Gautama Siddhartha

[Still_Waters]

Originally Posted by sky123

If someone thinks is makes sense that we are ' Born with Sin ' is that a belief in ' Original Sin ' or something else, that's what I'm trying to discuss. Really.... and how does it fit in with a belief in Karma....

To get back to the topic of Buddhism, I was thinking of the Zen Koan: "What did your face look like before your parents were born?"

What is "original"?

[sky]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

To get back to the topic of Buddhism, I was thinking of the Zen Koan: "What did your face look like before your parents were born?"

What is "original"?

I didn't have a face until I was born and I don't believe in 'Original Sin' ha ha.....

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

Pantanjali says virtually the same thing ... that Asmita (little I-am-ness) and Avidya (ignorance) arise simultaneously. That ignorance leads to attractions and repulsions resulting in clinging to the illusionary separatist life.

I think also one could say ignorance leads to wrong relationship, or having our point of perception be an identification with ego or repetitive reactionary habitual thought, having our attention there. Acting upon and believing that habitual repetitive conditioned thought stream is self.

Not really willfully of course as we are just living in a "lazy" way. Passively allowing our conditioned habitual attention patterns to stay focused on the thought stream of ego to continue day after day. Like, "I thought this yesterday, I am thinking about the same thing today, therefore this is me and mine." It gives the ego or thought constructed conditioned self an illusion of reality. So one is like, "I will keep my attention here as it is me" and this further cements delusions of separateness and individuality which do induce certain feelings of ego based pleasure. But of course with these ego pleasures comes suffering as well and invented or created conflict with others.

And interesting side note is in the hierarchy of human life, the brain works for consciousness, adapts for consciousness IF consciousness ends it's passive role and asserts what it wants. An example of this is scientists discovered using brain scans that the thought producing parts of the brain slow down their production of thoughts or stop all together if one practices mindfulness.

“Leave your front door and your back door open. Allow your thoughts to come and go. Just don’t serve them tea.”
– Shunryu Suzuki

Not letting our attention go to thought tells our subconscious we are not interested and so the brain goes, "oh ok I will stop spending energy there."

In any given moment, we are bombarded with input being fed to perception, from internal and external sources, ignorance is unawareness of what or who we are in that. Typically we passively assume our conditioned thoughts are us and we live in that bubble or perception of who and what we are.

Ironically, mindfulness is using higher awareness to not give our attention or energy to the thoughts in our own minds or in the minds of others, and this post is thoughts from my own mind, however, the purpose of it would be to illuminate reality so that one could find or see the way out from ego or a thought based perception. But using thought or mental concentration to see one's way out is just one form of yoga. There are other paths and practices that lead to the same realization.

It's probably easier to just "follow the bliss!" Become acquainted with the subline peace and just consciously choose that non-attachment to thought state in any given moment in time. Have the perception or experience itself lead one and not depend on intellectual understanding.

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

To get back to the topic of Buddhism, I was thinking of the Zen Koan: "What did your face look like before your parents were born?"

That goes hand in hand with the teachings of living in the now and being free of the past. Not continuing yesterday today. Not continuing that same ego or thought patterns day after day.

If time could be rewound and we back to a point in time long ago of "who" we were before our parents were born, it would mean nothing we know in this life, not one thing, not one memory or thought or idea or conclusion or belief from this life would exist. So who would we be then? What would now be like if now did not include all the things from this life?

“I discovered that it is necessary, absolutely necessary, to believe in nothing.”
– Shunryu Suzuki

That is the consciousness zen monks seek. Drop away all of it! All we have accumulated in this life. It's akin to the Christian idea of being "born again."

EPHESIANS 4:22
change the former way of life that was part of the person you once were,
so far as your former way of life is concerned, you must strip off your old nature

When you do something, you should burn yourself completely, like a good bonfire, leaving no trace of yourself.”
– Shunryu Suzuki

The zen story of the tea cup:

A well known professor went to visit a Zen master. As the master gracefully served tea, the professor described his ideas of Zen. The master remained quiet as the professor spoke, continuing to pour.

When the tea reached the brim of the cup, the Zen master kept pouring. The tea overflowed, spilling onto the tray, the table, and the carpet, until the professor could no longer stand it.

“Stop!” he said. “Can’t you see the cup is full?”

“This is you,” said the master, pointing to the cup. “How can I show you what Zen is, until you first empty your cup?”

There are endless quotes and stories that point to this same thing. All the stuff about emptiness as well. All the stuff about surrendering our will for gods will.

“Our mind should be free from traces of the past, just like flowers of spring.”
– Shunryu Suzuki

Originally Posted by sky123

I don't believe in

If one does not narrowly define words or phrases or believe in the narrow definitions of others, one can believe in anything. To not believe in something just means one has accepted the definitions of words or phrases of those who believe.

[sky]

Originally Posted by AbodhiSky

If one does not narrowly define words or phrases or believe in the narrow definitions of others

No I don't believe in original sin, the sin we supposedly inherited from Adam and Eve and we are born with

But to be honest, I did when I was a child....

None believers actually have more in common with the believers then with those who have no interest one way or the other as they are attached to the same narrow definitions of words and phrases. It's related to Buddhism's middle way. It can be likened to a string with believers on one end and those who don't believe at the other end. Both are fixed, locked into the exact same narrow meanings of words or definitions. Standing in the middle, one holds no fixed views as buddha said in the metta sutta.

Quote from Buddha's metta sutta

Freed from hatred and ill-will.
not holding to fixed views

One living the middle way would not be for or against ideas or beliefs as they are pretty much meaningless and ego self defined. But then understanding is an aspect of consciousness itself and so one can know before the word or thought, the nature of a thing. As buddha noted, ill-will exists and it can be expressed through language of course.

Buddha's middle way is also represented between trying and not-trying, they are also two ends of the same string. Both require one identified with thought as self or ego in other words. The middle is no one to try or not try.

“There’s nothing to do, there’s nowhere to go.”
– Shunryu Suzuki

Originally Posted by sky123

But to be honest, I did when I was a child....

well of course, one can not oppose something one is not holding
but then if one drops such a thing, holds it no more
what is there to oppose?

one cannot resist or oppose something that is not present or does not exist
even if it only is existing as a belief or an idea

Everyone probably knows the zen story of the two traveling monks and the woman who needs help to cross the river but the ending is clear:

The one monk says to the other, "How could you carry and touch that woman? It is against our rules!" The other monk says, "I put that woman down back at the river, you carry her still."

for or against can mean one is a product of their conditioning or ego

[Still_Waters]

QUOTE 564 EXCERPT:

Originally Posted by AbodhiSky

“I discovered that it is necessary, absolutely necessary, to believe in nothing.”
– Shunryu Suzuki

That is the consciousness zen monks seek. Drop away all of it! All we have accumulated in this life. It's akin to the Christian idea of being "born again."

I "believe" that your post is very wise!