The story of Siddhartha becoming the Buddha is so interesting. He was a prince who had never known suffering. At first, he did not want to see any more suffering, but he could not forget what he saw, and had to find more. He could no longer accept his luxurious life of royalty, but was so disturbed by suffering of man. What kind of world is full of disease, aging and death? Why can nothing stay the same? There must be a way to get above it all or escape...
Live in the palace forever? Enjoy the company of my wife and child? Accept everything that is given to me?
No.
Living in the woods? Abandon my family and friends? Cut off my hair? Eat one grain of rice a day?
No.
Both are equidistant from the correct path. The answer is to live in the middle. Do not crave for accessories or have wants, because you will never be satisfied.Accept that life is change. Do not hide away in the woods forever, nor should you lock yourself in your castle. Travel in both worlds. If you accept the company of others, accept that they will leave. That which begins, ends, but what is important is that we live here and now. Do not dwell on the past, or worry about the long run.
Of course, we are all humans living in an era where our phones are glued to our palms or the though of no internet access makes us feel trapped in our own lives. We keep our friends close and always need to be with our lovers or families (for the most part). We are a culture of attachments.
The basic principles of Buddhism are understanding we are all connected no matter what. Be free of attachments and suffering. Do not want what you don't need. We may think we need these pieces of technology, and indeed they have become necessities in school and at work.
Professor Silliman said the teachings of Buddhism are widely popular among younger Americans, but I wonder if Buddhists are like followers Hinduism, where most undertake Synasa at the time of the typical retirement age. Should these teachings be undertaken as soon as possible, or is it okay to wait until you are ready. I know it would not be possible to sever all attachments at once, much like quitting anything cold turkey usually doesn't work. I'm just wondering if this is something that Buddhists try to accomplish a little at a time, or wait until they are free of most obligations in their old age...
Saturday, March 31, 2012
RE: Mortality Rate and attachment
This is a response to Avery Finnivan's post about Buddhism sharing the idea of eliminating attachment, which may have had something to do with low mortality rates in the Ancient world.
http://asfwr2012s.blogspot.com/2012/03/mortality-rate-and-attachment.html
Interesting correlation between attachment and mortality rates.
I completely agree, it is very commonplace for members of relationships to feel dependent on one another until they have, as Alex said, a craving for one another. All life needs balance, and one person, one hobby, (or anything for that matter) should take the spotlight. Accept all things and relationships equally, and understand that if you have them, be prepared to lose them. All life is change.
Back to your idea about mortality and attachment...
This idea Buddha shares about not having attachment would be beneficial advice for those struggling with the loss of a loved one. As you put it,
"...Eliminating attachment might indeed have been the best way to maintain a healthy psyche."
However, handling attachment and dealing with grief vary in many cultures. Mexico, for example, celebrates Dia de los Muertos, Day of the Dead. In the beginning of November, families and friends visit the graves of their loved ones and bring flowers. Alters are filled with photos and food offerings for the deceased. In this culture, I'm certain that families and friends formed strong bonds during their lives, but they have accepted that death is natural and unavoidable. I am not sure of the Mexican mortality rates over time, but I do know this tradition has been around for hundreds of years.
I just wanted to use this as an example to show how different cultures handle the loss of a loved one. The families were all very close, and I'm sure they miss their deceased, but they have found a balance of acceptance with their separation. Your theory about mortality and attachment is still interests me. Thank you for sharing.
---I have also posted this to my blog
http://asfwr2012s.blogspot.com/2012/03/mortality-rate-and-attachment.html
Interesting correlation between attachment and mortality rates.
I completely agree, it is very commonplace for members of relationships to feel dependent on one another until they have, as Alex said, a craving for one another. All life needs balance, and one person, one hobby, (or anything for that matter) should take the spotlight. Accept all things and relationships equally, and understand that if you have them, be prepared to lose them. All life is change.
Back to your idea about mortality and attachment...
This idea Buddha shares about not having attachment would be beneficial advice for those struggling with the loss of a loved one. As you put it,
"...Eliminating attachment might indeed have been the best way to maintain a healthy psyche."
However, handling attachment and dealing with grief vary in many cultures. Mexico, for example, celebrates Dia de los Muertos, Day of the Dead. In the beginning of November, families and friends visit the graves of their loved ones and bring flowers. Alters are filled with photos and food offerings for the deceased. In this culture, I'm certain that families and friends formed strong bonds during their lives, but they have accepted that death is natural and unavoidable. I am not sure of the Mexican mortality rates over time, but I do know this tradition has been around for hundreds of years.
I just wanted to use this as an example to show how different cultures handle the loss of a loved one. The families were all very close, and I'm sure they miss their deceased, but they have found a balance of acceptance with their separation. Your theory about mortality and attachment is still interests me. Thank you for sharing.
---I have also posted this to my blog
Sunday, March 25, 2012
RE: Heaven Full of Poor People
This is a response to Lauren Feeney's post about the parable of the camel entering through the eye of a needle (not a sewing needle, but a small door- a task still quite difficult)
http://feeney05.blogspot.com/
I think it could also be considered on a symbolic level. Your soul must be pure and free of any distractions in order to enter the Kingdom.
Jesus accepted all kinds; he accepted the poor and the tax collectors, and I'm sure he would accept the higher class as well.
We came into this world with nothing, and we will leave the same. No earthly possessions are needed in the Kingdom, and they would probably slow us down anyway.
http://feeney05.blogspot.com/
I think it could also be considered on a symbolic level. Your soul must be pure and free of any distractions in order to enter the Kingdom.
Jesus accepted all kinds; he accepted the poor and the tax collectors, and I'm sure he would accept the higher class as well.
We came into this world with nothing, and we will leave the same. No earthly possessions are needed in the Kingdom, and they would probably slow us down anyway.
Friday, March 23, 2012
RE: My Introduction to Buddhism
This is a response to Ryan Walter's post.
http://ryansreligions.blogspot.com/2012/03/my-introduction-to-buddhism.html?showComment=1332557368329#c8294986677940882767
I was not aware that the Beatles were influenced by Buddhism/ Hinduism/ Indian culture, but now that I think about it that does make sense.
I do agree that our culture does have very skewed view of various religions. I once heard a quote (I forgot it's origin) "We fear that which we do not understand."
I feel like with some religions,we feel afraid. Some religions are only compatible with certain cultures, because religion reflects the needs of the citizens.
By learning more about Buddhism, maybe we can learn more about what the Beatles songs were about. Sometimes, with more background information, we can come up with different/ more accurate interpretations of the lyrics. Perhaps you have a good starting place, but I agree, I can't wait to learn it all for myself.
http://ryansreligions.blogspot.com/2012/03/my-introduction-to-buddhism.html?showComment=1332557368329#c8294986677940882767
I was not aware that the Beatles were influenced by Buddhism/ Hinduism/ Indian culture, but now that I think about it that does make sense.
I do agree that our culture does have very skewed view of various religions. I once heard a quote (I forgot it's origin) "We fear that which we do not understand."
I feel like with some religions,we feel afraid. Some religions are only compatible with certain cultures, because religion reflects the needs of the citizens.
By learning more about Buddhism, maybe we can learn more about what the Beatles songs were about. Sometimes, with more background information, we can come up with different/ more accurate interpretations of the lyrics. Perhaps you have a good starting place, but I agree, I can't wait to learn it all for myself.
Knowledge is not a sin
Growing up and going to catechism, I can relate to the comment Rachel made in class on Thursday about not being able to ask questions in Sunday School.
"To ask questions is to judge the validity of God," my teachers would say when anyone asked how something could be possible. They would tell us that believing in God and the miracles of Jesus wasn't about having proof it happened, because that is what faith is- "blind trust."
They reminded us of the Garden of Eden, and the tree of knowledge. If we could just behave and accept life the way God intended, then we would always be happy. I could never get over this...why would God want to keep us in the dark?
I really enjoyed Crossan's novel. It really opened my eyes to the different meanings beyond literal translations. Before this book, I had no idea that the human body could resemble the body of society. I didn't know the difference between healing an illness and curing a disease. As Silliman said, we are welcome to forget we ever learned any of this, but for me, the cat is out of the bag.
From an early age, I never felt the need to go to church, but that may have just been me being a stubborn child who wanted to play all day. "If God is everywhere, why do we need to go to church?"
"Because church is God's home and he likes it when we visit him," Mom would say.
I now know about the Kingdom of God, and how I was right, that God is everywhere. Jesus was an itinerant and believed no mortal building on Earth could compare to His fathers Kingdom. He didn't believe in rules, and broke the standard social restraints. He befriended the tax collectors and whores, and told everyone that they either follow and accept Jesus for everything he is, or not at all. He was a revolutionary man, whose ideas became the foundations of a religion, even though he wasn't trying to.
My views of Jesus are completely changed. By seeking the knowledge, I have a better understanding of who he is and it all makes more sense. Knowledge should not be considered a sin, that doesn't make sense. By knowing more and asking questions, we get closer and closer to who Jesus was and what he meant by his actions and words.
Wouldn't he want us to know the truth?
My views of Jesus are completely changed. By seeking the knowledge, I have a better understanding of who he is and it all makes more sense. Knowledge should not be considered a sin, that doesn't make sense. By knowing more and asking questions, we get closer and closer to who Jesus was and what he meant by his actions and words.
Wouldn't he want us to know the truth?
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Recent comments
The following are my comments for the last 2 weeks. My apologies for not posting them here sooner...
Adam Tobin March 7
Adam's post was about what our culture believes Jesus to look like. Really cool find.
http://adamtsblogspot.blogspot.com/2012/03/image-of-messiah.html#comment-form
Wow Adam, this is great!!
I must admit, your appearance does remind me of the typical Western view of Jesus, but as you pointed out, that image may be wrong entirely.
In my Sunday school, we were taught about the Shroud of Turin, so I always held that as proof of what Jesus looked like. The main illustration on your link is a startling contrast to our culture's idea.
This was very eye opening, thank you for sharing!!
Martha Bruso on Feb. 25
Martha commented about her new views of the "holy family," with Jesus being a rebel and John a possible terrorist...
http://marthabruso.blogspot.com/2012/02/jesus-first-rebel-with-cause-and-john.html#comment-form
Haha, I know exactly what you're going through. It's hard to believe that Jesus, a man whom I was taught was peaceful and loving and serene was actually a revolutionary. Until Prof. Silliman mentioned it, I had no idea that Jesus and John were considered opposites.
And yes, why is it that Jesus is one of the few figures of Christianity? If he knew there was a religion and churches made in his name, he might be taken aback. My views on this man are completely changed, but you're right, we must keep an open mind.
Adam Tobin March 7
Adam's post was about what our culture believes Jesus to look like. Really cool find.
http://adamtsblogspot.blogspot.com/2012/03/image-of-messiah.html#comment-form
Wow Adam, this is great!!
I must admit, your appearance does remind me of the typical Western view of Jesus, but as you pointed out, that image may be wrong entirely.
In my Sunday school, we were taught about the Shroud of Turin, so I always held that as proof of what Jesus looked like. The main illustration on your link is a startling contrast to our culture's idea.
This was very eye opening, thank you for sharing!!
Martha Bruso on Feb. 25
Martha commented about her new views of the "holy family," with Jesus being a rebel and John a possible terrorist...
http://marthabruso.blogspot.com/2012/02/jesus-first-rebel-with-cause-and-john.html#comment-form
Haha, I know exactly what you're going through. It's hard to believe that Jesus, a man whom I was taught was peaceful and loving and serene was actually a revolutionary. Until Prof. Silliman mentioned it, I had no idea that Jesus and John were considered opposites.
And yes, why is it that Jesus is one of the few figures of Christianity? If he knew there was a religion and churches made in his name, he might be taken aback. My views on this man are completely changed, but you're right, we must keep an open mind.
A house is not a home, and neither is this Church
Today at my church,, the gospel was about the Temple Cleansing. This story caught my ear, because I am still curious about it ever since I read it in Crossan's book.
According to Father, Jesus was in Jerusalem to celebrate Passover by having a feast. While visiting the Temple, he was upset by what he saw. He was ashamed a place built in the name of his father was a used as a robber's den. He overturned the tables and told the ox and dove owners to leave. These creatures are not meant to be sacrifices.
"Destroy this temple!! I shall raise it up in 3 days!"
The Jews were in disbelief. Why should they destroy the Temple? What evidence is there that would make the Jews believe what Jesus says is true? It took 46 years to build, and he will raise it in 3 days?? It wasn't until later that the disciples realized that Jesus was talking about the Temple of his body.
Crossan points this out as well, but it wasn't until today in church when I realized that when Jesus says, "Destroy the Temple," he is actually telling the Jews to destroy him! " Imagine telling someone to destroy you...
Doves and ox are not good enough. Sacrifice me/my body! It will be raised in 3 days.
The people thought he was crazy. Who was this man to come in and overturn the tables? Who was he to say that these animals were not worthy of sacrifice? And he wants to die instead? Very well...
The priest then talked about the Kingdom of God, and how Jesus claimed that no building on Earth could be worthy enough to be called "The Kingdom of God;" that the Kingdom existed wherever Believers congregated. The priest said that this church, Pope John Paul the Great, was the Kingdom of God whenever mass was held. However, the Kingdom is never confined to one particular building.
Recently in my hometown, one of the churches has been reopened since it was closed 1,150 days ago.
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/02/after_three-year_vigil_st_stan.html
Back when it first happened, many Polish people in town were upset that their church was being closed. The place where they were once married, where their grandparent's funeral service was held, or where their children were baptized, closed. I think they were more upset about a building full of family history being closed, rather than a place of worship being closed. Whatever the reason, they never let the church sit empty.
About 200 people participated in the vigil for about 3-4 years. They were upset, and they all wanted their voices heard. More often, they came across being rude or jealous. I understand they were hurt, but if they listened to the word of the scriptures, they had no need to.
What about those who are overseas fighting in war. What about the bed-ridden people? Think of anyone who physically can't make it to their church to worship or pray. In Sunday school, we were always taught that good practicing Christians go to Mass every week. If God is all around us, then why do we need to meet in one particular place? This reading of Crossan helped to explain a lot of miscommunication for me.
The priest explained that we have churches as a safe place for all of us to meet and listen to the Gospel. True, we don't have to meet every week, but it's not likely we will have the same group dynamic and discussions otherwise. It's like going to class. Sure, we could do the reading on our own each week, but when we meet to listen and share ideas with each other, we benefit more.
The Kingdom of God is where ever Believers meet, in God's name. It is not confined to one church, nor should it be. If a church closes, it is sad to remember all the good times once held there, but it's not the end of God's Kingdom.
According to Father, Jesus was in Jerusalem to celebrate Passover by having a feast. While visiting the Temple, he was upset by what he saw. He was ashamed a place built in the name of his father was a used as a robber's den. He overturned the tables and told the ox and dove owners to leave. These creatures are not meant to be sacrifices.
"Destroy this temple!! I shall raise it up in 3 days!"
The Jews were in disbelief. Why should they destroy the Temple? What evidence is there that would make the Jews believe what Jesus says is true? It took 46 years to build, and he will raise it in 3 days?? It wasn't until later that the disciples realized that Jesus was talking about the Temple of his body.
Crossan points this out as well, but it wasn't until today in church when I realized that when Jesus says, "Destroy the Temple," he is actually telling the Jews to destroy him! " Imagine telling someone to destroy you...
Doves and ox are not good enough. Sacrifice me/my body! It will be raised in 3 days.
The people thought he was crazy. Who was this man to come in and overturn the tables? Who was he to say that these animals were not worthy of sacrifice? And he wants to die instead? Very well...
The priest then talked about the Kingdom of God, and how Jesus claimed that no building on Earth could be worthy enough to be called "The Kingdom of God;" that the Kingdom existed wherever Believers congregated. The priest said that this church, Pope John Paul the Great, was the Kingdom of God whenever mass was held. However, the Kingdom is never confined to one particular building.
Recently in my hometown, one of the churches has been reopened since it was closed 1,150 days ago.
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/02/after_three-year_vigil_st_stan.html
Back when it first happened, many Polish people in town were upset that their church was being closed. The place where they were once married, where their grandparent's funeral service was held, or where their children were baptized, closed. I think they were more upset about a building full of family history being closed, rather than a place of worship being closed. Whatever the reason, they never let the church sit empty.
About 200 people participated in the vigil for about 3-4 years. They were upset, and they all wanted their voices heard. More often, they came across being rude or jealous. I understand they were hurt, but if they listened to the word of the scriptures, they had no need to.
What about those who are overseas fighting in war. What about the bed-ridden people? Think of anyone who physically can't make it to their church to worship or pray. In Sunday school, we were always taught that good practicing Christians go to Mass every week. If God is all around us, then why do we need to meet in one particular place? This reading of Crossan helped to explain a lot of miscommunication for me.
The priest explained that we have churches as a safe place for all of us to meet and listen to the Gospel. True, we don't have to meet every week, but it's not likely we will have the same group dynamic and discussions otherwise. It's like going to class. Sure, we could do the reading on our own each week, but when we meet to listen and share ideas with each other, we benefit more.
The Kingdom of God is where ever Believers meet, in God's name. It is not confined to one church, nor should it be. If a church closes, it is sad to remember all the good times once held there, but it's not the end of God's Kingdom.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Through Whose Eyes?
In the class discussion on Tuesday, we talked a lot about the leprosy story and illness vs. disease.
To refresh us on the difference:
Illness- What patients suffer. Psychological experience and meaning of perceived disease.
created by personal, social, and cultural reactions to disease
Disease- Physical abnormality. Can be diagnosed and treated by physicians. malfunctioning of biological.
A leper approached Jesus and asked him to "make him clean." It never says if Jesus healed the illness or cured the disease, only that "he was made clean."
Lower class peasants, who are more likely to believe in magic, may believe that Jesus is a miracle physician who can cure any disease.
Wealthier citizens, although they may disapprove Jesus touching a leper, may see that Jesus refuses to ostracise the sick man and therefore heal him of his illness.
Or a third option, perhaps there was no actual man, but the story and the infected body are a metaphor for the politic body, representing the social body with "ingoing and outgoings categorised as clean or unclean, (89)" which establishes an intense concentration boundary establishment. It is a symbolic contamination.
The story's interpretation varies on who and which class is doing the interpreting. Through which eyes do you see the story?
To refresh us on the difference:
Illness- What patients suffer. Psychological experience and meaning of perceived disease.
created by personal, social, and cultural reactions to disease
Disease- Physical abnormality. Can be diagnosed and treated by physicians. malfunctioning of biological.
A leper approached Jesus and asked him to "make him clean." It never says if Jesus healed the illness or cured the disease, only that "he was made clean."
Lower class peasants, who are more likely to believe in magic, may believe that Jesus is a miracle physician who can cure any disease.
Wealthier citizens, although they may disapprove Jesus touching a leper, may see that Jesus refuses to ostracise the sick man and therefore heal him of his illness.
Or a third option, perhaps there was no actual man, but the story and the infected body are a metaphor for the politic body, representing the social body with "ingoing and outgoings categorised as clean or unclean, (89)" which establishes an intense concentration boundary establishment. It is a symbolic contamination.
The story's interpretation varies on who and which class is doing the interpreting. Through which eyes do you see the story?
Turn the other cheek, a lesson from Pokemon
First all, I love analogies.
Second, I think many of the things we learn as children are the things we benefit the most from. The stories I read or cartoons I watched have given me life lessons which help me to understand the current world.
Of course we all have seen the mindless cartoons filled with explosions and Acme pranks, but the morals can still be found.
One of the most heartbreaking scenes I have ever watched in a child's movie is in Pokemon the First Movie: Mewtwo Strikes Back. At the end of the film, the clone Pokemon are forced to fight the original Pokemon.
Of course, Pokemon are meant to battle, but it is interesting in this scene that the original Pikachu isn't putting up much of a fight. This scene came back to me when we discussed the meaning behind, "turn the other cheek." As much as we want real Pikachu to fight back, he does not. He just takes hit after hit. The clone does not look tough or brave, he looks like a jerk. He is being made a fool and no one approves.
By turning the other cheek and refusing to fight back, the real Pikachu is the victor.
If we are going to explain concepts of Jesus to children, we should use relatable and relevant examples. We should not sugar coat them by saying "If someone offends you, just look away," or "If someone asks you for some help, surprise him and go the extra mile to show how much you care!" These examples miss the point of what Jesus meant.
Second, I think many of the things we learn as children are the things we benefit the most from. The stories I read or cartoons I watched have given me life lessons which help me to understand the current world.
Of course we all have seen the mindless cartoons filled with explosions and Acme pranks, but the morals can still be found.
One of the most heartbreaking scenes I have ever watched in a child's movie is in Pokemon the First Movie: Mewtwo Strikes Back. At the end of the film, the clone Pokemon are forced to fight the original Pokemon.
 |
| Pokemon the First Movie: Mewtwo Strikes Back, 1998 |
Of course, Pokemon are meant to battle, but it is interesting in this scene that the original Pikachu isn't putting up much of a fight. This scene came back to me when we discussed the meaning behind, "turn the other cheek." As much as we want real Pikachu to fight back, he does not. He just takes hit after hit. The clone does not look tough or brave, he looks like a jerk. He is being made a fool and no one approves.
By turning the other cheek and refusing to fight back, the real Pikachu is the victor.
If we are going to explain concepts of Jesus to children, we should use relatable and relevant examples. We should not sugar coat them by saying "If someone offends you, just look away," or "If someone asks you for some help, surprise him and go the extra mile to show how much you care!" These examples miss the point of what Jesus meant.
Re: The Phantom of the Opera and God
This is a response to Caryn's post about the Phantom of the Opera and God
http://carynpine.blogspot.com/2012/03/phantom-of-opera-and-god.html?showComment=1330810779757#c1633091380976139519
http://carynpine.blogspot.com/2012/03/phantom-of-opera-and-god.html?showComment=1330810779757#c1633091380976139519
Interesting similarities!
In the beginning of The Phantom of The Opera, many people are skeptical, and do not believe there is a Phantom. Skeptics think the others are just hearing voices. Soon, the future of the theater is at stake, and people do whatever the Phantom wishes just so they can stay in business. Anyone who does not follow the Phantom's orders will pay the price, much like the man who is hung from the rafters.
In the end, all that is found is his mask, and we are only left with the terrifying stories.
The phantom hid his face because of his deformities. Why do you think God hides himself?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)