odd concept, why is it that orgenized Religions come to such diffrent conclusions, but aestetic monks generally seem to come to the same one?
perhaps it’s the same as why scientists argue theory in a university, but scientists doing feild reserch tend to agree with one another.
Perhaps it is that a person is smart but people are just plain stupid.
it is my oppinion that a fool who does not question reality comes to accept the one that is given to him, bear this in mind when I ask are you this kind of fool?
I think it might actually be fair to reverse that statement, since it is at the group level where one can readily observe agreement but at the individual level where disagreement is common.
As a general rule, I think some degree of asceticism is natural given the basis of most religions (this is not all I am), because if I am something else, it quickly becomes reasonable to associate the negative aspects of ourself with this thing we mistake for ourselves. So, then it becomes important to divorce ourselves from it.
laughs a buddist monk who studies on his own and a christian monk will more often than not come to the same conclusion and even if not they can at least accept their diffrinces, within a group you see agreement within that group but often conflict outside of it, why.
And why do aestetics find peace and reasons not to fight. Why did so many messiahs act against orgenized structure, why did christ disaprove of the temples.
why are wars fought over religion when individuals of that religion know it is a bad idea, why do we fight and kill when at the base of any of our belief systems we know it’s wrong.
the only answer that makes any sense is when we associate ourselves with others with simmilar beliefs to our own we endorse our simmilaraties rather than the reasons for our beliefs and the true nature behind it.
compared to what is lost by association the benafits seem almost nonexsistant, so such things seem rather foolish to me, why would someone choose to forfit truth for false security. it all seems rather troublesome.
Well, first off, if a Christian and a Buddhist monk were to come to the same conclusions, then at least one of the two would have become an apostate. So, I’m not so sure about that one.
But as for the notion of respect – respect is easy between two people because of the bond of humanity that they share. This bond can become obscured when viewed from a group perspective because we already have actualized it within our group and in that act of actualization, we have created ins and outs. That is the sort of Tribalism that has been with man since the beginning and is a part of our nature.
Does it matter if it is religion that is used to divide us, or if it is race, class, ect. It all amounts to the same thing. For the act of belonging to be meaningful, there must be those who do not belong. That quickly becomes shouldn’t belong. And thus, humanity is slowly estranged in its realization. That is why moderation is the key.
Did you have any particular monks in mind? I do agree that many thoughtful-types of various faiths come to a sort of “sweetness and light” common conclusions about their faith, but I would not agree that they are fairly considered monks of those religions- more often, they are quiet, thoughtful heretics, and are acknowledged as such. Within Christianity at least, a monk who went through the proper steps to be considered a monk would be very unlikely to come to an ecumenical point of view. I’m not at all sure that asceticism is a common theme among them, either.
For one, a Christian monk would not be one who ‘studies on his own’, unless they were given permission to be a hermit.
“In 1996 some 25 Christian monks and 25 Buddhist monks gathered at Gethsemani Abbey in Kentucky to discuss how modern monastics interpret Benedictine spirituality. One product of that week of dialogue was the book “Benedict’s Dharma: Buddhists Reflect on the Rule of St. Benedictâ€, in which several Buddhists offer fresh perspectives on the ancient spiritual guideline. They describe their personal encounters with aspects of the rule and how they as Buddhists find sustenance and relevance in it. They believe the rule transcends the particulars of any one religious tradition to embrace universal truths. The book’s parts treat general themes, such as freedom and forgiveness, discipline and spontaneity, tradition and adaptation, and leadership and humility. In the book, Christianity and Buddhism find common ground in “general guidelines for an inner journey,” as one Buddhist describes it.â€
Amazon
Well, if they both study on their own, in silence, and contemplate deeply, then ofcourse the two will get along with eachother, because they are similar lifestyle and personality types. The ideology is only a side-effect of lifestyle & personality type.
They see how simple and easy life can be, after silence quells their insanity.
The supposed Christ wanted to change the religion. He was so different that he made his own religion that was no-longer Judaism.
Buddha was so different from the Hindus that be became the more atheist-nihilist version of Hinduism.
Each one of these founders was an example of apostacy becoming a religion; it was extreme reformism.
Wars aren’t fought for religion. Wars are fought with “religious” zeal, in the cult of dictatorship.
Life isn’t about truth.
Hey, look at all of the beings on the earth. How many of them want truth? Don’t they just want food and sex instead? So there’s your answer. People may want support and love more than they want “truth”.