Attaining Nirvana

Before Buddha becomes enlightened, he says:

"Come what may-let my body rot, let my bones be reduced to ashes-I will not get up from here until I have found the way beyond decay and death"(p 38).

I admire Buddha for his actions, for Buddha is expressing stubbornness and maturity in order to find the answer to a life without samsara. In my opinion, I think he is tired of people's addiction to samsara, the concept that the world is full of suffering. The world suffers even more because people do not want to accept change.

When Buddha becomes enlightened, he says:

"Perhaps, there will be a few who will listen. Dust does cover the eyes of all, but for some it is only a thin film. Everyone desires an end to suffering and sorrow. To those who will listen, I will teach the dharma, and for those who follow it, the dharma itself will set them free" (41).

Is Buddha trying to teach his followers the concept of Nirvana? Does he want his followers to try to achieve this difficult task? Do you think attaining Nirvana is even possible in today's society?

After all, Buddha has been charged with a "transcendent power" (42), a power that can only be  experienced beyond the normal level or capabilities. He has extinguished the demon of selfish desire.
But how difficult would it be for me to extinguish selfish desire? Maybe I should start wearing an orange robe and sit under a banyan tree....

A "Godlike" Buddha

While reading the Introduction to The Dhammapada, I thought it was interesting when Siddhartha was mistaken for a God. On page 37, a beautiful woman with a newborn wanted to give thanks for her son. Her handmaid mistook Buddha for a god and exclaimed, "The radiant god for whom you prayed for a son is sitting under the banyan tree by the side of the river.Why not make your offering for him directly?"

At first I was confused, because I didn't think that Budda was a god. However, during class, Alex explained that the handmaid might have mistaken him for a god because he was giving off a radiant glow.

And it's true. In every picture I can find of Buddha, he has a yellow orb around his head. During his enlightenment, when he finally found nirvana, he was at peace with himself and shined with an inner light. He became "awake." That got me thinking. Why couldn't Buddha be a god? He reminds me of Jesus in a way, for Jesus became enlightened with new teachings and wanted to preach his word to his disciples and beyond as well. And technically speaking, Jesus is God because he is part of the Holy Trinity, which means the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are one and the same. So why not Buddha?


Buddha's Glow:

A Heaven full of Poor People?

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:24)


This is such an interesting expression. I thought that Matthew literally meant that a camel can go through the eye of a sewing needle, not a small door. In my mind, it does make sense, for it would be extremely difficult (um, pretty much impossible) for a man to go through a sewing needle. So what makes the camel capable? In the parable, it is inferred that a rich man must get rid of his baggage until he can enter the door to the Kingdom of God. By baggage, it is meant that a rich man must get rid of his wealth to truly be with God. But why is that so? Is it because wealthy people are stereotyped to have a knack for greed? I don't think all wealthy people are greedy; I think some work very hard for their money and deserve it.  So why does Jesus say that a person must be poor in order to live in heaven?



 Post to check out:
http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/43.htm

Revitalizing Christianity- My Purple Cross

I have a "Jesus necklace." My necklace consists of a cross encrusted with purple gemstones. The necklace was given to me when I made my First Communion, and I have had it ever since. I always feel that my purple cross is appropriate to wear to church because it symbolizes my faith. I have noticed a lot of people wearing a cross necklace around campus too. However, I've been wondering if the ornament is seen as more of a decorative purpose or a symbol of faith. In regards to this topic, Professor Silliman brought up the question, "Has it lost its power to shock?"

I think so. Even for myself, the image of the cross has lost its shock value. When I wear my necklace, I don't think of it as the cross Jesus died on; I just think of it as the necklace associated with my religion. I think that people choose to wear it because it looks "cool." Wearing a cross has become more of a fashion statement than a religious statement. Is this a good thing? Is this revitalizing Christianity or counteracting Christianity?

Why do we say "The Church?"

Have you ever noticed during our blog posts, in response to Catholicism, we regard the religion by saying  "The Church?" The Church has become the subject: "The Church has done this, the Church has done that." However, it is not the Church that has done these specific things; it is the people (the pope, priests, bishops, deacons, etc.) that make it up. The rules of the Church (oops, I mean Catholicism) set the foundation for the doings and the image of the religion. Next time you mention Catholicism, see how often you quote it by saying "The Church." You'll probably be surprised.

Something to Share

In my creative writing class, a North Adams guest poet recited an original piece about religion. The following line struck a chord with me:

"I believe Jesus fell in love- then became a God. We deny this fact for lack of evidence."

After posting an entry about Mary Magdalene and her possible relationship with Jesus a couple of weeks ago, I thought this verse was interesting and true. Since there is such a lack of evidence about whether Mary did have a relationship with Jesus or not, people have to rely on their beliefs to determine the truth. Instead of the power of belief, I  think that many people rely solely on facts and evidence to prove that statements are correct. However, I think that in certain situations, a person's "gut feeling," or beliefs, should override the truth. Why does evidence have to play such an integral and pivotal part in the society's thought process?

A Jesus Discovery

The other day, I came across an online article about a "Jesus Discovery." I thought this article came at a perfect time, for it provides an opportunity for our class to ponder more about the historical Jesus and his existence. 


According to the article, "Jesus was born, lived, and died in the land of Israel. Most scholars agree he was born around
 5 BCE and died around 30 CE."


Authors and archaeologists James D. Tabor and Simcha Jacobovici wrote The Jesus Discovery: The New Archaeological Find That Reveals the Birth of Christianity. 

The archaeologists believed certain tombs they have been investigating in Jerusalem are the tombs of Jesus' family: " We believe a compelling argument can be made that the Garden tomb is that of Jesus of Nazareth and his family. We argue in this book that both tombs are most likely located on the rural estate of Joseph of Arimathea, the wealthy member of the Sanhedrin who according to all four New Testament gospels took official charge of Jesus' burial."


The Garden tomb is supposedly the "Jesus son of Joseph's tomb," which was first discovered in 1980. It's namesake is due to its placement beneath a garden in a condominium complex. 

Another tomb is the Patio tomb, which is located beneath an apartment in the Jerusalem suburb East Talpiot. The tomb was first discovered by construction workers in 1981. 

Some archaeologists are unsure about the tomb's credibility, for they are certain that "nothing of this sort has survived, not a single site, inscription, artifact, drawing, or text mentioning Jesus or his followers, or witnessing to the beliefs of the earliest Jewish Christians either in Jerusalem or in Galilee."

Do you believe these tombs are the tombs of Jesus' family? I was confused about the Garden tomb, for what does the author mean by "Jesus son of Joseph's tomb?" Did he have a son named Joseph?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/28/jesus-discovery-jerusalem_n_1305355.html#s732486&title=The_Resurrection_Tomb

The book might be worth checking out!
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Discovery-Archaeological-Reveals-Christianity/dp/145165040X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1330385122&sr=8-1

A Great Help! Passive Voice, Anyone?

Hello!

To those of you who are still confused with the passive voice (like me), I found a great web page regarding the passive voice from The Writing Center at UNC Chapel Hill's website. The page has helped me a great deal with my Gita paper! Hope it helps you too!

http://writingcenter.unc.edu/resources/handouts-demos/citation/passive-voice