In Paul of Tarsus, Joseph Holzner weaves together the New Testament Bible's often sketchy information about the life and mission of Saul of Tarsus, now called St. Paul by Pauline Christians, into a unified and inspiring hagiography.
With a novelist's ability to take readers into a scene and a historian's rigorous concern for accuracy, Holzner traces this Jewish Apostle's life from his early years as a disciple of the celebrated Rabbi Gamaliel through his overly zealous persecution of the Christian Assembly or "church" as a member of the competing Jewish school called the Pharisees, through his "miraculous" origin story conversion on the road to Damascus, his seemingly tireless efforts to spread the Gospel [of the newly minted Ceasar's Messiah, formerly Jesus the Nazarene not from any place called "Nazareth"], and his Christian martyr's death at the hands of his former bosses in imperial Rome.
Along the way, Holzner provides instructive background information about the religious and social situation of Saul's times and the circumstances of his New Testament letters (epistles). Here, then, is a complete and enlightening introduction to the Apostle to the Gentiles aka "the Converter of the Non-Jews" to this new much less Jewish Roman Empire-approved Universalist religion, the new opium of the masses]. More
Burn heretics for saying what we don't like!
John the Apostle with Marcion
Marcion preached that the benevolent God [the "One," the Monad] of the Gospel who sent Jesus (Yeshua) into this world as a "savior" was the true [omniscient, omnipotent] Supreme Being.
That unknowable, unfathomable, impersonal [Brahman-type GOD] is different and opposed to the malevolent Christian creator deity, the Demiurge [the "Craftsman" called Yaldabaoth], identified as Jehovah, Yahweh, YHWH in the Hebrew Bible [3, 4, 6].
He allegedly considered himself a follower of Saul of Tarsus or Paul the Apostle, whom he believed to have been the only true apostle of Jesus [3, 4], Ceasar's Messiah.
Thank you, Marcion, for creating the 1st Bible
Marcion's canon, the FIRST Christian Bible (biblical canon of which books to include) ever compiled. It consisted of 11 books: the Gospel of Marcion, which was a shorter version of the Gospel of Luke, and ten Pauline epistles [3, 4, 7].
Marcion's canon rejected the entire Old Testament, the crazed Jewish compilation (Sumerian appropriation) of a genocidal henotheistic "God" called Jehovah and his jealous and unhinged exploits, along with all other epistles and gospels of what would become the 27-book canon of the New Testament, which during his life had yet to be compiled [3, 4, 8, 9].
Let's find this heretic and crucify him.
"Marcion-ism" was denounced by its opponents as heresy and written against by the Church Fathers – notably by Tertullian in his five-book treatise Adversus Marcionem (Against Marcion) in about the Year 208 [3, 4].
Marcion's writings are lost [banned, buried, burned, destroyed], even though they were widely read and numerous manuscripts must have existed at one time [3, 4].
Even so, many scholars say it is possible to reconstruct and deduce a large part of ancient Marcionism through what later critics, especially Tertullian, said concerning him [3, 4, 10].
I'm your creator! Worship me...or else!
The movement was widespread, which forced rival sects to begin throwing up defenses. Marcionites founded churches across the Roman Empire. Their eventual decline is attributed to state intervention by later imperial edicts banning all groups deemed heretical from assembling [11].
Marcion of Sinope (Ancient Greek Μαρκίων [2, Note 1] Σινώπης (c. 85–c. 160 [3]) was a theologian [4] in early Christianity [4, 5].
Marcion preached that God had sent Jesus Christ, who was distinct from the vengeful God (Demiurge, the misbegotten son of Sophia Yaldabaoth, Jehovah, Yahweh, YHWH) who had created this physical world [4, 5, 6] or simulated reality. More
It's interesting that when the wandering ascetic Siddhartha became "the Enlightened One," the Buddha, he found the Creator and said so. The words are famous in Buddhist history for what they say about our present situation even though we have not yet realized it. But we will at our awakening, when and if we become enlightened. It's not guaranteed that we will. In fact, if we do nothing, it's guaranteed that we won't. The Buddha's final words were, "All things are hurtling towards destruction; work out your salvation (enlightenment) with diligence." So what did he say?
"Through the round of many rebirths I roamed without reward, without rest, seeking the house-builder. Painful is rebirth again and again. House-builder, you are seen! You will not build a house again. All your rafters broken, the ridge pole destroyed, gone to the unformed, the mind has come to the end of craving."
If there's no Creator, why does the Universe exist? A Buddhist answer
(Buddhism Podcast) June 4, 2025: Buddhism Explained. The universe exists not by a creator, but through endless cycles of conditions. The Buddha (in Buddhist cosmology) presents Dependent Origination, where everything that arises does so from interconnected causes, challenging traditional and scientific quests for a first spark [or prime mover].
Understand why the Buddha redirected focus from cosmic origins to the immediate path of ending suffering right here right now.
This profound wisdom finds surprising parallels in modern scientific thought, revealing a cosmos shaped by karma and interdependence. Learn how to transform external questions into inner clarity and liberation, finding peace in understanding reality as it truly unfolds.
00:00 - The human longing: Who made this?
06:12 - No creator: the universe of conditions
13:29 - The six realms [31 Planes of Existence] — where consciousness can reappear
17:43 - Waking from the cosmic dream [Maya]
21:20 - The real answer: From external questions to inner freedom
Ironic sarcasm (with a point)
Black Joshua, how shall we live? - It's all yours.
Aha, Buddhism must be wrong because obviously Creation must have a Creator. It's built right into the word. All of this was created by someone somewhere somehow at sometime. That much we know. The rest is a mystery. The Black God came down to Earth after it evaporated from being the "face of the deep," a great big sea or primordial soup, and he made a matching pair called Steve and Eve, or was that Adam and Lilith? And He, it was a he, right? We can all at least agree He was a white man, very Germanic, kind of Ashkenazi Scandinavian, but the Pair in the Garden got tanned from not wearing clothes or using the sunblock the Lord provideth... Preposterous, but so many of us buy into our society's creation myths without thinking.
Who created us? - We looked...
The Native American stories are best, very direct and campfiery. The Indigenous people were living by the beach in Tovaangar (future Los Angeles) and the Creator made a Rainbow Bridge for people to go to Catalina Island, saying, 'Don't look down as you cross over the ocean.' But some did, and as a result they fell off the bridge and became our brothers and sisters the dolphins."
Now that's a creation tale we can embrace, living on the beach, traversing rainbows, swimming with the dolphins.
down and fell. It had to be the Great D!
As Westerners invading the area, we laugh, but we can't imagine anyone laughing out our nonsense: "Once upon a time, before time, there was this nothingness but this Guy lived alone, very lonely, nothing to do all day but putter about, so he created us, put us in a Garden, male first to set the social order, populated the place with plants and animals, everyone living in peace, no one eating anyone else, everyone purely vegan and peaceful.
Should I have mentioned my Snake?
Except for this one snake jerk, a real troublemaker, doubting the Lord, and contaminating the mind of the Jenny-come-lately female pulled out of the male's rib. The Great Creator God wanted to keep us pig ignorant, and this dang Serpent (Reptilian) had to go and lead the Pair to the fruiting body of some kind of psychedelic mushroom growing off the lignans of a tree the Lord God forbade us from ever eating from. It's not like He set us up for failure or anything. We are full of sin and sinners, most of us unrepentant, so we deserve all we get. (Ya think maybe Natives roll their eyes at hearing such campfire tales from Bible thumpers?)
Both sound good. Don't know which to believe
Get real and stop joking around
Isn't the Buddha just another philosopher? NO!
Is irony any way to teach? Probably not given that we live in a Post-Ironic Age and everyone suffering from irony deficiency.
The Buddha often spoke of an imagined "Creator," Brahma ("Supremo") or Maha Brahma ("Great Supremo"). There are gods. Gods have powers and can create things. Now imagine a God creates something, as the creative gods can do on higher planes. That would not mean that they really bring us into being or end us, save us from bad karmic ("sin") results, or get us into heavens, of which there are many, none of which are actually permanent. No God creates new beings, new souls, new selves and individuals. But, then, what is creating ALL of this?
In a sense, each of us is the creator of our experience. This is deep and hard to understand by our usual way of thinking -- all of the misguided assumptions we've inherited. The Buddha was well aware of these philosophical problems and questions. Some are good. Most such questions do not lead to freedom, liberation, the end of suffering, enlightenment, or nirvana.
Indeed, there was once a dissatisfied Buddhist monk (Malunkyaputta) who, failing to meditate, got to thinking: Who am I, why am I here, is life infinite or not, what happens after death, and many such perplexing questions. He realized he had never asked the Buddha and gotten clarity on these philosophical conundrums, yet he was a monk.
So he went over to the Buddha and said, "If you cannot answer these questions to my satisfaction, I will stop being a monk and leave the sangha." Rather than answering him, the Buddha asked if they had ever entered into an agreement that if he became a monk, the Buddha would answer all of these perplexing questions.
The monk agreed that he did not. The Buddha further pointed out that what he said was for fast progress toward enlightenment and freedom. And these questions, whatever the answer, were not conducive to that.
It was far better to follow the Path than to remain stuck pondering all of these types of questions (which probably included the Four Imponderables). Become enlightened and see for yourself is the spirit of the matter. The monk was flummoxed by this logic.
#BuddhistCosmology #Buddhism #NoCreator. Channel's purpose and commitment: This channel is committed to sharing the beauty and wisdom of Buddhist teachings with the purpose of education and inspiration. All content is created with deep respect for the [historical] Buddha’s teachings, aiming to promote understanding, mindfulness, and compassion in everyday life. The goal is to present the values and practices of Buddhism in a way that is accessible and beneficial to everyone, regardless of their background or [religious, agnostic, or atheistic] beliefs. It does not seek to influence or alter anyone’s faith but simply to offer insights into the timeless wisdom of Buddhism as a source of guidance and positivity. This channel is a space for learning, reflection, and connection, guided by the principles of respect, kindness, and truth. Feedback or concerns are welcomed as is open and respectful dialogue. Thanks for supporting the mission to share the meaningful messages of Buddhism with the world.
Seth MacFarlane (Family Guy,American Dad); Buddhist Podcast (video), 6/4/,25; Bible stories with Mrs. Betty Bowers, America's Best Christian; text by Dhr. Seven, Ashley Wells, Amber Larson, Xochitl (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly
The Heart Sutra is the world's most popular Buddhist sutra. Sadly, from a young age, even I recognized something in its magical wording (Edward Conze translation). It had a small tract of it in English and Chinese, and I would approach Chinese friends to translate some of the incomprehensible parts -- one line in particular: "until we come to."
What in the world? It turns out that was just Conze's way of saying "...". And other parts were explained to me as having been written in an archaic form of Old (liturgical) Chinese few people spoke, which they were very embarrassed to admit. The Berkeley Zen Center was even more forthcoming, suggesting it was just something to chant, not something one could hope to make sense of, like a Sanskrit seed-mantra. So they just chanted it, on the one hand, rote, mindlessly, thoughtlessly, with no investigation that it might actually mean something sensible. I, on the other hand, was tenacious, spending years making sense of it. And every year it made more and more sense.
The lost meaning has been recovered.
My Theravada study of it revealed exactly what it was all about after a few years due to some key phrases that do not make sense on their own but make perfect sense as references to ancient Buddhist texts, such as lists of the BASES (ayatanas). The final crowning explanation came from Alan Watts* making sense of the strange wording, which might trip one up for years. I attribute this to a flexible way of translating any Sanskrit or Pali word, all of which have much wider valence, admitting to a range of translations, not one fixed English word to serve all situations.
The key secret is to realize that Śūnyatā ("Emptiness," void) is synonymous with the Pali suññatā ("impersonal" = anatta). Then everything else falls into place.
This is because what the Heart Sutra (Prajñā-pāramitā-hṛdayaDiscourse) is talking about are the Five Aggregates clung to as self, pointing out that every "heap" -- each one of the Five Aggregates -- is actually devoid of self. It is impersonal and is in that sense "empty." It has no "independent existence." What kind of existence does it have? It has a dependently-originated one. It is foolish to think there is nothing there at all as if all things were the void: There is no thing there, but there is something, some stuff, something is appearing. In the ultimate sense, "things" (dhammas, dharmas, phenomena) have an existence and so are called "things." The one thing that is not a thing is nirvana (the deathless, amata/amrita, the unconditioned element). Nirvana, being free of conditions, does not bear the (three universal) marks of "things." This "self" we cling to is just such a "thing," a conglomeration of other "things" (aggregates, groups, heaps), bearing the universal marks of being impermanent, unsatisfactory, and impersonal.
"Self" arises in this way, not as a real entity but an illusion brought about by the presence of the aggregates. When one grasps that all there has ever been are phenomenal aggregates -- impermanent, disappointing, and impersonal -- then the heart naturally lets go with no prompting and becomes free of all clinging and all further suffering.
It is called the "Heart" (hṛdaya) Sutra not because of emotions or sweetness but because it comes as the culmination, the brief summary, the pith, the essence of 100,000 lines or verses of detailed explanation. It is the essence of perfected wisdom. It is the key to stream entry, that which when not grasped keeps us as ordinary worldling but when grasped causes a "change of lineage" (gotrabhu) to the noble ones. The Buddha himself said it. There are not enlightened disciples to be found in other traditions, at least not in the Buddhist sense of the term bodhi ("awakened," "enlightened," "liberated") because nowhere else is this Doctrine of No-Self ever taught, ever revealed, ever explained, although all popular religions seem to have an innate understanding that being egoless is far wiser than being full of ego. For example, in popular Christianity, in the eyes of God, what is the worst sin? Pride.
Beloved Kwan Yin (Guanyin)
Better than [the Goddess of Compassion] Kwan Yin (the feminine form of Avalokiteshvara)? More beloved than [the Cosmic Buddha of Light] Amitabha? No, probably not, but what is higher and more exalted than wisdom?
The Buddha himself noted how popular and beloved Ananda was, whereas the monastics did not seem to realize the kalyana-mitta (noble/enlightening friendship) potential of Ven. Sariputta, the male monastic he declared foremost in wisdom. One can easily imagine the same thing must have happened among the females with the Buddha highlighting the value of the great bhikkhuni Ven. Khema, the nun he declared foremost in wisdom.
Now, one may ask, Why is Avalokiteśvara -- who is later transformed into the Goddess or Personification of Compassion (Kwan Yin/Guanyin) -- addressing Ven. Sariputra of all people in this most famous of all apocryphal "discourses"?
UCLA Prof. Robert E. Buswell Jr. (who ordained as a monk in Korean Zen then Sri Lankan Theravada before becoming a Western academic) explained the reason to us in class. Brahminical/Chinese Mahayana is holding up the monk disciple (shravaka) the Buddha declared "foremost in wisdom" as a scarecrow, stick figure, or punching bag to mock his supposed "wisdom," as if he were a mere intellect, a clueless egghead, a Brahmin nerd, a clueless dork compared to their god (deva, deity) Avalokita, whom they declare an "enlightenment being" (bodhi-sattva) and "great being" (maha-sattva, a Mahayana maha-sthamaprapta).
Wow, this perfection of wisdom is cool! It's eye-opening!
Avi, awake and wanting to awaken others, was reviewing the wisdom that has gone beyond. He looked down from on high and saw just five heaps, saw that in and of themselves they are impersonal, NOT A SELF, empty.
Herein, Sali, form implies emptiness, and emptiness implies form. Emptiness is not different than form, and form is not different than emptiness. They are mutually dependent. Anything that is empty, impersonal, and not-self is form.
[Conze translates these famous line as: "Form is emptiness, and the very emptiness is form; emptiness does not differ from form; form does not differ from emptiness; whatever is emptiness, that is form; [whatever is form, that is emptiness;] the same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses (cetana, volitions), and consciousness."
What in the world does it mean? "Form" (Rūpa) and "Emptiness" (Pali Suññatā, Sanskrit Śūnyatā), Alan Watts explains in the video below, go together, are inseparable, are relational, one revealing the other, making no sense without the other. The instant one comes into being (arises), the other necessarily comes into being at the same time, for one cannot be without the other, just as opposite pairs depend on one another: being/nonbeing, birth/death, origin/cessation, yin/yang, figure/background. One would be meaningless without the other, for the other provides contrast and give it its definition.
So it would, in fact, be more sensible (better for meaning) to translate this line as, "Form (shape, color) reveals (exactly is, is inseparable from, always goes with, is inseparably related to) emptiness..." or "Form (solidity, density, tangibility) is not (designated, defined, found) without emptiness (a hollow or void) because they co-arise mutually. "One (exhibits) brings out the fact of the other.]
Herein [here within this Doctrine], Sali, all phenomena are impersonal. They bear the mark of being impersonal, empty: They are not produced and not stopped, not dirty and not clean, not missing something and not full.
There are no bases for these things [that are all dependently originated]: no eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind, nor the things that impinge on them: forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tangibles, or objects of mind, nor the things these sense depend on for their sensitivity: no element (sensitive tissue) of sight, and so forth, until we come to: no element (sensitive tissue) at the heart of consciousness.
[Why? It is because, after all, all things are impersonal, empty, not a self, so a bunch of them together don't make a self either).]
Likewise, really, there is no ignorance, so there is no end of ignorance [since it doesn't really exist except as an illusion), and so forth, until we come to: There is no aging and death, no end of aging and death. There is no disappointment, no coming into being, no extinction, and no path to the extinction of disappointment. There is no knowing, no attainment, and there is no non-attainment of this realization.
And so, Sali, because of one's not-attaining anything that a being-bent-on-enlightenment, perfecting this wisdom that has gone beyond, dwells free of discursive thoughts. In their absence, one is free of trembling. One has overcome all that can upset and so realized nirvana.
All those who appear as supremely awakened teachers the three periods of time -- past, present, and future -- fully awake to this utmost realization, right and perfect awakening because they have perfected the wisdom that has gone beyond.
So, Sali, everyone should know this perfection of wisdom as a kind of mantra, the mantra of great knowing, the utmost mantra, the unequalled mantra, the allayer of all disappointment and ill. It's true; I mean, what could really go wrong except that it be an illusion?
By perfecting the wisdom that has gone beyond, this mantra becomes clear, and it runs like this:
Gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha!
("Gone, gone, gone beyond, gone altogether beyond, oh what an awakening, it's true!")
(Dalai Lama) Can everyone be enlightened?Moksha("liberation," vimutti, "freedom" from samsara and suffering, "deliverance," salvation) is of two kinds, two levels, a happy life here and now [with possibly a heavenly rebirth for moral behavior hereafter] or attaining liberating-insight and final emancipation here and now in this very life through moral behavior, stillness (samadhi, settled calm, concentration), and vipassana (comprehending and cultivating Dependent Origination sufficient in theory and complete in practice).
Buddha's Wisdom (video); Dalai Lama (Q&A); Khenpo Sodargye (Q&A); Alan Watts (Zen Reconsidered, Pt. 2); Dhr. Seven (text), CC Liu (ed.), Wisdom Quarterly
All materials on this site are submitted by editors and readers. All images, unless otherwise noted, were taken from the Internet and are assumed to be in the public domain.
In the event that there is still a problem, issue, or error with copyrighted material, the break of the copyright is unintentional and noncommercial, and the material will be removed immediately upon presented proof.
Contact us by submitting a comment marked "private."
Do not follow this journal if you are under vinaya or parental restrictions. Secure protection by Sucuri.
Wisdom Quarterly: American Buddhist Journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at creativecommons.org/about/licenses.
.jpg)
%20beautiful.jpg)
_LACMA_M.81.90.8_(2_of_2).jpg){kind=link}
#/media/File:Statue_of_Sveta_Sofia.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
#/media/File:Ephesus37.jpg){kind=link}
#/media/File:Holy_Wisdom_(16th_c.,_Vologda_museum).jpg){kind=link}