Buddha may be more interesting than Jesus, true, because Jesus introduced Buddhism to western man in the dialectical language the could understand.
But the trace of understanding remains on the primordial unified with Buddha, without any requisite primordial intervening variables that the West could understand.
However, can the East rely a propositional reliance on no interve ing variables? As a consequence, can they really understand Buddha, in the sense that requires a transitional object?
Like a baby Buddha they generate, can they claim an objectless transcendence?
“Buddhas do what they do is evident for All to know… it’s not a secret, and they’re not gods, but men.”
They are both, neither, or either, depending.
And everything happening is a varied mix, an interplay of situational optics.
The glean optical sheen, and as simply as that description appears to represent a simple yet indescribably complex relational manufacture of possibilities, -that is the key that absolves from guilt or regret.
The limitation to downgrade into a paradoxically motivated aspiration to further inquiry, toward the more liberated search , presents an unwarranted sense of systemic chaos.
But it is not so! Not in a minority opinion, that is.
He said that yes, and while hyperbole and a useless rule if taken literally, the actual problem with this is that he
also said and did other things.
Sometimes people will assert X. Then they do and say other things that contradict that. When it is pointed out that, for example, they believe not X. They or their supporters say ‘Oh, but he said X is true.’ Right, but if one’s actions and words in other contexts contradict this, you cannot assert this is actually what they believe. It is good to encourage critical thinking even of one’s own ideas. But while saying this with his right hand, he implied people were dumb, had wrong beliefs, and asserted all sorts of things in his own, slightly complicated indirect ways.
A woman is walking down the street and an angry ex boyfriend throws acid in her face. She is now suffering and not because of craving.
But who knows, within another context she craved for love but instead got sex. Everybody craves something .
Women settling for even sex, overeat, develop food craving and get fat.
Fat women crave attention, the kind not begotten by depreciating the eye may develop abnormal resistance to ingesting food, so develop an eating disorder.
Eating disorders develop into styles of abnormally modeled fashion.
Fashonistas deibjectify looks for brains.
Brains starve for oxygen. And overdose on it, turning to alcohol bars.
Breathing becomes the mode for enlightening yoga practices making Buddha a way to ascend by sacrificing the sequencing of Platonic loves’ladder.
The
at avoidance leads to sacrificing for the missing elements, creating a subtle co-juncture, an opportunity that the Western World could not comprehend, ironically missing the point of the idol fat Buddha.
Sophia tried somehow to avoid the issue, the demigod and only a demigod could satisfy.
The content, the substantial does not matter, the way to atonement consists not entirely of shedding those unwanted pounds.
“Ill amend this to make clear that I understand that I frame this with a slant- the correspondence of the narratives of art and philosophy warrant this; philosophy is ahead of art, or lets say its most extended avant guard.”
Way ahead, and that is why a controlled material world is left best to be quantified, rather then qualified by such: as that choice between the inclusive three apples. No wonder, Paris judges relations of all kinds by apples, and can not compare them to oranges, which deals with the inauthentic , by exclusion.
I am still not clear on Buddha entirely, in the sense of what he brought forth exactly; for example, do we group Zen entirely under Buddha? And how much Vedic thought passes for Buddhism?
What is Buddha except a centre of spiritual influences reaching a personification through a well written document? I am not clear. Maybe Gautama Siddhartha was indeed a sort of world-axis. It matters because it defines more or less how much and what precisely there is to be understood and what is to be vaguely attributed or, not.
Jesus is another case - it is perfectly clear that if he existed or not he was a vessel for different cultures having an apotheosis in each other - the Hebrews, the Egyptians, the Greeks and the Romans all produced their mystery religions to melt into each other and put forth this prophet of uncanny drama and overwhelming success as a personal lord and saviour. The Christ… what a character right? Jesus. So much beyond normal daily meanings is he that it doesn’t make sense to try to understand in a rational fashion; one can only come to understand what is meant in the parables through ones own personal apotheosis.
Buddha, one can more or less understand a part of through the divine blisses which he named, but these blisses are far more ancient than the Buddha himself. How old is the sound of one hand clapping?
Even if, this mixture could not identify either the source or some kind of hidden agenda, the thing is, that personally, I hazard , but only recently a shift from the personification, but the background and the foreground: in the apoethesis mentioned.
The. contrast elevates any persona to be sure, I the eye, (Eye) consequentially making that person mysterious.
The cultural eclipse of existential struggle determined this.
The socio-psycholo-econo-political determinate were overwhelming in the time of Jesus, and He was , sort of speAk the exemplary man for the job
He was the ultimate Job, the man weighed down not merely by the totAl loss of his family , but felt he owed the whole world"s existential suffering.
Later, much later, when Goethe and Schiller thought .
I wouldn’t really dare to guess what went through Jesus’ mind - why he did what he did - I am religious and I believe in the Gods literal existence, therefore if Jesus existed and did what he did, I believe he was a great magician, i.e. someone who knows the gods, and his motivations would have to be understood as originating between him and the gods.
This I entirely agree with. Even though I am still completely unsure if he ever did exist in truth.
