief reminder of what their afterlife might have been.
However, it is up to them to decide whether they wish to be reborn in the Realms of Desire or choose to be reborn in the Pure Land.
If the latter, then burning off evil karma is as simple as many utterings of the name of Amida Buddha.
Why would anyone choose to reincarnate in the Realms of Desire?
20130513
The Short Meditation on the Metaphysics of Non-Duality
Dualism affects the Western mind so much it rejects the truth that good and evil depend on what man creates.
The epitome of dualism is "Either you are for us or against us" which is a logical fallacy since picking sides has dire consequences.
The non-dual approach says, "Who cares is One is not equal to Zero?" They merely represent the Absolute (1) and the void (0) but are in themselves both a duality and a continuum.
Non-dualism does not reject duality, but renders good and evil a subset of the Absolute.
Thus the ultimate truth is that what man creates may be either good or evil. For duality is an exception of limited value.
For example, objectivity is at the core the brief focus on what subjectivity is not. The mind still is subject to the whims of the body i.e. the emotional content of subjectivity.
Thus objectivity is an artifact of logical thought as opposed to subjectivity's ties to the heart-mind and its emotional content.
What ties objectivity and subjectivity together is the mind's ability to view such abtract concepts in terms of wholes.
Thus objectivity is associated with our observation of the world, while subjectivity is associated with introspection on the inner world of the mind.
Ergo nobody has a clearly objective mind, as objectivity is part of the consensual reality shared by everyone.
Indeed, the objective mind has no body since it exists outside the body and its subjective mind.
Yet this apparent duality fades when one looks for the objective mind. Indeed, the objective mind is related to the concept of single-minded focus (samadhi) of Buddhist philosophy.
Thus non-duality encompasses both duality and itself, just as basic goodness includes both what man creates and whether it is good or evil.
The epitome of dualism is "Either you are for us or against us" which is a logical fallacy since picking sides has dire consequences.
The non-dual approach says, "Who cares is One is not equal to Zero?" They merely represent the Absolute (1) and the void (0) but are in themselves both a duality and a continuum.
Non-dualism does not reject duality, but renders good and evil a subset of the Absolute.
Thus the ultimate truth is that what man creates may be either good or evil. For duality is an exception of limited value.
For example, objectivity is at the core the brief focus on what subjectivity is not. The mind still is subject to the whims of the body i.e. the emotional content of subjectivity.
Thus objectivity is an artifact of logical thought as opposed to subjectivity's ties to the heart-mind and its emotional content.
What ties objectivity and subjectivity together is the mind's ability to view such abtract concepts in terms of wholes.
Thus objectivity is associated with our observation of the world, while subjectivity is associated with introspection on the inner world of the mind.
Ergo nobody has a clearly objective mind, as objectivity is part of the consensual reality shared by everyone.
Indeed, the objective mind has no body since it exists outside the body and its subjective mind.
Yet this apparent duality fades when one looks for the objective mind. Indeed, the objective mind is related to the concept of single-minded focus (samadhi) of Buddhist philosophy.
Thus non-duality encompasses both duality and itself, just as basic goodness includes both what man creates and whether it is good or evil.
20130512
"Satan is Dead": The Myth of Satanism
The marketing of satanism as diabolism is silly. Human sacrifice in modern times is murder, no matter how it is rationalized by purported satanists. Indeed, the devil, satan, and even demons are mental and physical negativities of a person or group of people.
Yet, as a Buddhist, I believe that good and evil have no external existence as fixed points of time and space. Rather, what we create has either good and evil attributed to it by public opinion.
Everything I just said about evil in the previous two paragraphs applies to God. Yes, I am saying God and even Jesus are projections of basic goodness.
However, mixing Christian sybolism with Buddhist symbolism often leads to cognitive distortions like confusion and even cries of syncretism despite the fact that much of the Bible hints at syncretism in the New Testament.
Even so, I will deny that the mind stream is akin to the soul, which violates the no-self principle. For even the soul is subject to a finite existence.
Even though this brings up eternal life and how Christians misinterpret Buddhism, I'm not talking about it. I'm discussing the myth of satanism.
Mass media loves to perpetuate the propaganda about satanism because it scares the churchpeople and then they can do public service by doing a mini series about it.
Even so, I will stick to my denial about satanism. My earlier comment about human sacrifice being diabolism implies only that the evil that man does is created by his acts against humanity.
Ok, I'm done with this topic for the time being, but reserve the right to beat this dead horse some more.
Oh yes! SATAN IS DEAD! Vive le diable!
Yet, as a Buddhist, I believe that good and evil have no external existence as fixed points of time and space. Rather, what we create has either good and evil attributed to it by public opinion.
Everything I just said about evil in the previous two paragraphs applies to God. Yes, I am saying God and even Jesus are projections of basic goodness.
However, mixing Christian sybolism with Buddhist symbolism often leads to cognitive distortions like confusion and even cries of syncretism despite the fact that much of the Bible hints at syncretism in the New Testament.
Even so, I will deny that the mind stream is akin to the soul, which violates the no-self principle. For even the soul is subject to a finite existence.
Even though this brings up eternal life and how Christians misinterpret Buddhism, I'm not talking about it. I'm discussing the myth of satanism.
Mass media loves to perpetuate the propaganda about satanism because it scares the churchpeople and then they can do public service by doing a mini series about it.
Even so, I will stick to my denial about satanism. My earlier comment about human sacrifice being diabolism implies only that the evil that man does is created by his acts against humanity.
Ok, I'm done with this topic for the time being, but reserve the right to beat this dead horse some more.
Oh yes! SATAN IS DEAD! Vive le diable!
20130507
Transforming Evil into Good
On the journey to the Pure Land accounting for what has been accomplished is as important as focus on burning the evil karma accumulated. A sure way to remain stuck in Samsara is to falsely believe just one call to Amida is as good as ten.
This is why Buddha Recitation is important to a Pure Land Buddhist.
Yet Zen Patriarch Hui-Neng is correct about creating good thoughts right now.
So rather than counting my blessings, I count each recitation as the seed of today's good thoughts.
"Good and evil" isn't about "good or evil" fixed both in both time and space.
It's about how we color what we create by thoughts and action.
This is why Buddha Recitation is important to a Pure Land Buddhist.
Yet Zen Patriarch Hui-Neng is correct about creating good thoughts right now.
So rather than counting my blessings, I count each recitation as the seed of today's good thoughts.
"Good and evil" isn't about "good or evil" fixed both in both time and space.
It's about how we color what we create by thoughts and action.
20130428
Thinking Things Through
Thinking is not the same as doing something because of a thought, be it good or bad.
To be oppressive to other people is harmful. This is the essence of what is considered evil, though it is moderate and is only rarely taken to extreme.
In contrast, to be patient and loving to everyone is harmless and most beneficial to the people who need such caring and love. This arises from the basic goodness which is in all sentient beings yet is only offered to close friends, family and loved ones.
For it take practice to be caring to everyone. It involves being willing to trust oneself and especially in other people, and to nurture the same qualities of patience and love in other people, too.
Thinking of being patient and loving to others, especially someone you never met, requires careful consideration of taking action in a trusting manner, confident that other people will treat you as a loving and patient manner, too.
However, I am not preaching trusting an unknown stranger just like that, since social etiquette usually dictates treating a guest with kindness when a host. As a guest, it's usually prudent to treat your host with courtesy and respect so that whenever you come to visit, you always have a place to stay.
As well, it makes good sense to think before I act, as rash action tends to lead to breaches of etiquette.
Yet thinking is not the same as doing an act. Always it helps to think through an action (helping others, for example), within the context of being helpful and of service to others. For by helping others, work gets done in a manner that is mutually beneficial to all.
However, this article isn't filled with commands and rules, even though it may seem like it. Rather, I am writing it to demostrate that thought precedes action, and have done so to encourage beneficial and positive outcomes based on patience and love.
To be oppressive to other people is harmful. This is the essence of what is considered evil, though it is moderate and is only rarely taken to extreme.
In contrast, to be patient and loving to everyone is harmless and most beneficial to the people who need such caring and love. This arises from the basic goodness which is in all sentient beings yet is only offered to close friends, family and loved ones.
For it take practice to be caring to everyone. It involves being willing to trust oneself and especially in other people, and to nurture the same qualities of patience and love in other people, too.
Thinking of being patient and loving to others, especially someone you never met, requires careful consideration of taking action in a trusting manner, confident that other people will treat you as a loving and patient manner, too.
However, I am not preaching trusting an unknown stranger just like that, since social etiquette usually dictates treating a guest with kindness when a host. As a guest, it's usually prudent to treat your host with courtesy and respect so that whenever you come to visit, you always have a place to stay.
As well, it makes good sense to think before I act, as rash action tends to lead to breaches of etiquette.
Yet thinking is not the same as doing an act. Always it helps to think through an action (helping others, for example), within the context of being helpful and of service to others. For by helping others, work gets done in a manner that is mutually beneficial to all.
However, this article isn't filled with commands and rules, even though it may seem like it. Rather, I am writing it to demostrate that thought precedes action, and have done so to encourage beneficial and positive outcomes based on patience and love.
The Basic Goodness of the Unborn (poem)
My heart once aflame with evil passions
is cooled by the calmness of my mind —
all that is left is refined as compassion
by the single-minded focus on No-thought.
Though red embers still glow, its heat
has melted all evil away, leaving behind
the basic goodness of the Unborn.
is cooled by the calmness of my mind —
all that is left is refined as compassion
by the single-minded focus on No-thought.
Though red embers still glow, its heat
has melted all evil away, leaving behind
the basic goodness of the Unborn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)