Buddhism in a nutshell.

[another bob]

Posted by jorr lundstrom (here)
Ive often through life looked upon different things in this way.
For example a loaf of bread on the table. If we trace all relations
back in time, that made this bread possible we end up watching
all human history and the whole world mirrored in this bread.
And this loaf being just an event happening in this moment.

All is well


Jorr

Yep!

Carl Sagan: If we wish to make an apple pie from scratch, we must first invent the universe!

Sri Nisargadatta: You may try to trace how a thing happens, but you cannot find out why a thing is as it is. A thing is as it is, because the universe is as it is.

[Bollinger]

This is in response to Bob’s post earlier (#90)

I would say that we have a well constructed description of the main tenets of Buddhism (i.e. “The Four Seals of Dharma”) and I’d like to take them one at a time to see if firstly I’ve understood what is being said and if it is logically sound.

1. All compounded things are Impermanent
…
When you understand that “all compounded things are impermanent,” you are prepared to accept the experience of loss. Since everything is impermanent, this is to be expected.

For all material considerations, this idea of impermanence is actually scientifically defined in thermodynamics as entropy which is a measure of disorder or randomness. Given the way our universe behaves, it is a highly entropic system. But it is not just expressed in words; there is in fact a formula that provides a measure of how entropic a system is by calculating energy over temperature. It is an example of something that is well defined and understood. Notice it stays well clear of drawing grand conclusions as regards any personal opinions we should infer with respect to how we should alter our behaviour as a result. That’s very important.

Now let’s talk about this idea of impermanence. Does it not strike you as being something that comes from simply “observing” how the world works? First you begin with material things. You can clearly see that over time the contour of our seashores changes, a pebble gets smoother as the salty waters keeps playing with it, the body decays or contracts diseases leading to its eventual demise. It certainly looks like everything you think about has this spectre of impermanence about it, i.e. it keeps changing and more often than not, it changes for the worse (that last bit a subjective opinion). The desire to drive home the idea of impermanence is so powerful that everything (even time and space) are considered to be impermanent because they are (as explained) compound concepts.

Quite rightly the author points out that this astute observation of impermanence isn’t in itself anything to write home about except for the rather anticlimactic inference the faithful are urged to draw from it; namely that we must be “prepared to accept the experience of loss”. Did we really need Buddha or anyone else to tell us that? Is there anyone who refused to accept loss until they were directed to do so by this seal? I doubt it very much.

Other than stating the obvious, I see very little of value in the first seal. Let’s see if the next one does any better.

2. All emotions are painful. This is something that only Buddhists would talk about. Many religions worship things like love with celebration and songs. Buddhists think, “This is all suffering.”

This sounds like someone who reached a conclusion before doing the analysis and then tried to muster reasons why it’s true. This particular seal is pure religion. I’ll explain. We open by saying “All emotions are painful”. Reads almost like a controversial tabloid headline designed to catch the eye. If we want to undertake a serious discussion regarding something as complex as emotion, hadn’t we better define is first? What is an emotion? It is not sufficient simply to give examples of it such as love, hate or envy. These are just as difficult to define as the generic term itself. The other idea that we’re lumbered with is that of the “dualistic mind”. No explanation is given as to what is meant by this so it is not open for discussion and has to be seen as some sort of mysticism or sophistry.

Just for a laugh, take a quick glance at Wikipedia and see how it defines emotion. It says “emotion is a complex psychophysiological experience of an individual's state of mind as interacting with biochemical (internal) and environmental (external) influences.” Suffice to say that entire university faculties and hospitals are devoted to understanding, treating and controlling human emotion. Does that sound like it’s something we can just say exists simply to cause pain, as this seal suggests?

But fear not, there is a way to subdue this most natural thing that abounds all human beings.

..do shamatha and vipashyana meditation—this helps to loosen the grip that our emotions have on us, and the obsessions we have because of them.

Classical religious process: we find a problem (our emotions cause us suffering), so the end goal is to control them by doing damatha and vpashyana meditation. Do x and y to achieve z.

There is of course a huge, somewhat hidden, “business” side to this. Someone will have to tell you about all this and then sell you the solution and that could involve a lifetime of attending seminars, tutorials, prayer groups, congregations, assemblies, symposiums that will probably require you at some point to part with cash – but don’t worry it’s nothing compared to what you will get in return.

Let’s get to seal number 3: beginning to sound a bit like the Book of Revelations with all these seals.

3. All Phenomena are Empty; They Are Without Inherent Existence
Buddhists define a phenomenon as something with characteristics, and as an object that is conceived by a subject. To hold that an object is something external is ignorance, and it is this that prevents us from seeing the truth of that object.

At first glance it looks and sounds like something profound is being said until we run it through our comprehension circuits. I have to be honest and say it was not possible to get any purchase on this whatsoever. However, the statement can be treated like a function box into which you can feed parameters and it outputs the result. I’m going to use a random object say “eye-brow” as the first parameter and substitute for phenomenon or object and “Bob” as the second parameter to substitute for subject. Let’s see what happens. Here we go:

Buddhists define an eye-brow as something with characteristics, and as an eye-brow that is conceived by Bob. To hold that an eye-brow is something external is ignorance, and it is this that prevents Bob from seeing the truth of that eye-brow.

If nothing meaningful comes out, the function box is a random piece of text that lacks usefulness.

Let’s take another paragraph from the 3rd seal.

Buddhists are very slippery. You’re right. You can never talk about absolute emptiness, but you can talk about an “image” of emptiness—something that you can evaluate and contemplate so that, in the end, you can get to the real emptiness. You may say, “Ah, that’s just too easy; that’s such crap.” But to that the Buddhists say, “Too bad, that’s how things work.” If you need to meet someone whom you have never met, I can describe him to you or show you a photograph of him. And with the help of that photo image, you can go and find the real person.

I’m particularly interested in the last sentence which uses an analogy to demonstrate the provision of a photograph to find a real person. The analogy does not work since we already have a well defined notion of what a person would look like because we’ve seen one before. An image is merely an aid to finding the right person out of the millions we may encounter. The same cannot be said for emptiness because we don’t have a well defined notion of emptiness in the first place and since that is true, there is no hope of providing any sort of image to help us find it. What is “absolute emptiness”? What is an “image” of emptiness? All these phrases merely illustrate that anyone can take them, run them through their filters and come away with a completely different understanding. What is even worse is that they may even form different factions that hinge on a single phrase or understanding of the faith and proceed to fight over it in the name of the same faith.

As much as Buddhism wishes to disassociate itself from the label of religion, there is really no other word for it. It’s full of unprovable, largely incomprehensible ideas, formed out of indefinable concepts driven by certain practices or rituals (such as meditation).

4. The fourth seal. Nirvana is Beyond Extremes.

Now that I have explained emptiness, I feel that the fourth seal, “Nirvana is beyond extremes,” has also been covered. But briefly, this last seal is also something uniquely Buddhist. In many philosophies or religions, the final goal is something that you can hold on to and keep. The final goal is the only thing that truly exists. But nirvana is not fabricated, so it is not something to be held on to. It is referred to as “beyond extremes.”

So I think what is being proposed here is that the idea of emptiness, if you can reach it, is Nirvana; emptiness being the state of having removed all illusions, emotions, desires etc. In other words, strive to do whatever you can, contemplate on these seals, meditate on whatever or however is recommended in order to achieve emptiness and so attain Nirvana.

There is of course a huge question mark at the end it? Why would I possibly want to achieve emptiness? In reality it means don’t do anything. Don’t get a job, don’t go to parties, don’t go on holiday, don’t drink , don’t play cards, don’t do sports, don’t raise children, don’t help anyone, don’t get married, don’t fall in love, don’t go shopping, don’t pick up the litter, don’t empty your bins, don’t study, don’t invent anything, don’t even say anything. In short, don’t do anything because it’s all a big illusion, none of it is real, none of it matters. That’s what reaching emptiness seems to be alluding to.

On the basis of that alone, however noble its apologists claim it to be, Buddhism isn’t for me but of course for those who find value in it, may their endeavours be fruitful.

[another bob]

Hiya B!

Thanks for your thoughtful analysis! I guess you prove my earlier point that Buddhism is boring! (OK, sorry Tony, just kidding . . )

Buddha himself called his Dharma a raft to cross the ocean of suffering, which can be jettisoned once one sees how things really are and gets to the so-called other shore.

He also said there are 84,000 ways to awaken, 84,000 "gates', or doorways, so take your pick -- there's a door for everyone, and in truth, each has their own door.

As it so happens, each one's door is none other than themselves, but that's not immediately apparent to most, and so along come various systems and methods and strategies and so forth and so on that humans devise to help them realize that they are the door to themselves.

Buddhists for example take refuge in the "Triple Gem", which equates to the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. In other words, they take refuge in the idea that there was this fellow who woke up from the dream, that his teaching can help others to awaken, and the community of people who get together and invest in the first two notions make up the club of Buddhists,of which they choose to be a club member, and a part of the community that follows the basics, agrees on the 4 seals, the 4 Truths, and the 8 parts of the strategy recommended to wake up that constitutes Buddhism.

Still, to my way of thinking, taking refuge is essentially re-inforcing some notion of identification (even if its goal is to free one from fixation in any identity). In fact, everyone is always seeking refuge as a matter of course. It's the primary game of consciousness, with numberless sub-forums devoted to this or that variation on the motive to have things be other than they are -- safer, more certain, less metaphysically stressful, more committed to some idealized party line promising salvation, more agreeable to the current peer group of choice, more conducive to the enlightenment game. Some of the more sophisticated players, such as Buddhists, even imagine that there are greater or lesser vehicles with which to identify, and so hop on this or that ride as the confluences of compounded hoohaw play themselves out, but how about this:

No refuge, no path, no reason for a path, no person walking any path. No progress and no deviation. Nothing bound, so nothing to flee. Already free, already free. Before the first seeking for refuge, already free!

On the other hand, maybe that's all a bit too radical, leaving us with nothing to cling to or cherish as a means to get to the other side, the other shore. Of course, the notion of some "other place" we supposedly need to get to can be investigated too. For example, is it true -- do we actually need to go somewhere else, when we don't even know where we are in the first place?

If we earnestly inspect our motives, our habitual dissatisfactions that prompt some seeking for refuge, we can notice something very interesting. For example, we can observe how we are chronically setting ourselves up, dividing ourselves in two -- first creating our own unhappiness via the mechanics of comparative mind, and then seeking for some refuge from our own disturbance.

Maybe a saner approach would be to stop making ourselves so upset with borrowed beliefs about what sinners we are, in need of redemption from our own conflicted sense of self, in need of refuge from our own self-made nightmare. Maybe worth considering, eh . . .

By paying attention to what's really going on, we can maybe begin to recognize that the core story which we have habitually taken for granted -- that of some continuous and substantial self -- is not accurate. Previously, we were under the impression that we needed to somehow manipulate this apparent self into a condition of "enlightenment" through various methods and such.

Perhaps we were told that we needed to sit down on a cushion, shut up, and concentrate really really hard on some object of meditation. Or maybe we were told that we're just a dirty mirror that needs to be kept constantly polished.

Or, if Christian, it's likely we are told that this so-called self is the eternal soul (and currently a fallen one at that), separated by sin from its source, and thus in need of redemption through belief in and service to the Christian God.

If Buddhist, perhaps we are told that we are deluded by defilements, and need to eliminate all these numerous defilements so that we can gain nirvana (or at least a nice place in some future life where we can continue eliminating these pesky defilements).

However, with the direct recognition of the futility of all that, and one reaches a point of absolute frustration -- frustration with the whole compounded absurdity of the friggin' thing -- then they may suddenly find themselves making a great free shout, and so the frustration has become itself a most startling gateway into one's own natural awakening.

The kind of frustration I am referring to is not so much an emotional or philosophical position (although all aspects of the psyche are involved). Rather, it arises from the direct realization that all the effort and seeking to modify the self-sense into some permanent state of "enlightenment" is ultimately bound to fail.

At that point, the dog stops chasing its tail. At that point, we become available. Before, we were quite busy on the "me project", trying to improve and polish this character we took ourselves to be. As long as we were so involved, there was no space for recognition, since we were on a big mission to storm the gates of heaven. Heaven was chasing heaven, but could never grasp itself, and the cumulative frustration from that inherent failure eventually creates the conditions for a crack in the shell. This crack lets the light in.

When the light gets in, we notice something very interesting. What that is, I leave for each to discover on their own.

[Shadowman]

Hi Bollinger,

Thanks for your comments and taking the time to respond. There is an excellent post by Bob #1608 over on the "Enlightenment: The Ego, what is it? How to transcend it." which may offer some insight into the nature of reality and unreality.

For my part, prior to responding to your comments, I shall offer a few definitions. As you quite rightly pointed out, at the level of the mind, we all sometimes mean different things by different words especially heavily loaded words like reality, illusions, awareness and enlightenment. So for clarity when I use these terms I mean,

enlightenment - en light en men t, ie that which causes or is, the light (metaphor for awareness) in men (and women)

awareness - Pure substrate reality of all transient phenomena. Prior to a thought, emotion, physical sensation, pain, pleasure etc is the awareness which precedes the phenomena. Awareness is eternal and independent whereas all experienced phenomena are dependent on awareness. Awareness can exist without thoughts, thoughts cannot exist without awareness. Awareness without personification or identification with temporary forms, is your True Self.

ego - An illusory matrix identity which arises in the mind. It is the subjective thinking I, which precedes ideas, belief's or imagination. Unlike awareness, it is both transitory and dependent. There can be no idea without an "I" to have the idea. Most people take for granted that this "I" exists. To falsely believe in this I as having intrinsic reality is the root of apparent separation from that which you really are, pure infinite unlimited eternal awareness. It is like a king pretending to be a beggar.

Illusion - Anything which comes and goes. Anything that asserts existence separate from the whole. Hence the definition of say Satan as the adversary or that which opposes. Can include physical forms, concepts, emotions, pain, pleasure, etc.

Now, to respond,

“Tim’s post because he’s just appeared on the scene here and is obviously a keen proponent of Buddhism”

I am a keen proponent of all teachings which free mankind from suffering. I am not pushing/selling any particular liferaft to cross the ocean of illusion. Whatever floats your boat, so to speak. I did however primarily utilize the brilliantly direct, simple and sublime meditation practices of Vipassana, Vichara and Zazen, so I am immensely grateful to those who created them, and in that sense you are correct.

Now that I’ve crossed the ocean though, no need to carry the raft on my head.

To become a Buddha, one must overcome the obstacle of Buddhism.
To become a Christ, one must overcome the obstacle of Christianity.

“This is a supreme piece of sophistry that has absolutely no meaning.”

I trust the above definitions will help elucidate the intended meaning.

“How do you know what is an illusion if as you claim everything is an illusion”

As the Self all is real, apart from the self nothing is real. That which IS, whether you refer to it as Self/Brahman/Yahweh/Great Spirit is real. It is like when you have a dream, all the characters and forms in the dream depend on You the dreamer. While in the dream all the characters appear to be real and have freewill, but once you awaken, you see it from the qualitatively different level of the waking state, wherein the characters in your dream are then seen as less real.

Enlightenment is like waking up from a dream, hence the very term Buddha means one who is awakened.

“Philosophers have wrestled with this for centuries”

Descartes “I think therefore I am” epitomizes this, they have wrestled with the mind using the mind, it’s like a black cat chasing its own tail in a dark room.

This is in some respects natural given that the basis of western philosophy is grounded in Greek logic and Jewish rationality. Bertrand Russell’s book, A History of Western Philosophy covers this in great detail.

To seek Mind with the (discriminating) mind is the greatest of all mistakes. - Sosan
(In Buddhism, Mind with a capital M is closer to pure awareness, or all that is, whereas
mind is rational mind)

“I really don’t think we came to witness or live in this abject world just so we could spend it speculating about the next one.”

Quite so. Focus on what is present right here and right now, directly investigate for yourself. What is immediate and direct and always with you. Examine the ego carefully, is it really you? What comes and goes, and what is ever present?

Ultimately you may find that you can,

Walk without feet,
Fly without wings,
Think without mind.

All the best, I look forward to your further posts,
tim

lol Bob I posted this before reading your post above, great minds and boring buddhas think alike.

[Shadowman]

Hi Ulli

Below is the infinitely regressing facepalm upon finding out, after 20 yrs of meditation, there was no ego to overcome, there was nothing to transcend, and that I was what I was seeking

[another bob]

Posted by tim (here)
Hi Ulli

Below is the infinitely regressing facepalm upon finding out, after 20 yrs of meditation, there was no ego to overcome, there was nothing to transcend, and that I was what I was seeking

Well said, Brother!

[Bollinger]

Thanks to Tim and Bob for their contributions.

We could of course go on discussing the ideas in Buddhism using clichés, analogies, quotations, mysticism and jargon forever and a day and never reach a satisfactory conclusion. I often wonder if that isn’t in fact the intention. If something is shrouded in sufficient haze to render it either completely incomprehensible or open to individual interpretation, it is unlikely that any kind of conclusion can be reached.

I feel therefore that it is necessary to inject some background into this philosophy by giving a short resume of the founder himself. For those who already know the story, apologies. For those who do not know, it is something of an eye opener so here is a brief synopsis of his life and how it is believed he ends up being called the Buddha.

The Story of Buddha

He was born to one of 16 kingdoms that ruled India around 500 BC. His mother died very soon after his birth and Siddhartha Gautama (his real name before becoming the Buddha) lived as a prince in a palace surrounded by luxury and abundance. His father (the king) arranged for him to marry his cousin at the age of 16. He was at that stage, for all intents and purposes, a regular fun loving teenager who pursued the usual things in life.

For 29 years it is said, he lived the life of a privileged individual until one day he ventures beyond the palace walls and observes four life-changing aspects of reality. An old man, signifying change, a sick man, which shows suffering, a corpse personifying impermanence and finally, on his fourth excursion he witnesses a spiritual seeker whom he takes as trying to escape the inevitability of change, suffering and death.

This great revelation and shock that life wasn’t all roses and lilies as depicted by the things within the confines of the palace, was the catalyst for him to seek another life. Around the same time he becomes a father and not even this it seems is strong enough motive for him to stay. At the age of 29 he leaves the palace for good in order to seek another life which would be in complete contrast to what he’d been used to up until that time. It is said that Mara (the tempter god of desire) tried to persuade him to stay promising he’d be a powerful ruler. Rejecting point blank all temptation, he rides into the night.

He wandered south towards the Ganjis River and dwelt there as a beggar relying on the charity of others. The religion of the time was known as Vedism which precedes Hinduism and it would appear that there was at the time an appetite for change. Historical records indicate that Siddhartha wasn’t the only one leaving the comforts of family life to seek what can only be termed as enlightenment. People of this ilk were renouncing the world by taking vows of celibacy and poverty in the hope that what is believed to be an ever repeating cycle of rebirth and death (reincarnation) could be brought to an end by seeking a path of enlightenment and therefore not having to return to this life of suffering and impermanence ever again.

The concept of breaking this vicious cycle is therefore at the heart of all Buddhist endeavour. The idea of reincarnation being a central part of Indian mysticism (even before Buddhism), means Siddhartha would have had to embrace reincarnation and he sought to find a solution to this through a path that leads to enlightenment; which is really an escape route from the repeating cycle.

It is written in sacred text that Siddhartha lived many past lives as different animals, human beings and even gods over countless generations. This enforced return to physical life over and over is believed to be a way of instilling wisdom and the wiser one gets the higher the life form one assumes in the next incarnation. But you could of course remain at the same level for many lifetimes over; thus the potential to live a billion lifetimes and never quite wise up is not only a possibility, for many, it is the norm.

Siddhartha became an apprentice to a local guru who teaches him to look within, practice yoga and meditation which were already well established within the culture at the time. He soon becomes a super student taking everything to the limit. He finds though that even with such extreme achievement in all that he was taught, the problem of suffering and impermanence remains. He concludes that whatever his masters taught him and however well he learned and practiced none of it would lead him to what he was looking for.

Next he takes up the practice of punishing the body with starvation and self-inflicted pain. The belief is that if the body could be brought to heel, its influence on the mind could be minimised or eliminated altogether. The hope that extreme punishment of the body (i.e. shedding all physical pleasure), will lead to attaining spiritual power lives to this day and is avidly practiced by some.

For six years Siddhartha undergoes a gruelling regime of torture and self-harm for the sole purpose of eliminating everything seen as an obstacle to enlightenment. It is said he lived on one grain of rice per day. He became morbidly anorexic and took himself to the brink of death. The result of this was that he was no closer to answering the question about suffering and impermanence and no wiser than when he began.

It is said that a single memory from his childhood saved him from the clutches of death. His father took him to a spring planting festival and there he saw that whilst the planting was going on, the insects beneath the feet and their eggs were being destroyed. From that he drew the conclusion that everything from the smallest and most insignificant life form to the largest was connected. There it is believed, as a young boy, as he meditated under a particular Rose Apple Tree and the shadow of the other trees moved in unison, the shadow of his own tree stood still. This filled him with immense joy. The insight that jolted him back into the land of the living was the memory of witnessing of such joy that came from the broken earth itself. If he was to ever have that joy again, he knew that he had to nurse himself back to health. At that moment, a village maid appears with a bowl of rice.

Even after this episode in his life, the original problem of course still remained and so he looked within and trusted himself to do the right thing. He sat under the Bodhi tree to meditate and decided he wouldn’t move from there until the problem was solved. That is, he committed to remaining there until supreme wisdom came to him. Once again, Mara, the lord of desire, appears to challenge him. An army of demons attack him but all their arrows turn into flowers. Mara is taken as the symbolic ruler of desire (the world we live in) and is concerned that Siddhartha would manage to conquer all desire. More temptation was sent to distract and seduce Siddhartha to no avail. In symbolic expression Mara represents an individual’s own limitations. As a final test, Mara asks him who would testify that he was worthy of attaining wisdom. So it goes, in response, Siddhartha reaches down and touches the earth causing it to shudder. Upon this the demons flee. The meaning attached to this act is that the earth is his witness.

He continues to meditate through the night and all his previous lives come to him in memory. His prize is the power to see the process of rebirth and death and all the glory of the universe. By morning, the transition from Siddhartha to Buddha is made and the Bodhi tree rains down flowers to confirm. Nirvana is achieved but then it is said, it has always been there and only our ignorance prevented us from seeing it.

Of course, as with any religion, you need a good heart-rending story of struggle and triumph to inspire and instruct followers to take up the philosophy, embrace it, write about it and spread it.

Today, Buddhism has the fourth largest following in the world. Let’s look at some core problems it has.

Reincarnation (The first Problem)
If there is any truth in the idea of reincarnation and the reason behind it, what caused the first incarnation and how was the first form one took decided? Did we all start as an amoeba? If so, why are there still amoebas now? By the time the amoeba that exists now goes through its lifetimes to reach say humanity, our sun will have died and so would the solar system. Does the spirit of the amoeba now continue its learning on another planet in a different part of the Universe?

I think some people believe in reincarnation by choice rather than as a mandatory obligation if you’re not enlightened as implied in Buddhism.

Any free thinking person has to reject the concept of reincarnation simply because if it’s by choice nobody in their right minds would choose to come here and if it’s mandatory, the fact that we can’t remember previous lifetimes means we’ll never know where we went wrong the last time in order to correct it; a completely pointless exercise.

Enlightenment (The second Problem)
Having followed the story of Buddha, it is possible to define enlightenment in the context it is used. It seems to be the realisation that we live in a world of perpetual illusion and deception manufactured by our own ignorance of the truth. Once we realise this is the case, there is nothing left to learn and no need to return. The task to attain this enlightenment is disproportionately difficult since only one person in history has managed to do it. Who else can claim the same status as Buddha? Either the idea itself is wrong or whoever we think is responsible is a sick sadistic being who enjoys tormenting creatures that have done nothing to deserve it. Which is more likely?

Meditation (The third Problem)
I think it is fair to say that in the west, this is the most attractive part of Buddhism because it is a tangible action you can take to reach a certain state of perception through which, it is believed, one can attain superior knowledge or rest. Needless to say, many have tried it and claim huge benefits. Equally, by far, the majority who have attempted some sort of meditation found nothing remarkable and in fact thought it to be boring, unsustainable and promptly gave up. The only criticism therefore is that other than subjective testimony there is a lack of consistency and evidence to suggest it has any real benefit. The other thing about meditation is that even avid supporters can’t agree on the best or most effective form of meditation or what effect it is meant to have.

To finish then, a word about the man called Siddhartha who lived 2500 years ago. I find nothing remarkable in the story and whilst it isn’t decorated with miracles and magic, it is still very mystical in nature. It is quite possible that he suffered from a form of depression or schizophrenia which as we know can lead a person to do, see, hear or say things that 2500 years ago will have sounded like something to behold. The story of Buddha is charming but not atypical and we know religions can be formed around ideas with much less substance.

If one was to revise the label of religion for Buddhism owing to its distinct lack of deities and promises of miracles and favours, it would have to be something like “decaffeinated religion”, but religion nonetheless.

[greybeard]

Decaffeinated he says-- Bolls--- I like my sage with everything.
The real thing or nothing.
Sorry I having one of my moments.
I cant be serious too long.
No disrespect intended.
Chris

[Shadowman]

Posted by Bollinger (here)

It is the same with the idea of “losing illusions”. How do you know what is an illusion if as you claim everything is an illusion – in other words the idea of illusion itself might in fact be just an illusion and leads to an infinite regress. Philosophers have wrestled with this for centuries without really coming to any sort of a satisfactory conclusion but notwithstanding all of that, the spiritual disciplines continue to pay lip service to scripture written thousands of years ago in the hope that it is something that transcends everything else and takes us to the Promised Land.

Comedians have also wrestled with the the concepts of illusions and god. Some of the best philosophers I know are comedians.

You've probably already come across the two I include below, but for anyone that hasn't you are in for a real treat;

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=iMUiwTubYu0

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

Hi Bolls you posted while I was posting the vids so can I just add in response to;

"The task to attain this enlightenment is disproportionately difficult since only one person in history has managed to do it. Who else can claim the same status as Buddha?"

You are right. How can we really know if another person is enlightened or just plain nuts.
The only person you can truly confirm as enlightened is your Self.

I also only truly know of one person in history that attained enlightenment, and that was "me".
It happened on Nov 5th 2010, although I had had temporary glimpses since I was 8. But of course you have to take me at my word that it is possible. Now if you'd just like to sign up for my enlightenment course, in 15 easy payments of $666, you too can.........lol.

I was just saying to Buddha the other day
The whole world is unenlightened except for thee and me
and I've me doubts about thee!

I used to wonder if I was just schizophrenic, but we decided that wasn't the case

Reason and logic are a barrier to awakening. You cannot reason your way into heaven, you have to leave your mind at the pearly gates.

Now I just fear nothing, and love everything. Whatsoever may come, bring it on!
A warrior I have been, now it is all (L)over, a fine time I have.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZWa7fsECAes

To be alone is to be all one, from which the word derives in M.E.

Cheers,
tim

[jorr lundstrom]

Once upon the time when I was younger, I worked as a nurse.
One night in an emerency reception I was sitting by a desk
filling in some papers and another nurse, Anita stood up beside
leaning against a bookshelf. In through the entrance came two men,
one supporting the other. They stopped in front of us. The supporting
one said: please help us, my friend cant breath. We looked at his fellow
and he had good colour, walked by himself and breath in a slow nice way.
Anita said. Oh, how long has it been like this? I was totally blown away
in wonder. There was absolutely nothing wrong with this guys breathing.
But he had suddenly got an idea that he couldnt breath. Of course he was
right, he had never taken any breath, he wasnt supposed to. God or life
or the universe or wotsoever we wanna call it is breating us, its circulating
the blood in the vessels, opening the valve we call a pump to let the blood
pass and so on. We are lived by God, we are taken care of every moment,
there are nothing called us, has never been. Wots called we, I, us is the
biggest joke ever constructed. God is just having a jolly good time using
this body, here, in this moment, enjoying the feeling of being alive.
Playing, singing, dancing, wissling, crying, ranting, nagging. LOL





All is well


Jorr

[another bob]

Posted by jorr lundstrom (here)
God or life or the universe or wotsoever we wanna call it is breating us, its circulating
the blood in the vessels, opening the valve we call a pump to let the blood
pass and so on. We are lived by God, we are taken care of every moment,
there are nothing called us, has never been. Wots called we, I, us is the
biggest joke ever constructed. God is just having a jolly good time using
this body, here, in this moment, enjoying the feeling of being alive.
Playing, singing, dancing, wissling, crying, ranting, nagging.

(with this one, you'd have to have seen the movie . . .

[jorr lundstrom]

Ive seen the movie. LOL Ive also seen "At the circus" with the
Marx brothers from 1939. I recommend it. Its on UT,
the complete movie. LOL

All is well


Jorr

[another bob]

Posted by jorr lundstrom (here)
Ive also seen "At the circus" with the
Marx brothers from 1939.

then again, even the Marx Bros. can't please everyone . . .

[Carmody]

I came, and I wasn't.

[Bollinger]

Why did the Buddhist coroner get the sack?
Answer:: because he’d always record the cause of death as ‘birth’.

Make me "one" with "Everything"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13782645

[Shadowman]

Hi Bolls,

Thanks so much for that. Cracked me up, bigtime.

Karl is a morning TV host in my home country of Oz. I love him, and I love the Dalai Lama.
But then, I love everyone, lol

Cheers,
tim