Buddha and Christ - Convergent or Divergent?

[Twilight Hue]

The classic tea story comes to us from Zen, the mystical branch of Buddhism:

A Cup of Tea

Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.

Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor’s cup full, and then kept on pouring.

The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. “It is overfull. No more will go in!”

“Like this cup,” Nan-in said, “you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?”



A Cup of Tea

I bet they both sat down and just drank the tea.

 

[godnotgod]

I bet they both sat down and just drank the tea.

Now that's true Zen.

"When hungry, juet eat;
when tired, just sleep"

 

[godnotgod]

How could Buddha and Jesus are close or similar in teachings if they had not got their teachings from the same G-d , the source of their knowledge/light/revelations?

Right, please?

Regards

Bottom line is that Jesus refers to a God with a persona, ie 'anthropomorphism', 'My Father', while that to which the Buddha awakened was Universal Consciousness, empty of inherent self-nature, ie 'Sunyata'.

 

[wizanda]

How could Buddha and Jesus are close or similar in teachings if they had not got their teachings from the same G-d , the source of their knowledge/light/revelations?

Buddha's wording about God is the Universal Mind, which is the Source of all reality.
Yeshua's wording about God is the Most High, which is the Source of all reality.

Buddha was not following Hinduism.
Yeshua was not following Judaism.

In my opinion.

 

[Marcion]

Bottom line is that Jesus refers to a God with a persona, ie 'anthropomorphism', 'My Father', while that to which the Buddha awakened was Universal Consciousness, empty of inherent self-nature, ie 'Sunyata'.

On the other hand, Yeshua seems to refer to God also as 'Rule of God' which is also mentioned (in the sayings of Yeshua) as 'Holy Spirit' (Universal or Cosmic Consciousness).

So Buddha seems to do away with the tool of devotion for the goal in spiritual practices by avoiding personification of that goal.

 

[godnotgod]

On the other hand, Yeshua seems to refer to God also as 'Rule of God' which is also mentioned (in the sayings of Yeshua) as 'Holy Spirit' (Universal or Cosmic Consciousness).

So Buddha seems to do away with the tool of devotion for the goal in spiritual practices by avoiding personification of that goal.

No. Buddha does away with nothing because there is nothing to do away with. There is devotion, not to a persona that is a projection of the ego, but to Ultimate Reality, ie 'Dharma'. Buddha simply realized that his true nature is none other than Ultimate Reality itself, which is empty of inherent self-nature.

Is the Yeshua reference to 'Rule of God' and 'Holy Spirit' that of a persona?

When you refer to 'Yeshua', are you talking about the modern image of 'Jesus', or the authentic Yeshua, prior to his teachings having been corrupted with pagan doctrines, like blood sacrifice and bodily resurrection?

 

[godnotgod]

Buddha's wording about God is the Universal Mind, which is the Source of all reality.
Buddha was not following Hinduism.

Actually, the Ultimate Reality in Hinduism is Brahman, 'The Ground of all Being', or 'Pure Consciousness'. Both the jiva of Hinduism and the seeker in Buddhism merge with the same One Reality.

 

[syo]

buddha and christ are the same in my opinion. they both say ''don't harm'' more or less.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Doesn't this bring in the question of reincarnation again?

As said by another, the concept of rebirth or reincarnation is often different in Buddhism compared to Hinduism.

The rebirth doctrine in Buddhism, sometimes referred to as reincarnation or metempsychosis, asserts that rebirth does not necessarily take place as another human being, but as an existence in one of the six Gati (realms) called Bhavachakra.

Rebirth (Buddhism) - Wikipedia

So we have progress through different spiritual realms after this life which is similar to the Baha’i view of progress through the worlds of God.

Christians say that people got one chance. Believe in Jesus and be saved from hell. How does that jive with reincarnation and working out your karmic baggage through multiple lives?

But many Christians used to also believe in purgatory.

Purgatory - Wikipedia

So perhaps Christian concepts of heaven and hell have changed with time.

Reincarnation throughout multiple lives while held by a minority of Buddhists are probably held by a majority of Hindus.

For the Baha’i worldview to be proved contradictory you would need to first establish what Krishna and Buddha originally taught. That can not be done as all records of what they taught must be considered unreliable.

out your karmic baggage through multiple lives? But both these ideas don't go with what Baha'is believe anyway. So why try and make them converge into anything?

I’m not. The two traditions of Buddhism and Christianity originated 500 years apart and thousands of miles away from each other in very different settings. They have evolved over the centuries largely independent of each other. Where they appear to converge is their application to our shared humanity and what works in communities. Neither have properly adapted to the modern world.

For Baha'is, they are both wrong. The thing Baha'is need to show is how in some mysterious "original" form, both these religions taught complimentary spiritual concepts.

We can’t actually establish a fully authentic original form for either religion. The problem is simply compounded by several orders of magnitude in Buddhism as the first Sutras and Sutas weren’t written down for nearly 400 years after the Buddha passed away.

But you know me, I'm good with people in different times and places coming up with spiritual ideas that fit the needs of their time. Which isn't that much different than saying God gave people in different times and places differing beliefs to fit their needs in their culture at that particular time. Or is it? Yeah, I think it's a lot different.

It may not be that different except for the matter of the existence of God which of course is the biggest difference between Christianity and Buddhism.

My way allows for people to think that they get reborn over and over again until they reach perfection. And another people to think there is a perfect Savior that will forgive them of their sins and will let them into a heavenly paradise to live for eternity with him. Are either of them right?

It’s a plausible and attractive theory.

Who knows, but how many "adjustments" to these basic beliefs arise within those religions? Which, to me, kind of shows that people do come up with ideas about their religion to change it to fit the new times and new places where that religion ends up in.

Beliefs certainly change over time as well as perceptions as to what a Teacher may or may not have said over two thousand years ago.

 

[Marcion]

No. Buddha does away with nothing because there is nothing to do away with. There is devotion, not to a persona that is a projection of the ego, but to Ultimate Reality, ie 'Dharma'. Buddha simply realized that his true nature is none other than Ultimate Reality itself, which is empty of inherent self-nature.

Is the Yeshua reference to 'Rule of God' and 'Holy Spirit' that of a persona?

When you refer to 'Yeshua', are you talking about the modern image of 'Jesus', or the authentic Yeshua, prior to his teachings having been corrupted with pagan doctrines, like blood sacrifice and bodily resurrection?

I said 'does away with' because Gautama had himself practised Hindu types of devotional meditation before he designed his own system. Besides that you can hardly speak of devotion in Buddhism, there is no singing devotional songs to express love for the goal or other such expressions except perhaps the mudra of prostration. Although this may be somewhat different in Mahayana Buddhism, I have too little knowledge of Buddhism.

I get my Yeshua mostly from the sayings in the reconstruction of Q-lite that I made (see link below). Some texts in the first half of Mark (before the blood sacrifice and resurrection half) seem to resonate with the personality who speaks the sayings in Q-lite.

The explanation Yeshua gives of the idea of the 'Rule of God' or 'Holy Spirit' seems to be more like imagery to symbolize what happens when the individual mind loses its (illusionary) boundaries which is more abstract than a persona.
But in other tantric types of spiritual philosophy you will also find both the metaphysical imagery (and explanation) as well as the devotional personal imagery side by side.
Buddhism is more an exception like an extreme form of hindu protestantism.

 

[Dawnofhope]

buddha and christ are the same in my opinion. they both say ''don't harm'' more or less.

They (Buddha and Christ) appear to have been peaceful people who taught peace. This is in contrast to Moses, Krishna and Muhammad who lived through extremely turbulent times with some degree of conflict or war.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Yes - to truly gain an understanding of even one religion is quite complex. Religion is fundamentally human, addressing our core values, beliefs, and raison d'être - both on the macro level of humanity, and on the individual level. Culture, politics, history, etc. it all combines into a holistic framework. And people across all ages and cultural barriers are fundamentally the same - so there is redundancy in the types of questions that people have, and certain things they hope to find in religion. That said, religions can be quite diverse in how they address these questions and the problems that we face as humans.

I agree.

I was never particularly impressed with the Eightfold Path. It's lengthy, but it doesn't say much. You might as well say: whatever you do, do it right. That's not helpful unless you teach people how to do things "right."

There is a wealth of guidance in respect to details if the body of the Buddha’s Teachings are taken as a whole. Both Buddha and Jesus spoke in parables so there is an important aspect of us working it out for ourselves, unlike Levitical law that is very prescriptive.

The goals and methods of the two are a contradiction between each other. Eternal life vs escaping the cycle of death and rebirth. Love vs attachment. Doing good works vs ceasing to produce anything but neutral karma.

Also, Christianity does not fear suffering the way Buddhism does. While not desirable, suffering is not inherently bad - and in fact can be good. Buddhism goes to an extreme by focusing so much on suffering that their entire outlook on life is framed in terms of suffering. They don't say "yes there is some suffering in life that you have to deal with, but there's also a lot of good - and that good does/can outweigh the bad." They say "there is some suffering, so let's find a way to end it all."

The belief that only faith is required for salvation appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding some Christians have of their own religion (James 2:14-26).

We could say that some Christians have gone to an extreme of emphasising sin which of course leads to suffering in both this world and the world to come. Right action or good works enables us to free ourselves to some extent. Of course good works alone are insufficient so Faith is required in Jesus or Buddha.

Good/wholesome karma keeps one in Samsara the same as bad/unwholesome karma. To escape Samsara, one must cease producing karma - which means that you must cease to do good and bad.

But Buddha taught the path of moderation and that complete disengagement from the world of being was not the path.

Nothing in Buddhism is analogous to the love of Christ or to love in general. "Self" and "other" are illusions, and attachment a source of suffering. These are the very things that Buddhism attempts to free you from. And if you don't believe in "self" or "other" and you have no attachments, then there can be no love.

To love is a human quality that both Jesus and Buddha emphasised. If Christians had access to this unique exclusive love then how come they have so often distinguished themselves by hatred, prejudice and violence?

I've tried to keep things at a general, core level. Once you start trying to compare all the different sects of different religions -there will be no end >.> haha

That’s true. However Christianity has become broken and factionalised as Buddhism has lost its cohesiveness.

I enjoy your thread. I was actually considering making a Christianity vs Buddhism thread myself, since there are many who like to combine the two and - IMHO - it doesn't work.

I agree. We do best to follow one religion. That doesn’t mean we can’t learn from other faiths and appreciate many of their adherents live lives worthy of admiration. I believe it’s a mistake for some Westerners to abandon their Christian Faith to become Buddhists as it’s a mistake for some Buddhists to become Christians. It can represent a denial of who we are and where we’ve come from. However both religions need to make fundamental adjustments to adapt more fully to the modern world.

 

[CG Didymus]

As said by another, the concept of rebirth or reincarnation is often different in Buddhism compared to Hinduism.

The rebirth doctrine in Buddhism, sometimes referred to as reincarnation or metempsychosis, asserts that rebirth does not necessarily take place as another human being, but as an existence in one of the six Gati (realms) called Bhavachakra.

Rebirth (Buddhism) - Wikipedia

So we have progress through different spiritual realms after this life which is similar to the Baha’i view of progress through the worlds of God.



But many Christians used to also believe in purgatory.

Purgatory - Wikipedia

So perhaps Christian concepts of heaven and hell have changed with time.

Reincarnation throughout multiple lives while held by a minority of Buddhists are probably held by a majority of Hindus.

For the Baha’i worldview to be proved contradictory you would need to first establish what Krishna and Buddha originally taught. That can not be done as all records of what they taught must be considered unreliable.



I’m not. The two traditions of Buddhism and Christianity originated 500 years apart and thousands of miles away from each other in very different settings. They have evolved over the centuries largely independent of each other. Where they appear to converge is their application to our shared humanity and what works in communities. Neither have properly adapted to the modern world.



We can’t actually establish a fully authentic original form for either religion. The problem is simply compounded by several orders of magnitude in Buddhism as the first Sutras and Sutas weren’t written down for nearly 400 years after the Buddha passed away.



It may not be that different except for the matter of the existence of God which of course is the biggest difference between Christianity and Buddhism.



It’s a plausible and attractive theory.



Beliefs certainly change over time as well as perceptions as to what a Teacher may or may not have said over two thousand years ago.

The different realms in Buddhism had some that were worse than being human. That's not what Baha'is believe is it? Like in the Baha'i Faith, where do evil people go? They did horrible things as a human, but they go to a spiritual place with no punishing aspects to it? And, all non-human life lives one time and is gone, nothing of a spiritual place for them?

And purgatory, Protestants don't believe it is what is taught by Jesus and the Bible. But, I can see why it was invented. Christianity had only two places, a perfect place, heaven and a horrible place of agony and torture, hell. So what do you do with people that aren't all that bad, just a little bit bad? Plus, a person could pay a head of time to get the sentence in purgatory reduced. That's not a bad deal... if you had the money.

But, I just thought of another question... What about Pureland Buddhism? Don't they have some things that are similar to Christian/Catholic beliefs mixed in with traditional Buddhist beliefs?

 

[godnotgod]

I said 'does away with' because Gautama had himself practised Hindu types of devotional meditation before he designed his own system. Besides that you can hardly speak of devotion in Buddhism, there is no singing devotional songs to express love for the goal or other such expressions except perhaps the mudra of prostration. Although this may be somewhat different in Mahayana Buddhism, I have too little knowledge of Buddhism.

Can silent focus on the eternal Mystery within be devotional? In fact, can it actually be closer to the living Source within than devotional songs or other expressions, 'expressions' being targeted to some external deity? If you think this is possible, then the Buddha's practice was pure pristine devotion. Buddha said: "Place no head above your own", so he never expressed devotion to another, but instead his focus was solely on That within*. And the transformation experienced by the Buddha is that his individual consciousness became Universal Consciousness, and along with this radical transformation came genuine compassion for the suffering of all mankind. This is Mahayana, or 'Big Boat' Buddhism: IOW, save everyone; everyone gets into the boat to reach the other shore.

Now, there is a sect of Buddhism in Japan whose primary focus IS on devotion to the Buddha similar to Christianity's devotion to Jesus. It is called 'Pure Land Buddhism', a branch of Mahayana Buddhism:

"Pure Land Buddhism offers a way to enlightenment for people who can't handle the subtleties of meditation, endure long rituals, or just live especially good lives.

The essential practice in Pure Land Buddhism is the chanting of the name of Amitabha Buddha with total concentration, trusting that one will be reborn in the Pure Land, a place where it is much easier for a being to work towards enlightenment.

Pure Land Buddhism adds mystical elements to the basic Buddhist teachings which make those teachings easier (and more comforting) to work with.

These elements include faith and trust and a personal relationship with Amitabha Buddha, who is regarded by Pure Land Buddhists as a sort of saviour; and belief in the Pure Land, a place which provides a stepping stone towards enlightenment and liberation."

BBC - Religions - Buddhism: Pure Land Buddhism

The explanation Yeshua gives of the idea of the 'Rule of God' or 'Holy Spirit' seems to be more like imagery to symbolize what happens when the individual mind loses its (illusionary) boundaries which is more abstract than a persona.
But in other tantric types of spiritual philosophy you will also find both the metaphysical imagery (and explanation) as well as the devotional personal imagery side by side.
Buddhism is more an exception like an extreme form of hindu protestantism.

It only seems so from looking at it from the outside. Buddhism is ultimately not a philosophy, but the direct experience of, and awakening to, Ultimate Reality in this Here and Now. That it seems 'abstract' is only a mental view, but the reality of the Buddhistic experience is not in the head. It is pure seeing into the true nature of Reality, without thought, with an awakened consciousness. The Buddha IS awakened consciousness itself.

*Buddha's transformation has been likened to how dough becomes bread. The Buddha wanted to know how an ordinary man could become a buddha, so he put the 'dough' into the oven and studied the process over and over again to see how it became 'bread', so to speak.

 

[Marcion]

Buddhism is ultimately not a philosophy, but the direct experience of, and awakening to, Ultimate Reality in this Here and Now. That it seems 'abstract' is only a mental view, but the reality of the Buddhistic experience is not in the head. It is pure seeing into the true nature of Reality, without thought, with an awakened consciousness. The Buddha IS awakened consciousness itself.

Of course the end result is just the same. The enlightened end stage and the types of 'samadhi' one gets on the way will not be very different for a devotional path that also uses the senses more and an enlightened figure to focuss devotion on than for a more dry path were such tools are not used.

However the experience of the way or path towards that end result will differ for the individual as well as for the collective of people sharing some practices in that community. Buddhism will comparatively be experienced as a more "dry" or a more intellectual path in its relative lack of more fysico-psycho-spiritual practices.

That doesn't mean that the philosophy will comparatively be more intelectual but the practical approach will be felt to be so because of the absence of those devotional tools such as kiirtana (devotional song and dance combined), bhajans (devotional songs), guru puja (offering of colours of ones mind), devotion for the Guru (personification of the Ultimate Reality or Supreme Consciousness) etc. The whole experience will be less colourful and less explicitly love-oriented in Buddhism. That at least is my own experience of these two types of tantra (tantra in the broader sense).

You can arouse love and bliss through introversive practices but also by using extroversive techniques that guide or resonate the mind towards introversion through special visual means, rythm, bodily movement (mudra), melody and sound.
Perhaps for this reason also Buddhism is mainly a path for celibate monks and nons who can spend longer periods of time on studying scriptures, meditations and retreats.

 

[godnotgod]

Of course the end result is just the same. The enlightened end stage and the types of 'samadhi' one gets on the way will not be very different for a devotional path that also uses the senses more and an enlightened figure to focuss devotion on than for a more dry path were such tools are not used.

For the end result to be the same, the devotee would necessarily need to abandon the object of his devotion, in a similar manner that a Buddhist would abandon the 'raft' of the teaching, once his journey is complete. But that is not what occurs with the devotee: he continues to idolize and worship the object of his devotion. In a nutshell, one might say that the devotee is focused on the outward imagery and manifestations (form) of the Source, ie; the foreground of existence, while the Buddhist is focused on the background, or the Source itself. The Source is silent mystery, so the Buddhist must subdue the machinations of the mind until it is totally quiescent. The devotee is operating exactly from the mind itself, focusing on an object in a subject/object split. The Buddhist, OTOH, transcends both subject and object, realizing they are merely conceptual frameworks created by mind. His focus is on pure consciousness, not mind. In the 'end', the Buddhist realizes he is none other than That, wherein 'the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation merge into a single Reality',* while the devotee continues on in his subject/object split of the mind.

However the experience of the way or path towards that end result will differ for the individual as well as for the collective of people sharing some practices in that community. Buddhism will comparatively be experienced as a more "dry" or a more intellectual path in its relative lack of more fysico-psycho-spiritual practices.

'Dry' only because the Buddhist realizes that this world is only one of appearances, which he must transcend in order to reach the Source. The Buddhistic experience is one that is beyond that of perception. Perceptual reality is transcended in order to experience Ultimate Reality, which is the true 'explanation' for this phenomenal world. But this experience is only accessible in the Silent World, not the world itself. There is nothing 'dry' about the Source. It does not come and go as the world does, an illusion.

That doesn't mean that the philosophy will comparatively be more intelectual but the practical approach will be felt to be so because of the absence of those devotional tools such as kiirtana (devotional song and dance combined), bhajans (devotional songs), guru puja (offering of colours of ones mind), devotion for the Guru (personification of the Ultimate Reality or Supreme Consciousness) etc. The whole experience will be less colourful and less explicitly love-oriented in Buddhism. That at least is my own experience of these two types of tantra (tantra in the broader sense).

The Buddhist does not rely on the intellect, but on pure consciousness because his approach is not about thinking about what is, but about seeing into the true nature of things, without thought. Because of this, Buddhism is not a philosophy, although philosophy has arisen from the Buddhistic experience. For example, in the Heart Sutra, the Buddha summarizes what he SEES as:

"form is emptiness;
emptiness is form"

What could possibly be 'dry' about direct union with the Source itself within?

You can arouse love and bliss*** through introversive practices but also by using extroversive techniques that guide or resonate the mind towards introversion through special visual means, rythm, bodily movement (mudra), melody and sound.
Perhaps for this reason also Buddhism is mainly a path for celibate monks and nons who can spend longer periods of time on studying scriptures, meditations and retreats.

IOW, 'devotion'.

In the Ten Oxherding Pictures** from Chan Buddhism, the monk, after his Enlightenment, returns to society in the last picture. Buddhism says that, before Enlightenment, it appears that others are ignorant, but upon the experience of Enlightenment, it is realized that everyone is already enlightened, but that they just do not yet realize it. Ultimately, one just 'becomes' what one has been from the very beginning, one reason why the Buddha stated that "I gained not a single thing from my Supreme Enlightenment"

Scripture, at least in Zen, is a secondary source to the direct apprehension of Reality itself. Remember, the Buddha, when asked, referred to himself as 'one who is awake'. All else is just a 'finger pointing to the moon'.

*Deepak Chopra

**Ten Bulls - Wikipedia
(please take a look at these)

***10. Return to Society
"Barefooted and naked of breast,
I mingle with the people of the world.
My clothes are ragged and dust-laden,
and I am ever blissful.
I use no magic to extend my life;
Now, before me, the dead trees
become alive."

from the 10th Oxherding Picture, as referenced above

 

[Dawnofhope]

The different realms in Buddhism had some that were worse than being human. That's not what Baha'is believe is it? Like in the Baha'i Faith, where do evil people go? They did horrible things as a human, but they go to a spiritual place with no punishing aspects to it? And, all non-human life lives one time and is gone, nothing of a spiritual place for them?

Baha’is believe our progress in the next world depends on our progress in this world. A baby in the womb of its mother must develop its limbs, organs and senses otherwise ibecomes handicapped in the world after birth. In like manner we must develop spirituality in this life for our progress through the worlds of God in the afterlife. If not and we are selfish exploiting and hurting others then a torment awaits us.

And purgatory, Protestants don't believe it is what is taught by Jesus and the Bible. But, I can see why it was invented. Christianity had only two places, a perfect place, heaven and a horrible place of agony and torture, hell. So what do you do with people that aren't all that bad, just a little bit bad? Plus, a person could pay a head of time to get the sentence in purgatory reduced. That's not a bad deal... if you had the money.

Lol. We are all dependent on the Mercy of God. In the Kitab-i-Aqdas or Most Holy book Bah’au’llah has revealed in the first verse:

The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition of Him Who is the Dayspring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause and the world of creation. Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof hath gone astray, though he be the author of every righteous deed. It behooveth everyone who reacheth this most sublime station, this summit of transcendent glory, to observe every ordinance of Him Who is the Desire of the world. These twin duties are inseparable. Neither is acceptable without the other. Thus hath it been decreed by Him Who is the Source of Divine inspiraction.

The Kitáb-i-Aqdas

 

[godnotgod]

Baha’is believe our progress in the next world depends on our progress in this world. A baby in the womb of its mother must develop its limbs, organs and senses otherwise ibecomes handicapped in the world after birth. In like manner we must develop spirituality in this life for our progress through the worlds of God in the afterlife. If not and we are selfish exploiting and hurting others then a torment awaits us.

All I know for certain is that I am in this world, here, now. There is no 'other' world that I can experience while in this world, other than the world of transformed consciousness. What do you mean by 'next world'? You have experience with a world other than the one you now find yourself in?

How is it possible to prepare oneself for life in another world when we have no experience with that world? Anything we do comes from this world, because that is all we know. A baby born into this world is totally unprepared to live in it, and yet, via social indoctrination, learns to find its way. Likewise, should such another world actually exist beyond this one, it would seem to me that the best thing to do is to enter totally unconditioned to anything. That way, one can be completely open to all the new experiences that world holds for us, in much the same manner that a newborn babe is completely taken in by what he experiences. This attitude of 'openness' to whatever spontaneously comes, is expressed by the Sufi saying:

"Leave your soul slightly ajar, ready for the ecstatic moment"

Preparation misses the mark, as it nurtures preconceived notions about what one is going to experience, instead of experiencing the moment as it arises. This is expressed in the Parable of the Lilies of the Field, when Yeshua said, in part:


Matthew 6

27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?

34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

IOW, there is really nothing you can do to 'prepare' yourself for what is to come, as Yeshua is suggesting. The best thing you can do is to be attentive to what is in the here and now. Anything you do to gain union with God will only take you further from union with the divine nature, because you are already in union with the divine.

 

[Dawnofhope]

All I know for certain is that I am in this world, here, now. There is no 'other' world that I can experience while in this world, other than the world of transformed consciousness. What do you mean by 'next world'? You have experience with a world other than the one you now find yourself in?

I agree that we should live fully and wholly in this world. However if we were to examine some of the main world religions, particularly the Abrahamic Faiths we are taught we have a soul that progresses beyond this mortal life. Hinduism and some schools of Buddhism have similar beliefs though framed around rebirth, reincarnation and Moksha.

How is it possible to prepare oneself for life in another world when we have no experience with that world? Anything we do comes from this world, because that is all we know. A baby born into this world is totally unprepared to live in it, and yet, via social indoctrination, learns to find its way. Likewise, should such another world actually exist beyond this one, it would seem to me that the best thing to do is to enter totally unconditioned to anything. That way, one can be completely open to all the new experiences that world holds for us, in much the same manner that a newborn babe is completely taken in by what he experiences. This attitude of 'openness' to whatever spontaneously comes, is expressed by the Sufi saying:

"Leave your soul slightly ajar, ready for the ecstatic moment"

Every analogy or metaphor falls down at some point but is there to assist understanding.

Matthew 6

27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?

34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

IOW, there is really nothing you can do to 'prepare' yourself for what is to come, as Yeshua is suggesting. The best thing you can do is to be attentive to what is in the here and now. Anything you do to gain union with God will only take you further from union with the divine nature, because you are already in union with the divine.

If we are to understand the gospels properly we need to consider all the Teachings of Christ not just those that suit our worldview and accept the wisdom of the Apostles. I’m not sure your worldview does. The New Testament clearly refers to an afterlife and what is necessary to attain salvation.

 

[godnotgod]

I agree that we should live fully and wholly in this world.

That is not what I said. I said that this world is the only experience we know to be real. That there is an afterlife is merely a belief. The ego does not want to die, but to go on in perpetuity, so we invent the notion of an 'afterlife' where it can be preserved for all eternity as a means of assuaging our metaphysical anxiety. The problem is that who and what we are is integrated into the tapestry of this life. This same person will be out of context in any 'next life'. It is not designed to integrate into any other life but the current one. The only solution is for it to dissolve away, and its life to return to the Source from which it came. That it goes on to live in some other realm is just a fantasy. We know of no such 'other world'. To conceive of 'another realm' is nothing more than a 'substantial, delusive idea'.

However if we were to examine some of the main world religions, particularly the Abrahamic Faiths we are taught we have a soul that progresses beyond this mortal life. Hinduism and some schools of Buddhism have similar beliefs though framed around rebirth, reincarnation and Moksha.

The 'soul' of reincarnation is not an eternal entity. It dissolves upon spiritual Awakening, or Nirvana, as the identity of the drop vanishes upon its return to the vast ocean. The Abrahamic belief in a soul that goes on after death is just an idea, one designed to provide relief from anxiety over one's ultimate fate.

Every analogy or metaphor falls down at some point but is there to assist understanding.

Hopefully you gained some understanding.

If we are to understand the gospels properly we need to consider all the Teachings of Christ not just those that suit our worldview and accept the wisdom of the Apostles. I’m not sure your worldview does. The New Testament clearly refers to an afterlife and what is necessary to attain salvation.

What it says is that 'salvation' can only come via the shedding of the blood of one 'Jesus Christ', a pagan and superstitious belief superimposed over the authentic teachings of Yeshua, who did not teach that doctrine. Nor did he teach the doctrine of the resurrection of the body.

So once again, I ask you: regardless of what the religions say, what is YOUR experience of an 'afterlife'? I know of none whatsoever.