Salvation.

[naturesflow]

"The Buddha taught that he was an ordinary man, and he said that those seeking salvation should look within themselves. According to the early texts, his final words were, "All the constituents of being are transitory; work out your salvation with diligence.

"http://www.patheos.com/Library/Buddhism/Beliefs/Ultimate-Reality-and-Divine-Beings?


What meaning does Buddhism apply to salvation itself?
How does one work out their salvation with diligence?


If we become a whole host of conditioned aspects, is their a fast track way of ending what is often a expansive host of conditioning laid in self? Does diligence mean that there is a way to break free into salvation than the way many are choosing now? What change would that bring to salvation if salvation is required?

I know that many who welcome death, believe that their pain and suffering will end through this process, so naturally this would be what they perceive as being a way to end their pain and struggles.

I don't know. I am aware it is a sensitive topic which opens up matters like suicide and those who have lost the will to live, but I wanted to understand or see what Buddhist reflects in relation to salvation.

The statement seems contradictory to me, in that if all constituents are transitory, then the end of form here would end suffering more complete? That we in our choice to live this life or die is really about our suffering according to ourselves and how we feel or don't feel in relation to our life. When this form ends, what does salvation through this process of death change? And who decides on this salvation and what it means to the one aware of it?

[firstandlast]

Originally Posted by naturesflow

"The Buddha taught that he was an ordinary man, and he said that those seeking salvation should look within themselves. According to the early texts, his final words were, "All the constituents of being are transitory; work out your salvation with diligence.

"http://www.patheos.com/Library/Buddhism/Beliefs/Ultimate-Reality-and-Divine-Beings?


What meaning does Buddhism apply to salvation itself?
How does one work out their salvation with diligence?


If we become a whole host of conditioned aspects, is their a fast track way of ending what is often a expansive host of conditioning laid in self? Does diligence mean that there is a way to break free into salvation than the way many are choosing now? What change would that bring to salvation if salvation is required?

I know that many who welcome death, believe that their pain and suffering will end through this process, so naturally this would be what they perceive as being a way to end their pain and struggles.

I don't know. I am aware it is a sensitive topic which opens up matters like suicide and those who have lost the will to live, but I wanted to understand or see what Buddhist reflects in relation to salvation.

The statement seems contradictory to me, in that if all constituents are transitory, then the end of form here would end suffering more complete? That we in our choice to live this life or die is really about our suffering according to ourselves and how we feel or don't feel in relation to our life. When this form ends, what does salvation through this process of death change? And who decides on this salvation and what it means to the one aware of it?

It is quite specifically conscious change, but to the extent that you can no longer identify with forms in the same way-- That is, to consciously die is to transmute yourself into repeatedly unrecognizable forms until you realize those transcendent features that exist beyond the forms one identifies with, and that is what exactly makes you one form, and than a completely different form, but still be the same thing? What is unchanging in all this change? And this when considered to be spirit, we might recognize as our intentions--

That is, until we are conscious of our cosmic intentions, and not just those intentions in mundane life; do we identify with something greater than the forms that they express themselves as--

It is not that it is beyond forms, but that we become the forms we do for a reason, and when we become aware of this "reason" we can exist beyond the temporary or non-continuous intentions we identify with-- And it is not that those temporary intentions leave existence, but that those intentions that converged to your form of existence; and that those intentions cannot sustain the path your human body is based on, and so if you do not see where your intentions are going beyond the form it understands its intentions as, that when they begin changing their orbital patterns, one will not know how to consciously move with the orbital patterns of self that they are.. and this cannot be known in any sense of cause and effect because it is what appears as cause and effect, if we understood that; the cause and effect would become a higher quality being as it will be able to maintain making choices within the intentions, without having to rediscover them in each context as each new form it didn't recognize itself as--

I only know this because I have achieved my full sense of immortality because I consciously know how I exist; but that in the sense of what others have said about it, the light that they talk about granting immortality was something that didn't convince me.. I mean I have had the experiences, like I get their reasoning.. but it was still reasoning; I didn't want to reason my immortality, I wanted to know it-- So, what I will say that is contrary to what others might say, is that the light or emptiness or no self is a temporary identification method to identify with something that seems more eternal than than that which they exist in-- I am not interested in, oh I am the "insert one thing out of the infinite" and will live forever.. I wanted to know-- I found my answer sufficiently--

But I think the only thing that can truly tell you whether you have reached salvation, is if you know how to die-- dying is living--

[BlueSky]

My feeling is that if you are "seeking" salvation then what you are working on is salvation from seeking. That's a personal thing and it would require diligence to get to the bottom of.

[sky]

Salvation in Buddhism refers to reaching Nirvana..
Diligence is the virtue of hard work, it is one of the ' Seven heavenly virtues '

[Within Silence]

Originally Posted by naturesflow

[i]"The Buddha taught that he was an ordinary man, and he said that those seeking salvation should look within themselves. According to the early texts, his final words were, "All the constituents of being are transitory; work out your salvation with diligence.

If salvation resides within you, then are you not also the cause of needing salvation? Do you truly need salvation or do you just believe you do? And, salvation from what? Suffering? Then who is causing your suffering? If you are the cause of salvation from suffering then how can you also not be the cause of the suffering?

Perhaps the answer of salvation is in the statement; "All the constituents of being are transitory" if ALL is transitory, then what is there to suffer from? Does not the un-acceptance of the fact that All is transitory cause the suffering, hence suffering is the result of the desire to hold onto, to be attached, to cling, to resist? Thus if we accept completely that all is transitory then what is there to suffer from?

I think eventually one must see that they need salvation from the need to find salvation; when you drop that which needs salvation, then you cannot suffer from not being saved. Is not the need to be saved also a clinging, an attachment?

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by Within Silence

If salvation resides within you, then are you not also the cause of needing salvation? Do you truly need salvation or do you just believe you do? And, salvation from what? Suffering? Then who is causing your suffering? If you are the cause of salvation from suffering then how can you also not be the cause of the suffering?

Perhaps the answer of salvation is in the statement; "All the constituents of being are transitory" if ALL is transitory, then what is there to suffer from? Does not the un-acceptance of the fact that All is transitory cause the suffering, hence suffering is the result of the desire to hold onto, to be attached, to cling, to resist? Thus if we accept completely that all is transitory then what is there to suffer from?

I think eventually one must see that they need salvation from the need to find salvation; when you drop that which needs salvation, then you cannot suffer from not being saved. Is not the need to be saved also a clinging, an attachment?

Nicely said

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by firstandlast

It is quite specifically conscious change, but to the extent that you can no longer identify with forms in the same way-- That is, to consciously die is to transmute yourself into repeatedly unrecognizable forms until you realize those transcendent features that exist beyond the forms one identifies with, and that is what exactly makes you one form, and than a completely different form, but still be the same thing? What is unchanging in all this change? And this when considered to be spirit, we might recognize as our intentions--

That is, until we are conscious of our cosmic intentions, and not just those intentions in mundane life; do we identify with something greater than the forms that they express themselves as--

It is not that it is beyond forms, but that we become the forms we do for a reason, and when we become aware of this "reason" we can exist beyond the temporary or non-continuous intentions we identify with-- And it is not that those temporary intentions leave existence, but that those intentions that converged to your form of existence; and that those intentions cannot sustain the path your human body is based on, and so if you do not see where your intentions are going beyond the form it understands its intentions as, that when they begin changing their orbital patterns, one will not know how to consciously move with the orbital patterns of self that they are.. and this cannot be known in any sense of cause and effect because it is what appears as cause and effect, if we understood that; the cause and effect would become a higher quality being as it will be able to maintain making choices within the intentions, without having to rediscover them in each context as each new form it didn't recognize itself as--

I only know this because I have achieved my full sense of immortality because I consciously know how I exist; but that in the sense of what others have said about it, the light that they talk about granting immortality was something that didn't convince me.. I mean I have had the experiences, like I get their reasoning.. but it was still reasoning; I didn't want to reason my immortality, I wanted to know it-- So, what I will say that is contrary to what others might say, is that the light or emptiness or no self is a temporary identification method to identify with something that seems more eternal than than that which they exist in-- I am not interested in, oh I am the "insert one thing out of the infinite" and will live forever.. I wanted to know-- I found my answer sufficiently--

But I think the only thing that can truly tell you whether you have reached salvation, is if you know how to die-- dying is living--

First light or being light isn't a reasoning it is a being. You have experienced how that light can be shared anytime anywhere in the world. That is only possible once you have moved beyond the local mind, beyond seeing, to being that light which is all things.

What you are describing is 3rd eye stuff. You are seeing and hearing things but it is not a being. At least not one that can be shared outside of the astral.

I could introduce you to multiple people who each believe they are bringing about a new truth, that they are special , the most powerful person in the world.

The core truth of Buddhism is that all things are transitory and have no self nature. The Buddha was saying realize that nature by continuing to do the practices he taught.

[Gem]

Generally a Christian idiom referring to a release from the entrapment of original sin, and fair enough in secular terms, the sins of the father can mean that our generation is living the consequence of our cultural history, but what is culture but the manifestation of what is predominantly believed to be true and normal as far as human behaviour and interaction is concerned?

Indeed, the primary function of culture is its own reproduction, its own continuation, at the core of which is the biological imperative of sexual reproduction, and this means from the religious perspective that cultural continuation is necessarily perverse, or more to the point, sexual behaviour is perverse precisely due to its necessity, but even more degenerate is sexual behaviour which is not born of this necessity.

Now, in the tradition of monks and nuns celibacy or chastity is the way of holy ones, but of course, not everyone can become chaste because that would disrupt the biological imperative of cultural reproduction, and therefore, the bulk of humanity must engage in this most primal of passions so as to ensure the continuation of culture, and thereby perpetuate the original sin, or the contiuatio of re-birth.

So, salvation is the emancipation from this trap of cultural reproduction centred entirely on genitalia, so it is of no surprise that 'the end of times' where the Lord lifts us to salvation also marks the end of mankind, or in Buddhist terms, no more incarnations. Even 'incarnation' with its similarity to 'carnal' marks this most primal passion as the primacy of bondage.

[Within Silence]

Originally Posted by Gem

Generally a Christian idiom referring to a release from the entrapment of original sin, and fair enough in secular terms, the sins of the father can mean that our generation is living the consequence of our cultural history, but what is culture but the manifestation of what is predominantly believed to be true and normal as far as human behaviour and interaction is concerned?

Indeed, the primary function of culture is its own reproduction, its own continuation, at the core of which is the biological imperative of sexual reproduction, and this means from the religious perspective that cultural continuation is necessarily perverse, or more to the point, sexual behaviour is perverse precisely due to its necessity, but even more degenerate is sexual behaviour which is not born of this necessity.

Now, in the tradition of monks and nuns celibacy or chastity is the way of holy ones, but of course, not everyone can become chaste because that would disrupt the biological imperative of cultural reproduction, and therefore, the bulk of humanity must engage in this most primal of passions so as to ensure the continuation of culture, and thereby perpetuate the original sin, or the contiuatio of re-birth.

So, salvation is the emancipation from this trap of cultural reproduction centred entirely on genitalia, so it is of no surprise that 'the end of times' where the Lord lifts us to salvation also marks the end of mankind, or in Buddhist terms, no more incarnations. Even 'incarnation' with its similarity to 'carnal' marks this most primal passion as the primacy of bondage.

Doesn't this presuppose that reproduction or even the desire for reproduction is a mistake then? And which human being created the process of reproduction?

It also presupposes that human kind was a mistake, and if that is so then that which created human kind and the passions by which human kind continues its kind must also be a mistake or "the" original sin. Yet not one human being that I know of created them self, nor desire, nor passion, nor the processes of creation, thus humans are compelled by forces outside of their own doing, hence they cannot be guilty of any original sin, as they did not originate themselves. So, to put the burden of emancipation from this trap of culture reproduction on that which did not imprison itself in the first place seems a bit absurd. This is like blaming horses for their ability to run, or the bee for its potential to sting.

As I see it, the way of creation is not a mistake, rather seeing it as a mistake and trying to usurp it with one's own limited psychological hubris notions, which then generate absurd dogmas/doctrines/rituals/repressions/denying/resistances of the way of nature etc. is a mistake as these are in opposition to nature, to life and to ones own self. In other words, how arrogant does a human being have to be to think it knows what's best for humanity?

And I am not aiming this at you Gem, I just used your post as a catalyst, as this theme has been weighing heavy on my heart for quite some time.

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by Within Silence

Doesn't this presuppose that reproduction or even the desire for reproduction is a mistake then? And which human being created the process of reproduction?

It also presupposes that human kind was a mistake, and if that is so then that which created human kind and the passions by which human kind continues its kind must also be a mistake or "the" original sin. Yet not one human being that I know of created them self, nor desire, nor passion, nor the processes of creation, thus humans are compelled by forces outside of their own doing, hence they cannot be guilty of any original sin, as they did not originate themselves. So, to put the burden of emancipation from this trap of culture reproduction on that which did not imprison itself in the first place seems a bit absurd. This is like blaming horses for their ability to run, or the bee for its potential to sting.

As I see it, the way of creation is not a mistake, rather seeing it as a mistake and trying to usurp it with one's own limited psychological hubris notions, which then generate absurd dogmas/doctrines/rituals/repressions/denying/resistances of the way of nature etc. is a mistake as these are in opposition to nature, to life and to ones own self. In other words, how arrogant does a human being have to be to think it knows what's best for humanity?

And I am not aiming this at you Gem, I just used your post as a catalyst, as this theme has been weighing heavy on my heart for quite some time.

Again I say nicely said. Your words In both of your last posts deserve to be framed.
I think I'll just hold off on responding and let you speak for me today lol.
Seriously I really enjoyed the way you worded your last two posts and needless to say I couldn't agree more.