Was Jesus Compassionate

[Dr. Andrew B. C]

Mozz wrote:

> Hello again Andrew,
>
> <snip>Yes, that is correct. Siddhartha is dead, yet his teachings survive. Wisdom is to know the
> truth that all form is emptiness, and all emptiness form.
>
> >> The calf was an image of a god - Mamon. As such it was a reminder.
> >
> >It served to more than remind. It became an object of worship or reverence.
> >
> >>
> >> The crucifix (with or without a Jesus figure on) is an image of God's agency in the world - as
> >> such it is a reminder. It fulfils the same function.
> >
> >Sorry, but it does not.
>
> No need to apologise. I think, like the Calf, it fulfils the archetypal function of all 'symbols
> and signs'.
>

You are free to form your own opinion.

>
> >My point is that because God made buddha, it would be expected that many of his ideas could have
> >come from God.
>
> So any wisdom comes from God alone, yet anything else is free will and wayward.

God is the source of wisdom.

> How ridiculous. Circular logic will only make you dizzy!
>

Truth has that effect on the untruthful.

>
> >
> >Almost everything that buddha was, *almost* everything that he saw, touched, tasted, or otherwise
> >experienced was from God. It is more than likely that buddha was influenced by God although he
> >turned away from Him and embraced emptiness.
>
> There is no God other than the one you serve in your mind.
>

I learned as a small child that closing ones eyes to not see something does not make things
disappear.

>
> >You can't serve God and embrace emptiness.
>
> All is emptiness ultimately.
>

1 --> true --> God

--> false --> emptiness

The 0 state defines the 1 state by their difference.

What is false defines what is true by their difference.

Emptiness defines God by their difference.

This is pure logic.

>
> >
> >You described that the angry and agitated behavior of "fanatics" revealed their insecurity
> >regarding their own beliefs. If I had assumed that you were calling me a fanatic, I would have
> >simply told you "I am not a fanatic."
> >
> >Instead, I assumed you were not calling me a fanatic, which allows me to point out that my
> >beliefs in Christ are secure. How else would you explain my composure when encountering the
> >"angry and agitated" animosity of those who are offended by my being Christian.
>
> You are not as composed as you like to believe Andrew. I see cracks in your mask in the other
> posts I read. Would you like me to list examples for you?

Sure. Go ahead an cite those posts where I wear a mask.

Should be interesting.

>
>
> >Your buddha now knows better for he now knows the truth.
>
> Agreed. And the truth is that all is emptiness.
>

The truth is God.

>
> >If all you are getting from this discussion is propaganda, why are you here?
>
> Would you rather I left?
>

No.

Now, try to answer the question.

>
> >> Buddha showed that ones salvation is to be found within oneself and through ones own effort and
> >> responsibility one can reach nirvana.
> >
> >Has Buddha ever said he reached nirvana?
>
> Yes. Nirvana is a state of being, not a place. It is possible to reach nirvana while living.

Have you reached Nirvana?

>
>
> >Do you really believe that you do not need anyone else?
>
> I know it. Practice the dharma and you too will not need anyone else's agency in your 'salvation'.

Will practicing the dharma keep you from suffering the pains associated with aging and death?

>
> >
> >> >> You cannot seriously be saying that you believe in the literal existence of Adam and Eve?
> >>
> >> >Yes. There is actually scientific evidence at the genetic level for the existence of Eve.
> >>
> >> Can you show me this evidence?
> >
> >We know the genetic sequence of the mitochondrial DNA of Eve.
> >
> >If you really want the Pubmed citation, let me know. Would be more than happy to set up a link
> >for you.
>
> do you also believe that God made the world in 6 days and on the 7th rested?
>

No. I do believe that God made the universe and everything in it within a short span of time. Since
days are measured in terms of revolutions of the earth, I am open to the possibility that the "days"
*before* earth even existed are God's own arbitrary units of time.

>
> do you believe in the Flood and that Noah built an ark large enough to carry two of every animal
> and that he did so?
>

There is archeological evidence for a great flood.

>
> do you believe Lot's wife truly turned into a pillar of salt?
>

Would be a small feat for a God that made the universe and everything in it.

>
> do you believe there really was a Tower of Babel that reached up to Heaven?
>

The twin towers of the WTC reached upward toward Heaven.

>
> Please tell me.
>

You are starting to sound desperate.

> >
> >> >Then what are you looking for when you come here?
> >>
> >> An opportunity to help others.
> >
> >Haven't seen you contribute in this regard.
>
> I am wide to recieve
>

Perhaps you should be more truthful to yourself.

>
> >> Meditation helped me lower my blood pressure significantly and it remains low without
> >> medication.
> >
> >How's your blood pressure during this discussion ?
>
> It remains low
>
> >Any studies that show meditation works independent of other lifestyle altering effects that may
> >be coincident with meditation ?
>
> Can you rephrase your question?
>

Do you know of any studies that unequivocally shows that meditation alone effectively lowers resting
blood pressure?

The studies that I am familiar with are equivocal.

>
> >> >Why do you feel the need to defend aspects of Siddhartha's life?
> >>
> >> I feel it is only right to point out errors others make in ignorance of the facts regarding
> >> Siddhartha's life.
> >>
> >
> >Sounds like these "errors" wound you.
>
> I value fairness, impartiality and truth. I do not take anything others may say about buddhism
> personally.
>

Your language betrays you.

>
> >When was this "final birth" ?
>
> 500 years ago.
>

Is Dalai Lama 500 years old?

>
> >> This elusive architect is Craving or Attachment, a self created force latent in all.
> >>
> >
> >So you believe in self-creation?
>
> Craving or Attachment is a self created force.
>

And this self created force created you?

Interesting.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?T13943F77

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867

 

[Carol T]

Mozz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you will be pleasently
> surprised to find that it was one of the most civilised and highly developed cultural regions in
> the world.

It was the Indian dark age, the Vedic Period ! Buddhism came after, propagated by Ashoka who was
horrified at the carnage he'd caused in war. He too would have been in need of forgiveness, and he
too tried to put things right as the Buddha did by attempting to do great things. It was not a
climate that you would be able to compare with today.

>>>>>>>>>>>>> They were viewed as heroic, regardless of position or
> education. Infact, many were highly educated, and Siddhartha would not have been seen as an
> exception in that regard. <<<<<<<<<<

The Buddha was NOT a Holy man. He may have been revered, this is different.

>>>>>>>> If you studied Psychology or indeed the Psychology 'of'
Theology you
> would be able to seperate the subjective belief from the objective facts. Practicing the ways of
> (a) God are a matter of faith, not fact.<<<<

It is your opinion that Christians strive to maintain their faith, it is a 'fact' that they do.

>>>>>> He did not accept the need to conjure a belief in a Creator
Deity.<<<<<<<<

He did though, he did it through being who he was, allowing himself to become their idol and not
giving all glory to God.

>>>>> Did not the Lord say to not make any graven images or idols of
Himself
> in the Talmud? Yet do I not see crucifixes in most churches or around people's necks? Or the sign
> of the fish? <<<<<<<<<

The Christ you know from reading the Word is only known to you, there is no image of Him in The
Word. Read it and see.

>>>>>> Ah...let's conjure the devil - better known as the Archetypal
> Judeo-Christian scape-goat... And a symbol of the death of the intellect!<<<<<<<<<<<

Satan uses those who consider themselves to be intellectual in things not of God's way. It is the
death of humanity.

>>>>>>>>>> So anything that appears to be 'for God' is ok? Killing?
Murder? So
> called 'just wars'??? Whatever excuse you conjure, the families left really were deprived of their
> sustenance by the loss of their breadwinners. <<<<<<<<<<<

Those who knew of God's ways through Jewish law and upbringing had brought their children up in His
way too. To leave for the love of God, because it was a calling, is a great honour to those
families. The distance between their love for them and their love for God had to be so great that it
was only comparable to hate, as there is nothing else to compare it with. Jesus made sure that they
understood God's ways before they followed Him. If they were in reverant fear of the Lord God they
would have truly taught their children the meaning of God's place in their own futures. Each and any
child who's parent leaves them for God know a love beyond all loves. Jesus would have known who His
disciples were to be, He would have recognised God was with them on sight, and God will have been
with their children too?

He also made sure that people understood that there would be division and war between men because of
Him. He told the truth, this is the way of man and the price of freewill, to say otherwise would be
a lie. He was foretelling the consequence of their freewill.

The Buddha left home for Himself alone, he was not on a quest for anyone other than himself. It
would not have been an honour for his family to know that he loved _himself_ more than them, it can
only have caused them a great hurt and feelings of rejection.

>>>>> His wife and son later chose to become followers of buddha's
Noble
> Eightfold Path to liberation and it is said they both reached Enlightenment before they
> died.<<<<<<<<

If she went back to him it was a testament of her love for him, not the other way around.

>>>>>>> Lord Buddha taught us all the way to Enlightenment and
Liberation from suffering. <<<<<<<<<

By calling him lord you accept as your God, a man of sin. A man who left the seed of his future, not
to flourish but to die away, maybe to even take on bitter hatred of all he was and did. Through his
own 'wisdom' he would have had a grasp on how his child was likely to feel as he grew up.

Buddhism is like a beautiful linen with faults. Although it is substandard, it appears no less
beautiful, but for some it will never be good enough and never replace the perfection of the
original piece. Just to see it can be painful and they could never make it a cloak of peace and
serenity; nor will it be strong enough to compare with the amour of God, especially for children.
It's tool for Satan created in sin, propagated in the sin of a man who killed many, many people, and
the sin is being carried on by claiming intellectuals who could otherwise carry sword's for God's
peace in God's way.

>>>>> We all share buddha nature. Our buddha nature (holy spirit) can
be
> accessed by practice of meditation (prayer) and the cultivation of wisdom and compassion. <<<<<

No we don't we can't. All men can know The Holy Spirit, even the tiniest of children.

> The buddha never claimed to be a God, neither did he believe in any Gods. <<<<<<<<<<

Why do you call him your lord, don't you know that there is only one true Lord in your life. Why do
you take on a lord who cannot fulfil the needs of your future generations _ALL_ people in your
future generations regardless of age or abilities?

>>>>>>>>>> May the blessed bodhicitta spread throughout all realms of
being and
> bring all beings to enlightenment swiftly. <<<

There are no blessings in emptiness only your soul, until you understand the ways of God.

Carol T

 

[Carol T]

Mozz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

>>>>>> I pray Jesus found better circumstances in his next rebirth as
a human
> so he may follow the dharma and reach true liberation from suffering. <<<<<<<<<<

You pray for Jesus and yet you follow a way of life which excludes anyone who cannot reach an
intellectual reasoning because of who or what they are, especially children? It is a sin to deny a
child access to the Holy Spirit. Jesus is with us today and He can be with you too. He suffered so
that mankind would understand sacrifice in God's way, why would He have looked for any other way?
The forgiveness of sin in God's way brings peace to _all_ men, and would have done for the Buddha if
He had made a true sacrifice to God.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There is no
> requirement of 'faith' or 'belief' like Christianity demands. One can see for oneself the direct
> benefits of buddhist practice in action. <<<<<<<<<

To themselves, not to those around them. Are you truly oblivious to the fear of a child without
Jesus by their side in the midst of the night or on their death bed. To deny a child access to
knowing the one true healing Holy Spirit is a sin.

> True in your opinion. As there is in fact no God, it is untrue.<<<<<<<<

Why do you send a sign that He is to be revered as The One true Lord in your life? Look for your own
sign that I see, and if you don't see it pick up The Word, read it, and you will know for sure what
I have seen.

Carol T

 

[Dr. Andrew B. C]

Mozz wrote:

> Hello Andrew,
>
> >Hi Mozz,
> >
> >Glad to see that I haven't frightened you away with my truthfulness.
>
> I have nothing to fear from your erroneous beliefs. I am pleased to remain and with good intention
> and patience, point out your mistakes.
>

Better to believe in something...

than to believe in emptiness.

> >Is it your belief that an oral tradition is better than a written tradition?
>
> Whether oral or written it is the essence of the message that matters most.
>
> There are many factors to consider here, such as the historical and cultural circumstances and
> context. All of the ancient religions and great spiritual movements begin at a point of oral
> transmission. There are usually many decades or even hundreds of years until collected written
> parchments. Yet the measure of these spiritual paths lies more in the benefits gained through
> spiritual practice rather than accuracy of the 'founder's biography'. As you know, even within
> your Christian tradition there are a multitude of interpretations as to what is or what is not the
> correct approach to Christian practice. The only honest way we can discern the value of the
> teachings ourselves is by sincere and genuine putting into practice of that what is written. In
> Buddhism we have an excellent and detailed record of teachings passed down from Siddhartha and his
> followers through centuries of monastic practice to the present day, with commentaries from many
> other enlightened individuals who offer advice and encouragement from their own experience.
>
> I would say to anyone who might feel some interest in buddhist practice to give it a go. Try it
> for a while. If it doesn't feel right for you yet then let it go and try something else.
>

Why are you insecure about the oral tradition of dharma?

> >
> >>
> >> >This is called a discussion.
> >>
> >> Respectfully Andrew, you appear to conduct your 'discussions' in a rather adversarial manner
> >> (and not only the ones with me). Perhaps you are unconsciously doing so?
> >>
> >
> >I am conscious of being truthful.
>
> >> >Whether I doubt you should not concern you.
> >>
> >> Why not?
> >
> >Such concern may prove damaging to your "samsara."
>
> One aspect of samsara can prove no more or less damaging than any other. All samsara is ultimately
> illusory.
>

Illusions are fragile for they are easily dispelled.

>
> >Would suggest you make up your mind about whether I am passive or active.
>
> Such is your dilemma Andrew -

Your mind is not my dilemma, Mozz.

> You attempt to cover your truly aggressive intent yet There is quite clearly an aggressive flavour
> latent in the content of most of your posts. However, you refuse to accept your aggressive,
> intolerant or prejudiced attitudes by adopting the passive persona of 'Servant to the humblest
> person in the universe'.

It is ironic that you see aggression in humility.

> Take some responsibility for your own actions.
>

I take responsibility for the choices I make.

> >This does not seem to bode well for your state of enlightenment.
>
> Respectfully, you appear to understand very little regarding buddhist practice and even less about
> people's states of mind.
>

Sounds like the truth does not sit well with you.

>
> >> >I see this as a discussion, an activity for information exchange.
> >>
> >> And here an example of your ambivalence and defensiveness to truly exchange anything of worth.
> >> You seem to need to define the paramaters of discussion at it's most basic structural framework
> >> - the exchange of information - data - just like computers sharing files.
> >
> >It would seem that you are unable to see past your computer.
>
> Clearly I can see past my computer to have written the analogy above - why have you chosen another
> barbed response?
>

Why do you see the truth as "barbed" ?

>
> >Do you have it within you to overcome your difficulties?
>
> What difficullties do you refer to?
>

*Your* difficulties.

>
> >Or will you need help from others?
>
> Are you trying to say that in your opinion I am in need of help?
>

A question is not an opinion.

>
> >> You make a conscious point of leaving out the actual reason for discussions, which is to touch
> >> others lives in a meaningful way, to inspire where possible, to share feelings as well as data,
> >> and most of all - to allow for the possibility of change in the individual - in both yourself
> >> and others.
> >
> >Imho, such touching and sharing of feelings are best done in person rather than via a computer
> >keyboard.
>
> Why? The ability to touch lives is inherent in all forms of communication.

Imho, the touching and sharing of feelings are *best* done in person.

> Have you ever been moved by something you have read in a book?
>

Yes. I have been moved by things I have read in a book(s) but I would not characterize this as a
sharing of feelings between myself and the author(s).

>
> >> >You do not believe in God and yet you recognize a "disregard for fairness."
> >>
> >> I do not call a disregard for fairness a sin. It is a disregard for fairness.
>
> >Then why did you call it a "flagrant" disregard?
>
> Flagrant would indicate that I felt it was quite a serious disregard.
>

"Flagrant" and "serious" are adjectives that describe sin.

>
> >> >To kill another is unfair.
> >>
> >> I agree
> >>
> >
> >and thus a sin.
>
> You are deliberately being obtuse here.

I am being truthful.

> You know full well what I mean when I say it is unnecessary to label killing a 'sin' for it to
> resonate with any moral meaning.

I know full well what you are trying to hide.

>
> >> >To steal from another is unfair.
> >>
> >> I agree
> >>
> >
> >and thus a sin.
>
> See above.
>

Please do.

>
> >> >To bear false witness regarding another is unfair.
> >>
> >> I agree, yet none of these moral points need be called 'sin' or indeed have any connection to a
> >> God or religion to remain valid.
> >>
> >
> >And yet, folks who do not believe in God, recognize these as sins and have enacted laws to punish
> >those who would sin.
>
> Which proves nothing.

Perhaps you should meditate here.

> Sins are seperate from secular morality. It's a fact. They are called 'laws' not 'sins'.
>

Sins not only separates one from God but also separates one from the rest of God's creation.

The laws are in place for the latter phenomenon.

>
> >> >(Stephen likely will chime in right about here claiming to be unfairly accused of
> >> >cyberstalking... this is to be expected because the untruthful will often see truth as being
> >> >unfair to them)
> >>
> >> Stop right there Andrew and take a breath.
> >
> >It remains an illustrative example about sin and your recognition of it.
>
> It remains an unnecessary one and a highly unskilful provocative choice at that.

You seem taken to this example.

> >> Was that cheap shot aimed at Stephen (whoever he may be) necessary in our 'discussion'?
> >
> >It was not a cheap shot.
>
> That is a value judgement we can disagree on and others may draw their own conclusions.
>

Though you and others may choose to judge, I have chosen to let God judge.

>
> >
> >> Was it even a Christian thing to do?
> >
> >Writing truthfully is a Christian thing.
>
> Are you of the opinion that non-Christians are unable to write truthfully?
>

No.

Non-Christians may certainly choose to act like Christians.

>
> >> Can you not let go of things like that?
> >
> >I have. God will judge.
>
> If you had let go, you would not have brought it up.
>

Letting go is not the same thing as forgetting.

> >> It does you no credit at all and certainly has the opposite affect of 'glorifying your God'.
> >
> >I remain obedient to God.
>
> Obedient to your imagination and lack of insight.
>

Why does my obedience to God distress you?

> >> Could you honestly imagine Jesus behaving in the same way as you did here?
> >
> >Jesus would be more blunt about the "plank" that is the eye of those who would judge.
>
> So you know what Jesus would say do you?
>

Honestly, I can imagine it.

> >> Can you not turn the other cheek instead of stoking the fires that are clearly provocative?
> >
> >It remains my choice to walk with Jesus where ever His path may take us.
>
> How do you know what direction to take?

In the same manner that I know how to respond to your questions and comments about Jesus.

> Do you hear the voice of Jesus speaking to you?
>

No.

> >> You see, this is your passive-aggressive nature unchecked again. Try to take heed my friend.
> >
> >Why are you fearful?
>
> I am not fearful. Do you believe that I am?

Your language suggests that you are.

> >The wise man knows better than to deny God, who is the Creator.
>
> Buddha was a wise man yet he denied the need to conjure a Creator deity.
>

Buddha turned his back on God. This shows that Buddha was not infallible.

>
> >> There is no beginning to time and there will be no end.
>
> >That would make Buddha even more insignificant.
>
> Explain why you think this is so my friend?
>

It is in the mathematics of infinite time and Buddha being present in only a finite part
of the time.

Buddha has been present for 0% of infinite time.

>
> >> Explain to me why there is a need to believe in a creator deity?
> >
> >If there were a need, a case could be made that God is only fiction.
>
> I make that very case.
>

And your case is unmade by the absence of a need to believe in a creator deity.

>
> >Siddhartha felt a need to end human suffering. He was probably dismayed to discover that he did
> >not have such power
>
> Siddhartha never once claimed to have the power to end the suffering of others.

It is my understanding that he searched for this power.

> Infact quite the opposite - he stressed that it was only through the efforts of the individual in
> their diligent practice of the dharma that they would reach liberation from suffering.

It seems that Siddhartha believed the dharma was this power.

>
>
> > And, so he probably had a need to believe in emptiness in order to escape his disappointment
>
> The above invalidates this assumption.
>

Hardly.

>
> >Where there is need, there is motivation for fiction.
>
> Ah...hence the Bible.
>

The Bible is like an authorized biography for God. Biographies are hardly works of fiction.

The dharma is another story.

>
> >> >In truth, our sins are the cause of our suffering.
> >> (our suffering is caused by afflictive emotion and ignorance of the truth that all emptiness is
> >> form and all form is emptiness)
> >>
> >One way to seemingly escape suffering is by denying suffering exists.
>
> Buddha neither denied suffering exists nor did he 'seemingly' escape
> it. He did liberate himself from it.
>

... by placing his faith in emptiness.

>
> >> >Jesus recognized this because He had no sin. The only times He suffered during His time as a
> >> >"son of man" was when He took our sins upon Himself.
> >> Being a man, Jesus lived in samsaric realm therefore he would not have escaped suffering unless
> >> he too had followed the dharma.
> >
> >Being God, Jesus suffered by choice.
>
> Did Jesus not cry out on the cross 'Father, why have thou forsaken me?'

So it is written.

> To whom was God talking when He said this?
>

God the Son was talking to God the Father as prophesied.

>
> >>
> >> > First, when He fasted and suffered from hunger as Satan tempted Him. Recall that succumbing
> >> > to temptation to eat something forbidden and thereby violating God's One Commandment was how
> >> > Adam and Eve sinned .
> >> Jesus was most unskilful here. To fast to excess (as buddha himself discovered when first
> >> seeking enlightenment) is not the Middle Way.
> >
> >Without excesses, there can be no "middle way".
>
> Did Jesus learn the wisdom of the middle way from his experience?
>

Being that Jesus is God, who is all-knowing, there is nothing for Him to learn.

> >> If a string on a bow is too tight it will break when played, if too loose it will not play at
> >> all. The same for how kind or harsh we are with ourselves.
> >
> >Knowing the right tension comes from the experience of a string that is too tight and too loose.
>
> Agreed.
>
> >>
> >> >Second, when He suffered from anger at money changing being conducted at a synagogue. Recall
> >> >that the reason for the money changing was the graven images of a god-emperor on the coins.
> >> >This is a violation of the first two of God's X Commandments.
> >>
> >> Anger is an afflictive emotion and not at all conducive to an enlightened state of mind. Jesus
> >> would have created negative karma and suffering for himself by giving in to anger.
> >
> >He chose to take on the suffering which are the wages of sin.
>
> In what practical way did this help others to overcome their suffering?

By showing us the way to enter God's eternal kingdom as unblemished souls.

> What practices did He lay down that others my see the benefits in this lifetime?

His teachings guide us.

> Where is the Christian dharma?
>

There is no Christian dharma. There is Christ.

> >> >Third, when He suffered from the pain of death as a consequence of the false witnessing by
> >> >men, we end up seeing many of the rest of the X Commandments violated (III, VI, VIII, IX, X).
> >>
> >> I pray Jesus found better circumstances in his next rebirth as a human so he may follow the
> >> dharma and reach true liberation from suffering.
> >>
> >
> >Jesus was resurrected and now sits with His Father in heaven. There will be no rebirth. There
> >will be a second coming.
>
> Are the thousand years not long gone? Where is he? You must be anxious by now.
>

Jesus teaches as written in Matthew 28:

16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go.
17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said,
"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples
of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always,
to the very end of the age."

There will be an "end."

Not only did God predict it... it is a statistical certainty in all predictive mathematical models
that incorporate cosmic events that destroy planets like earth.

God only knows when.

>
> >> The difference between Christian theology and Buddhist practice is that whether buddha existed
> >> or not is irrelevant.
> >
> >Your defense of Siddhartha's background would suggest otherwise.
>
> I merely offer the truth.
>

In truth, you do not really know.

>
> >> What is of ultimate value is the teachings - the dharma - which has been put into practice by
> >> millions of people all over the world, the benefit of which can be experienced by anyone
> >> willing to make the effort.
> >
> >Then why the reverence toward buddha, whom you call "lord" ?
>
> Respect.
>

Things that are "irrelevant" hardly deserve respect.

>
> >> There is no requirement of 'faith' or 'belief' like Christianity demands.
> >
> >A Christian is defined as one who has accepted Christ as his/her Lord and Savior.
>
> >A buddhist is defined as one who believes that following buddha will end their suffering.
>
> >Does buddhism demand "faith" in buddha's teachings?
>
> No. A practitioner may see the benefit of the dharma for themselves.
>

Is a practitioner who does not see any benefit of the dharma still a buddhist?

>
> >> One can see for oneself the direct benefits of buddhist practice in action.
> >>
> >
> >One can see for oneself the truth in God's word.
>
> There is no such thing as God.
>

Then how do you explain the truth?

>
> >> >Does anyone have a recording of what Jesus said?
> >>
> >> No
> >
> >Therefore no evidence.
>
> I agree. There is no evidence that Christ said anything.
>

And no evidence that Christ did not say anything.

>
> >Buddha is a myth for the anti-christians. You claim that buddha's teaching are ultimately true.
> >They ignore you because they know that Buddha is a myth.
>
> If what you say were true, anyone's choice to ignore me is up to them.

It is.

>
> The benefit of the dharma can be attested to regardless of whether buddha were a myth or not.
>

Buddha being a myth would be a negative attestation.

>
> >Jesus has said that He is the truth.
> >
> >Has Buddha ever made this claim?
>
> The buddha said to test everything said to be true from any teacher, including himself.

Sounds like he was not certain.

> The truth of his teachings are example of his validity.

Truth is certain.

> >Since you claim that the Dalai Lama has already reached enlightenment, why does he keep being
> >reborn?
>
> The Dalai Lamas are the embodiment of Chenrezig, the Bodhisattva of Compassion. He is a highly
> realized practitioner who has vowed to continually deliberately take rebirths in samsara until all
> beings are freed from suffering and have reached enlightenment.
>

Why does he care if he has faith in emptiness?

>
> >> >> Christianity is on the wane and Islam on the rise...
> >> >
> >> >Not if their followers continue to commit suicide-bombings and other acts of terrorism.
> >>
> >> Most Muslims are peaceful and condemn the minority who perpetrate these atrocities. Why do you
> >> choose to discount the vast majority to high light the minority? Imbalance again Andrew?
> >> Disingenuous?
> >>
> >
> >Simply being truthful.
>
> Are you saying that the majority of Muslims are suicide bombers and/or terrorists?
>

No.

However, I do believe that the majority of Muslims will be destroyed because of the
actions of a few.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?T13943F77

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867

 

[Stephen Nagler]

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 19:59:49 -0500, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<[email protected]> wrote in part:

>Though you and others may choose to judge, I have chosen to let God judge.

.................

Not a very humble statement, Dr. Chung.

Why?

Because it's not your choice to make.

It's a fact.

And that fact will cost you dearly ... for eternity.

God doesn't like it when Man bears false witness against his neighbor.

He doesn't like it in Atlanta.

And he didn't like it in Ocala.

I suggest you repent and show sincere remorse for your sins. I say this not in anger. I say this in
the hopes that it is not too late for you.

Eternity is a very very long time.

smn

 

[Mozz]

Hello Carol,

Nice to chat with you.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you will be pleasently
>> surprised to find that it was one of the most civilised and highly developed cultural regions in
>> the world.
>
>It was the Indian dark age, the Vedic Period !

There is much misunderstanding regarding this so-called Vedic Period in Indian History. Around
the time of Siddhartha (500 bce) the older caste systems were being challenged, a new merchant
economy was blossoming challenging the power of the Brahmins (Priestly Caste) and there was a new
sense of individualism dawning. The older Vedic Deities were no longer being worshipped in the
same ways, even animal sacrifices were becoming a thing of the past. All in all a rather
enlightened time in the Axial Age. The Magadha monarchy (of which Ashoka was eventually born)
were still in their infancy.

>Buddhism came after, propagated by Ashoka who was horrified at the carnage he'd caused in war.
>He too would have been in need of forgiveness, and he too tried to put things right as the
>Buddha did by attempting to do great things. It was not a climate that you would be able to
>compare with today.

Ashoka was not a buddha (awakened being).

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They were viewed as heroic, regardless of position or
>> education. Infact, many were highly educated, and Siddhartha would not have been seen as an
>> exception in that regard. <<<<<<<<<<
>
>The Buddha was NOT a Holy man. He may have been revered, this is different.

Respectfully Carol, the dictionary definition of 'holy' is - 'Morally and spiritually excellent or
perfect, and to be revered'. Thus by your own admission he was 'revered' - a holy man.

>>>>>>> He did not accept the need to conjure a belief in a Creator
>Deity.<<<<<<<<
>
>He did though, he did it through being who he was, allowing himself to become their idol and not
>giving all glory to God.

Respectfully, Siddhartha was a human being. He taught extensively against idolatry and placing faith
in 'things' - including belief in Gods.

>>>>>> Did not the Lord say to not make any graven images or idols of
>Himself
>> in the Talmud? Yet do I not see crucifixes in most churches or around people's necks? Or the sign
>> of the fish? <<<<<<<<<
>
>The Christ you know from reading the Word is only known to you, there is no image of Him in The
>Word. Read it and see.

I have studied the Gospels Carol. Christ was 'described' to me by the authors of the synoptic
gospels. It is a very beautiful story, but only a story nevertheless. Christ is a representation of
the Archetype of Self (or Wholeness - hence holy) in reality it is this unconscious 'force' that you
are responding to.

>>>>>>> Ah...let's conjure the devil - better known as the Archetypal
>> Judeo-Christian scape-goat... And a symbol of the death of the intellect!<<<<<<<<<<<
>
>Satan uses those who consider themselves to be intellectual in things not of God's way. It is the
>death of humanity.

The Roman Church used the very same arguement against Galileo.

>>>>>>>>>>> So anything that appears to be 'for God' is ok? Killing?
>Murder? So
>> called 'just wars'??? Whatever excuse you conjure, the families left really were deprived of
>> their sustenance by the loss of their breadwinners. <<<<<<<<<<<
>
>Those who knew of God's ways through Jewish law and upbringing had brought their children up in His
>way too. To leave for the love of God, because it was a calling, is a great honour to those
>families. The distance between their love for them and their love for God had to be so great that
>it was only comparable to hate, as there is nothing else to compare it with. Jesus made sure that
>they understood God's ways before they followed Him. If they were in reverant fear of the Lord God
>they would have truly taught their children the meaning of God's place in their own futures. Each
>and any child who's parent leaves them for God know a love beyond all loves. Jesus would have known
>who His disciples were to be, He would have recognised God was with them on sight, and God will
>have been with their children too? He also made sure that people understood that there would be
>division and war between men because of Him. He told the truth, this is the way of man and the
>price of freewill, to say otherwise would be a lie. He was foretelling the consequence of their
>freewill.
>
> The Buddha left home for Himself alone, he was not on a quest for anyone other than himself.

And yet through doing so he discovered the path to the cessation of suffering, and spent his life
teaching the path so all beings can be freed.

>It would not have been an honour for his family to know that he loved _himself_ more than them, it
>can only have caused them a great hurt and feelings of rejection.

Karen Armstrong spent seven years as a Roman Catholic nun. She is the author of worldwide bestseller
A History Of God, the highly acclaimed History Of Jerusalem, and Battle For God. In her book
'Buddha' (remembering she is a highly respected Christian) - "Siddhartha took it for granted that
family life was incompatible with the highest forms of spirituality. It was a perception shared not
only by other aescetics of India, but also by Jesus, who would later tell potential disciples that
they must leave their wives and children and abandon their aged relatives if they wanted to follow
him. Siddhartha and Jesus would not therefore have agreed with our current cult of 'family values'.
Nor would his contemporaries or near-contemporaries in other parts of the world, such as Confucious
and Socrates. (page 2 chapter
1)

>>>>>> His wife and son later chose to become followers of buddha's
>Noble
>> Eightfold Path to liberation and it is said they both reached Enlightenment before they
>> died.<<<<<<<<
>
>If she went back to him it was a testament of her love for him, not the other way around.

That is your assumption. In truth, we can not know.

>>>>>>>> Lord Buddha taught us all the way to Enlightenment and
>Liberation from suffering. <<<<<<<<<
>
>By calling him lord you accept as your God, a man of sin.

Buddha is not a God. I do not 'worship' him as such. I do not believe in Gods. I reject your notion
of sin, as I do not believe in the God the concept is founded upon.

>A man who left the seed of his future, not to flourish but to die away, maybe to even take on
>bitter hatred of all he was and did. Through his own 'wisdom' he would have had a grasp on how his
>child was likely to feel as he grew up.

His son Rahula grew up to follow his father also, and was reported to have taught the dharma himself
before he reached enlightenment.

>Buddhism is like a beautiful linen with faults. Although it is substandard, it appears no less
>beautiful, but for some it will never be good enough and never replace the perfection of the
>original piece. Just to see it can be painful and they could never make it a cloak of peace and
>serenity; nor will it be strong enough to compare with the amour of God, especially for children.
>It's tool for Satan created in sin, propagated in the sin of a man who killed many, many people,
>and the sin is being carried on by claiming intellectuals who could otherwise carry sword's for
>God's peace in God's way.

Respectfully, I disagree entirely with this notion. However, if that is what you wish to believe and
I cannot persuade you otherwise, then peace be with you.

>>>>>> We all share buddha nature. Our buddha nature (holy spirit) can
>be
>> accessed by practice of meditation (prayer) and the cultivation of wisdom and compassion. <<<<<
>
>No we don't we can't. All men can know The Holy Spirit, even the tiniest of children.

I teach meditation to toddlers at my buddhist centre here in London. You would be surprised at what
children can understand and intuit.

>> The buddha never claimed to be a God, neither did he believe in any Gods. <<<<<<<<<<
>
>Why do you call him your lord, don't you know that there is only one true Lord in your life. Why do
>you take on a lord who cannot fulfil the needs of your future generations _ALL_ people in your
>future generations regardless of age or abilities?

Lord is a term of reverance. Respect. The dharma can be practiced by all people at all levels of
understanding. There are many approaches to practice, as I said, even small children take to it
like ducks to water and get immense joy from it. The future generations will embrace the dharma, I
have no doubt.

>>>>>>>>>>> May the blessed bodhicitta spread throughout all realms of
>being and
>> bring all beings to enlightenment swiftly. <<<
>
>There are no blessings in emptiness only your soul, until you understand the ways of God.

Emptiness is not 'voidness' or absence of anything. It is the nature of all things in relation to
each other. Nothing exists from it's own side in and of itself.

You remain in my prayers.

Mozz x

 

[Mozz]

Hello again Carol,

>>>>>>> I pray Jesus found better circumstances in his next rebirth as
>a human
>> so he may follow the dharma and reach true liberation from suffering. <<<<<<<<<<
>
>You pray for Jesus and yet you follow a way of life which excludes anyone who cannot reach an
>intellectual reasoning because of who or what they are, especially children?

Respectfully, the dharma does not exclude anyone. Including children.

> It is a sin to deny a child access to the Holy Spirit. Jesus is with us today and He can be with
> you too. He suffered so that mankind would understand sacrifice in God's way, why would He have
> looked for any other way? The forgiveness of sin in God's way brings peace to _all_ men, and would
> have done for the Buddha if He had made a true sacrifice to God.

That is your belief. Buddha brings peace to all men through the diligent practice of the dharma.
There is no need to conjure up any Gods in this regard.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There is no
>> requirement of 'faith' or 'belief' like Christianity demands. One can see for oneself the direct
>> benefits of buddhist practice in action. <<<<<<<<<
>
>To themselves, not to those around them. Are you truly oblivious to the fear of a child without
>Jesus by their side in the midst of the night or on their death bed. To deny a child access to
>knowing the one true healing Holy Spirit is a sin.

The development of compassion and love is paramount to Buddhist practice. Children in India, China
or Tibet have been comforted by the buddha at their side in the midst of the night also. All have
instinctive access to their buddha nature.

>> True in your opinion. As there is in fact no God, it is untrue.<<<<<<<<
>
>Why do you send a sign that He is to be revered as The One true Lord in your life? Look for your
>own sign that I see, and if you don't see it pick up The Word, read it, and you will know for sure
>what I have seen.

Respectfully Carol, we shall have to agree to disagree.

Peace be with you.

Mozz x

 

[Mozz]

>> >You can't serve God and embrace emptiness.
>>
>> All is emptiness ultimately.
>>
>
>1 --> true --> God
>
> --> false --> emptiness
>
>The 0 state defines the 1 state by their difference.
>
>What is false defines what is true by their difference.
>
>Emptiness defines God by their difference.
>
>This is pure logic.

Logic merely allows one to be wrong with authority ;-)

Of course, just reverse the equation and Emptiness is truth while God is false. With which I
would concur.

>> >Your buddha now knows better for he now knows the truth.
>>
>> Agreed. And the truth is that all is emptiness.
>>
>
>The truth is God.

We must agree to disagree.

>
>>
>> >If all you are getting from this discussion is propaganda, why are you here?
>>
>> Would you rather I left?

>No.
>
>Now, try to answer the question.

I am here with good intention to point out your erroneous beliefs.

>Have you reached Nirvana?

I am working my way towards it.

>>
>> >Do you really believe that you do not need anyone else?
>>
>> I know it. Practice the dharma and you too will not need anyone else's agency in your
>> 'salvation'.
>
>Will practicing the dharma keep you from suffering the pains associated with aging and death?

Ultimately yes.

>> do you also believe that God made the world in 6 days and on the 7th rested?
>>
>
>No. I do believe that God made the universe and everything in it within a short span of time. Since
>days are measured in terms of revolutions of the earth, I am open to the possibility that the
>"days" *before* earth even existed are God's own arbitrary units of time.

Striving to fit the facts in with the fiction wherever possible?

>> do you believe in the Flood and that Noah built an ark large enough to carry two of every animal
>> and that he did so?
>>
>
>There is archeological evidence for a great flood.

Over the whole world? And two of every animal?

>> do you believe Lot's wife truly turned into a pillar of salt?
>
>Would be a small feat for a God that made the universe and everything in it.
>
>>
>> do you believe there really was a Tower of Babel that reached up to Heaven?
>
>The twin towers of the WTC reached upward toward Heaven.

They hardly reached Heaven did they. And do you believe Heaven is above the clouds geographically?

>> Please tell me.
>
>You are starting to sound desperate.

No, I'm not in the least desperate. Perhaps you wiould like to think I am?

>
>Perhaps you should be more truthful to yourself.
>
I am truthful. Are you?

>Do you know of any studies that unequivocally shows that meditation alone effectively lowers
>resting blood pressure?

I know of studies that showed a reduction in bp from meditation, but it was quite a while ago. I'll
see if I can dig them out if you're interested.

>> >> >Why do you feel the need to defend aspects of Siddhartha's life?
>> >>
>> >> I feel it is only right to point out errors others make> in ignorance of the facts regarding
>> >> Siddhartha's life.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Sounds like these "errors" wound you.
>>
>> I value fairness, impartiality and truth. I do not take anything others may say about buddhism
>> personally.
>>
>
>Your language betrays you.

I speak only truth.

>> >When was this "final birth" ?
>>
>> 500 years ago.
>
>Is Dalai Lama 500 years old?

Chenrezig is ageless.

>> >> This elusive architect is Craving or Attachment, a self created force latent in all.
>> >>
>> >
>> >So you believe in self-creation?
>>
>> Craving or Attachment is a self created force.
>>
>
>And this self created force created you?

When you say 'me' what do you mean precisely? What can you point to that is actually independently
'me' without reference to other things? Is my arm me? No...it's my arm. Is my personality 'me'? No,
it's a complex of psychological and behavioural complexes...etc

You remain in my prayers

Mozz x

 

[Mozz]

>Better to believe in something...
>
>than to believe in emptiness.

All form is emptiness, all emptiness is form. That's the truth.
>
>
>> >Is it your belief that an oral tradition is better than a written tradition?
>>
>> Whether oral or written it is the essence of the message that matters most.
>>
>
>Why are you insecure about the oral tradition of dharma?

I am not.

>> One aspect of samsara can prove no more or less damaging than any other. All samsara is
>> ultimately illusory.
>>
>
>Illusions are fragile for they are easily dispelled.

And yet you find it impossible to dispel your illusory belief in God

>> You attempt to cover your truly aggressive intent yet There is quite clearly an aggressive
>> flavour latent in the content of most of your posts. However, you refuse to accept your
>> aggressive, intolerant or prejudiced attitudes by adopting the passive persona of 'Servant to the
>> humblest person in the universe'.
>
>It is ironic that you see aggression in humility.

I am familiar with genuine humility from many fellow buddhists, I can discern little genuine
humility in your posts.

>> >This does not seem to bode well for your state of enlightenment.
>>
>> Respectfully, you appear to understand very little regarding buddhist practice and even less
>> about people's states of mind.
>>
>
>Sounds like the truth does not sit well with you.

It sits perfectly well.

>> Clearly I can see past my computer to have written the analogy above - why have you chosen
>> another barbed response?
>
>Why do you see the truth as "barbed" ?

Why don't you see the truth at all?
>
>>
>> >Do you have it within you to overcome your difficulties?
>>
>> What difficullties do you refer to?
>>
>
>*Your* difficulties.

I have no difficulties.

>
>"Flagrant" and "serious" are adjectives that describe sin.

There is no such thing as sin.

>> >> There is no beginning to time and there will be no end.
>>
>> >That would make Buddha even more insignificant.
>>
>> Explain why you think this is so my friend?
>
>It is in the mathematics of infinite time and Buddha being present in only a finite part of
>the time.
>
>Buddha has been present for 0% of infinite time.

And yet he remains significant for millions.

>> >Siddhartha felt a need to end human suffering. He was probably dismayed to discover that he did
>> >not have such power
>>
>> Siddhartha never once claimed to have the power to end the suffering of others.
>
>It is my understanding that he searched for this power.

You are mistaken in that understanding.

>> Infact quite the opposite - he stressed that it was only through the efforts of the individual in
>> their diligent practice of the dharma that they would reach liberation from suffering.
>
>It seems that Siddhartha believed the dharma was this power.

The dharma was his path to the cessation of suffering.

>> > And, so he probably had a need to believe in emptiness in order to escape his disappointment
>>
>> The above invalidates this assumption.
>>
>
>Hardly.

Look again.
>
>>
>> >Where there is need, there is motivation for fiction.
>>
>> Ah...hence the Bible.
>>
>
>The Bible is like an authorized biography for God. Biographies are hardly works of fiction.
>
>The dharma is another story.

The dharma are teachings to be practiced.

>> Buddha neither denied suffering exists nor did he 'seemingly' escape
>> it. He did liberate himself from it.
>>
>
>... by placing his faith in emptiness.

By 'realizing' emptiness and cultivating compassion for the benefit of all sentient beings.

>> Did Jesus not cry out on the cross 'Father, why have thou forsaken me?'
>
>So it is written.
>
>> To whom was God talking when He said this?
>>
>
>God the Son was talking to God the Father as prophesied.

God is schizophrenic?

>> In what practical way did this help others to overcome their suffering?
>
>By showing us the way to enter God's eternal kingdom as unblemished souls.

Has he showed you the way? Have been their yet?

>
>> What practices did He lay down that others my see the benefits in this lifetime?
>
>His teachings guide us.

Hardly

>There will be an "end."
>
>Not only did God predict it... it is a statistical certainty in all predictive mathematical models
>that incorporate cosmic events that destroy planets like earth.

Buddhism teaches that this Universe will eventually cease and then a new Universe is reborn as has
happened again and again throughout beginningless time...

>> >Then why the reverence toward buddha, whom you call "lord" ?
>>
>> Respect.
>
>Things that are "irrelevant" hardly deserve respect.

I agree. Buddha is relevant.

>>
>> The buddha said to test everything said to be true from any teacher, including himself.
>
>Sounds like he was not certain.

He was honest.

>> The truth of his teachings are example of his validity.
>
>Truth is certain.
>
>> >Since you claim that the Dalai Lama has already reached enlightenment, why does he keep being
>> >reborn?
>>
>> The Dalai Lamas are the embodiment of Chenrezig, the Bodhisattva of Compassion. He is a highly
>> realized practitioner who has vowed to continually deliberately take rebirths in samsara until
>> all beings are freed from suffering and have reached enlightenment.
>>
>
>Why does he care if he has faith in emptiness?

He is the bodhisattva of compassion. He loves all beings and cares for their ultimate well being. He
helps us to eventually realize emptiness for ourselves.

>> Are you saying that the majority of Muslims are suicide bombers and/or terrorists?
>
>No.
>
>However, I do believe that the majority of Muslims will be destroyed because of the actions
>of a few.

Why?

Peace be with you

Mozz x

 

[Smoke]

Dear Mozz Please watch your back, for the religious alcoholic "Carol T" is on your case. The trend
is for Dr Chung to lead the charge with his first lieutenant MU coming into play when Chung is
losing the battle, expect to hear from him soon. "Carol T" normally enters the arena at this point
with fire and brimstone expelling from her mouth along with a bombardment of verses from the Bible.
When MU (the axe man) arrives, (and he will arrive, unless he is of hacking someone else to death
in some other NG) he will enter with both axes blazing and he don't take prisoners, you will
recognise him by his ever changing sig, MU, MUle, and my favourite MUngrel. Because they are the
epitome of all religious alcoholics, they do this, in the name of Christianity. Please take care,
yours truly, Smoke

>snip

 

[Carol T]

Mozz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Respectfully, the dharma does not exclude anyone. Including children.

He is not their God, he cannot be there for them in their time of need. Let your own intellect hear
this next time you meditate. Let yourself reach true enlightenment to the needs of children and
understanding of God's way.

>>>>>>>>> Children in India, China or Tibet have been comforted by the
> buddha at their side in the midst of the night also. <<<<<<<

HOW?????????? He is not a God, he is not one with the Holy Spirit. This is not compassion or
understanding, all you have learned is to believe something that's not true about children's needs.
To deny children's needs is another form of suppression. To deny them the Holy Spirit is a sin now
and for their future generations.

> Respectfully Carol, we shall have to agree to disagree.

I asked you, why do you send a sign that God is to be revered as The One true Lord in your life? The
Buddha's wisdom hasn't taught you to see what I have seen in you.

"Let a man so consider us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. In this
case, moreover, it is required of stewards that one be found trustworthy. But to me it is a very
small thing that I may be examined by you, or by {any} human court; in fact, I do not even examine
myself. For I know nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is
the Lord." 1 Corinthians
4:1-4

Carol T

 

[Stephen Nagler]

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 09:37:46 GMT, "Smoke" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Dear Mozz Please watch your back, for the religious alcoholic "Carol T" is on your case. The trend
>is for Dr Chung to lead the charge with his first lieutenant MU coming into play when Chung is
>losing the battle, expect to hear from him soon. "Carol T" normally enters the arena at this point
>with fire and brimstone expelling from her mouth along with a bombardment of verses from the Bible.
>When MU (the axe man) arrives, (and he will arrive, unless he is of hacking someone else to death
>in some other NG) he will enter with both axes blazing and he don't take prisoners, you will
>recognise him by his ever changing sig, MU, MUle, and my favourite MUngrel. Because they are the
>epitome of all religious alcoholics, they do this, in the name of Christianity. Please take care,
>yours truly, Smoke
>

.............

I confess that I posted a few times in that thread as well - most recently on 2/25. That post was
not in response to Chung's bait and very obvious cheap shot - but rather with a very clear message
to him in the hopes that he would see the light, repent, and show true remorse for his sins.

http://tinyurl.com/2ro52

smn

 

[Carol T]

Mozz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> There is much misunderstanding regarding this so-called Vedic Period in Indian History.

The Buddha's time was a bloody history, it was around 250 years later that it calmed by a man who
was horrified at his own terrible deeds. How does man rectify the evil he has done without seeking
forgiveness? He simply seeks to justify it with his own wise ways. All that is in his own mind is to
seek peace for his 'own soul' and not true forgiveness for the dreadful things he has done.

>>>>>> Ashoka was not a buddha (awakened being).<<<<

He was the propagator of Buddhism through his own need for forgiveness. The fact that you even
consider him not to be 'awaken' would surely make you wonder why, considering his attempts to
rectify all he had done. You cannot separate his evil acts from the routes of Buddhism.

>>>>>>>>> Respectfully Carol, the dictionary definition of 'holy' is -
'Morally
> and spiritually excellent or perfect, and to be revered'. Thus by your own admission he was
> 'revered' - a holy man. <<<<<<<<<<<

He wasn't spiritually excellent or perfect. His ways deny children and people of less ability access
to The Holy Spirit. Being revered does not make someone holy.

>>>>>>>>> Respectfully, Siddhartha was a human being. He taught
extensively
> against idolatry and placing faith in 'things' - including belief in Gods. <<<<<

He failed, he knew those he was with and how they were, he knew that they were idolising him. He
cannot have failed to see that he had created in himself, an image of a living god before others. He
did what made himself feel good, not for the good of others.

> I have studied the Gospels Carol. Christ was 'described' to me by the authors of the synoptic
> gospels.<<<<<<<<<

There is no physical description of the Christ.

>>>>>>>>> The Roman Church used the very same arguement against
Galileo. <<<<<<<<<

Galileo wasn't setting himself up as God.

> And yet through doing so he discovered the path to the cessation of suffering, and spent his life
> teaching the path so all beings can be freed.

He discovered a path that made himself feel better. It is through helping others that he increased
his lowered self esteem. That's the crux of it. He left an innocent child, he had little choice but
to make his greatness, his only other option was to go back to his family. His philosophy suited his
own needs first and foremost.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Siddhartha took
> it for granted that family life was incompatible with the highest forms of spirituality.
> <<<<<<<<<<<<

You've missed the point. The Buddha's family didn't know God, he left the seed of his future to grow
up without any spiritual guidence, because he himself wasn't good enough to create that future in
his child. Without knowing God there was no understanding, no wisdom and no Holy Spirit for them to
understand. As his fame increased, so their suffering and confusion would have increased also. He
will have known this and if he was the caring man you think he was, his own torment for this will
have increased daily. To create a suffering only to supposedly 'enlighten' someone to know how to
suppress it is a despicable and cruel thing.

Jesus understood that if God was with a man then his family were with God too. The Holy Spirit is
one and the same for all the family and each will have understood that same love the disciple had.
They will not have suffered the loss and confusion the Buddha child will have grown up with
because they were one with The Spirit of God. Family values, love and prayer are intrinsic to the
ways of God.

>>>>>>>>>> >If she went back to him it was a testament of her love for
him, not
> >the other way around.
>
> That is your assumption. In truth, we can not know. <<<<<<<<<

Use your knowledge of psychology, human behaviours are measurable. Any women going back to their
husband after doing such a thing forgives him, not on philosophical values, but out of love.

>>>>>> Buddha is not a God. I do not 'worship' him as such. <<<<<

You consider him lord of yourself, you have put him over yourself, as more than you. You have chosen
a man of error to be your lord, and a philosophy that was built on the evil of a man who wanted to
suppress his need for forgiveness for the carnage he caused, why? Do you not think that you are
worthy of the The Christ?

>>>>>> His son Rahula grew up to follow his father also, and was
reported to
> have taught the dharma himself before he reached enlightenment.<<<<<<

No, he grew up to seek his father out of his own loss and pain, as any son who is left might do.
However, in this case his father 'caused' that loss and pain and his father will have known what
wickedness he had caused and the longer he was away from home the greater his need with have been to
suppress it. Had his child known God he would have known the true love of his Father in Heaven all
through his childhood, at all times. What the Buddha taught his son was that it was OK to have his
leg over and leave a women, because even if he felt any guilt for this he can spend his life
suppressing it. He taught him a carefree life free of moral responsiblity which would be lived to
someone elses detriment. To cause a cut and then to put a plaster over it, only to cause another and
another without addressing the need for forgiveness.

>>>>>>>> I teach meditation to toddlers at my buddhist centre here in
London. You would be surprised at what children can understand and intuit.<<<<<<<

I've worked with enough small children to know those who love and fear God are the happiest of all
children. I know the power of the true sacrifice of the Jesus they grow up to love has on them and
how it changes their life and understanding of forgiveness.

To teach a child meditation is despicable, it teaches them to withdraw and suppress a very real
need to be observant to other's feelings and needs. It's not love, but teaching them that it's
their right to be self serving; not to honour others, but to honour themselves. It's denying them
the right to delight in others and experience commitment and love for others as they grow.

Such a world, if ever it materialised, would not be a world of love and understanding, but one of
self absorption and self service. There would not be a middle ground, simply a place for those who
enjoy tackling a need for forgiveness with philosophy to the exclusion for all others who think
there is some kind of secret they can't quite grasp.

"who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and
one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus," NKJ 1 Timothy 2: 4-5

>>>>>>> It is the nature of all things in relation to each
other.<<<<<<<<

Buddhism does not relate to anyone but the self, teaching it to others is a justification for being
self serving.

>>>>>>>> You remain in my prayers.<<<

Who are these prayers going to? You say things like 'Peace be with you' yet this is a way of
dismissing others from your own thoughts. Prayers on the other hand are a way of keeping others with
you in their thoughts and tending to them when they are not with you. However, a prayer means
entering into the Spiritual world where there can only be one true Holy Spirit over all people, if
it is to work amongst 'all' people. Satan loves Buddhism because it keeps those who could hold a
sword for God away from those who need them most to work in His name. Buddism does not keep people
away from God, as He works in people's lives anyway, but it does keep intelectual people away from
doing God's work. Humans like self pleasure, especially those who can justify it.

I pray that you will see the error in _your_ ways and lead children to The Holy Spirit through
knowing Jesus Christ. Let The Holy Spirit be called on by you as you meditate, that you will come to
know God's work in the face of what pleases Satan.

Carol T

 

[Mozz]

Hello Smoke,

Nice to meet you.

>Dear Mozz Please watch your back, for the religious alcoholic "Carol T" is on your case.>The trend
>is for Dr Chung to lead the charge with his first lieutenant MU coming into play when Chung is
>losing the battle, expect to hear from him soon. "Carol T" normally enters the arena at this point
>with fire and brimstone expelling from her mouth along with a bombardment of verses from the Bible.
>When MU (the axe man) arrives, (and he will arrive, unless he is of hacking someone else to death
>in some other NG) he will enter with both axes blazing and he don't take prisoners, you will
>recognise him by his ever changing sig, MU, MUle, and my favourite MUngrel. Because they are the
>epitome of all religious alcoholics, they do this, in the name of Christianity. Please take care,
>yours truly, Smoke

I have had no problem in my discussions with Carol or Andrew. Thanks for your kind concern though.

Respectfully,

Mozz x

 

[Mozz]

Hello Carol,

Nice to correspond with you again.

>The Buddha's time was a bloody history, it was around 250 years later that it calmed by a man who
>was horrified at his own terrible deeds.

That is untrue according to research carried out by historical/cultural academics. The earlier Vedic
'dark ages' were indeed brutal and bloody during the gradual evolution of the Hindu faith. However,
around the time of Siddhartha, especially in Northern India where his Shakya Province was situated,
progress was blossoming. Things did deteriorate dramatically about 200 years after Buddhism had
first started to become established as a Sangha (monk-hood), leading to the reign of Asoka. But
during Siddhartha's life, there was a relatively high level of civilisation and prosperity.

>How does man rectify the evil he has done without seeking forgiveness? He simply seeks to justify
>it with his own wise ways. All that is in his own mind is to seek peace for his 'own soul' and not
>true forgiveness for the dreadful things he has done.

As there is in fact no God, the only forgiveness a wise man may seek is that of those he may have
transgressed and a diligent effort to come to terms with his own conscience.

Respectfully, there is no such thing in reality as a 'soul'.

>>>>>>> Ashoka was not a buddha (awakened being).<<<<
>
>He was the propagator of Buddhism through his own need for forgiveness.

The propagators of Buddhism were numerous, starting with Siddhartha through to many benefactors and
followers that gradually became Sangha.

>The fact that you even consider him not to be 'awaken' would surely make you wonder why,
>considering his attempts to rectify all he had done. You cannot separate his evil acts from the
>routes of Buddhism.

Asoka's terrible acts of cruelty were indeed evil. Asoka's wish to absolve himself by practicing the
dharma do not erase the reality of the atrocities he instigated. He had political power at that
time, and chose to re-establish Buddhism (as Ceaser did in Rome with Christianity, and Ceaser's
hands were not free of blood either so your point must be equally leveled at Ceaser also and the
roots of Christianity). Buddhist practice and spirituality has nothing to do with Asoka's life. The
dharma was taught long before Asoka existed and was valid then as it is as valid now and will be to
future generations. This is much is clear.

>>>>>>>>>> Respectfully Carol, the dictionary definition of 'holy' is -
>'Morally and spiritually excellent or perfect, and to be revered'.
>> Thus by your own admission he was 'revered' - a holy man. <<<<<<<<<<<
>
>He wasn't spiritually excellent or perfect. His ways deny children and people of less ability
>access to The Holy Spirit. Being revered does not make someone holy.

Respectfully Carol, he was spiritually excellent and perfect - he was an enlightened being,
thus holy.

I have already made the point previously that children are far from excluded. In India and Tibet,
young novices join monasteries as young as eight or nine, and blossom into spiritualy advanced
practitioners. Look at His Holiness the Dalai Lama as an example.

>
>>>>>>>>>> Respectfully, Siddhartha was a human being. He taught
>extensively
>> against idolatry and placing faith in 'things' - including belief in Gods. <<<<<
>
>
>He failed, he knew those he was with and how they were, he knew that they were idolising him.

You have misunderstood Buddhism Carol. You seem like someone who values truth, so allow me to
explain the facts for you - Buddhists do not 'idolise' the Buddha, to do so would be futile or
indeed an obstruction to their practice - we 'practice' the Dharma. Do you see the difference there?
The buddha was the living example and teacher of the method, the method is what a Buddhist must
follow in order to realize liberation from suffering. That is quite clear.

>He cannot have failed to see that he had created in himself, an image of a living god before
>others. He did what made himself feel good, not for the good of others.

He stated many times that he was a human being like all of us. No different. A humble seeker of
the path. If anyone did or does view Siddhartha as a 'living god' then they are mistaken, and
they will soon realise they cannot proceed along the path to the cessation of suffering by
holding such a view.

Siddhartha chose to teach the dharma for the benefit of all.

>> I have studied the Gospels Carol. Christ was 'described' to me by the authors of the synoptic
>> gospels.<<<<<<<<<
>
>There is no physical description of the Christ.

I was speaking metaphorically.

>>>>>>>>>> The Roman Church used the very same arguement against
>Galileo. <<<<<<<<<
>
>Galileo wasn't setting himself up as God.

Neither was Siddhartha. See above.

>> And yet through doing so he discovered the path to the cessation of suffering, and spent his life
>> teaching the path so all beings can be freed.
>
>He discovered a path that made himself feel better. It is through helping others that he increased
>his lowered self esteem. That's the crux of it.

This is untrue also Carol. When Siddhartha became enlightened he had managed to defeat the forces of
Mara (the tempter) which manifest in us all as a false sense of self. As Siddhartha had realized
Emptiness it was not possible for him to have experienced any need of a self-esteem. These things
are only found here in the samasaric realm. This much is clear.

>He left an innocent child, he had little choice but to make his greatness, his only other option
>was to go back to his family. His philosophy suited his own needs first and foremost.

He has revealed the supreme path to end suffering for all.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Siddhartha took
>> it for granted that family life was incompatible with the highest forms of spirituality.
>> <<<<<<<<<<<<
>
>You've missed the point.

I am sorry Carol, but if your point remains that there is only one Truth and that Truth is God, then
we must agree to disagree. I do not accept that there is such a being, or a need to believe in such
a being, and neither did the Buddha.

>The Buddha's family didn't know God, he left the seed of his future to grow up without any
>spiritual guidence,

His son, Rahula, went on to become a great buddhist teacher himself.

>because he himself wasn't good enough to create that future in his child.

See above.

>Without knowing God there was no understanding, no wisdom and no Holy Spirit for them to
>understand.

This is patent rubbish. Are you suggesting that any culture that does not believe in God are
incapable of understanding and wisdom? If so you are walking a dangerous road towards bigotry.

>As his fame increased, so their suffering and confusion would have increased also. He will have
>known this and if he was the caring man you think he was, his own torment for this will have
>increased daily. To create a suffering only to supposedly 'enlighten' someone to know how to
>suppress it is a despicable and cruel thing.

Please do not leap to such hasty judgements about people without facts. It was a well established
rite of passage in India at that time for men in their thirties or older, to leave the family home
and seek the religious path. Their families accepted this as the norm back then, and thus
Siddhartha's wife and child did as well.

You must accept that the values change through different times and cultures, do not make the mistake
of judging others by your own standards.

>Jesus understood that if God was with a man then his family were with God too. The Holy Spirit is
>one and the same for all the family and each will have understood that same love the disciple had.
>They will not have suffered the loss and confusion the Buddha child will have grown up with
>because they were one with The Spirit of God. Family values, love and prayer are intrinsic to the
>ways of God.

This of course entirely depends on one's accepting that Jesus was indeed God. As there is in fact no
such thing as God other than in people's minds, your point remains invalid.

>>>>>>>>>>> >If she went back to him it was a testament of her love for
>him, not
>> >the other way around.
>>
>> That is your assumption. In truth, we can not know. <<<<<<<<<
>
>Use your knowledge of psychology, human behaviours are measurable. Any women going back to their
>husband after doing such a thing forgives him, not on philosophical values, but out of love.

That is not a 'measure' of human behaviour in any scientific sense. It is a gross assumption. And
further more, an erroneous assumption based on your subjective moral and ethical values as opposed
to objective analysis of the values of the period.

>>>>>>> Buddha is not a God. I do not 'worship' him as such. <<<<<
>
>You consider him lord of yourself, you have put him over yourself, as more than you.

I merely respect his achievements and practice his teachings.

>You have chosen a man of error to be your lord, and a philosophy that was built on the evil of a
>man who wanted to suppress his need for forgiveness for the carnage he caused, why?

As I have explained above Carol, Asoka has nothing to do with the 'teachings' of Buddhism, this is
clear to understand.

>Do you not think that you are worthy of the The Christ?

There is no such thing as the Christ other than in myth.

>>>>>>> His son Rahula grew up to follow his father also, and was
>reported to
>> have taught the dharma himself before he reached enlightenment.<<<<<<
>
>No, he grew up to seek his father out of his own loss and pain, as any son who is left might do.
>However, in this case his father 'caused' that loss and pain and his father will have known what
>wickedness he had caused and the longer he was away from home the greater his need with have been
>to suppress it. Had his child known God he would have known the true love of his Father in Heaven
>all through his childhood, at all times. What the Buddha taught his son was that it was OK to have
>his leg over and leave a women, because even if he felt any guilt for this he can spend his life
>suppressing it. He taught him a carefree life free of moral responsiblity which would be lived to
>someone elses detriment. To cause a cut and then to put a plaster over it, only to cause another
>and another without addressing the need for forgiveness.

Carol, I sense that perhaps you have serious issues to resolve relating to childhood and
abandonment. You seem to project an awful lot of powerful emotion into these points regarding your
misunderstanding of the values of the culture and period Siddhartha lived in.

With good intention may I suggest you consider seeking counselling?

>>>>>>>>> I teach meditation to toddlers at my buddhist centre here in
>London. You would be surprised at what children can understand and intuit.<<<<<<<
>
>I've worked with enough small children to know those who love and fear God are the happiest of all
>children.

Respectfully, to teach young children to 'fear' does not sound wise. It sounds abusive.

>I know the power of the true sacrifice of the Jesus they grow up to love has on them and how it
>changes their life and understanding of forgiveness.

That would be what you sincerely wished to see. However, clinics are full all over America and
Europe with the psychological fall out from very disturbed people who were once brought up to 'fear'
God and 'know the gift of his sacrifice'.

> To teach a child meditation is despicable, it teaches them to withdraw and suppress a very real
> need to be observant to other's feelings and needs.

In buddhist meditation we do not 'suppress' or 'withdraw' at all. A practitioner learns to develop
their observation to their own feelings and thoughts as well as generating compassion for others.

>It's not love, but teaching them that it's their right to be self serving; not to honour others,
>but to honour themselves. It's denying them the right to delight in others and experience
>commitment and love for others as they grow.

It is in fact, the total opposite.

> Such a world, if ever it materialised, would not be a world of love and understanding, but one of
> self absorption and self service. There would not be a middle ground, simply a place for those who
> enjoy tackling a need for forgiveness with philosophy to the exclusion for all others who think
> there is some kind of secret they can't quite grasp.

You seem to want to believe that buddhists are all selfish and ignorant. However, if one looks to
buddhist cultures around the world one finds the exact opposite to be the case. We find cultures
full of compassion and respect for one another, respect for animals, and relative peace.

>>>>>>>> It is the nature of all things in relation to each
>other.<<<<<<<<
>
>
>
>Buddhism does not relate to anyone but the self, teaching it to others is a justification for being
>self serving.
>

Untrue. The buddhist boddhisattva vow is a commitment to work for the benefit of all
sentient beings.

>>>>>>>>> You remain in my prayers.<<<
>
>Who are these prayers going to?

Buddhists don’t pray to a Creator God, but they do have devotional meditation practices which
could be compared to praying. Radiating loving-kindness to all living beings is a practice
which is believed to benefit those beings. The sharing of merit is a practice where one
dedicates the goodness of one’s life to the benefit of all living beings as well as praying for
a particular person.

>You say things like 'Peace be with you' yet this is a way of dismissing others from your own
>thoughts. Prayers on the other hand are a way of keeping others with you in their thoughts and
>tending to them when they are not with you.

See above.

>However, a prayer means entering into the Spiritual world where there can only be one true Holy
>Spirit over all people, if it is to work amongst 'all' people.

This is the Christian belief only.

>Satan loves Buddhism because it keeps those who could hold a sword for God away from those who need
>them most to work in His name. Buddism does not keep people away from God, as He works in people's
>lives anyway, but it does keep intelectual people away from doing God's work. Humans like self
>pleasure, especially those who can justify it.

Respectfully, we shall have to agree to disagree again.

>I pray that you will see the error in _your_ ways and lead children to The Holy Spirit through
>knowing Jesus Christ. Let The Holy Spirit be called on by you as you meditate, that you will come
>to know God's work in the face of what pleases Satan.

By the power and the truth of this practice, may all beings have happiness, and the causes of
happiness. May all be free from sorrow, and the causes of sorrow. May all never be separated from
the sacred happiness which is sorrowless. And may all live in equanimity, without too much
attachment and too much aversion, And live believing in the equality of all that lives.

May all beings be filled with joy and peace. May all beings everywhere, The strong and the weak, The
great and the small, The mean and the powerful, The short and the long, the subtle and the gross:
May all beings everywhere, Seen and unseen, Dwelling far off or nearby, Being or waiting to become:
May all be filled with lasting joy. Let no one deceive another,

Let no one anywhere despise another, Let no one out of anger or resentment Wish suffering on anyone
at all. Just as a mother with her own life Protects her child, her only child, from harm, So within
yourself let grow A boundless love for all creatures.

Let your love flow outward through the universe, To its height, its depth, its broad extent, A
limitless love, without hatred or enmity. Then as you stand or walk, Sit or lie down, As long as you
are awake, Strive for this with a one-pointed mind; Your life will bring heaven to earth.

Respectfully, your dharma friend,

Mozz x

 

[Dr. Andrew B. C]

Hi Mozz,

Glad to see you remain interested in this discussion.

Mozz wrote:

> >> >You can't serve God and embrace emptiness.
> >>
> >> All is emptiness ultimately.
> >>
> >
> >1 --> true --> God
> >
> > --> false --> emptiness
> >
> >The 0 state defines the 1 state by their difference.
> >
> >What is false defines what is true by their difference.
> >
> >Emptiness defines God by their difference.
> >
> >This is pure logic.
>
> Logic merely allows one to be wrong with authority ;-)
>

Praise to God for the gift of truth discernment.

> Of course, just reverse the equation and Emptiness is truth while God is false. With which I
> would concur.
>

In truth, such "reversal" is not truth.

It would be analogous to suggesting that we call day night and night day.

>
> >> >Your buddha now knows better for he now knows the truth.
> >>
> >> Agreed. And the truth is that all is emptiness.
> >>
> >
> >The truth is God.
>
> We must agree to disagree.
>

The wise person obeys God.

> >> >If all you are getting from this discussion is propaganda, why are you here?
> >>
> >> Would you rather I left?
>
> >No.
> >
> >Now, try to answer the question.
>
> I am here with good intention to point out your erroneous beliefs.
>

Truthfulness is hardly erroneous.

> >Have you reached Nirvana?
>
> I am working my way towards it.
>

I sense that since you know that there is Christ who died on a cross on your (our) behalf, you will
be unable to reach "nirvana."

> >> >Do you really believe that you do not need anyone else?
> >>
> >> I know it. Practice the dharma and you too will not need anyone else's agency in your
> >> 'salvation'.
> >
> >Will practicing the dharma keep you from suffering the pains associated with aging and death?
>
> Ultimately yes.
>

Then why is the Dalai Lama suffering age and eventually death?

> >> do you also believe that God made the world in 6 days and on the 7th rested?
> >>
> >
> >No. I do believe that God made the universe and everything in it within a short span of time.
> >Since days are measured in terms of revolutions of the earth, I am open to the possibility that
> >the "days" *before* earth even existed are God's own arbitrary units of time.
>
> Striving to fit the facts in with the fiction wherever possible?
>

No.

Just imagining how someone without a background in astrophysics would describe astronomical
information from God.

> >> do you believe in the Flood and that Noah built an ark large enough to carry two of every
> >> animal and that he did so?
> >>
> >
> >There is archeological evidence for a great flood.
>
> Over the whole world?

Yes.

> And two of every animal?
>

Was not there. However, speaking as a geneticist, at least two.

>
> >> do you believe Lot's wife truly turned into a pillar of salt?
> >
> >Would be a small feat for a God that made the universe and everything in it.
> >
> >>
> >> do you believe there really was a Tower of Babel that reached up to Heaven?
> >
> >The twin towers of the WTC reached upward toward Heaven.
>
> They hardly reached Heaven did they.

There is presently only one way to reach Heaven.

> And do you believe Heaven is above the clouds geographically?
>

Heaven is where God resides.

>
> >> Please tell me.
> >
> >You are starting to sound desperate.
>
> No, I'm not in the least desperate. Perhaps you wiould like to think I am?
>

You still sound desperate.

> >Perhaps you should be more truthful to yourself.
> >
> I am truthful. Are you?
>

Yes.

>
> >Do you know of any studies that unequivocally shows that meditation alone effectively lowers
> >resting blood pressure?
>
> I know of studies that showed a reduction in bp from meditation, but it was quite a while ago.
> I'll see if I can dig them out if you're interested.
>

I would be interested in any you have that are unequivocal.

>
> >> >> >Why do you feel the need to defend aspects of Siddhartha's life?
> >> >>
> >> >> I feel it is only right to point out errors others make> in ignorance of the facts regarding
> >> >> Siddhartha's life.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Sounds like these "errors" wound you.
> >>
> >> I value fairness, impartiality and truth. I do not take anything others may say about buddhism
> >> personally.
> >>
> >
> >Your language betrays you.
>
> I speak only truth.
>

I sense otherwise.

>
> >> >When was this "final birth" ?
> >>
> >> 500 years ago.
> >
> >Is Dalai Lama 500 years old?
>
> Chenrezig is ageless.
>

Sounds like evasion.

> >> >> This elusive architect is Craving or Attachment, a self created force latent in all.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >So you believe in self-creation?
> >>
> >> Craving or Attachment is a self created force.
> >>
> >
> >And this self created force created you?
>
> When you say 'me' what do you mean precisely?

What you see in the mirror.

> What can you point to that is actually independently 'me' without reference to other things?

Did you "train" for two years with the Dalai Lama class to lose yourself?

> Is my arm me? No...it's my arm. Is my personality 'me'? No, it's a complex of psychological and
> behavioural complexes...etc
>

Sounds like you have not looked in the mirror for a while.

>
> You remain in my prayers
>

I would be more appreciative if you were praying to God.

Truthfully, you remain in my prayers to God, neighbor.

May you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior, someday, so that you too will come to know God and be
blessed with His strength, in Christ's name.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?T13943F77

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867

 

[Dr. Andrew B. C]

Hi Mozz,

I appreciate your being civil in this discussion with CarolT and myself.

This appreciation is greater because I sense you feel we are attacking your beliefs.

Mozz wrote:

> >Better to believe in something...
> >
> >than to believe in emptiness.
>
> All form is emptiness, all emptiness is form. That's the truth.

If it were, night would be day and day would be night.

> >> >Is it your belief that an oral tradition is better than a written tradition?
> >>
> >> Whether oral or written it is the essence of the message that matters most.
> >>
> >
> >Why are you insecure about the oral tradition of dharma?
>
> I am not.

I sense otherwise.

> >> One aspect of samsara can prove no more or less damaging than any other. All samsara is
> >> ultimately illusory.
> >>
> >
> >Illusions are fragile for they are easily dispelled.
>
> And yet you find it impossible to dispel your illusory belief in God

It would be possible were God an illusion.

> >> You attempt to cover your truly aggressive intent yet There is quite clearly an aggressive
> >> flavour latent in the content of most of your posts. However, you refuse to accept your
> >> aggressive, intolerant or prejudiced attitudes by adopting the passive persona of 'Servant to
> >> the humblest person in the universe'.
> >
> >It is ironic that you see aggression in humility.
>
> I am familiar with genuine humility from many fellow buddhists,

Self-worship is hardly humility.

> I can discern little genuine humility in your posts.

>

Do you truly know what humility is, Mozz?

> >> >This does not seem to bode well for your state of enlightenment.
> >>
> >> Respectfully, you appear to understand very little regarding buddhist practice and even less
> >> about people's states of mind.
> >
> >Sounds like the truth does not sit well with you.
>
> It sits perfectly well.
>

I sense otherwise.

> >> Clearly I can see past my computer to have written the analogy above - why have you chosen
> >> another barbed response?
> >
> >Why do you see the truth as "barbed" ?
>
> Why don't you see the truth at all?
>

He now sits with His Father in Heaven.

> >> >Do you have it within you to overcome your difficulties?
> >>
> >> What difficullties do you refer to?
> >>
> >
> >*Your* difficulties.
>
> I have no difficulties.

Has this discussion been easy for you?

> >"Flagrant" and "serious" are adjectives that describe sin.
>
> There is no such thing as sin.
>

And yet you describe it and react to it.

> >> >> There is no beginning to time and there will be no end.
> >>
> >> >That would make Buddha even more insignificant.
> >>
> >> Explain why you think this is so my friend?
> >
> >It is in the mathematics of infinite time and Buddha being present in only a finite part of
> >the time.
> >
> >Buddha has been present for 0% of infinite time.
>
> And yet he remains significant for millions.

****** was significant for millions. What is your point?

> >> >Siddhartha felt a need to end human suffering. He was probably dismayed to discover that he
> >> >did not have such power
> >>
> >> Siddhartha never once claimed to have the power to end the suffering of others.
> >
> >It is my understanding that he searched for this power.
>
> You are mistaken in that understanding.
>

Ok. What then did Siddhartha search for?

>
> >> Infact quite the opposite - he stressed that it was only through the efforts of the individual
> >> in their diligent practice of the dharma that they would reach liberation from suffering.
> >
> >It seems that Siddhartha believed the dharma was this power.
>
> The dharma was his path to the cessation of suffering.
>

And yet he suffered the pain of death.

> >> > And, so he probably had a need to believe in emptiness in order to escape his disappointment
> >>
> >> The above invalidates this assumption.
> >
> >Hardly.
>
> Look again.

Looks the same.

> >> >Where there is need, there is motivation for fiction.
> >>
> >> Ah...hence the Bible.
> >>
> >
> >The Bible is like an authorized biography for God. Biographies are hardly works of fiction.
> >
> >The dharma is another story.
>
> The dharma are teachings to be practiced.
>

It appears to lead only to suffering and death like other works of fiction.

> >> Buddha neither denied suffering exists nor did he 'seemingly' escape
> >> it. He did liberate himself from it.
> >>
> >... by placing his faith in emptiness.
>
> By 'realizing' emptiness and cultivating compassion for the benefit of all sentient beings.
>

Still faith in "nothing."

Buddha had faith in "zero."

I choose to have faith in "One."

May you someday choose to place your faith in "One."

> >> Did Jesus not cry out on the cross 'Father, why have thou forsaken me?'
> >
> >So it is written.
> >
> >> To whom was God talking when He said this?
> >>
> >
> >God the Son was talking to God the Father as prophesied.
>
> God is schizophrenic?
>

No. God is perfect.

> >> In what practical way did this help others to overcome their suffering?
> >
> >By showing us the way to enter God's eternal kingdom as unblemished souls.
>
> Has he showed you the way?

Christ is the way.

> Have been their yet?
>

Not my time to go yet

> >> What practices did He lay down that others my see the benefits in this lifetime?
> >
> >His teachings guide us.
>
> Hardly
>

Simply the truth.

>
> >There will be an "end."
> >
> >Not only did God predict it... it is a statistical certainty in all predictive mathematical
> >models that incorporate cosmic events that destroy planets like earth.
>
> Buddhism teaches that this Universe will eventually cease and then a new Universe is reborn as has
> happened again and again throughout beginningless time...
>

Meanwhile, the universe continues to expand without any sign of slowing.

>
> >> >Then why the reverence toward buddha, whom you call "lord" ?
> >>
> >> Respect.
> >
> >Things that are "irrelevant" hardly deserve respect.
>
> I agree.

Glad you do.

> Buddha is relevant.
>

Buddha's impact is 0% of infinite time.

> >> The buddha said to test everything said to be true from any teacher, including himself.
> >
> >Sounds like he was not certain.
>
> He was honest.
>

Honestly uncertain.

> >> The truth of his teachings are example of his validity.
> >
> >Truth is certain.
> >
> >> >Since you claim that the Dalai Lama has already reached enlightenment, why does he keep being
> >> >reborn?
> >>
> >> The Dalai Lamas are the embodiment of Chenrezig, the Bodhisattva of Compassion. He is a highly
> >> realized practitioner who has vowed to continually deliberately take rebirths in samsara until
> >> all beings are freed from suffering and have reached enlightenment.
> >>
> >
> >Why does he care if he has faith in emptiness?
>
> He is the bodhisattva of compassion. He loves all beings and cares for their ultimate well being.
> He helps us to eventually realize emptiness for ourselves.
>

Love is hardly an "empty" emotion.

> >> Are you saying that the majority of Muslims are suicide bombers and/or terrorists?
> >
> >No.
> >
> >However, I do believe that the majority of Muslims will be destroyed because of the actions
> >of a few.
>
> Why?
>

I see the trend.

>
> Peace be with you
>

Thanks.

I wish the same for you.

You remain in my prayers to God, in Christ's name, neighbor.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?T13943F77

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867

 

[Mozz]

>Hi Mozz,

Hello Andrew,

>
>Glad to see you remain interested in this discussion.

Thank you, the same to you too.

>> Of course, just reverse the equation and Emptiness is truth while God is false. With which I
>> would concur.
>>
>
>In truth, such "reversal" is not truth.
>
>It would be analogous to suggesting that we call day night and night day.

Respectfully, you are mistaken. The Truth is that All Form Is Emptiness, All Emptiness Is
Form - Nothing exists from it's own side alone without relation to another. This is opposed
to the falsehood of your imagined supernatural God. Therefore Emptiness --> 1 --> Truth God
--> 0 --> False.

>> >The truth is God.

There is no God.

>The wise person obeys God.

There is no God to obey other than the God that resides in your imagination.

>I sense that since you know that there is Christ who died on a cross on your (our) behalf, you will
>be unable to reach "nirvana."

I repeat, there is no God, and Christ exists as a myth from the stories of the Gospels only.

>Then why is the Dalai Lama suffering age and eventually death?

His Holiness is not suffering, and when his present body passes away he will take another rebirth to
continue working for the benefit of all sentient beings.

>> And do you believe Heaven is above the clouds geographically?
>>
>
>Heaven is where God resides.

I would be interested to learn from you whether Heaven is considered an actual 'place'
geographically? Is it believed to be of the 'physical plane'? You have said it is where God resides,
but I am interested to learn whether God resides somewhere other than the physical Universe or the
psychological realm?

>You still sound desperate.

Ok, I accept that you think I sound desperate.

>> I speak only truth.
>>
>
>I sense otherwise.

In that case I advise you not to rely on your senses if I were you.

>> Chenrezig is ageless.
>>
>
>Sounds like evasion.

Merely fact.

>> When you say 'me' what do you mean precisely?
>
>What you see in the mirror.

I see the reflection of an image in the glass.

>> What can you point to that is actually independently 'me' without reference to other things?
>
>Did you "train" for two years with the Dalai Lama class to lose yourself?

To find yourself, you must lose yourself first.

>> Is my arm me? No...it's my arm. Is my personality 'me'? No, it's a complex of psychological and
>> behavioural complexes...etc
>>
>
>Sounds like you have not looked in the mirror for a while.

I look in a mirror each morning and evening.
>
>>
>> You remain in my prayers
>>
>
>I would be more appreciative if you were praying to God.

I cannot decieve you by praying to something that isn't real.

>Truthfully, you remain in my prayers to God, neighbor.

And you remain in mine.

>May you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior, someday, so that you too will come to know God and
>be blessed with His strength, in Christ's name.

By the power and the truth of this practice, may all beings have happiness, and the causes of
happiness. May all be free from sorrow, and the causes of sorrow. May all never be separated from
the sacred happiness which is sorrowless. And may all live in equanimity, without too much
attachment and too much aversion, And live believing in the equality of all that lives. May all
beings be filled with joy and peace. May all beings everywhere, The strong and the weak, The great
and the small, The mean and the powerful, The short and the long, the subtle and the gross: May
all beings everywhere, Seen and unseen, Dwelling far off or nearby, Being or waiting to become:
May all be filled with lasting joy. Let no one deceive another,Let no one anywhere despise
another, Let no one out of anger or resentment Wish suffering on anyone at all. Just as a mother
with her own life Protects her child, her only child, from harm, So within yourself let grow A
boundless love for all creatures.Let your love flow outward through the universe, To its height,
its depth, its broad extent, A limitless love, without hatred or enmity. Then as you stand or
walk, Sit or lie down, As long as you are awake, Strive for this with a one-pointed mind; Your
life will bring heaven to earth.

Your Dharma friend,

Mozz x

 

[Mozz]

>Hi Mozz,

Hello Andrew,
>
>I appreciate your being civil in this discussion with CarolT and myself.

Thank you.

>This appreciation is greater because I sense you feel we are attacking your beliefs.

I am secure in the knowledge that my beliefs are true.

>> All form is emptiness, all emptiness is form. That's the truth.
>
>If it were, night would be day and day would be night.

You are basing your view of reality on a logical abstraction, not reality. Regardless of what you
say - the truth is that all form is emptiness and all emptiness is form.

O Shariputra, form is no other than emptiness, emptiness no other than form; Form is exactly
emptiness, emptiness exactly form; Sensation, conception, discrimination, awareness are likewise
like this. O Shariputra, all dharmas are forms of emptiness, Not born, not destroyed, not stained,
not pure, without loss, without gain; So in emptiness there is no form, no sensation, conception,
discrimination, awareness; No eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind; No color, sound, smell, taste,
touch, phenomena; No realm of sight, no realm of consciousness; No ignorance and no end to
ignorance; No old age and death, and no end to old age and death; No suffering, no cause of
suffering, No extinguishing, no path; no wisdom and no gain. No gain and thus the Bodhisattva lives
prajna paramita, With no hindrance in the mind, no hindrance, therefore no fear, Far beyond deluded
thoughts, this is nirvana. All past, present, and future Buddhas live prajna paramita, And therefore
attain annuttara-samyak-sambodhi. Therefore know, prajna paramita is the great mantra, The vivid
mantra, the best mantra, the unsurpassable mantra; It completely clears all pain. This is the truth,
not a lie. So set forth the Prajna Paramita Mantra, set forth this mantra and say: Gate! Gate!
Paragate! Parasamgate! Bodhi Svaha! (Prajna Heart Sutra)

>> >Why are you insecure about the oral tradition of dharma?
>>
>> I am not.
>
>I sense otherwise.

Once again, your senses are in error. I hope you do not rely on them.

>> And yet you find it impossible to dispel your illusory belief in God
>
>It would be possible were God an illusion.

Not only is God an illusory factor, ultimately so are you.

>> I am familiar with genuine humility from many fellow buddhists,
>
>Self-worship is hardly humility.

Buddhists strive to lose the self, as opposed to worshipping it.

>> I can discern little genuine humility in your posts.
>
>>
>
>Do you truly know what humility is, Mozz?

The quality or condition of being humble.

>> >> >This does not seem to bode well for your state of enlightenment.
>> >>
>> >> Respectfully, you appear to understand very little regarding buddhist practice and even less
>> >> about people's states of mind.
>> >
>> >Sounds like the truth does not sit well with you.
>>
>> It sits perfectly well.
>>
>
>I sense otherwise.

The third example in this post of your unreliable sense.

>> I have no difficulties.
>
>Has this discussion been easy for you?

Yes. I enjoy our discussions.

>> There is no such thing as sin.
>>
>
>And yet you describe it and react to it.

What you define as 'sin' I define as secular.

>> And yet he remains significant for millions.
>
>****** was significant for millions. What is your point?

The Buddha remains significant to millions.

>> >> >Siddhartha felt a need to end human suffering. He was probably dismayed to discover that he
>> >> >did not have such power
>> >>
>> >> Siddhartha never once claimed to have the power to end the suffering of others.
>> >
>> >It is my understanding that he searched for this power.
>>
>> You are mistaken in that understanding.
>>
>
>Ok. What then did Siddhartha search for?

The Dharma.

>> The dharma was his path to the cessation of suffering.
>>
>
>And yet he suffered the pain of death.

He was beyond suffering, in nirvana.

>> The dharma are teachings to be practiced.
>>
>
>It appears to lead only to suffering and death like other works of fiction.

It leads to the very opposite, as well you know.

>> By 'realizing' emptiness and cultivating compassion for the benefit of all sentient beings.
>>
>
>Still faith in "nothing."

He did not require 'faith' as he was a fully 'realized' enlightened being.

>> Buddhism teaches that this Universe will eventually cease and then a new Universe is reborn as
>> has happened again and again throughout beginningless time...
>>
>
>Meanwhile, the universe continues to expand without any sign of slowing.

This expansion is for this 'kalpa' only (one of the Brahmanic eons, a period of 4,320,000,000 years.
At the end of each Kalpa the universe is annihilated) until a new kalpa begins.

>Buddha's impact is 0% of infinite time.

And yet he remains relevant to millions.

>> He was honest.
>>
>
>Honestly uncertain.

If that is what you wish to believe, so be it.

>> He is the bodhisattva of compassion. He loves all beings and cares for their ultimate well being.
>> He helps us to eventually realize emptiness for ourselves.
>>
>
>Love is hardly an "empty" emotion.

You do not understand the buddhist concept of emptiness.

>> >> Are you saying that the majority of Muslims are suicide bombers and/or terrorists?
>> >
>> >No.
>> >
>> >However, I do believe that the majority of Muslims will be destroyed because of the actions of
>> >a few.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>
>I see the trend.

Please explain the trend you see?

O Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, and disciples of the past, present, and future: Having remarkable
qualities Immeasurably vast as the ocean, Who regard all helpless sentient beings as your only
child; Please consider the truth of my pleas. Buddha's full teachings dispel the pain of worldly
existence and self-oriented peace; May they flourish, spreading prosperity and happiness through-
out this spacious world.

Your dharma friend,

Mozz x

 

[Mozz]

Hello Andrew,

>Don't forget to email me privately as you promised some time ago when we "chatted."

Unfortunately I can no longer offer you or your family my hospitality here in London as I had hoped
last year due to the fact that a generous benefactor has paid for me to live nearer a hospice where
I am working counseling and training volunteer care-givers.

>> <snip>I am secure in the knowledge that my beliefs are true.
>
>You do not sound certain in your beliefs.

We seem to be reaching some kind of impasse in our friendly discussions where you are repeatedly
casting doubt on my thoughts and feelings. I can only tell you that in truth I am confident in the
certainty of my spiritual beliefs. It ultimately boils down to my word against yours. If you
continue to disbelieve me I see no useful purpose in continuing with these discussions as it is
clear that what I tell you in trith has no validity in your judgement.

>> >> All form is emptiness, all emptiness is form. That's the truth.
>> >
>> >If it were, night would be day and day would be night.
>>
>> You are basing your view of reality on a logical abstraction, not reality.
>
>Day and night are not logical abstractions. God made them.

The logical abstraction I refer to is not night or day, it is your rather childish attempt to weight
a simple logical equation with your own arbitrary values and present it as ultimate truth.

>> Regardless of what you say - the truth is that all form is emptiness and all emptiness is form.
>
>You are starting to act like an ostrich.

I can only assume that you seem to think I am trying to stick my head in the sand and imagine I
cannot be seen - is that correct? If so, the analogy is innacurate as I am neither wishing to hide
from anyone, nor pretend that I cannot be seen. Please try to be less veiled and more concise with
what you are trying to say.

>> O Shariputra, form is no other than emptiness, emptiness no other than form; Form is exactly
>> emptiness, emptiness exactly form; Sensation, conception, discrimination, awareness are likewise
>> like this. O Shariputra, all dharmas are forms of emptiness, Not born, not destroyed, not
>> stained, not pure, without loss, without gain; So in emptiness there is no form, no sensation,
>> conception, discrimination, awareness; No eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind; No color, sound,
>> smell, taste, touch, phenomena; No realm of sight, no realm of consciousness; No ignorance and no
>> end to ignorance; No old age and death, and no end to old age and death; No suffering, no cause
>> of suffering, No extinguishing, no path; no wisdom and no gain. No gain and thus the Bodhisattva
>> lives prajna paramita, With no hindrance in the mind, no hindrance, therefore no fear, Far beyond
>> deluded thoughts, this is nirvana. All past, present, and future Buddhas live prajna paramita,
>> And therefore attain annuttara-samyak-sambodhi. Therefore know, prajna paramita is the great
>> mantra, The vivid mantra, the best mantra, the unsurpassable mantra; It completely clears all
>> pain. This is the truth, not a lie. So set forth the Prajna Paramita Mantra, set forth this
>> mantra and say: Gate! Gate! Paragate! Parasamgate! Bodhi Svaha! (Prajna Heart Sutra)
>>
>
>Sounds like la la ... la la la ... la la ... to me (with the tele-tubbies dancing in the
>background

LOL - You are very amusing!

>> >> >Why are you insecure about the oral tradition of dharma?
>> >>
>> >> I am not.
>> >
>> >I sense otherwise.
>>
>> Once again, your senses are in error. I hope you do not rely on them.
>
>Perserveration does not make false ideas true.

Once again we are at the same impasse as previously mentioned. I am being perfectly reasonable in
pointing out that your assumption that I am insecure about the oral tradition of dharma. This is the
truth. So in what way am I perserverating? If this continues there is no point in continuing our
discussions as you are unprepared to accept my word.

>> >> And yet you find it impossible to dispel your illusory belief in God
>> >
>> >It would be possible were God an illusion.
>>
>> Not only is God an illusory factor, ultimately so are you.
>
>Is an ostrich your favorite animal to emulate?

I am not attempting to hide or imagine I am invisible to you or God as I do not (and please try to
take heed of my words here) I do not believe in God.

>> >> I am familiar with genuine humility from many fellow buddhists,
>> >
>> >Self-worship is hardly humility.
>>
>> Buddhists strive to lose the self, as opposed to worshipping it.
>
>Buddhists seem to be striving to lose self to find self to worship.

Please explain that tautology? How can a buddhist strive to lose self in order to find self to
worship? Buddhists do not worship, we practice the dharma. How many more times must I repeat this
easy to grasp fact?

>> >> I can discern little genuine humility in your posts.
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >Do you truly know what humility is, Mozz?
>>
>> The quality or condition of being humble.
>>
>
>Is worshipping self being humble?

If an individual chose to worship Self, that would be the height of narcism. As a buddhist
practitioner with considerable learning from reputable traditional buddhist sources I do not worship
anything, most especially Self. I am unaware of any buddhist traditions that would or
do.

>> >> >Sounds like the truth does not sit well with you.
>> >>
>> >> It sits perfectly well.
>> >>
>> >I sense otherwise.
>>
>> The third example in this post of your unreliable sense.
>
>Perseverating again?

No, not perseverating, although ironically your constant repetative claim that I am is beginning to
sound very much like true perseveration. As I have said twice in this post, if you continue to
blatantly disregard my truthful responses to your claims about what I am or am not supposedly
feeling etc I can see no reason to continue our discussions as we can not progress to any point
other than inertia. Perhaps this is what you wish?

>> >> I have no difficulties.
>> >
>> >Has this discussion been easy for you?
>>
>> Yes. I enjoy our discussions.
>
>You seem to be having difficulty convincing anyone here at SMC of the benefits of either dharma or
>meditation.

That's ok, if no one shows interest then so be it, if anyone does decide to show an interest then
that's ok too. I seem to be making a reasonably good impression for buddhism, two quotes -

"When Chung does his little snide abrasions, Mozz rises above it. He explains Chung's relentless and
deliberate misunderstandings. He makes Buddhism sound reasonable, and he, by his moderate and
rational tone, makes Chung look like the fundamentalist crank he is."

"I do remember those past discussions, and you were just as ignorant about non-christian belief then
as you are now. To Mozz it is a discussion, to you it is an attempt to discredit any form of
religion other than Chritianity. Mozz comes across as a warm and gentle person, always composed, you
present as someone who has a very large ego and believes he is never wrong."

I seem to be giving an accurate representation of a mind calm and clear through buddhist practice.

>> >> There is no such thing as sin.
>> >>
>> >
>> >And yet you describe it and react to it.
>>
>> What you define as 'sin' I define as secular.
>
>Why define something that you claim does not exist?

My point is that you label certain moral transgressions 'sins' while I label them as secular moral
transgressions.

>> >> And yet he remains significant for millions.
>> >
>> >****** was significant for millions. What is your point?
>>
>> The Buddha remains significant to millions.
>
>As does ******. Again, what is your point?

It is incredibly simple to grasp my point here Andrew. It is an indisputable fact that Buddha
remains significant to millions of people around the world. You choose to bring ****** into the
frame for some reason, pointing out that ****** remains significant to millions. I have not disputed
that. Yet ****** was not Buddha and I can see no point in you linking them together. So what is
'your' point?
>
>What did Siddhartha hope to find via dharma?

Enlightenment.

>> He was beyond suffering, in nirvana.
>>
>
>I sense that he still suffered despite believing he was in nirvana.

There is no suffering in nirvana (a realm of complete bliss and delight and peace)
>
>He seemed to have required faith believe he reached nirvana.

He did not 'believe' - he had 'realized' nirvana. (Realize - To bring into reality; make real).
>>
>> >Buddha's impact is 0% of infinite time.
>>
>> And yet he remains relevant to millions.
>>
>
>As does ******.

Again I fail to see the point of your comparison. Are you disputing that buddha is relevant
to millions?

>> >Love is hardly an "empty" emotion.
>>
>> You do not understand the buddhist concept of emptiness.
>
>Are you calling night day?

No, of course not. I do not see the relevance of that question to my statement that you do not
understand the buddhist concept of emptiness.

>> >> >> Are you saying that the majority of Muslims are suicide bombers and/or terrorists?
>> >> >
>> >> >No.
>> >> >
>> >> >However, I do believe that the majority of Muslims will be destroyed because of the actions
>> >> >of a few.
>> >>
>> >> Why?
>
>> >I see the trend.
>>
>> Please explain the trend you see?
>>
>
>Violence begetting more violence.

Why single out Muslims? Is this not also the case for Jews, Christian militias and other
denominations around the globe?

>> O Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, and disciples of the past, present, and future: Having remarkable
>> qualities Immeasurably vast as the ocean, Who regard all helpless sentient beings as your only
>> child; Please consider the truth of my pleas. Buddha's full teachings dispel the pain of worldly
>> existence and self-oriented peace; May they flourish, spreading prosperity and happiness through-
>> out this spacious world.
>>
>
>Why are praying to the dead?

I do not pray to the dead, there is no point in doing so.

Please reflect on what I have said about the way our discussions are beginning to slip. I enjoy
reasoned, civil and fair debate, but I do not enjoy wasting time if these qualities are absent.

Your friend in the Sangha,

Mozz x