DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Keyclenef** · 10-04-2011, 11:30 PM

But I'm curious: when you read the OP, did you feel that the context implied an unwilled sort of revelation? When I read it, I get impression that it's implying a divine or supernatural type of revelation, kinda like the Bible and Quaran.

Hi FBM,

Yes. I felt that. Also the title of the thread suggests that idea. I think that the concept of revelation goes through that in the mind of many people.

I'm asking only because it's interesting to me the way two or more people can read (or witness) the same thing and come away with very different understandings of it. I think we can have two kinds of revelations. The one given by a sort of divine source as is the case of those who believe that for the Bible or other religious texts, and the one which has to do with what the Buddha taught. Indeed the Buddha, through his teachings, shows something that is not properly seen, where understanding and practice are needed more than just blind faith but it is still a sort of revelation of the true nature of things. I think it is, because otherwise, there will be no need to understand and practice the Dhamma. Non self is a very tough doctrine and the Buddha took his time to develop it in its entire realization and was not sure to reveal it.

Is like a photographer. He needs his time to reveal the picture with the acids and other chemicals so to show the image in its full intensity. It is a revelation of something that needed the proper conditions to show up. I think this is what happens in our mind when we start to understand and to practice the Buddha teachings.

It has deep epistemological and phenomenological implications that I think are relevant to the dhamma. But that's for another thread, I suppose. Don't want to derail this one too much. I'd have to give myself a warning...

Sure this can result in a very good thread to discuss.

10-04-2011, 11:30 PM	#18
Keyclenef Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 402 Senior Member	But I'm curious: when you read the OP, did you feel that the context implied an unwilled sort of revelation? When I read it, I get impression that it's implying a divine or supernatural type of revelation, kinda like the Bible and Quaran. Hi FBM, Yes. I felt that. Also the title of the thread suggests that idea. I think that the concept of revelation goes through that in the mind of many people. I'm asking only because it's interesting to me the way two or more people can read (or witness) the same thing and come away with very different understandings of it. I think we can have two kinds of revelations. The one given by a sort of divine source as is the case of those who believe that for the Bible or other religious texts, and the one which has to do with what the Buddha taught. Indeed the Buddha, through his teachings, shows something that is not properly seen, where understanding and practice are needed more than just blind faith but it is still a sort of revelation of the true nature of things. I think it is, because otherwise, there will be no need to understand and practice the Dhamma. Non self is a very tough doctrine and the Buddha took his time to develop it in its entire realization and was not sure to reveal it. Is like a photographer. He needs his time to reveal the picture with the acids and other chemicals so to show the image in its full intensity. It is a revelation of something that needed the proper conditions to show up. I think this is what happens in our mind when we start to understand and to practice the Buddha teachings. It has deep epistemological and phenomenological implications that I think are relevant to the dhamma. But that's for another thread, I suppose. Don't want to derail this one too much. I'd have to give myself a warning... Sure this can result in a very good thread to discuss.
	Quote