View Article  Dialogue with a Neo-Buddhist: Action versus inaction 0610 04d
 

Clyde G. is a respected thinker and Neo-Buddhist who has been acknowledged for his ability to ask questions going to the heart of issues regarding metaphysical models of reality.

 

Dan;

 

You are standing or sitting or reclining or whatever, but you are never “not doing”.

 
 
 
 
 
Clyde,
 
I suppose one could say: Half a truth is better than no truth at all.
 
What you say is true, however, one has the free will to both choose which actions one will or will not take. Ther are more potential actions one can take than actions one takes.
 
As such one is as responsible for the actions one does not take as for the actions one takes.
 
You say: “I can understand transmigration (metaphorically) as the eternal continuity of the consequences of our actions.”  So the something personal is our action; that was born because it came into existence with our doing, and would live eternally because the consequences are endless'
 
If such is the case than the following is just as true: So the something personal is also our failure to act; that was born because it came into existence due to our 'not doing', 'not acting', 'looking away', 'ignoring'..., and would live eternally because the consequences are endless.
 
Case in point: WWII genocide of priests, jews, gypsies, physically disfigured, mentally challenged, homosexuals, 12 million entities of consciousness... all because good men did nothing.
 
One may  always 'be doing' but that does not mean one is 'not doing'.
 
One is responsible for two actions: what one 'is' doing and what one 'is not' doing because one choses not to do it.
 
Too often we forget the second half regarding where our responsibilities lie. Too often we embrace the first half of truth - we are responsible for what we choose 'to do' - and look away from the other half of truth, namely: we are responsible for what we choose 'not to be doing'
View Article  What does the conceptual framework of Christianity have to offer us? Part II of II

What does the conceptual framework of Christianity have to offer us?

 

Part II of II

A black person is not black but a soul deserving of the same kind of love as a white person, for a white person is not white but rather a soul also.

 

A woman is not a female and a man is not a male; they are both souls deserving of equal respect.

 

A homosexual is not homosexual, an intellectual is not an intellectual, the strong are not strong, the weak are not weak, the physically challenged are not physically challenged; rather, they are all souls.

 

Each soul came from the same place and will return to the same place.

 

The Christian religion teaches us to treat everyone with love, for the person is not what it appears to be.

 

The person is a soul just as all people are. It is not at the body one must look to see the soul. It is deep within the eyes.

 

 

It wasn’t love yourself, love your brother, love your mother, love those like you, love those who believe as you do, love those who act as you do.

 

It was “love one another.” One more step to understanding the size of the Causative Force.

 

What does love have to do with size?

 

Love itself has nothing to do with size, but the need for love, the reason love is so important to a Causative Force, may tell us much about Her size.

 

End