Buddhism in a nutshell.

[Tony]

Buddhism in a nutshell...the nut gets out of the shell!


A little more detail.
We are the fertile nut.
The shell is our obscurations.
First, we have to recognise that being inside this shell is uncomfortable. We are in fact suffering.
We then need to recognise the cause of this suffering inside this shell. We then need to find a way to crack the shell. We then need to get out!


A little more detail...
What was just described was, in Buddhist terms, the four noble truths: the start of the path.
To recognise suffering, find the cause of that suffering, find a path away from the suffering, and tread the path.


A little more detail...
Nobody wants to admit that they are suffering.
It's unattractive! It says failure! “Why do I wish to admit to suffering?”
Question: do you like being in a claustrophobic shell?
Answer: “I love my life - it is full of love and happiness!”
What you have just said is that you have decorated the inside of your shell, and polished it up nicely.


A little more detail...
Until we recognise our suffering, we will not want to break out!
Being pissed off, angry, frustrated is the beginning of wisdom. You are no longer satisfied or in love with this servitude and compliance.
We want to get out of this negative world...but we also have to be aware of leaping into an over-loving positive world in an effort to escape the negative.
As a fertile nut, we want to grow...we do not need a sugar coating!!!...that is too sticky.

A little more detail...
The cause of suffering is our consciousness holding on to its beliefs, and will not let go.

A little more detail...
Just do it!

[Tony]

Our pure essence is covered in obstructing concepts, that is the prison.
The prison is held together by poisons...desire aversion and ignorance.
Drop the poisons, and step free.

Ya, I know I'm still here as well...anyone got a file?

[greybeard]

It takes a tough nut to break out Tony.
When you break out people think your nuts.

All joking aside.
First I enjoy your posts immensely.
Next
I think that it would be well nigh impossible to break out without "outside" help
The outside help, having realized the "Truth" points strongly to the inside and will suggest a process to remove obstructions.
The teacher will have a high spiritual frequency which along with the words carry the energy of transcendence (Enlightenment)
The silent energy is enough for the ripe fruit to fall off the tree.
The Buddha silently showed a flower and one got it.
Its our duty to become ripe.
That may be openness to various spiritual teachers or it may be a structured path, often handed down by a linage of teachers.

I have fluctuated between Indian Sages, English speaking ones, and just endeavoring to be fully present in the moment sometimes.
Once again I am reading " I am That" by Nasargadatta

Through awareness we become aware of unconscious wants, desires, being judgmental and selfish.
These surface and that can be painful.
However
Shining the light of awareness on these without being critical of self helps greatly.

I may not be a Buddhist but I do appreciate the little I know of it.

Eckhart Tolle when the change in consciousness arose did not know what had happened, he then studied various teaching and finally asked a Buddhist Monk what it was all about. The monk said "No self---No problem" simple.

So the endeavor is to transcend the ego (small self) and the SELF is realized.
Think I have said that before----- a few times. smiling.

Chris

[spiritguide]

Once one realizes that they are confined within the shell then he/she comes to the point of decorating or breaking out. Subtle use of WILL power will allow the tools to materialize to assist in the escape, after all they are in there with you. Just realize that the construct of the shell is composed of different materials and densities and once known are quite easy to navigate through. Once we use our WILL we move from an experience of passivity to activity and a balance between the two will allow one to see beyond the shell for proper navigation. Every shell has it's weakest point, find it and start there for what's needed for penetration, if that is what is sought. IMHO

[Bollinger]

Hi Tony,

I have some time on my hands this Sunday, so thought I’d play.

Not withstanding what Buddhism itself stands for or dispenses in the way of wisdom, I’d like to pick you up on two statements in your opening post:

A. Until we recognise our suffering, we will not want to break out.

B. The cause of suffering is our consciousness holding on to its beliefs, and will not let go.

In your first statement (A) you assert that unless we recognise our suffering, we will not break out. Break out of what? I am assuming you mean we will not be able to break out of our suffering; which makes sense since we must first understand a problem before we can devote time and effort to solving it.

In your second statement (B) you offer a cause for our suffering. They are our beliefs. I am assuming you don’t mean all possible beliefs but just a subset of them. Let me see if I can narrow this down. Are they in the category of beliefs that we hold without proof? If so, the whole idea of our consciousness holding onto our beliefs being the cause for our suffering is also a belief of the same kind and therefore is itself also contributing to our suffering.

As far as I can see, there can only be one avenue that may lead us out of this maze. If B is true, (even if it cannot be proven), the obvious answer is to stop believing in things that cannot be proven. I know this will ring alarm bells in every alternative junkie’s ears, where “discernment”, “resonation” and “feelings” play a large part in their quest for knowledge, but you can’t argue against logic.

Having said all of that, you have actually made a very important point in at least asking the questions “why do we suffer” and “who or what is responsible for it”. A significant degree of pain culminates from actually not knowing things with any kind of absolute certainty. You can be sure that even the most ardent devotee to his religion will find some things hard to swallow but swallow them he will – alternatively he will bury himself in the sand and not worry about it.

Let me put it another way. Why do we not have the ability to cure any and all diseases? This is one of humanity’s greatest desires and yet it eludes us. Why do we not have the technology to grow at will lost or worn limbs, replace worn or damaged organs? Why do we not all have a decent standard of living? Why do we have to wither away and die whether we want to go or not?

To the materialist all these questions are nonsensical because the answer is obvious. The process of evolution has not yet brought us to the stage where we can conquer those things. To the rest of humanity, to a child who doesn’t understand, to the unassuming innocent, there is only suffering without explanation and so they look for answers in places like magic, religion, folklore, mysticism, angels, gods, light beings, superstition, spells and – dare I say it – whistle blowers.

Am I saying there is no evil or ill intent in the world? No. Am I saying that there are no sinister goings on that adds to our woes? No. Am I saying that technology isn’t suppressed out of greed and selfish intent? No. But, however much relief it brings to the individual, to say that our suffering is as a result of the scavengers and evil-doers alone, which we must depose with immediate effect, is highly suspect and not one that I carry as an opinion.

[Tony]

Dear Bollinger,
I think we are agreeing!
If we are talking about physical suffering then there is no end to suffering, as these bodies suffer from old age, sickness and death.
However, our suffering starts in our minds.
The shell is our prison, created by three poisons...a poison prison!
These poisons are our consciousness or minds. clinging to like, dislike and indifference, or desire, aversion and ignorance.

The nut is our pure essence.
Well, it's not really a nut, as essence is empty of being anything!
I put on a video yesterday, which may explain it better.


vV-CEQVBxvA

[Dorjezigzag]

Stuck inside a nut no wonder this forum goes round in circles!

I love my life, including it's suffering. How would I know pleasure if I did not know pain
(correction, I appreciate the lessons I have learned from suffering which is part of my journey , but I do not love suffering, I love my life of which suffering has been a part, but as a whole it does not exist )

A really great nut to crack is a coconut, did you know that coconut water is actually very close in composition to blood plasma, so much so that sometimes they use it in blood transfusions. If you suffer from low energy or have a busy schedule, try coconut water ( with no additives). It is an incredible rehydrator, great for hangovers!
Hmmm, I sound like I am try to sell something, but I promise I am not in the coconut business!

In relation to an earlier thread you started regarding heavyweights!

Heavyweight version
6iP0q1xIkB4

Light weight version
1MnX1wT7BRU

[RedeZra]

Our pure essence is covered in obstructing concepts, that is the prison.
The prison is held together by poisons...desire aversion and ignorance.
Drop the poisons, and step free.


pure essence is perhaps the same as Spirit of God


so to drop poisons is to let go

and let God

[Tony]

Hello RedeZra


pure essence is perhaps the same as Spirit of God

It's interesting...as a Buddhist, I can say that I don't believe in God - but I believe in the very nature of God.

Tony

[RedeZra]

Hello RedeZra


pure essence is perhaps the same as Spirit of God

It's interesting...as a Buddhist, I can say that I don't believe in God - but I believe in the very nature of God.

Tony

yes and i do think it is possible for us to experience the very nature of God

[Bollinger]

On the question of spirituality, while it is commendable that people have good intentions when exhaling their rhetoric upon us, we have to be weary of where it actually stands.

Time and time again we find that people would very much like this thing we call life to have some meaning. Our faith in this idea is constantly being tested by reality which we so often forget or ignore? Can we not see that all life, almost without exception, ends in miserable failure? What meaning should we attach to a the life of an 8 year old being snuffed out by a stray bullet or the baby that is so deformed at birth that it fails to live beyond the third month?

All religions, without exception and that includes Buddhism, are stooped in what is commonly referred to as spiritual teaching culminated over many years of history. To its devoted followers, it is intended to bring calm and resolution to life’s problems through anointed individuals and scripture accompanied by undertakings such as prayer or meditation. Why? Will this deep human desire to extol inordinate admiration upon gurus and gods never end? It seems not. So many times I hear the words “you have to let go”. Does anyone actually know what that means? If it means breaking out of the shell and being free, surely that must include the shackles placed upon us by religion. How can you break free if you hold firm that any religion is worth following? We are tangled in contradiction, are we not?

If I walk into a monastery or church or any holy place of worship, I too am immediately taken by the peace and the calm it bears upon me. Large echoing walls, strong arches, high ceilings, beautiful paintings, intricate décor, colourful solemn displays with statues and grim looking sculptures; who could fail to succumb to its obvious charm? Everyone bows with solemnity and for one brief moment, we might actually forget that while our souls are being entertained by the angels, in the same instant, others are being taken away in the most abject manner imaginable. If you can reconcile those two realities, your path to follow a religion is wide and open.

Those of us lucky enough to live in warm comfortable houses with gardens and lily ponds often forget the millions who are paying so dearly for coming to this world. Why? Because we are busy trying to achieve enlightenment.

Sorry Tony, I know you are a follower of Buddhism, but to me it is simply another religion and traces more or less the same contour one expects to find; namely the belief that thinking or acting in a certain way will magically heal or cure the individual or even the world of all its ills. No, I’m afraid this world is one that thrives on toil and graft. Here, not only is there no such thing as a free lunch but we are often forced to pay over the odds for even a modest meal.

If there is a guiding hand that is responsible for all this, I hope to be furnished with a damn good reason for it when the time comes.

[cellardoor]

The gnostics believe that the world was created by Satan and is thus ruled by him and his anchons, to free oneself one must reconnect with their divine spark/higher self. The teachings of Buddhism are closer to gnosticism than Christianity, given that there is an emphasis on transcending the illusion through a process of reincarnation, though not through karma. The gnostics would say the nut was humanity and the shell is Yahweh/Satan. The light/knowledge being the vehicle for growth and darkness/ignorance as our suppressor. It is the Archons job to keep us in the shade. Like Buddhism a critical mass of light/growth within the nut, will break the shell of oppression freeing us thus paving the way for us to become "god like"/tree.

Thanks for the thread Tony

[Tenzin]

At the moment of enlightenment, the Buddha might very well have frowned and sighed, saying: "Oh my nut, how am I going to tell this to others."

I like the nutshell analogy!

[jorr lundstrom]

On the question of spirituality, while it is commendable that people have good intentions when exhaling their rhetoric upon us, we have to be weary of where it actually stands.

Time and time again we find that people would very much like this thing we call life to have some meaning. Our faith in this idea is constantly being tested by reality which we so often forget or ignore? Can we not see that all life, almost without exception, ends in miserable failure? What meaning should we attach to a the life of an 8 year old being snuffed out by a stray bullet or the baby that is so deformed at birth that it fails to live beyond the third month?

All religions, without exception and that includes Buddhism, are stooped in what is commonly referred to as spiritual teaching culminated over many years of history. To its devoted followers, it is intended to bring calm and resolution to life’s problems through anointed individuals and scripture accompanied by undertakings such as prayer or meditation. Why? Will this deep human desire to extol inordinate admiration upon gurus and gods never end? It seems not. So many times I hear the words “you have to let go”. Does anyone actually know what that means? If it means breaking out of the shell and being free, surely that must include the shackles placed upon us by religion. How can you break free if you hold firm that any religion is worth following? We are tangled in contradiction, are we not?

If I walk into a monastery or church or any holy place of worship, I too am immediately taken by the peace and the calm it bears upon me. Large echoing walls, strong arches, high ceilings, beautiful paintings, intricate décor, colourful solemn displays with statues and grim looking sculptures; who could fail to succumb to its obvious charm? Everyone bows with solemnity and for one brief moment, we might actually forget that while our souls are being entertained by the angels, in the same instant, others are being taken away in the most abject manner imaginable. If you can reconcile those two realities, your path to follow a religion is wide and open.

Those of us lucky enough to live in warm comfortable houses with gardens and lily ponds often forget the millions who are paying so dearly for coming to this world. Why? Because we are busy trying to achieve enlightenment.

Sorry Tony, I know you are a follower of Buddhism, but to me it is simply another religion and traces more or less the same contour one expects to find; namely the belief that thinking or acting in a certain way will magically heal or cure the individual or even the world of all its ills. No, I’m afraid this world is one that thrives on toil and graft. Here, not only is there no such thing as a free lunch but we are often forced to pay over the odds for even a modest meal.

If there is a guiding hand that is responsible for all this, I hope to be furnished with a damn good reason for it when the time comes.


Bollinger, I cant say how huch I share your view in this post.
And I want to add that worshipping is just fear in disguise. LOL



http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt81/sakasvattaja/linnbor2.jpg



Jorr

[jorr lundstrom]

At the moment of enlightenment, the Buddha might very well have frowned and sighed, saying: "Oh my nut, how am I going to tell this to others."

I like the nutshell analogy!


Seems more like an idea of a wannabe. Its very good if one can
realize the difference between a Buddha and a Buddhist. LOL


http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt81/sakasvattaja/nutcracker.jpg


Jorr

[RedeZra]

No, I’m afraid this world is one that thrives on toil and graft. Here, not only is there no such thing as a free lunch but we are often forced to pay over the odds for even a modest meal.

If there is a guiding hand that is responsible for all this, I hope to be furnished with a damn good reason for it when the time comes.


this is one thoughtful post Bollinger

and i agree the world is in trouble


but it is up to us to do a part to make it better

even if it seems beyond us to fix it


some dive deep within to gauge the depth of existence

and come up with answers to the meanin of life


i am silence

except for my above 2 k posts


some might think life is about uppin the post count on Avalon

but i don't think that ; )

[Tenzin]

Seems more like an idea of a wannabe. Its very good if one can
realize the difference between a Buddha and a Buddhist. LOL

Jorr

heh.. can't agree more! It will be most helpful for even Buddhists to know how to tell the difference between an enlightened being and a human being. Otherwise, many will continue to miss the chance to learn from one in their rare chance to meet one, thinking s/he is a sham. :bs:

[Tarka the Duck]

And I want to add that worshipping is just fear in disguise. LOL

Couldn't agree more...but what is the relevance of that statement when discussing Buddhism?

[jorr lundstrom]

And I want to add that worshipping is just fear in disguise. LOL

Couldn't agree more...but what is the relevance of that statement when discussing Buddhism?


I added that to Bollingers post #11 as Its relevant in relation to
every religous or spirital systems, including Buddhism.


Jorr

[Tarka the Duck]

And I want to add that worshipping is just fear in disguise. LOL

Couldn't agree more...but what is the relevance of that statement when discussing Buddhism?




I added that to Bollingers post #11 as Its relevant in relation to
every religous or spirital systems, including Buddhism.


Jorr

In what way is worship relevant to Buddhism? What is it that you say is being worshipped?

[jorr lundstrom]

And I want to add that worshipping is just fear in disguise. LOL

Couldn't agree more...but what is the relevance of that statement when discussing Buddhism?




I added that to Bollingers post #11 as Its relevant in relation to
every religous or spirital systems, including Buddhism.


Jorr

In what way is worship relevant to Buddhism? What is it that you say is being worshipped?


UT is full of Buddhist worship rituals, take a look.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8D3YI3D7bRU&feature=related


Jorr

[Tarka the Duck]

Thanks Jorr - never heard of them! Do you have a link? All I get it a blogspot with no info at all.


How would you explain the role of worship in a philosophy that states, as a core principle:

The ultimate authority must always rest with the individual's own reason and critical analysis.

Buddhism is not a system of faith, where there is any worship of a supernatural being
Confidence is based on knowledge, not belief.

[jorr lundstrom]

Kathie, try this, press the little youtube button in the lower right corner
of the video I posted. It will take you to those regions of youtube.

I know, thats wot you state has been the case in Buddhism. Im not
so sure its really the case anymore. Ive thhrough my life been
enormously fascinated of the old well known Zenmasters totally
unpredictable behaviour. LOL


Jorr

[Tarka the Duck]

Kathie, try this, press the little youtube button in the lower left corner
of the video I posted. It will take you to those regions of youtube.

I know, thats wot you state has been the case in Buddhism. Im not
so sure its really the case anymore. Ive thhrough my life been
enormously fascinated of the old well known Zenmasters totally
unpredictable behaviour. LOL


Jorr

Ha! That explains it! I'm on an iPad and can't see the video...will check it on the laptop later.

I think, unfortunately, you could be right in that things are changing and a huge distortion is in danger of taking place.
I don't wish to slight an entire nation, but much of this does seem to originate from the US ( as does much that is of benefit, of course ;)) There is a perversion of core teachings going on...what the motivation is, I can't be sure...whether it is a calculated, deliberate perversion, a quest for fame and money, or part of a misguided but well-meaning attempt to "spread the word" I don't know.
But it was said, centuries ago, that the teaching can only be destroyed from within.

So - to be clear - do you agree that worship is not a behaviour that is part of Buddhist philosophy?! ;)

[Tony]

On the question of spirituality, while it is commendable that people have good intentions when exhaling their rhetoric upon us, we have to be weary of where it actually stands.

Time and time again we find that people would very much like this thing we call life to have some meaning. Our faith in this idea is constantly being tested by reality which we so often forget or ignore? Can we not see that all life, almost without exception, ends in miserable failure? What meaning should we attach to a the life of an 8 year old being snuffed out by a stray bullet or the baby that is so deformed at birth that it fails to live beyond the third month?

All religions, without exception and that includes Buddhism, are stooped in what is commonly referred to as spiritual teaching culminated over many years of history. To its devoted followers, it is intended to bring calm and resolution to life’s problems through anointed individuals and scripture accompanied by undertakings such as prayer or meditation. Why? Will this deep human desire to extol inordinate admiration upon gurus and gods never end? It seems not. So many times I hear the words “you have to let go”. Does anyone actually know what that means? If it means breaking out of the shell and being free, surely that must include the shackles placed upon us by religion. How can you break free if you hold firm that any religion is worth following? We are tangled in contradiction, are we not?

If I walk into a monastery or church or any holy place of worship, I too am immediately taken by the peace and the calm it bears upon me. Large echoing walls, strong arches, high ceilings, beautiful paintings, intricate décor, colourful solemn displays with statues and grim looking sculptures; who could fail to succumb to its obvious charm? Everyone bows with solemnity and for one brief moment, we might actually forget that while our souls are being entertained by the angels, in the same instant, others are being taken away in the most abject manner imaginable. If you can reconcile those two realities, your path to follow a religion is wide and open.

Those of us lucky enough to live in warm comfortable houses with gardens and lily ponds often forget the millions who are paying so dearly for coming to this world. Why? Because we are busy trying to achieve enlightenment.

Sorry Tony, I know you are a follower of Buddhism, but to me it is simply another religion and traces more or less the same contour one expects to find; namely the belief that thinking or acting in a certain way will magically heal or cure the individual or even the world of all its ills. No, I’m afraid this world is one that thrives on toil and graft. Here, not only is there no such thing as a free lunch but we are often forced to pay over the odds for even a modest meal.

If there is a guiding hand that is responsible for all this, I hope to be furnished with a damn good reason for it when the time comes.


Dear Bollinger,

What is sad is my inability to explain properly. Maybe our mind-sets are just different.
I'll have to go along a route of analysis to find out where you are coming from.

We only know that things are happening outside of our bodies, because we experience these things through the five senses. But the senses are only a vehicle that conveys messages to the mind. So things are actually experienced in the mind. The impressions or thoughts in the mind create emotions about what it sees.

Can we agree on that?

There are injustices and selfishness in the world, because sentient beings are selfish!

Can we agree on that?

The ideas we hold in the mind are acquired by the world that we live in.
Do you have an original thought in your mind?

Thoughts and emotions are temporary events in the mind, they are not the final observer of these thoughts. There is an observer of thoughts and emotions.

Can we agree on that?

We can get confused about this relationship, and believe the acquisition of thoughts are us.
We become learned, and that is how we evolve.

Can we agree that this is possible?

If we take this route, then an “I” is developed. So this 'me' is a created evolved thing, developed from the acquisition of ideas about itself and the world it lives in. It can function and judge very well, and is knows how to survive. All creatures learn this way.

Can we agree on that?

When this developed creature uses judgements, it uses likes and dislikes. Some have stronger likes and dislikes and exert power over others. This creates much suffering. It is governed by, I do not like this, I like that. We as sentient beings all do this. So this world is maintained by perpetual attraction and repulsion. We strive to thrive and are partial.

Can we agree on that?

Can we agree that everyone is suffering, meaning not happy....not happy all the time?
Can we agree that people do not expect to be happy all the time, as it is not reasonable?

So we put up with this life as it is, and there are no answers. Can we agree that that seems to be the status quo? So we continue being angry, hatred, frustration, fearful, have pride and jealousy.
In fact be governed by our emotions, so we cannot control ourselves. Which allows others to control us.

Doesn't sound like fun does it?
Can we agree on that?

What if there was a way(s) of getting free from this constant bickering and anger?
Can we agree that it would be worthwhile looking at?
Can we agree that truth and religion are not the same thing?

For a thing to be true, it has to be true forever. Meaning if a thing truly exists, it has to constantly exist. It can never not be....and it has to be provable.

Can we agree on that?

So everything that is a of temporary nature, does not truly exist. It comes and then goes. It seems to exist in this moment, but if one closed one's eyes for a ten thousand years and then opened them, that thing would be dust. I'm only exaggerating time as we do not normally notice changes from moment to moment.

(I once try to paint a harbour scene, and it was always wrong ….then I noticed the tide was going out!)

Can we agree that anything of a temporary nature, has no absolute reality?
Can we also agree that this doesn't bother us much, as we think that is how things are?

What if we have missed something!

Everything that appears to the mind (including religions) is merely a temporary event in the mind, seen by an ultimate observer, and that this ultimate observer did not change. Here is the proof:
What looks out of your eyes now and when you were very young...has never changed!

Spiritual practice is merely taking one step back to realise that that ultimate observer is pure awareness.

We may not agree on that, because that takes practice, but in practice it is provable, or known.

Does this change the world about us? No! But our understanding of how beings cling to ideas about themselves and the world about them, gives one an understanding of why people suffer and fear everything. They are all clinging to maintain their existence, and therefore they suffer, and create suffering for others.

To expect the world and the universe to be perfect is a non starter...as it is perfect already.
We just see it through a certain 'mind set'. If we see through a mindset that the seemingly real world as real, we will relate to it in one away. If we see the real world as the only reality we will see it another way. Combining the two would be perfect.

You may not agree, can we agree on that?

In this world if someone puts a bullet into a child's head, what are you going to do about it?
What are you going to ban? A moment of dislike is a moment of hatred.
Where does one draw the line? One can only draw the line in ones own mind.

That leads to the question..letting go of what? Means letting go of the ideas and emotions about what one sees in the mind. Then maybe we can see more clearly. Then of course the question arises...so we do nothing!? One does what one can, depending on our skill, capacity and compassion. To try and do more than our capacity will bring about heart ache. Daily I pray for more inspiration and power to help all sentient beings. This is more than wishful thinking, the changes in inspiration have been mind blowing!


Written with as much logical compassion as can be mustered.
Can we agree on that?

[jorr lundstrom]

Kathie, try this, press the little youtube button in the lower left corner
of the video I posted. It will take you to those regions of youtube.

I know, thats wot you state has been the case in Buddhism. Im not
so sure its really the case anymore. Ive thhrough my life been
enormously fascinated of the old well known Zenmasters totally
unpredictable behaviour. LOL


Jorr

Ha! That explains it! I'm on an iPad and can't see the video...will check it on the laptop later.

I think, unfortunately, you could be right in that things are changing and a huge distortion is in danger of taking place.
I don't wish to slight an entire nation, but much of this does seem to originate from the US ( as does much that is of benefit, of course ;)) There is a perversion of core teachings going on...what the motivation is, I can't be sure...whether it is a calculated, deliberate perversion, a quest for fame and money, or part of a misguided but well-meaning attempt to "spread the word" I don't know.
But it was said, centuries ago, that the teaching can only be destroyed from within.

So - to be clear - do you agree that worship is not a behaviour that is part of Buddhist philosophy?! ;)

Yes, I agree, it has no place in Buddhism. And there are no place for
worshipping anything at all at large. If anyone or any entity wants to
be worshipped, take care. LOL

[Tony]

The problem with the word worship, is that could mask the meaning of supplication.
This is a personal choice. I may wish to have compassion, but I know it is only a selfish drop.
So I supplicate to Chenrezig the embodiment ultimate compassion. This is not worship, it is
a psychological event in my mind to enhance and remind me that dealing everything with
compassion is the only way. But one must not try to misunderstand compassion.

The practice of compassion is the outcome of practice.

[Tony]

For some realising our ultimate nature is not possible at this very moment.
So we have to rely on aspiration and inspiration. So for some merely being
near or in a spiritual setup helps.

We are all at different capacities, so work from where we are. There seems
no point in criticising others way of working.

Of course there are those that live in a fantasy, an imaginary world, a paranoid
world, and do not want to be here. So they long for somewhere different...a holiday!

But it is here that we have to face, dare I say it ...our own fears.
To know thy self, is to know what is not thy self.
This takes guts...to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or by opposing end them.


If we think we are victims, we will become aggressors.

[Tarka the Duck]

Those of us lucky enough to live in warm comfortable houses with gardens and lily ponds often forget the millions who are paying so dearly for coming to this world. Why? Because we are busy trying to achieve enlightenment.



Hello Bollinger! I'm on my way out, and so haven't got time to address your whole post...but this leapt out at me.

Spiritual work and community work are not mutually exclusive. Just because someone decides to focus attention inwardly doesn't mean they can't also be of benefit in the outer world.
Many become interested in Buddhism as one of the primary teachings relates to suffering and its causes. They are already concerned with the suffering in this world, and are already involved in helping others in a practical way. They don't drop all that and go and sit in a lovely, peaceful meditation room for the rest of their lives!
All the groups of Tibetan Buddhists I have been involved with in Nepal - and talking of suffering, they have experienced, and are still experiencing their fair share through the invasion of the Chinese - have set up and are running community projects: free clinics, schools, training projects, elderly care etc.

[The One]

As your faith is strengthened you will find that there is no longer the need to have a sense of control, that things will flow as they will, and that you will flow with them, to your great delight and benefit. In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't :wizard:

[Tarka the Duck]

As your faith is strengthened you will find that there is no longer the need to have a sense of control, that things will flow as they will, and that you will flow with them, to your great delight and benefit. In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't :wizard:

Hello The One
For you, what is faith? Faith in what?

[The One]

As your faith is strengthened you will find that there is no longer the need to have a sense of control, that things will flow as they will, and that you will flow with them, to your great delight and benefit. In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't :wizard:

Hello The One
For you, what is faith? Faith in what?

Hello

For me faith is a knowledge within the heart, beyond the reach of proof.Consists in believing when it is beyond the power of reason to believe

[Tarka the Duck]

@ Bollinger


Time and time again we find that people would very much like this thing we call life to have some meaning.

Maybe it is more productive to ask, “What is it to live a meaningful life?”


All religions, without exception and that includes Buddhism, are stooped in what is commonly referred to as spiritual teaching culminated over many years of history. To its devoted followers, it is intended to bring calm and resolution to life’s problems through anointed individuals and scripture accompanied by undertakings such as prayer or meditation. Why? Will this deep human desire to extol inordinate admiration upon gurus and gods never end? It seems not. So many times I hear the words “you have to let go”. Does anyone actually know what that means? If it means breaking out of the shell and being free, surely that must include the shackles placed upon us by religion. How can you break free if you hold firm that any religion is worth following? We are tangled in contradiction, are we not?

Without wishing to sound rude, it seems from your post that you don't have a very deep understanding of what Buddhism is about...would that be true? Phrases such as "extolling inordinate admiration upon gods" doesn't apply to the Buddhism I practice.
As for “letting go”: there is no one easy, glib answer to that. It partly depends on the school or tradition, and also on the individual's own self-examination. Possible answers will include ceasing to hold on to the idea of things as they should be, or of our own self-interest, or of our habitual patterns...


If I walk into a monastery or church or any holy place of worship, I too am immediately taken by the peace and the calm it bears upon me. Large echoing walls, strong arches, high ceilings, beautiful paintings, intricate décor, colourful solemn displays with statues and grim looking sculptures; who could fail to succumb to its obvious charm? Everyone bows with solemnity and for one brief moment, we might actually forget that while our souls are being entertained by the angels, in the same instant, others are being taken away in the most abject manner imaginable. If you can reconcile those two realities, your path to follow a religion is wide and open.

The two realities you refer to here sound a little like the two truths of Buddhism – the relative, conventional world and the absolute world. The way in which we perceive reality, and the way it actually is.


Sorry Tony, I know you are a follower of Buddhism, but to me it is simply another religion and traces more or less the same contour one expects to find; namely the belief that thinking or acting in a certain way will magically heal or cure the individual or even the world of all its ills.

Nope. There is no such promise! I don't know who said this but : “Being happy doesn’t mean that everything is perfect. It means you’ve decided to look beyond the imperfections.”

Buddhism is not escaping reality; Buddhism is about understanding reality.

Some schools of Buddhism advocate withdrawing from the world. Others bring the emotions such as desire, and anger onto the path, not rejecting anything.


No, I’m afraid this world is one that thrives on toil and graft. Here, not only is there no such thing as a free lunch but we are often forced to pay over the odds for even a modest meal.

What is this free lunch you are talking about? Are you implying that wishing to follow a spiritual path is a cop out? A form of escapism?

There is no magic; it is about commitment, effort and time, like everything else. And like anything else, you get out of it what you put into it. Putting it crudely, Buddhism is a set of guidelines, by which one isn't told the truth; one is told how one can find it for oneself. It is about experience, not dogma.


If there is a guiding hand that is responsible for all this, I hope to be furnished with a damn good reason for it when the time comes.


For Buddhists, there is no guiding hand...

I'm sorry, but I just can't quite get to grips with what your problem really is...it sounds as if you are wanting to place responsibility for the evils of the world at the feet of a philosophy known as Buddhism...!

[giovonni]

Great thread Tony ...

i break out of my shell now and then ... but just can't seem to totally part with it :o

https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ8sYzA_EVVK2zkQYzSiMRhya4a_D9vXT2QX59WKHh0Hsao5ra-Tw

[shijo]

In Nichiren's Buddhism belief and faith play a strong part,through practise its possible to realise the entity of ones own life and the lives of others,the Buddha nature inherant in all composite phenomena. Its got nothing to do with anything outside of our own being.

[firstlook]

I think Buddhist is just someone who can talk there way out of any situation. If they see a rock they think is alarming, they talk to that rock until they feel it has no harmful intentions. Really, Buddhists are just really slick talkers who will talk to anyone and anything.

[Tarka the Duck]

I think Buddhist is just someone who can talk there way out of any situation. If they see a rock they think is alarming, they talk to that rock until they feel it has no harmful intentions. Really, Buddhists are just really slick talkers who will talk to anyone and anything.

Having never met an alarming rock, I'm grateful that I haven't had to talk to it...
I dream of being a slick talker ;)

Seriously, what are you talking about??!!

[Tony]

I think Buddhist is just someone who can talk there way out of any situation. If they see a rock they think is alarming, they talk to that rock until they feel it has no harmful intentions. Really, Buddhists are just really slick talkers who will talk to anyone and anything.

Hello Firstlook,

I entirely agree with you. The amount of study, research, analysing and practice they do is truly amazing. They question everything until there IS nothing left. Anyone that does that has to be out of their mind....nuts!

[Tony]

As your faith is strengthened you will find that there is no longer the need to have a sense of control, that things will flow as they will, and that you will flow with them, to your great delight and benefit. In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't :wizard:

Hello The One
For you, what is faith? Faith in what?

Hello

For me faith is a knowledge within the heart, beyond the reach of proof.Consists in believing when it is beyond the power of reason to believe



Hello The One,

For me faith is that 5% one just cannot know, but trust....lets go.
The other 75% is provable, and 20% is inference.

It cannot all be laid out on a plate, we have to do some chewing, tasting, digesting and swallowing. This usually take care of pride!.... swallow the pride.

[firstlook]

I think Buddhist is just someone who can talk there way out of any situation. If they see a rock they think is alarming, they talk to that rock until they feel it has no harmful intentions. Really, Buddhists are just really slick talkers who will talk to anyone and anything.

Having never met an alarming rock, I'm grateful that I haven't had to talk to it...
I dream of being a slick talker ;)

Seriously, what are you talking about??!!

Adapt or die. Fear of the Unknown. I think there for I exist.

Its all the same unless you want it to be different.

Buddhism. Its just a word.

About? Anything you want in order for both of us to feel free and full of love.

Aww nuts.

Respond. :)

[Tony]

One does not need lot of meaningful words to melt the heart...just listen.

-c9-XaA2f00



A version for scholars.


QUzzivYjvRA

[Tarka the Duck]

I think Buddhist is just someone who can talk there way out of any situation. If they see a rock they think is alarming, they talk to that rock until they feel it has no harmful intentions. Really, Buddhists are just really slick talkers who will talk to anyone and anything.

Having never met an alarming rock, I'm grateful that I haven't had to talk to it...
I dream of being a slick talker ;)

Seriously, what are you talking about??!!

Adapt or die. Fear of the Unknown. I think there for I exist.

Its all the same unless you want it to be different.

Buddhism. Its just a word.

About? Anything you want in order for both of us to feel free and full of love.

Aww nuts.

Respond. :)


You're right...a good heart doesn't need a name.

[percival tyro]

Some people preach, Others have a gift of reminding people of things that they already know, occluded by our busy lives. They ring bells. You can be our Bow Bells.......Don't be getting big headed 'though. Thank you.

[Tony]

Some people preach, Others have a gift of reminding people of things that they already know, occluded by our busy lives. They ring bells. You can be our Bow Bells.......Don't be getting big headed 'though. Thank you.



Well, some friends say, "Big Tone", and that one can understand. Big'Ed is strange because my name is not Ed.:yo:

[Tony]

Once at a teaching, the lama told a story of Dilgo Khyentse a very high lama, who was eating at a meal with other lamas. He took a piece of food out of his mouth and offered it to another lama.

This lama was furious … then the lama at my teaching said to us all “What happened next?”

Everyone replied with some sort of answer. I was really keen to have the 'right' answer, I mean really keen! But all I could reply was, “Impermanence!”

The answer, was that the furious lama had to swallow his pride!

But what was the lesson?

In my being really, really keep to have the right answer, I was engulfed by pride.
I felt so stupid, it knocked me for six. (English cricket expression). That's crazy wisdom for you!

Learning is painful, but we learn.

[giovonni]

Once at a teaching, the lama told a story of Dilgo Khyentse a very high lama, who was eating at a meal with other lamas. He took a piece of food out of his mouth and offered it to another lama.

This lama was furious … then the lama at my teaching said to us all “What happened next?”

Everyone replied with some sort of answer. I was really keen to have the 'right' answer, I mean really keen! But all I could reply was, “Impermanence!”

The answer, was that the furious lama had to swallow his pride!

But what was the lesson?

In my being really, really keep to have the right answer, I was engulfed by pride.
I felt so stupid, it knocked me for six. (English cricket expression). That's crazy wisdom for you!

Learning is painful, but we learn.

Good story Tony ~ even Lama 's learn hard felt lessons ...

Note ~ Buddhism (or) the teachings of the Eightfold Path have become for me the mechanism (learning tools) for interacting and dealing with others...
And by learning (practicing) to nurture these tools within myself ~ those (believed) truths have enabled me to reach further into myself in finding peace and harmony upon this world.

it is said Pain Is Inevitable... but i like to believe Suffering is optional... or more realistically perhaps Less pain is Better.http://factoryjoe.s3.amazonaws.com/emoticons/emoticon-0136-giggle.gif

[another bob]

Not to cast aspersions, but religion mostly is perversion.
Two or three are always warring, but then take Buddhism –
Buddhism is boring.
Boredom is a mere modification of consciousness.
Even "direct realization" is in consciousness.
Consciousness is stressful (and boring).
Hence, boredom can never amount to realization --
not by inference, accident, or incident.
If you think there is a "beyond consciousness",
that thought is in consciousness.
It's boring, like Buddhism.
I like grilled meats, but
I’m still a vegetarian. Auspiciously,
the 5 aggregates are my playground.
It’s a game of names with no players,
so what’s in a name?
We like it like that, maybe not.
This manifesto has yet to be moderated.
All things in moderation, please.
If I were to really say it, nothing would change.
That would be enough for direct introductions.
There, I've said it!
Who are these people in the dream?
How fast they can fly when they've a mind for it!
They grill meats in my supermarket parking lot --
a captivating aroma, verging on multiple
fender benders. Buddhism is just to stop.
Shoppers, the only sin is to wake up.
Compassion is simply to watch
where you're going.
It won't hurt anybody.
Anybody is in consciousness.
If you believe there is anybody beyond consciousness,
that belief is in consciousness (and boring).
Better to fly -- the world is alive
with the sound of music.
That is enough.
Flying is extra.
Music is extra.
Just watch where you're going in consciousness:
exactly nowhere -- flying through the dream,
a dream in the supermarket parking lot
of consciousness, alive
to the music of grilled meats
and fender benders.
It is not Buddhist, not boring.
Not greedy, angry, envious or deluded.
Not an inference or direct realization.
Not a conception nor perception.
Nothing special.
Nothing in particular, square, or circular.
Everything is quiescently resting in moderation,
right on the verge of extinction.
Nirvana means extinction –
it’s a favorite Christmas tune.
For example, visit a Buddhist temple.
Yes, just sit. Sit and sit
in the fragrant snake pit.
Be bored.
Be bored for the sake
of all grilled sentience.
For the sake of grilled snakes,
for goodness sake,
all wrapped up in Buddhist robes,
awaiting a Christmas that now can
never come! Not fun!
Real Compassion is not to lose
your sense of humor, and so
is never boring, never and always
in consciousness, never actually
stressful or moderated, just
enjoying the parking a lot,
the skandhas and whatnot,
the quintessential aspect
of boring Buddhism, the dream
of meats grilled beyond consciousness,
beyond any comprehension of attention,
beyond anything with a name of form,
nothing in particular, not Christmas,
just what it is,
what it was and will always be,
letting the dog out to pee, for ever
and ever, beyond no and never. Amen.

[Tony]

Not to cast aspersions, but religion mostly is perversion.
Two or three are always warring, but then take Buddhism –
Buddhism is boring.
Boredom is a mere modification of consciousness.
Even "direct realization" is in consciousness.
Consciousness is stressful (and boring).
Hence, boredom can never amount to realization --
not by inference, accident, or incident.
If you think there is a "beyond consciousness",
that thought is in consciousness.
It's boring, like Buddhism.
I like grilled meats, but
I’m still a vegetarian. Auspiciously,
the 5 aggregates are my playground.
It’s a game of names with no players,
so what’s in a name?
We like it like that, maybe not.
This manifesto has yet to be moderated.
All things in moderation, please.
If I were to really say it, nothing would change.
That would be enough for direct introductions.
There, I've said it!
Who are these people in the dream?
How fast they can fly when they've a mind for it!
They grill meats in my supermarket parking lot --
a captivating aroma, verging on multiple
fender benders. Buddhism is just to stop.
Shoppers, the only sin is to wake up.
Compassion is simply to watch
where you're going.
It won't hurt anybody.
Anybody is in consciousness.
If you believe there is anybody beyond consciousness,
that belief is in consciousness (and boring).
Better to fly -- the world is alive
with the sound of music.
That is enough.
Flying is extra.
Music is extra.
Just watch where you're going in consciousness:
exactly nowhere -- flying through the dream,
a dream in the supermarket parking lot
of consciousness, alive
to the music of grilled meats
and fender benders.
It is not Buddhist, not boring.
Not greedy, angry, envious or deluded.
Not an inference or direct realization.
Not a conception nor perception.
Nothing special.
Nothing in particular, square, or circular.
Everything is quiescently resting in moderation,
right on the verge of extinction.
Nirvana means extinction –
it’s a favorite Christmas tune.
For example, visit a Buddhist temple.
Yes, just sit. Sit and sit
in the fragrant snake pit.
Be bored.
Be bored for the sake
of all grilled sentience.
For the sake of grilled snakes,
for goodness sake,
all wrapped up in Buddhist robes,
awaiting a Christmas that now can
never come! Not fun!
Real Compassion is not to lose
your sense of humor, and so
is never boring, never and always
in consciousness, never actually
stressful or moderated, just
enjoying the parking a lot,
the skandhas and whatnot,
the quintessential aspect
of boring Buddhism, the dream
of meats grilled beyond consciousness,
beyond any comprehension of attention,
beyond anything with a name of form,
nothing in particular, not Christmas,
just what it is,
what it was and will always be,
letting the dog out to pee, for ever
and ever, beyond no and never. Amen.



Buddhism is wonderfully boring...meditation is a wonderful cool boringness.
In that emptiness it can accommodate everything.

[Tony]

I would like to thank the virtual stalkers, as it reveals precisely to others how maras (demons) work, through the negative emotions! It really does help to see this in action.
Practitioners get attacked, and this is so useful, as it sorts out if one is a pseudo-practitioner or not.

In your heart you mean well, but the mind through fear cannot control its urge to destroy.
It's all part of the journey up or down the path! Just be careful it does not backfire. We can chat privately if you wish.

As one proceeds along the path, one has to expect testing.
If one cannot smile at the virtual world, how is one going to cope with the dream world we live in, and the world after death?!

All the best,
Tony

[Jenci]

Just because someone decides to focus attention inwardly doesn't mean they can't also be of benefit in the outer world.



I agree, Kathie and even if they are sitting all day in meditation or living in solitude, what is happening inwardly, is a benefit to the outer world but there may be inner ripening or maturing which needs to happen first before the compassion can be fully expressed outwardly.

Jeanette

[Tarka the Duck]

For example, visit a Buddhist temple.
Yes, just sit. Sit and sit
in the fragrant snake pit.

Why so venomous, Bob? :confused: or am I misunderstanding your intent??

Perhaps if I was sufficiently intelligent, I might actually understand what it is you are trying to say in this post...:o

[Jenci]

As one proceeds along the path, one has to expect testing. If one cannot smile at the virtual world,
how is one going to cope with the dream world we live in, and the world after death.

All the best,
Tony

Of course and the toughest trials in life are our ticket to where we begin. :)
Jeanette

[Bollinger]

I wanted to wait till everyone had a chance to speak their mind and defend their beliefs, religion, doctrine or philosophy; whatever the preferred term is. As it happens, in a serious dialogue like this, we have to be mindful that we do not lose sight of what it is that we’re actually discussing and above all we do not let our emotioens get in the way.

So what are we talking about? In my last post I made some comments to point out that I regarded Buddhism to be a religion and as you might expect some of its most esteemed apologists were at pains to deny this and set about defending it by availing upon us that it promises nothing; that there is no deity to worship; and cannot therefore be classed as a religion.

Assuming that to be our focal point, I will set out to demonstrate that Buddhism is in fact a religion because it follows the same pattern as all the other religions. First, let’s define what a religion is before we bury ourselves in a game of semantics. I consider “fashion”, as an example, to be a religion. Why? Because it fits perfectly the formula all religions follow.

This formula is simple and unmistakeable. It says: if you do x and y, you may hope to achieve z. Take a religion such as Christianity. You have to be baptised, go to church, pray to God, and many other things to be a Christian. Same with Islam; you have to visit Mecca, pray five times a day, fast during certain times of the year and other things in order to call yourself a true Moslem. Of course, the ultimate achievement at the end of it is that you may hope to enter the Kingdom of Heaven upon your departure from this life. So it’s not really just about worshiping a deity; that is just another x in the formula. It is about doing certain things in a certain manner, at certain times and at certain intervals in order to reach a certain goal.

Whether that means dressing up in special robes, or wearing specific insignia, walking in a reverent manner, repeating mantras and incantations, sitting still, not eating flesh, putting on a dog collar, taking a vow of silence, wearing a hair shirt, reading holy books, refraining from sexual acts, giving up all your wealth, meditating, reciting passages from holy scripture… the list is endless… it all boils down to the same basic formula. Do x and y to become z.

You may say that all our endeavours in life follow this pattern. For example you must go to college, study hard, and pass exams, to get a degree. So here now comes the crunch. What’s the difference? The difference is that the end goal, as well as the steps you have to take, is well defined. There is no mysticism. There is no magic. No divine utterance or phrase that means different things to different people.

That is the great trick that religion plays on people who fall for its mesmerising charm. You may interpret it as it suits your own situation and mindset. It is open to so much subjective countenance that not even the masters or the gurus can agree on what Buddha meant. Let me show you what I mean by throwing out some phrases from the teachings of Buddha.

Nibbana, for example, is the goal you’d be aiming to achieve if you do all the right things in Buddhism. It is defined (on one website anyway) thus:

This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation;

Does anyone seriously believe that it is possible for any human being to achieve this? And how do we know if we've achieved it? It reads like one of those performance appraisal guidelines that a company imposes on its employees that is not only difficult but impossible to reach and then measures them at the end of the year against how close to it they came. It is laughable. It actually adds to the suffering because you know it is never going to happen.

Is it not simply another glaring example of being born sick and commanded by the gurus or gods to be well? How disturbed does one have to be to impose such things on unassuming human beings drawn to practices just oozing with peace and perfection? That of course, is the bate.

Here is another, it’s called Jhana:

Jhana is a meditative state of profound stillness and concentration in which the mind becomes fully immersed and absorbed in the chosen object of attention. It is the cornerstone in the development of Right Concentration.

I admit that the tone of what is being uttered is hard to resist but then so is a Shakespeare play or a Beethoven sonata; yet we do not make a religion out of Midsummer Night’s Dream, do we?

All of the above is not meant as an attack on people’s religions. It merely demonstrates that there are avenues other than spiritual teachings, unsubstantiated doctrines and religions. It’s called critical thinking that filters out sophistry and mysticism not necessarily because they have no value but because they are not, and never can be, well defined. I look with deep suspicion on anything that hides behind a cloud of nice phrases and flowery intentions. Buddhism is no exception.

English, like any other language, has so much redundancy that you can put certain words together and they may sound so good and true and move you to tears. Unfortunately words are not the same as pigments or musical notes. When put together, they must mean pretty much the same thing to everyone otherwise we’re into sophistry, opinion and taste.

By all means practice your religion in peace if it truly makes you happy. But do not be so presumptuous to think that it is the “true” religion, or the “only way”, or the “divine word of God”, or the “greatest knowledge” or the “messiah” or the “giver of light” or the “king of kings” and so forth.
All these things are just ideals designed by man for man to evoke reverence and awe in man. If it were otherwise, the world would indeed be a different place.

[Tony]

Hello Bollinger,
You have every right to your opinion, but you just saying how little you know about this subject.
What I find difficult to understand is why people are so hostile to this post.

I have never said it is the only way to live.
This subject is so simple but so complex that I am just offering some sort of explanation,
which will be difficult to find unless one goes to teachings.

With all the problems in the world, I just cannot understand this attitude on the forum.

Tony

[Bollinger]

Hello Bollinger,
You have every right to your opinion, but you just saying how little you know about this subject.
What I find difficult to understand is why people are so hostile to this post.

I have never said it is the only way to live.
This subject is so simple but so complex that I am just offering some sort of explanation,
which will be difficult to find unless one goes to teachings.

With all the problems in the world, I just cannot understand this attitude on the forum.

Tony

Tony,

There is no attitude and there is no hostility. There is a discussion. It is something that people who believe in a certain established tradition find it difficult to undertake because everything input and output goes through the same set of filters put in place by their particular brand of philosophy or religion, which in your case is Buddhism. We are not here to convert each other. This is not a fight or a competition and I wish you would stop seeing it that way. It is simply a discussion, not even an opinion really.

You say I know little about the subject and try to use that as the disclaimer to your sparse reply. It is not necessary to spend 20 years learning about something in order to discount it. Naturally you have a huge bias because you have spent possibly a large part of your life investing time, effort and a great deal of thought into it and of course the further into the tunnel you go, the harder it is to get out.

Neither did I wish to imply that you said Buddhism is the only way but for you it is something that is immensely valuable and precious. I am not saying that is a bad thing. It only becomes bad if you impose or force the religion upon others and you’re not doing that. However, it becomes very difficult to have a neutral discussion about pretty nearly everything because of those filters.

If you’re taking it personally, I’m just saying there is no need to because certainly on my part it was never intended that way.


Regards


Bollinger

[firstlook]

I just cannot understand this attitude on the forum.

Tony

Yes you can. But I digress. :p

[Tony]

Buddhism in a nutshell, I give up.

This is merely going round in petty circles.
So from this moment, administrators would you please unsubscribe my account.

I've had a fabulous year here and am grateful for the friendships,
I have learnt so much, more than I can explain.
The mods have my email if anyone wishes to keep in contact.

All the best,
Tony

[greybeard]

Buddhism is a nutshell, I give up.

This is merely going round in petty circles.
So from this moment administrator would you please unsubscribe my account.

I've had a fabulous year here and am grateful for the friendships,
I have learnt so much, more than I can explain.
The mods have my email if anyone wishes to keep in contact.

All the best,
Tony

Tony if one person gets it so to speak its worth while.
Please think again.
Chris

Ps I mean something of value from your post.

[Bollinger]

Buddhism in a nutshell, I give up.

This is merely going round in petty circles.
So from this moment, administrators would you please unsubscribe my account.

I've had a fabulous year here and am grateful for the friendships,
I have learnt so much, more than I can explain.
The mods have my email if anyone wishes to keep in contact.

All the best,
Tony

Tony,

I don’t understand. I would apologise if I knew what I was apologising for. There really is no need to up and go just because of one discussion. You know from my previous posts that I do not subscribe to anything that even remotely resembles a religion for reasons given many times and in great detail.

Can we not reach a mutual consensus that on some things we will not agree and perhaps on a great many others we will?

Please reconsider.


Regards

Bollinger

[another bob]

For example, visit a Buddhist temple.
Yes, just sit. Sit and sit
in the fragrant snake pit.

....or am I misunderstanding your intent??

Yes,the intent was solely humor to moisten the dry pedantics . . . as written: "real compasion is not to lose your sense of humor" -- taking oneself and one's views seriously is the real " Mara", the source of affliction. If that little nonsense piece threw some into a snit, well, there's a good mirror there for inspection, eh.



Perhaps if I was sufficiently intelligent, I might actually understand what it is you are trying to say in this post...:o

http://www.pbase.com/1heart/image/126575458

:yo:

[Tarka the Duck]

What is a snit?!

[Sebastion]

Tony,

Please reconsider your decision and stay with Avalon! You are a wise and honest man with impeccable character.

[another bob]

What is a snit?

Emotional reactivity in the face of inherently insubstantial, empty phenomena leading to requests for unsubscription.

:yo:

[Tarka the Duck]

Dear Bollinger


This formula is simple and unmistakeable. It says: if you do x and y, you may hope to achieve z. Take a religion such as Christianity. You have to be baptised, go to church, pray to God, and many other things to be a Christian. Same with Islam; you have to visit Mecca, pray five times a day, fast during certain times of the year and other things in order to call yourself a true Moslem. Of course, the ultimate achievement at the end of it is that you may hope to enter the Kingdom of Heaven upon your departure from this life. So it’s not really just about worshiping a deity; that is just another x in the formula. It is about doing certain things in a certain manner, at certain times and at certain intervals in order to reach a certain goal.

So making a cheese sandwich is a religion...?!
Certain time: one o'clock-ish
Certain manner: cleanly, and methodically
Certain intervals: first, I slice the bread, then I spread the butter before I lay on the cheese,
Certain goal: the production of a cheese sandwich.

Yes, religions have an outer form. So do most other aspects of our life.

I notice you go through the rituals of Christianity and Islam: I'm not familiar with either of those religions, so perhaps you could do the same for ŵhat you perceive as the rituals associated with Buddhism.



Whether that means dressing up in special robes, or wearing specific insignia, walking in an irreverent manner, repeating mantras and incantations, sitting still, not eating flesh, putting on a dog collar, taking a vow of silence, wearing a hair shirt, reading holy books, refraining from sexual acts, giving up all your wealth, meditating, reciting passages from holy scripture… the list is endless… it all boils down to the same basic formula. Do x and y to become z.

Some monks wear robes. So what? Why should it bother you so much that they chose to wear a symbol showing they have decided to step away from the material world? Some people have decided that they want to turn their attention inward.

Not wishing to be picky...but what is "walking in an irreverent manner"?!

Well, out of that list, I do 3. And I do them because I find them beneficial. I wouldn't do them if I didn't. I am not a mindless robot who has abdicated all personal responsibility.

You have absolutely no idea about the intricacy, the multiple layering, the logic of the vast teachings available in Buddhism. If though you were open minded or interested, I would suggest you looked at the website of people such as Alexander Berzin and Matthieu Ricard, or the work of the neuro scientists in the Mind Life institute.


Nibbana, for example, is the goal you’d be aiming to achieve if you do all the right things in Buddhism. It is defined (on one website anyway) thus:

This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation;

So you went to one website and got a Theravadan definition of nirvana. As you said, there is much debate and discussion about the teachings among scholars and teachers...the definition you found is not one that I personally even really understand. I'd probably go for something more along the lines of a stabilising of the experience my true nature.



Is it not simply another glaring example of being born sick and commanded by the gurus or gods to be well? How disturbed does one have to be to impose such things on unassuming human beings drawn to practices just oozing with peace and perfection? That of course, is the bate.

"Commanded" ? In what way? If you mean that there are many, many clearly and precisely explained methods to finding wellness within oneself, then I suppose I might agree with you.
And your suggestion of a "bait" implies that there is someone wishing to obtain something from me. What would that be?

What is wrong with a little peace? Perfection is an irrelevant ideal.


All of the above is not meant as an attack on people’s religions.

It can only be an attack if the weapons you fire hit the target: for that, you have to know what the target is...



It merely demonstrates that there are avenues other than spiritual teachings, unsubstantiated doctrines and religions. It’s called critical thinking that filters out sophistry and mysticism not necessarily because they have no value but because they are not, and never can be, well defined. I look with deep suspicion on anything that hides behind a cloud of nice phrases and flowery intentions. Buddhism is no exception.

Yes, obviously. And this is where you clearly have no idea about the principle teachings of Buddhism.

As part of every teaching, the need to test, question, pull apart is reiterated. Nothing is taken at face value. If something doesn't stand up to scrutiny it is put aside.

This is how the Buddha replied to the villagers of Kalama, when they asked him how to evaluate philosophy and develop a healthy, sceptical attitude:

Kalama Sutta
Do not believe just because it is a tradition maintained by oral repetition.
Do not believe just because it is an unbroken succession of practice.
Do not believe merely because it is hearsay.
Do not believe just because it is in the scriptures.
Do not believe just because it fits with one's point of view.
Do not believe just because it is correct on the ground of metaphysical theories.
Do not believe just because it appeals to one's consideration.
Do not believe just because it agrees with one's opinions and theories.
Do not believe just because the speaker appears believable.
Do not believe just because the speaker is our teacher.
Kalamas, whenever you realize by yourselves what is unwholesome, harmful or is condemned by wise people, and whoever fully undertake or observe this, they will lead to uselessness or suffering, and you should abandon them.
Kalamas, whenever you realise by yourselves what is wholesome, not harmful or is admired by wise people, and whoever fully undertake or observe this, they will lead to usefulness or happiness, you should undertake them.




But do not be so presumptuous to think that it is the “true” religion, or the “only way”, or the “divine word of God”, or the “greatest knowledge” or the “messiah” or the “giver of light” or the “king of kings” and so forth.

Why on earth would you think that? Just because I chose to tell you I prefer a cheese sandwich when you are eating a ham one, does that mean I am saying you should have a cheese sandwich too?

There are many, many topics about which I am aware I know very little: if I dip into them, and mix with people who know more than me, I am cautious and hold back from showing my lack of understanding. If I want to find out more, I do the obvious things such as study, ask questions and listen.

If I don't want to find out more, I move on.
I'm grateful that I don't have an overwhelming urge to step right in there and put them right...

Being Buddhist does not make me a peaceful, gentle, floaty sort of person (that probably makes me a cr#p Buddhist...!)
I get angry. I react. I am passionate.
I know I am not the sharpest knife in the cutlery drawer, and there are many who have much cleverer words and slick ways of saying them.
But I do not have the intention of causing harm, and I do not sit back passively when - maybe mistakenly - I feel I am being walked over ;)

[Tarka the Duck]

What is a snit?

Emotional reactivity in the face of inherently insubstantial, empty phenomena leading to requests for unsubscription.

:yo:

Spoken as a true nihilist.

I struggle to understand your hostility.

[another bob]

What is a snit?

Emotional reactivity in the face of inherently insubstantial, empty phenomena leading to requests for unsubscription.

:yo:

Spoken as a true nihilist.

I struggle to understand your hostility.

Perhaps if you'd let go of your need to diss those with whom you disagree with dogmatic labels and such, you'd be able to drop the struggle, relax, and have some fun.

:yo:

[Bollinger]

Hi Kathie,

Here we go again. You missed the most salient point. Making a cheese sandwich is not a religion because the steps and the end goal are well defined. I said that quite clearly. The steps needed to achieve any religious goal are never well defined and never understood to be the same by different people.

The second point is this. All that you are and you say you are, you could be without any hint of Buddhism. All people of religion say the same thing. If you only knew what we know, so it is with Buddhism.

Let me ask you a simple question. What made you choose Buddhism? Did you study all the other religions and doctrines as deeply as you studied Buddhism? No, because there are not enough years in a life time to do that. So how do you know that had you picked something else that you would not be now defending that instead? You accuse me of being ignorant in Buddhist traditions and even offer me a website. I could equally offer you books, websites, essays and documentaries that completely destroy all religions, including Buddhism; does that not equally make you just as ignorant as I?

I have no particular problem with any of it. As I was at pains to repeat many times over, this is a discussion and it should be treated as such. No need to get angry or react negatively because that is exactly what all people do when their religion is challenged. Please don’t be like that. Bob for example says that my comments are "inherently insubstantial, empty phenomena" and finds comfort in that thought. You can also do the same.

If I didn’t think people here were strong enough to stay afloat I would have remained silent. Sadly I miscalculated. I still hope Tony returns to the fold. Whatever else I may exude, malice is not one of them.

Regards

Bollinger

[Ineffable Hitchhiker]

Buddhism in a nutshell, I give up.

This is merely going round in petty circles.
So from this moment, administrators would you please unsubscribe my account.

I've had a fabulous year here and am grateful for the friendships,
I have learnt so much, more than I can explain.
The mods have my email if anyone wishes to keep in contact.

All the best,
Tony


:(

edit:-
It says "The message is too short....", but I have no words.

[RunningDeer]

Buddhism in a nutshell, I give up.

This is merely going round in petty circles.
So from this moment, administrators would you please unsubscribe my account.

I've had a fabulous year here and am grateful for the friendships,
I have learnt so much, more than I can explain.
The mods have my email if anyone wishes to keep in contact.

All the best,
Tony

Dear pie'n'eal/Tony,
No profound words spilling out just a wishing you continued health, love and lots of belly laughter!
Peace and with heart,
Paula

PS This last post you've written, I'll treasure for many reasons.

[Curt]

Hi Tony,

I understand your decision to leave, but wish you'd reconsider. No cheese sandwich is worth loosing a valuable member over. Unless we're talking a really nice aged cheddar on a very good authentic rye bread. But even then...

I would suggest God, or at least, the designers of this forum made the ignore button for a reason. If you're not interested in engaging in convoluted logical ping pong matches with cheese sandwich fanatics, just click ignore and they go away.

Anyway, Tony you're a true badass of the highest order and I thank you for everything. I've learned a great deal from you and wanted to be sure you know that it is appreciated.

I would write Namaste here, but frankly I have no idea what it even means. So, I'll just say, 'hope to see you again.'

And remember.......


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlBiLNN1NhQ

[music]

Buddhism, like all religions and belief systems, is not the truth, but the truth viewed from a certain perspective. If the truth of the All is a pie, then religions are the slices. Each will give you a taste, but when one has a real spiritual hunger, then only the whole pie will satisfy. The whole pie lies as much within us as without us, and religions can be useful guideposts as we find the way back to ourselves. It would be good to maintain respect for the religion of another person, as failure to do this can be indicitive of the primacy of the ego, and of a poverty of spirit.

[Solstyse]

Here we go again. You missed the most salient point. Making a cheese sandwich is not a religion because the steps and the end goal are well defined. I said that quite clearly. The steps needed to achieve any religious goal are never well defined and never understood to be the same by different people.


I wasn't going to comment on this thread out of respect for Pie N Eal
but that one statement jumped out at me.
I am pretty sure that in Christianity they have well defined end goals, and even tell you how to get there.
Goal is Heaven, get there through believe in Jesus as Gods son.
Now I am admittedly basing it down.

10 commandments, spread his word. Its all in there.

You just have to take the denominations out of it.

[Tarka the Duck]

Morning Bollinger!

I just wanted you to know that your post on the "nutshell" thread was not the primary reason for Tony deciding to leave.
If you knew him, you should know that he is the first to be ready to discuss something - but unfortunately, as he tries to explain in his final post, we weren't having a discussion...

You didn't show any interest in the subject of the thread, but only appeared to want to lump all spiritual practitioners as rather simple-minded, easily led individuals who fall for "mindless charms" and are taken in by "baits" because of a deep need and feeling of inadequacy. I assume you haven't read much of what Tony has been saying for the past year!!

The only reason I mentioned the names of a couple of Buddhist scholars was that I wanted to show that critical thinking and logic are essential tools in Buddhist practice. "Unsubstantiated doctrine" has no place whatsoever. If you knew me, you would know that I am very rarely swayed by "flowery intentions and clouds of nice phrases"!! I am quite a tough, sceptical nut...

With regard to your religious formula, to be honest, I don't have a big goal in mind. Enlightenment? Nah - I put x and y into practice, and see what I get. If it is helpful, I continue. If it's not, I adjust x and y accordingly and try again.

My feeling as to the definition of religion is that there is the need for a belief of some kind. A set of ideas that can't be substantiated but rely on "faith". If you knew the first thing about Buddhism, you'd know that there is absolutely no belief system. Did you read the quotation I put on the thread about the importance of critical thinking? When we go to teachings, we sometimes spend a whole day just analysing and discussion one sentence: there are so many meanings and interpretations, and there are so many stages of understanding. The whole point is to question and question and question until there are no questions left. The practice is to get rid of filters - which is not a quick fix.

Also, while we are at it, some may need a belief system: who are you to tell them otherwise?! I tried it for a few years: it served a purpose for me at that time.

I'm sorry that you may feel you were the focus of Tony leaving: you weren't, although you may be been one of the catalysts. He has been plagued by 2 individuals -both on threads and by PM, because they don't agree with what he writes. They use guerilla tactics and rarely go far enough to arouse attention, but the continual sniping and jibes - and outright nastiness by PM - is obviously causing them distress, and so T has decided enough is enough.

The problem with dismissing all phenomena as" inherently insubstantial and empty" can be used as an excuse for irresponsible, harmful behaviour. It is only part of the picture: this was being discussed recently in the thread on 'Neo-Advaita and Maha Ati'. It is one of the two truths...the unity of those two truths is essential to have a balanced view. In absolute terms, things do not have inherent existence. But in relative terms, they DO exist in a conventional world, and that needs to be respected. Otherwise any kind behaviour can be justified by saying it is empty of inherent existence. That is known as using the Dharma as a weapon. Again, this is something that has been written about exhaustively.

If you are interested, Tony has written a post today which may explain more. I just wanted to give you a bit more background.

Very best wishes
Kathie

PS 26 users browing this thread!! Isn't it amazing how people intuitively pick up when then there is something entertaining going on!!

[Anchor]

Buddhism in a nutshell, I give up.

This is merely going round in petty circles.
So from this moment, administrators would you please unsubscribe my account.

I've had a fabulous year here and am grateful for the friendships,
I have learnt so much, more than I can explain.
The mods have my email if anyone wishes to keep in contact.

All the best,
Tony

Awwww f*ckit man - NO!

Earlier you said this:


As one proceeds along the path, one has to expect testing.

Yes you bloody do, and if I may be so bold, if its at all possible you don't walk away from them!

I recommend a little break, a little meditation, then come back and simply let some of those with whom you are done, have their say unmet.

I mean do I have to slap you around the head? Ok maybe not, but I will anyway: <THWACK>

And when you come back, remember you don't have to engage every comment.

I can promise you that your service here on this forum is very much appreciated.

You are a great teacher.

I have watched a lot of your videos - your very good at explaining things.

I know this is going to look vindictive but: <THWACK> again!!!!


John..

[Solstyse]

I only was rereading this thread because the other one told me too;) BAAAHH BAAHHH

[Bo Atkinson]

How many separate subjects can fit into a single thread? How many have suffered from one institution or another? Later on feel motivated to" throw it back" at what? Perhaps to save victimized believers from suspect beliefs? Or is it simply a free ride upon a popular member's thread? I expect the latter. Tony, perhaps let the hungry have this thread you started, but edit the thread name to secular sonata or such. Then re- start or migrate your posts to the new one. Tony, you have inspired secularists to think out loud, not a problem.

I suggest that the derailing villain of this thread is the matrix-challange of 'scarcity'. How can a hard secular subject be posted or discussed? Who would bother reading it, unless there was a prize or a laugh?

How can a group of humans prosper? Any time there is a big flow of thoughts or of money, as with any growing institution-- The varmints are attracted to the very core. After time passes, authoritarianism sets in, business as usual. The scarcity theme is pounded in whether through a pulpit or through bread and circuses. Who is really free of this box or this shell? Who dared break out? (Let's see one's lifestyle if one expects to qualify).

Of all the big isms, Buddhism has deflected this big-scarcity-model best, as part of it's popular teaching. Constantine and following emperors, by contrast, forged a 17 century secular tenure on much of our world and our ancestors... Empire ruled straight through and sponsored a little feudalism for fun. My point being that secularist purity has been equally twisted, point for point. To assume that academic secularism is completely true or unbiased, might also be a trap.

Welcome to the planet matrix, please pass the nut cracker sweetner.

Thanks Pie'n'eal

[PurpleLama]

No user has ever really offended me, nor have I ever felt harassed, but if I did, I can say one thing for certain, I'd hit the ignore user button so fast that people's heads would spin. Problem solved.

Take a break, Mr. Tony, and use the above mentioned button, instead of the unsubscribe button.

Tarka, please make sure he sees this, or at least relay the message.

Try. Fail. Breathe. Try again. See what happens.

[Tarka the Duck]

Try. Fail. Breathe. Try again. See what happens.

Such wise advice when it comes to this thing called life.
Thanks PL - message received...

[nearing]

First of all, I saw great value in Bollinger's posts. Second of all, perhaps this thread wasn't the place for him/her to post them (I for one would love to see a thread started by Bollinger based on those posts - very interesting!) Bollinger's very well written posts spoke to a more general theme of the value of religions, all religions, and he/she used Buddhism as a stepping off point for it. But the theme of this thread was clearly Buddhism itself in general, a discussion past the point of the value of religions.

I understand Tony's not wanting to deal with generalities of religion in his more specific Buddhism thread. But, on the other hand, no one can control the flow of discussion in a cocktail party nor in an online forum. People's minds will be sparked by something someone else says and they are free to say what they have thought of whether it stays precisely on the topic or not.

Perhaps this is more a test of Tony's beliefs. He is being challenged to let things roll off - let go of the tree roots and weeds on the sides of the river and let the river take him where it will, rather than drown in it trying to control it's flow. Follow the middle way...

Tony is of course, free to leave the forum but he is also free to let others have their voice while not engaging them. No one makes him respond to any one person. If he chose the later, those who come here to listen to what he has to say will benefit (because he hasn't left). At the same time, others may also benefit from hearing differing and opposing viewpoints (even though uninvited).

There. That was my 5 cents on the subject (2 cents aren't enough per inflation any longer) ;)

[another bob]

The problem with dismissing all phenomena as" inherently insubstantial and empty" can be used as an excuse for irresponsible, harmful behaviour.


Oy Kathie!

Just to keep the context clear, I used that phrase in the same sense as one might say, "getting upset over nothing", which is actually a good description of this whole debacle. For example, you asked what I meant by a "snit", and my response was pointing to yours and Tony's disproportionate reactivity over a little nonsense piece that was merely intended to add some playful humor to the consideration. Judging by the pms I received, other members saw it that way too. If the two of you were not so invested in your polarized position, you might have likewise seen it as such, and simply moved on. Where's the demonstration of meditation in action? Instead, this whole ridiculous drama has been spawned, with teary farewells, pleas not to go, messages relayed from agrieved victim, and all the attendant poopadoodle witnessed ad nauseum on message boards like this over the years when some diva announces their swan song for some imagined slight.

The real question you both need to be asking yourself is, why are you so easily offended by the words and opinions of others? What does it say about your practice if your equanimity so quickly crumbles at the slightest whiff of a challenge? In this case, there wasn't even a challenge, but rather your own misunderstanding based on a misconception stemming from a mis-reading, that nevertheless sent Tony to his pulpit implying that I'm a demon (Mara, the Great Satan) out to ruin his idea of the Dharma, and you calling me venemous, and a "true nihilist" (as opposed to a false nihilist?) when I reached out to explain my intent.

When I first joined this forum, I was immediately jumped on by Tony, who took offense at some view I expressed about the nature of things that didn't line up with his own. We did exchange several emails, and I concluded by offering him the hand of friendship. Since then, I have made it a point to mostly stay out of his threads, even when I felt he was misrepresenting the Dharma that I've practiced probably longer than either of you. In any case, whether you stay or go matters little, but I do hope you are able to see something about what's behind all this, and what you are really trying to assert, protect and defend.


:yo:

[Bollinger]

Hi Kathie,

This is more like it; a discussion that questions, probes, explains, verifies and demonstrates by example or action.

Let’s take this statement as a starter.



With regard to your religious formula, to be honest, I don't have a big goal in mind. Enlightenment? Nah - I put x and y into practice, and see what I get. If it is helpful, I continue. If it's not, I adjust x and y accordingly and try again.


You say you don’t have a big goal in mind. I do. I’d like to see an end to world hunger, disease, scarcity and cruelty? As goals go, they don’t come much bigger than that. Will I use Buddhism to do it? No. Am I doing anything else about it? I don’t know; very hard to tell. I may be contributing to it; you may be contributing to it. I go to work, I help some company make lot’s of money (as most of us here do) in return for which I get paid a tiny fraction of the profit, but do I know how they spend the money I help them make, where it goes, or whether it does harm or good? No. And I cannot know. Can Buddhism or any other religion or philosophy help find out? No, it can’t. So you can see that a religion or philosophy is only ever useful to the first person. It does nothing for everyone else

Let’s take another paragraph.


My feeling as to the definition of religion is that there is the need for a belief of some kind. A set of ideas that can't be substantiated but rely on "faith". If you knew the first thing about Buddhism, you'd know that there is absolutely no belief system. Did you read the quotation I put on the thread about the importance of critical thinking? When we go to teachings, we sometimes spend a whole day just analysing and discussion one sentence: there are so many meanings and interpretations, and there are so many stages of understanding. The whole point is to question and question and question until there are no questions left. The practice is to get rid of filters - which is not a quick fix.

You say Buddhism is not a belief system. We can prove it is by negation. If Buddhism is not based on a belief system, let us assume it is a science. If it is a science, its tools must be repeatable, observable and provable by empirical, mathematical or logical inference not just by the first person but anyone. As it does not lend itself to this, it is therefore based on belief.

If you disagree, define Buddhism in say 50 words and let’s see if other Buddhists agree. If I say to you that 2 + 2 = 4, would it not be foolish to argue against that? If I say Buddhism is the greatest doctrine in the world, you would instantly create a divide because it is based on subjective opinion and that leads us straight to faith.

If therefore, people who call themselves Buddhists, like your good self, insist that one of the tenets of Buddhism is critical thinking and that it encourages analysis and discussion – that doesn’t actually make it a science or something other than a religion. Perhaps that’s the source of the confusion. There may in fact be a great deal in Buddhism with which I would agree if I took the time to study it in depth but the point is any book on the philosophy of ethics would probably do just as well if the subject being discussed was rooted in ethics. So you see now how I look at things and how little impression grand “isms” make on me.

Finally, yes, I agree the point is to question and question and question but do we really need Buddha to tell us that? Can we not work this out for ourselves? Of course we can. There is nothing that any religion can claim to bring to this world that cannot be brought without it and Buddhism is no exception.

Here is a challenge. Name 5 things that you have gained from Buddhism that you could not have gained in any other way.

[Dennis Leahy]

...

...define Buddhism in say 50 words and let’s see if other Buddhists agree.

...

Here is a challenge. Name 5 things that you have gained from Buddhism that you could not have gained in any other way.
heheheheh I reject your challenge! I cannot describe a drop of water in 50 words.

Left brained Buddhism?

A Venn diagram showing Christian/Biblical concept of reality would include at least 2 non-intersecting circles, maybe a third. One circle for God, one for the physical Universe (including humanity/Earth), and perhaps a third for heaven.

A Venn diagram of Buddhist concept of reality would have either a single circle, or a blank sheet of paper. Every atom of physical matter, every charge of plasma is all God. God=Universe. You could decide that the single circle was the correct way to diagram it (all individual "things" in the Universe contained within the Universe), or that a blank sheet of paper (no individual "things" actually exist) is more correct. Individuating things is a human mental construct. No things = nothing. So, "nothingness" isn't emptiness but rather the acceptance that individual "things" do not really exist individually.

In Christian concepts, it might be accepted that all of the individual creatures are in an interdependent food-web, for example, but it would not be said that there is only one thing (or no thing, nothing) in the Universe. (Or that we humans, even the most evil, are pieces of God.)

I would agree that there are religious bumper-stickers that have been stuck to Buddhism. Ritual, prayer, lighting incense or a candle, spinning a prayer wheel - I suspect that those activities would be ignored by a "Buddha conscious being" (my outsider's guess at some sort of encapsulated "being" that has the real, full awareness of oneness. Note that I don't have this perspective and can only guess, but suspect that in that state, the Buddha ceases to exist as an individual. Only by temporarily abandoning that state and "taking up residence", encapsulated "in" a body - from human perspective - can this being communicate to other humans.)

Taking a bite of an apple, feeling the wind, or going to the bathroom are probably equally as powerful as chanting or meditation, to a Bodhisattva. My impression is that none of the trappings of Buddhism are Buddhism - yet the trappings are the way some wish to describe Buddhism, thus making it seem to be a religion. With all the trappings gone, we are left with just the consciousness of the Buddha, and we humans tag it as "philosophy." It isn't that tag, either, but it certainly isn't religion.

Imagine studying for a lifetime about the ocean, while living in an inland desert. Imagine having the highest level of (scientific, didactic, empirical) knowledge of the ocean. Then one day, this person actually arrives at the ocean. Experiences the sound, the feeling of the waves of sound, of air, of water, and of energy. Experiences walking into the ocean - buoyed, jostled, caressed, danced. Experiences the ions of the dissolved salts and minerals infusing into skin - the division between ocean and human body becoming less and less distinct, the pulse of ocean and heart becoming one... this experiential knowledge - in one instant - supersedes all knowledge gained before that point. Buddhism is not left-brained. The way Jill Bolton Taylor describes her experience (http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html), it might appear that Buddha consciousness is right-brained, but I suspect the right brain may only be the portal to "one-brained", or "no-brained" experience.

I'm kinda like an early version of the desert-dwelling, casual "scholar" of the ocean. But at least I know what I don't know. I know I don't know Buddha consciousness, other than fragmentary glimpses, but certainly nothing deeply all-encompassing. So, can I say for sure that Buddhism provides some tools to help a seeker experience Buddha consciousness? Not yet.

Buddhists are not trying to find five things. Just One. (Or, "none.")

Dennis

[Seikou-Kishi]

A meditating person is like a fountain. If you pay him any attention when you do not need him, you might think him useless – maybe even a show-off – but if you go to him when you are thirsty, he might just give you what you need.

A person of high vibration can energise those around them and lift up their vibration to match. It is like a tuning fork; if the fork is covered in dust when the piano key is struck, not only will it vibrate in response but it will shake off its dust.

Sometimes appearing to do nothing is the best thing you can do. We can all think how much better it would be if only the right (wrong?) people decided to do nothing. If the chemtrail pilot decided to stay at home. If the 'fluoridaters' realised they just couldn't be bothered any more. How many times have we gone to comfort friends and family and felt helpless, looking for something to do to help and they've said "just be here".

------------------------------

I'm sorry to see you go Tony. If you would reconsider I could only welcome such news.

[Black Panther]

The forum is like life. As above, so below. There are a lot of
freemasons and other people in this world I don't have much
sympathy for :biggrin:. And so there are trolls here on Avalon
and so there is negativy here too. But we can always choose to
focus on the positive or the negative. Or even better, looking at
negativity without letting the words / information change the way we feel.

Maybe you have to look at the thread you started yourself:
Don't give up on Avalon (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?41958-Don-t-give-up-on-Avalon)

It's ok to change your mind!

If you really leave the forum, don't think you finally get rid of me.
I still have your email address :rolleyes:

I want to say to other members: I think it's important to stay together
on Avalon in the exciting times we live in. Together we are really strong!

[Shadowman]

Name 5 things that you have gained from Buddhism that you could not have gained in any other way.

Hi Bollinger,

Buddhism is not so much about gaining things, but about losing illusions.
Most people take what is unreal as real, and what is real as unreal.
The four noble truths outline our situation, as it appears,
and the eightfold noble path offers a systematic approach to ultimately
see the real as real, and the unreal as unreal.

Nibbana (Pali) or Nirvana (Sanskrit) is not so much a goal
as the disidentification with that which is transient and phenomenal
hence it is sometimes equated with blowing out a candle flame.
What appears, undisguised, when the ego dissolves, is beyond description.
Which is why parables and metaphors are used as fingers pointing at the moon.
Many however, get caught up on the fingers, instead of seeing where they are pointing.

The essence of this awakening/realization is found in all religions
but given the difficult nature of transmitting or teaching a qualitative reality
which is beyond, yet includes the mind, those still identified with 3rd dimensional
forms and concepts, often misunderstand what is being offered, or try to put it
into a context with what they already know.

Hence we have the followers of the God of Love (Christians) warring with
the followers of the God of Peace (Islam). :rolleyes: So I understand your disdain for
organized religion/belief systems.

I always try to go to the source rather than commentaries by the pundits and boffins,
you only need read the Dhammapada, the Diamond Sutra or the Heart Sutra by Siddhartha
to get a feel for it, highly recommended if you are so inclined.

In this world
Hate never yet dispelled hate.
Only love dispels hate.
This is the law,
Ancient and inexhaustible.

Though one may conquer a thousand times a thousand men in battle,
yet he indeed is the noblest victor who conquers himself.

Buddha - Dhammapada.


Cheers,
tim

[Shadowman]

[QUOTE=Bollinger;448543]...

But at least I know what I don't know. I know I don't know Buddha consciousness, other than fragmentary glimpses, but certainly nothing deeply all-encompassing.


Hi Dennis,

Perhaps it is Buddha consciousness that allows you to know that you don't know Buddha consciousness,
and to know what you don't know. Don't ask me though, the older I get the less I know, you know? ;)

Namaste ( In an old skool acknowledge your Buddha consciousness sort of a way, not a new age
uninformed hipster sort of a way, just to be clear, in case the Eagle is hovering )
tim

[Bollinger]

This thread appears to have morphed into a philosophical discussion on the practice of “my religion is better than your religion”. It should be noted that we humans, without exception, have this unrelenting habit of always grading and comparing everything: Beethoven against Mozart, Christianity against Islam, Football against Cricket or more generally perhaps in spiritual matters; one faith versus another. Has anyone considered why this might be? What’s the psychology here? Why do we need to do this?

I would suppose that it all stems from the need to compete. Where does that come from? I don’t even think it’s as simple as saying that it is the ego. I would say it has more to do with our fundamental purpose of existence in this state. What is this state? Obviously we are not cabbages. We are inquisitive, but we cannot desire knowledge without purpose. We need to apply it to something to make its discovery worthwhile and meaningful: whether it means we can use it to build bridges and propel rockets or reach an inwardly satisfying state of what we might term as enlightenment, oneness or awakening.

In my thought process the last three nouns in the paragraph above have no tangible meaning but I know exactly what a bridge or a rocket is and I know there are well defined empirical as well as mathematical concepts that hold together the science behind it. What that does is very valuable in this world. It means an architect can use (repeat) the same science with absolute certainty that if the calculations are right, the building will stay upright against reasonable forces acting on it or the car will actually go round a bend at good speed without rolling over. But that’s rather boring for most because it has been done many times and hardly anyone questions it. If you consider these things to be illusions, I would say that they are extremely useful ones.

Given the theme of this thread, let’s get back to the three nouns: enlightenment, oneness and awakening. I think those are the spoils over which the main protagonists are struggling to reach – if not, I don’t really know what else it can be.

My first instinct is to define clearly and accurately each word and agree on it. Unfortunately, that is where the difficulty arises. In human terms, our inner construct dictates that if we cannot properly define and agree on something, we need to invent an exit route in order to make accessible to us that which we cannot define otherwise not only does it remain beyond our reach but we can’t even so much as talk about it.

The thing that strikes me about these slippery concepts (enlightenment, oneness, and awakening, or EOA for short) is that they are frequently put into phrases all over this forum and I’m pretty sure they mean quite different things to different people. Not only that; the main components of these definitions change from day to day or experience to experience. I’ll give you an example. I was watching a documentary last night about Catholicism and one person said they converted from Buddhism to Catholicism because they felt “something was missing”. Well something is missing from that explanation because they cannot define what is missing. It just demonstrates that all religions consist of a measure of indoctrination coupled with a deep desire for “meaning” and as we’re all different, we will be led by various aspects of our personal nature and experience.

For example, out of the millions of people who pray to the saints every day for favours, a small number will actually witness something resembling what they prayed for. For devout Christians, those few instances of success reinforce the veracity and power of their religion whereas the large majority of failure is looked upon as the will of God. So every eventuality is explained and everyone’s happy. How do you say to such people; sorry but the evidence would suggest a random event took place and nothing more than that can be read into it.

Coming back to EOA, we can perhaps loosely agree that they are different faces of the concept we call spirituality; a word that provides a generic placeholder for all beliefs and faiths. It seems therefore that if we stick to generic terms rather than details (because we all know that’s where the devil lives) we can quite happily sing together and no one will mind the odd deviation from the main tune so long as it is done with due politeness, solemnity and respect.

Every now and again, like the episode between Tony and Bob, an irreconcilable difference occurs because they have both, over many years, been embroiled in deep practice and detailed study of a particular subject (Buddhism as it happens in this case) and now find themselves upon a cliff edge on opposite sides of a huge canyon. The detail will get you every time if you go deep enough. This takes us back to the original problem that if something cannot be well defined, it will eventually lead to bitter disagreement and resentment.

It’s not only in religion that this happens. It takes place in relationships for example. If you look at it closely, you’ll see that even the concept we call love is a religion. You practice x and y to achieve z when none of those steps or the end goal (love) are (or can be) properly defined or understood. Who can say what love is? We know it’s a “nice” emotion or pleasurable physical interaction, but is that love? We know it can bring tears of joy or disarm certain situations but in the absence of something lasting and real, we latch on to it like leeches and worship it to death because it mysteriously shows itself in highly specialised situations and even then, like alcohol, it is fleeting and soon evaporates, leading us straight back to the boring parity of just passing time.

Buddhism is basically another form of art that is practiced by those drawn to it. Like a master painting or a piece of gorgeous music, we are excited by it and feel compelled to see or listen more and of course we may go all the way and become masters of it ourselves or just “play” on the fringes. It doesn’t matter. You will still find people who hate Beethoven’s music for example and it leaves those who understand and appreciate him aghast that people so inclined can possibly even exist; and yet they do. So, if I’ve explained it well enough, it means that all we are doing (whatever we practice or preach, including Buddhism) is following our own inclination in a certain sphere which is just the resultant vector of a million other experiences. It’s an incredibly diverse world.

Having said all of that, let me just deal with one or two statements in Tim’s post because he’s just appeared on the scene here and is obviously a keen proponent of Buddhism and wishes to reiterate some clichés that we’ve probably heard before.


Buddhism is not so much about gaining things, but about losing illusions.
Most people take what is unreal as real, and what is real as unreal.
The four noble truths outline our situation, as it appears,
and the eightfold noble path offers a systematic approach to ultimately
see the real as real, and the unreal as unreal.

This is a supreme piece of sophistry that has absolutely no meaning. These statements are exactly the sort of thing I’m talking about when I say that unless something is well defined and understood, it can be nothing but a religion. How can we possibly take what is real or unreal as the benchmark if we have no way of defining what is real in the first place? Here is an analogy. Two observers in space with no third point of reference experience that they are moving closer to each other but only one of them is in motion, the other is stationary. How does one or the other know which of them is moving?

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.

Here’s the next one.


The essence of this awakening/realization is found in all religions
but given the difficult nature of transmitting or teaching a qualitative reality
which is beyond, yet includes the mind, those still identified with 3rd dimensional
forms and concepts, often misunderstand what is being offered, or try to put it
into a context with what they already know.

So there exists a “qualitative reality” which is beyond those “still identified with 3rd dimensional forms and concepts”. Reading between the lines all this says is that in order to reach this “qualitative reality”, one must relinquish the identity associated with the 3d world forms and concepts. In other words, one must do x and y to achieve z. Religion.

It may surprise you to hear that I do not have a disdain for religion, organised or otherwise. I am filing the whole thing under Art as explained above. You may choose to adore Rembrandt, I like Gainsborough. Since neither one of us can prove one to be better than the other the challenge then becomes not whose religion is better but how to co-exist without killing each other over it.


Though one may conquer a thousand times a thousand men in battle,
yet he indeed is the noblest victor who conquers himself.

Again, the aim is to conquer oneself. No doubt the step by step guide is also close at hand. The unmistakeable formula is there yet again. Do x and y and become z. Over and over again the same pattern repeated using different words by different gurus, different religions, different philosophies, different gods, different prophets and different teachers but the same old indefatigable pattern paraded under a different mask.

So where does all of that leave us? If you can agree that almost all our endeavours have the unmistakable odour of religion, which we probably want to reject, what is the alternative? 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. I mean, that is all it boils down to right? If there is a next world, it will manifest itself soon enough. If there isn’t, it won’t. But either way, there is more than enough confusion and illusion to ensure we never quite reach a unanimous and satisfactory answer in this world so we have no option but to wait.

In the meantime we have jobs to go to, challenges to ride, relationships to service, commitments to fulfil, diseases to cure, wrongs to right, hungry to feed, the sick to comfort, the children to raise, the ethics to teach and a great deal besides. The story unfolds each day for all of us and the option to flick over to the last page has been disabled; may we all find whatever it is we’re looking for.

[ulli]

Great post Bollinger. Each paragraph was a piece of art and my experience of reading the post in it's totality became like walking through an art gallery.
The particular art work that caused me to stop in my tracks was this


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.

Because it contained the striking dynamic that resonated immediately...the 'infinite regress',
the vortex or tunnel that can blow one's mind and make the (illusiory?) promise of another reality when in fact it is just layers and layers of the same reality.
Thank you.

[Tenzin]

Ultimately, there is no duty or mission or obligation to fulful if one has aspired for Nirvana. Of course if one chooses to lead a very human life, it is definitely not a wrong pursuit to right the wrongs of the world, and by our intellectual perspective and reasonings, it might be the only the right thing to do. Everything has come and gone for aeons and will continue to have wrongs to be right without end. If one choose to play the game, then you can choose to jump right back in the loop over and over again.

When the Buddha was asked who he was after his enlightenment, he clearly said he was not a human being anymore.

The Truths of the Dharma taught by the Buddha in large parts have been shrouded in perverse optimism which has been extremely well received by countless people who will buy into any preaching that appeals to our yearning for mundane happiness.

[another bob]

Buddhism in a Nutshell:
The Four Seals of Dharma
By Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche

"Buddhism is distinguished by four characteristics, or 'seals.' If all these four seals are found in a path or a philosophy, it can be considered the path of the Buddha."


People often ask me: “What is Buddhism in a nutshell?” Or they ask, “What is the particular view or philosophy of Buddhism?”

Unfortunately, in the West Buddhism seems to have landed in the religious department, even in the self-help or self-improvement department, and clearly it’s in the trendy meditation department. I would like to challenge the popular definition of Buddhist meditation.

Many people think meditation has something to do with relaxation, with watching the sunset or watching the waves at the beach. Charming phrases like “letting go” and “being carefree” come to mind. From a Buddhist point of view, meditation is slightly more than that.

First, I think we need to talk about the real context of Buddhist meditation. This is referred to as the view, meditation and action; taken together, these constitute quite a skillful way of understanding the path. Even though we may not use such expressions in everyday life, if we think about it, we always act according to a certain view, meditation and action. For instance, if we want to buy a car, we choose the one we think is the best, most reliable and so on. So the “view,” in this case, is the idea or belief that we have, that is, that the car is a good one. Then the “meditation” is contemplating and getting used to the idea, and the “action” is actually buying the car, driving it and using it. This process is not necessarily something Buddhist; it’s something we’re doing all the time. You don’t have to call it view, meditation and action. You can think of it as “idea,” “getting used to,” and “obtaining.”

So what is the particular view that Buddhists try to get used to? Buddhism is distinguished by four characteristics, or “seals.” Actually, if all these four seals are found in a path or a philosophy, it doesn’t matter whether you call it Buddhist or not. You can call it what you like; the words “Buddhist” or “Buddhism” are not important. The point is that if this path contains these four seals, it can be considered the path of the Buddha.

Therefore, these four characteristics are called “the Four Seals of Dharma.” They are:

All compounded things are impermanent.

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.”

All phenomena are empty; they are without inherent existence. This is actually the ultimate view of Buddhism; the other three are grounded on this third seal.

The fourth seal is that nirvana is beyond extremes.

Without these four seals, the Buddhist path would become theistic, religious dogma, and its whole purpose would be lost. On the other hand, you could have a surfer giving you teachings on how to sit on a beach watching a sunset: if what he says contains all these four seals, it would be Buddhism. The Tibetans, the Chinese, or the Japanese might not like it, but teaching doesn’t have to be in a “traditional” form. The four seals are quite interrelated, as you will see.

The First Seal:
All Compounded Things are Impermanent

Every phenomenon we can think of is compounded, and therefore subject to impermanence. Certain aspects of impermanence, like the changing of the weather, we can accept easily, but there are equally obvious things that we don’t accept.

For instance, our body is visibly impermanent and getting older every day, and yet this is something we don’t want to accept. Certain popular magazines that cater to youth and beauty exploit this attitude. In terms of view, meditation and action, their readers might have a view—thinking in terms of not aging or escaping the aging process somehow. They contemplate this view of permanence, and their consequent action is to go to fitness centers and undergo plastic surgery and all sorts of other hassles.

Enlightened beings would think that this is ridiculous and based on a wrong view. Regarding these different aspects of impermanence, getting old and dying, the changing of the weather, etc., Buddhists have a single statement, namely this first seal: phenomena are impermanent because they are compounded. Anything that is assembled will, sooner or later, come apart.

When we say “compounded,” that includes the dimensions of space and time. Time is compounded and therefore impermanent: without the past and future, there is no such thing as the present. If the present moment were permanent, there would be no future, since the present would always be there. Every act you do—let’s say, plant a flower or sing a song—has a beginning, a middle and an end. If, in the singing of a song, the beginning, middle or end were missing, there would be no such thing as singing a song, would there? That means that singing a song is something compounded.

“So what?” we ask. “Why should we bother about that? What’s the big deal? It has a beginning, middle, and end—so what?” It’s not that Buddhists are really worried about beginnings, middles or ends; that’s not the problem. The problem is that when there is composition and impermanence, as there is with temporal and material things, there is uncertainty and pain.

Some people think that Buddhists are pessimistic, always talking about death, impermanence and aging. But that is not necessarily true. Impermanence is a relief! I don’t have a BMW today and it is thanks to the impermanence of that fact that I might have one tomorrow. Without impermanence, I am stuck with the non-possession of a BMW, and I can never have one. I might feel severely depressed today and, thanks to impermanence, I might feel great tomorrow. Impermanence is not necessarily bad news; it depends on the way you understand it. Even if today your BMW gets scratched by a vandal, or your best friend lets you down, if you have a view of impermanence, you won’t be so worried.

Delusion arises when we don’t acknowledge that all compounded things are impermanent. But when we realize this truth, deep down and not just intellectually, that’s what we call liberation: release from this one-pointed, narrow-minded belief in permanence. Everything, whether you like it or not—even the path, the precious Buddhist path—is compounded. It has a beginning, it has a middle and it has an end.

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.

The Second Seal:
All Emotions are Painful

The Tibetan word for emotion in this context is zagche, which means “contaminated” or “stained,” in the sense of being permeated by confusion or duality.

Certain emotions, such as aggression or jealousy, we naturally regard as pain. But what about love and affection, kindness and devotion, those nice, light and lovely emotions? We don’t think of them as painful; nevertheless, they imply duality, and this means that, in the end, they are a source of pain.

The dualistic mind includes almost every thought we have. Why is this painful? Because it is mistaken. Every dualistic mind is a mistaken mind, a mind that doesn’t understand the nature of things. So how are we to understand duality? It is subject and object: ourselves on the one hand and our experience on the other. This kind of dualistic perception is mistaken, as we can see in the case of different persons perceiving the same object in different ways. A man might think a certain woman is beautiful and that is his truth. But if that were some kind of absolute, independent kind of truth, then everyone else also would have to see her as beautiful as well. Clearly, this is not a truth that is independent of everything else. It is dependent on your mind; it is your own projection.

The dualistic mind creates a lot of expectations—a lot of hope, a lot of fear. Whenever there is a dualistic mind, there is hope and fear. Hope is perfect, systematized pain. We tend to think that hope is not painful, but actually it’s a big pain. As for the pain of fear, that’s not something we need to explain.

The Buddha said, “Understand suffering.” That is the first Noble Truth. Many of us mistake pain for pleasure—the pleasure we now have is actually the very cause of the pain that we are going to get sooner or later. Another Buddhist way of explaining this is to say that when a big pain becomes smaller, we call it pleasure. That’s what we call happiness.

Moreover, emotion does not have some kind of inherently real existence. When thirsty people see a mirage of water, they have a feeling of relief: “Great, there’s some water!” But as they get closer, the mirage disappears. That is an important aspect of emotion: emotion is something that does not have an independent existence.

This is why Buddhists conclude that all emotions are painful. It is because they are impermanent and dualistic that they are uncertain and always accompanied by hopes and fears. But ultimately, they don’t have, and never have had, an inherently existent nature, so, in a way, they are not worth much. Everything we create through our emotions is, in the end, completely futile and painful. This is why Buddhists 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.

Question: Is compassion an emotion?

People like us have dualistic compassion, whereas the Buddha’s compassion does not involve subject and object. From a buddha’s point of view, compassion could never involve subject and object. This is what is called mahakaruna—great compassion.

I’m having difficulty accepting that all emotions are pain.

Okay, if you want a more philosophical expression, you can drop the word “emotion” and simply say, “All that is dualistic is pain.” But I like using the word “emotion” because it provokes us.

Isn’t pain impermanent?

Yeah! If you know this, then you’re all right. It’s because we don’t know this that we go through a lot of hassles trying to solve our problems. And that is the second biggest problem we have—trying to solve our problems.

The Third Seal:
All Phenomena are Empty; They Are Without Inherent Existence

When we say “all,” that means everything, including the Buddha, enlightenment, and the path. 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.

The truth of a phenomenon is called shunyata, emptiness, which implies that the phenomenon does not possess a truly existent essence or nature. When a deluded person or subject sees something, the object seen is interpreted as something really existent. However, as you can see, the existence imputed by the subject is a mistaken assumption. Such an assumption is based on the different conditions that make an object appear to be true; this, however, is not how the object really is. It’s like when we see a mirage: there is no truly existing object there, even though it appears that way. With emptiness, the Buddha meant that things do not truly exist as we mistakenly believe they do, and that they are really empty of that falsely imputed existence.

It is because they believe in what are really just confused projections that sentient beings suffer. It was as a remedy for this that the Buddha taught the Dharma. Put very simply, when we talk about emptiness, we mean that the way things appear is not the way they actually are. As I said before when speaking about emotions, you may see a mirage and think it is something real, but when you get close, the mirage disappears, however real it may have seemed to begin with.

Emptiness can sometimes be referred to as dharmakaya, and in a different context we could say that the dharmakaya is permanent, never changing, all pervasive, and use all sorts of beautiful, poetic words. These are the mystical expressions that belong to the path, but for the moment, we are still at the ground stage, trying to get an intellectual understanding. On the path, we might portray Buddha Vajradhara as a symbol of dharmakaya, or emptiness, but from an academic point of view, even to think of painting the dharmakaya is a mistake.

The Buddha taught three different approaches on three separate occasions. These are known as The Three Turnings of the Wheel, but they can be summed up in a single phrase: “Mind; there is no mind; mind is luminosity.”

The first, “Mind,” refers to the first set of teachings and shows that the Buddha taught that there is a “mind.” This was to dispel the nihilistic view that there is no heaven, no hell, no cause and effect. Then, when the Buddha said, “There is no mind,” he meant that mind is just a concept and that there is no such thing as a truly existing mind. Finally, when he said, “Mind is luminous,” he was referring to buddhanature, the undeluded or primordially existing wisdom.

The great commentator Nagarjuna said that the purpose of the first turning was to get rid of non-virtue. Where does the non-virtue come from? It comes from being either eternalist or nihilist. So in order to put an end to non-virtuous deeds and thoughts, the Buddha gave his first teaching. The second turning of the Dharma-wheel, when the Buddha spoke about emptiness, was presented in order to dispel clinging to a “truly existent self” and to “truly existent phenomena.” Finally, the teachings of the third turning were given to dispel all views, even the view of no-self. The Buddha’s three sets of teaching do not seek to introduce something new; their purpose is simply to clear away confusion.

As Buddhists we practice compassion, but if we lack an understanding of this third seal—that all phenomena are empty—our compassion can backfire. If you are attached to the goal of compassion when trying to solve a problem, you might not notice that your idea of the solution is entirely based on your own personal interpretation. And you might end up as a victim of hope and fear, and consequently of disappointment. You start by becoming a “good mahayana practitioner,” and, once or twice, you try to help sentient beings. But if you have no understanding of this third seal, you’ll get tired and give up helping sentient beings.

There is another kind of a problem that arises from not understanding emptiness. It occurs with rather superficial and even jaded Buddhists. Somehow, within Buddhist circles, if you don’t accept emptiness, you are not cool. So we pretend that we appreciate emptiness and pretend to meditate on it. But if we don’t understand it properly, a bad side effect can occur. We might say, “Oh, everything’s emptiness. I can do whatever I like.” So we ignore and violate the details of karma, the responsibility for our action. We become “inelegant,” and we discourage others in the bargain. His Holiness the Dalai Lama often speaks of this downfall of not understanding emptiness. A correct understanding of emptiness leads us to see how things are related, and how we are responsible for our world.

You can read millions of pages on this subject. Nagarjuna alone wrote five different commentaries mostly dedicated to this, and then there are the commentaries by his followers. There are endless teachings on establishing this view. In Mahayana temples or monasteries people chant the Prajnaparamita Heart Sutra—this is also a teaching on the third seal.

Philosophies or religions might say, “Things are illusion, the world is maya, illusion,” but there are always one or two items left behind that are regarded as truly existent: God, cosmic energy, whatever. In Buddhism, this is not the case. Everything in samsara and nirvana—from the Buddha’s head to a piece of bread—everything is emptiness. There is nothing that is not included in ultimate truth.

Question: If we ourselves are dualistic, can we ever understand emptiness, which is something beyond description?

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.

Ultimately speaking, the path is irrational, but relatively speaking, it’s very rational because it uses the relative conventions of our world. When I’m talking about emptiness, everything that I’m saying has to do with this “image” emptiness. I can’t show you real emptiness but I can tell you why things don’t exist inherently.

In Buddhism there’s so much iconography that you might think it was the object of meditation or an object of worship. But, from your teaching, am I to understand that this is all non-existent?

When you go to a temple, you will see many beautiful statues, colors and symbols. These are important for the path. These all belong to what we call “image-wisdom,” “image-emptiness.” However, while we follow the path and apply its methods, it is important to know that the path itself is ultimately an illusion. Actually, it is only then that we can properly appreciate it.

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.”

We somehow think that we can go somewhere where we’ll have a better sofa seat, a better shower system, a better sewer system, a nirvana where you don’t even have to have a remote control, where everything is there the moment you think of it. But as I said earlier, it’s not that we are adding something new that was not there before. Nirvana is achieved when you remove everything that was artificial and obscuring.

It doesn’t matter whether you are a monk or a nun who has renounced worldly life or you are a yogi practicing profound tantric methods. If, when you try to abandon or transform attachment to your own experiences, you don’t understand these four seals, you end up regarding the contents of your mind as the manifestations of something evil, diabolical and bad. If that’s what you do, you are far from the truth. And the whole point of Buddhism is to make you understand the truth. If there were some true permanence in compounded phenomena; if there were true pleasure in the emotions, the Buddha would have been the first to recommend them, saying, “Please keep and treasure these.” But thanks to his great compassion, he didn’t, for he wanted us to have what is true, what is real.

When you have a clear understanding of these four seals as the ground of your practice, you will feel comfortable no matter what happens to you. As long as you have these four as your view, nothing can go wrong. Whoever holds these four, in their heart, or in their head, and contemplates them, is a Buddhist. There is no need for such a person even to be called a Buddhist. He or she is by definition a follower of the Buddha.


Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche was born in Bhutan in 1961 and was recognized as the second reincarnation of the nineteenth-century master Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo. He has studied with and been empowered by some of the greatest Tibetan masters of this century, notably the late Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche and the late Dudjom Rinpoche. Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche supervises his traditional seat of Dzongsar Monastery in Eastern Tibet, as well as newly established colleges in India and Bhutan. He has also established meditation centers in Australia, North America and the Far East. This article is based on a talk entitled, “What Buddhism Is, and Is Not,” given in Sydney, Australia in April of 1999.

Buddhism In a Nutshell: The Four Seals of Dharma, Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche, Shambhala Sun, March 2000.

[nearing]

I have yet to find an explanation of emptiness that actually helps me to understand what it is.

I still search.

[ulli]

I just quoted something about emptiness in the Here and Now thread.

Emptiness is less than the black in the eye of a dead ant.
There ya go.

Which leads to another question:
What is real fullness?

[another bob]

I have yet to find an explanation of emptiness that actually helps me to understand what it is.

I still search.

Here's a pretty good basic exposition, with a follow-up that may help too:


Emptiness
By Thanissaro Bhikkhu


Emptiness is a mode of perception, a way of looking at experience. It adds nothing to and takes nothing away from the raw data of physical and mental events. You look at events in the mind and the senses with no thought of whether there's anything lying behind them.
This mode is called emptiness because it's empty of the presuppositions we usually add to experience to make sense of it: the stories and world-views we fashion to explain who we are and the world we live in. Although these stories and views have their uses, the Buddha found that some of the more abstract questions they raise -- of our true identity and the reality of the world outside -- pull attention away from a direct experience of how events influence one another in the immediate present. Thus they get in the way when we try to understand and solve the problem of suffering.

Say for instance, that you're meditating, and a feeling of anger toward your mother appears. Immediately, the mind's reaction is to identify the anger as "my" anger, or to say that "I'm" angry. It then elaborates on the feeling, either working it into the story of your relationship to your mother, or to your general views about when and where anger toward one's mother can be justified. The problem with all this, from the Buddha's perspective, is that these stories and views entail a lot of suffering. The more you get involved in them, the more you get distracted from seeing the actual cause of the suffering: the labels of "I" and "mine" that set the whole process in motion. As a result, you can't find the way to unravel that cause and bring the suffering to an end.

If, however, you can adopt the emptiness mode -- by not acting on or reacting to the anger, but simply watching it as a series of events, in and of themselves -- you can see that the anger is empty of anything worth identifying with or possessing. As you master the emptiness mode more consistently, you see that this truth holds not only for such gross emotions as anger, but also for even the most subtle events in the realm of experience. This is the sense in which all things are empty. When you see this, you realize that labels of "I" and "mine" are inappropriate, unnecessary, and cause nothing but stress and pain. You can then drop them. When you drop them totally, you discover a mode of experience that lies deeper still, one that's totally free.

To master the emptiness mode of perception requires training in firm virtue, concentration, and discernment. Without this training, the mind tends to stay in the mode that keeps creating stories and world views. And from the perspective of that mode, the teaching of emptiness sounds simply like another story or world view with new ground rules. In terms of the story of your relationship with your mother, it seems to be saying that there's really no mother, no you. In terms of your views about the world, it seems to be saying either that the world doesn't really exist, or else that emptiness is the great undifferentiated ground of being from which we all came to which someday we'll all return.
These interpretations not only miss the meaning of emptiness but also keep the mind from getting into the proper mode. If the world and the people in the story of your life don't really exist, then all the actions and reactions in that story seem like a mathematics of zeros, and you wonder why there's any point in practicing virtue at all. If, on the other hand, you see emptiness as the ground of being to which we're all going to return, then what need is there to train the mind in concentration and discernment, since we're all going to get there anyway? And even if we need training to get back to our ground of being, what's to keep us from coming out of it and suffering all over again? So in all these scenarios, the whole idea of training the mind seems futile and pointless. By focusing on the question of whether or not there really is something behind experience, they entangle the mind in issues that keep it from getting into the present mode.

Now, stories and world views do serve a purpose. The Buddha employed them when teaching people, but he never used the word emptiness when speaking in these modes. He recounted the stories of people's lives to show how suffering comes from the unskillful perceptions behind their actions, and how freedom from suffering can come from being more perceptive. And he described the basic principles that underlie the round of rebirth to show how bad intentional actions lead to pain within that round, good ones lead to pleasure, while really skillful actions can take you beyond the round altogether. In all these cases, these teachings were aimed at getting people to focus on the quality of the perceptions and intentions in their minds in the present -- in other words, to get them into the emptiness mode. Once there, they can use the teachings on emptiness for their intended purpose: to loosen all attachments to views, stories, and assumptions, leaving the mind empty of all greed, anger, and delusion, and thus empty of suffering and stress. And when you come right down to it, that's the emptiness that really counts.




HOW TO INTEGRATE EMPTINESS INTO DAILY LIFE
Lama Thubten Yeshe, 1983

What is emptiness? Emptiness (shunyata) is the reality of the existence of ourselves, and all the phenomena around us. According to the Buddhist point of view, seeking reality and seeking liberation amount to the same thing. The person who doesn't want to seek reality doesn't really want to seek liberation, and is just confused.

If you seek reality and you think that it has to be taught to you by a Tibetan Lama, that you have to look for it outside yourself, in another place - maybe Shangrila! - then you are mistaken. You cannot seek reality outside yourself because you are reality. Perhaps you think that your life, your reality was made by society, by your friends? If you think that way you are far from reality. if you think that your existence, your life was made by somebody else it means that you are not taking the responsibility to understand reality.

You have to see that your attitudes, your view of the world, of your experiences, of your girlfriend or boyfriend, of your own self, are all the interpretation of your own mind, your own imagination. They are your own projection, your mind literally made them up. If you don't understand this then you have very little chance of understanding emptiness. This is not just the Buddhist view but also the experience of Western physicists and philosophers - they have researched into reality too. Physicists look and look and look and they simply cannot find one entity that exists in a permanent, stable way: this is the Western experience of emptiness. If you can imagine that then you will not have any concrete concepts; if you understand this experience of physicists then you will let go of your worldly problems - but you don't want to understand.

It seems to me that we twentieth century people are against nature, against reality, the very opposite of reality. Each moment we build up our artificial, polluted ego; we cover ourselves with heavy ego blankets - one, two, ten, one hundred blankets against nature, against reality. Modern life is the product of the intellectual mind, and we create it. The intellectual mind is superstition. We don't understand reality, and the intellectual life that we lead keeps us far from reality. So we don't accept who we are. We are always looking to cover ourselves with thick blankets and say "this is me". We hide our own reality and run away from natural beauty, completely neglecting it. By not touching our reality, our modern life becomes so complicated and we create problems with our superstition. We are like a spider spinning his web, climbing on his thread then falling down; climbing up again and falling down again. In the same way we build our own intellectual web, a way of life, that is so complicated, that doesn't touch reality, that is so difficult to live in. This construction arises from our own mind and does not arise from anything else.

If I told you that you are nothing, you are zero, that you are nothing that you think you are, then you would be shocked. "What is this monk saying?" But what if I say that it is the truth! In fact you are non duality, non self existence. You do not exist, relatively or absolutely, as you think you do. If you really understood this then you would become more realistic and you would really gain satisfaction and peace. But as long as you hold on to the fantasy, concrete conception of yourself and project this wrong conception onto your environment, then no way will you understand reality... Our thoughts, our mind or consciousness are mental energy and cannot be localised in the body. It cannot be touched; it has no form and does not travel in time and space. We cannot touch it or grasp it...

What I mean is this: you should recognise how every appearance in your daily lift is in fact a false projection of your own mind. Your own mind makes it up and becomes an obstacle to touching reality. This is why, our entire life, no matter what kind of life we have, it is a disaster. If you have a rich life, your life is a disaster. If you have a middle class life, your life is a disaster. If you have a poor life, your life is even more of a disaster! You become a monk and your life is a disaster. If you become a Christian your life is a disaster. A Buddhist, disaster... Be honest. Be honest with yourself.

In fact reality is very simple. The simplicity of the mind can touch reality, and meditation is something that goes beyond the intellect and brings the mind into its natural state. We have the pure nature already, this reality exists in us now, it is born with us... The essence of your consciousness, your truth, your soul is not absolutely negative, it does not have an essentially negative character. Our mind is like the sky and our problems of ego grasping and self pity are like clouds. Eventually they all pass and disappear. You should not believe, "I am my ego, I am my problems, therefore I cannot solve my problems". Wrong. You can see. Sometimes we are so clear in our life we are almost radiating. We can have this experience right now. Now!

So it is wrong to think that we are always a disaster. Sometimes we are clean clear, sometimes we are a disaster. So, stay in meditation, just keep in that clean clear state as much as possible. All of us can have that clean clear state of mind... Actually, maybe this is the moment to meditate. My feeling is to meditate now. So, close your eyes, don't think, "I am meditating", just close your eyes and whatever view is there, whatever view is there in your mind, just be aware. Don't interpret good, bad. Just be like a light - light doesn't think "I like this, I like that".

Excerpt from Lama Yeshe's talk at VajraYogini Institute, France, September 5, 1983.



:yo:

[ulli]

...

...define Buddhism in say 50 words and let’s see if other Buddhists agree.

...

Here is a challenge. Name 5 things that you have gained from Buddhism that you could not have gained in any other way.
heheheheh I reject your challenge! I cannot describe a drop of water in 50 words.

Left brained Buddhism?

A Venn diagram showing Christian/Biblical concept of reality would include at least 2 non-intersecting circles, maybe a third. One circle for God, one for the physical Universe (including humanity/Earth), and perhaps a third for heaven.

A Venn diagram of Buddhist concept of reality would have either a single circle, or a blank sheet of paper. Every atom of physical matter, every charge of plasma is all God. God=Universe. You could decide that the single circle was the correct way to diagram it (all individual "things" in the Universe contained within the Universe), or that a blank sheet of paper (no individual "things" actually exist) is more correct. Individuating things is a human mental construct. No things = nothing. So, "nothingness" isn't emptiness but rather the acceptance that individual "things" do not really exist individually.

In Christian concepts, it might be accepted that all of the individual creatures are in an interdependent food-web, for example, but it would not be said that there is only one thing (or no thing, nothing) in the Universe. (Or that we humans, even the most evil, are pieces of God.)

I would agree that there are religious bumper-stickers that have been stuck to Buddhism. Ritual, prayer, lighting incense or a candle, spinning a prayer wheel - I suspect that those activities would be ignored by a "Buddha conscious being" (my outsider's guess at some sort of encapsulated "being" that has the real, full awareness of oneness. Note that I don't have this perspective and can only guess, but suspect that in that state, the Buddha ceases to exist as an individual. Only by temporarily abandoning that state and "taking up residence", encapsulated "in" a body - from human perspective - can this being communicate to other humans.)

Taking a bite of an apple, feeling the wind, or going to the bathroom are probably equally as powerful as chanting or meditation, to a Bodhisattva. My impression is that none of the trappings of Buddhism are Buddhism - yet the trappings are the way some wish to describe Buddhism, thus making it seem to be a religion. With all the trappings gone, we are left with just the consciousness of the Buddha, and we humans tag it as "philosophy." It isn't that tag, either, but it certainly isn't religion.

Imagine studying for a lifetime about the ocean, while living in an inland desert. Imagine having the highest level of (scientific, didactic, empirical) knowledge of the ocean. Then one day, this person actually arrives at the ocean. Experiences the sound, the feeling of the waves of sound, of air, of water, and of energy. Experiences walking into the ocean - buoyed, jostled, caressed, danced. Experiences the ions of the dissolved salts and minerals infusing into skin - the division between ocean and human body becoming less and less distinct, the pulse of ocean and heart becoming one... this experiential knowledge - in one instant - supersedes all knowledge gained before that point. Buddhism is not left-brained. The way Jill Bolton Taylor describes her experience (http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html), it might appear that Buddha consciousness is right-brained, but I suspect the right brain may only be the portal to "one-brained", or "no-brained" experience.

I'm kinda like an early version of the desert-dwelling, casual "scholar" of the ocean. But at least I know what I don't know. I know I don't know Buddha consciousness, other than fragmentary glimpses, but certainly nothing deeply all-encompassing. So, can I say for sure that Buddhism provides some tools to help a seeker experience Buddha consciousness? Not yet.

Buddhists are not trying to find five things. Just One. (Or, "none.")

Dennis

Lot's of goodies in this post.
Some stood out more than others and I bolded them.
The last part about the inland desert had my eyes crossed as I first read it as desert island...due to my slight dyslexia.
Which then reminded me of this joke. I have shared it before but love it so much it needed repeating:

[greybeard]

This is not correct but a way of looking at it.
Everything is energy.
There is the manifest and the UN-manifest.
So the formless becomes form but it is first "thought of" in the un-manifest- formless,
God is both form and formless both and "neither."
I suspect the void- no-thing is the "neither"
Awareness is just aware--- it does not need anything to be aware of.
Beyond formless does not manifest or do anything.
All thats just a concept-- I take no responsibility for the thoughts expressed here
Happy to be corrected

Chris

[ulli]

This is not correct but a way of looking at it.
Everything is energy.
There is the manifest and the UN-manifest.
So the formless becomes form but it is first "thought of" in the un-manifest- formless,
God is both form and formless both and "neither."
I suspect the void- no-thing is the "neither"
Awareness is just aware--- it does not need anything to be aware of.
Beyond formless does not manifest or do anything.
All thats just a concept-- I take no responsibility for the thoughts expressed here
Happy to be corrected

Chris

Nothing to correct here.
Unless I suspect you to be another UN-mole?
Are you the UN-manifesto guy?
;)

[nearing]

This is not correct but a way of looking at it.
Everything is energy.
There is the manifest and the UN-manifest.
So the formless becomes form but it is first "thought of" in the un-manifest- formless,
God is both form and formless both and "neither."
I suspect the void- no-thing is the "neither"
Awareness is just aware--- it does not need anything to be aware of.
Beyond formless does not manifest or do anything.
All thats just a concept-- I take no responsibility for the thoughts expressed here
Happy to be corrected

Chris

The closest I can come to a definition of emptiness from the above is that in the 3D, all energy is placed into a form but this form is really an illusion of we look at it from the 4th or 5th or 6th, etc. dimensions. When we are alive in a human form in the 3D we experience form but it's like swimming in a fishbowl, outside of the fishbowl, there is no form, just energy.

[another bob]

The closest I can come to a definition of emptiness from the above is that in the 3D, all energy is placed into a form but this form is really an illusion of we look at it from the 4th or 5th or 6th, etc. dimensions. When we are alive in a human form in the 3D we experience form but it's like swimming in a fishbowl, outside of the fishbowl, there is no form, just energy.

What the concept essentially refers to is the lack of anything fixed and/or permanent within any being, human or otherwise.

The Heart Sutra says, "Form is emptiness; emptiness form." What this means is that all beings (forms) are empty of anything fixed and/or permanent and that emptiness is not a thing that can stand alone but is a condition manifested by all forms.



Here's something else that might clarify and elaborate:



sYhti6fcVIk

In the above video, Thich Nhat Hanh explains emptiness through a piece of paper. Where is the paper if we take away the rain, the earth, the sun, the logger who cut down the tree? Without these and many, many other conditions, the paper would not exist. It is empty of a separate self but full of all of the other things that make it up.

How does this knowledge give us comfort? While the emptiness of a piece of paper is interesting, its not particularly helpful in our daily lives. The answer is that emptiness applies to more than the material world of form.

Our mental processes are just as empty as the piece of paper. Thoughts, feelings, likes, dislikes and all other mental phenomena are likewise the result of many external conditions which are quite beyond our control or even our knowledge. The knowledge of emptiness liberates us from guilt and sorrow. We must understand , however, that emptiness does not absolve us from responsibility for our actions.

The knowledge of emptiness allows us to practice mindfulness and see how mental phenomena arise and pass away. When we see this process we become free and we see how others are overwhelmed by life because of ignorance. Our responsibility is to practice loving kindness and help others see the path to liberation .




:yo:

[greybeard]

This is not correct but a way of looking at it.
Everything is energy.
There is the manifest and the UN-manifest.
So the formless becomes form but it is first "thought of" in the un-manifest- formless,
God is both form and formless both and "neither."
I suspect the void- no-thing is the "neither"
Awareness is just aware--- it does not need anything to be aware of.
Beyond formless does not manifest or do anything.
All thats just a concept-- I take no responsibility for the thoughts expressed here
Happy to be corrected

Chris

Nothing to correct here.
Unless I suspect you to be another UN-mole?
Are you the UN-manifesto guy?
;)

Who me???
Spell check, spell check.
Im dyslexic

always appreciate your posts and comments Ulli

Chris

[jorr lundstrom]

The closest I can come to a definition of emptiness from the above is that in the 3D, all energy is placed into a form but this form is really an illusion of we look at it from the 4th or 5th or 6th, etc. dimensions. When we are alive in a human form in the 3D we experience form but it's like swimming in a fishbowl, outside of the fishbowl, there is no form, just energy.

What the concept essentially refers to is the lack of anything fixed and/or permanent within any being, human or otherwise.

The Heart Sutra says, "Form is emptiness; emptiness form." What this means is that all beings (forms) are empty of anything fixed and/or permanent and that emptiness is not a thing that can stand alone but is a condition manifested by all forms.



Here's something else that might clarify and elaborate:



sYhti6fcVIk

In the above video, Thich Nhat Hanh explains emptiness through a piece of paper. Where is the paper if we take away the rain, the earth, the sun, the logger who cut down the tree? Without these and many, many other conditions, the paper would not exist. It is empty of a separate self but full of all of the other things that make it up.

How does this knowledge give us comfort? While the emptiness of a piece of paper is interesting, its not particularly helpful in our daily lives. The answer is that emptiness applies to more than the material world of form.

Our mental processes are just as empty as the piece of paper. Thoughts, feelings, likes, dislikes and all other mental phenomena are likewise the result of many external conditions which are quite beyond our control or even our knowledge. The knowledge of emptiness liberates us from guilt and sorrow. We must understand , however, that emptiness does not absolve us from responsibility for our actions.

The knowledge of emptiness allows us to practice mindfulness and see how mental phenomena arise and pass away. When we see this process we become free and we see how others are overwhelmed by life because of ignorance. Our responsibility is to practice loving kindness and help others see the path to liberation .




:yo:


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

[another bob]

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.


:yo:

[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.


:yo:

[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 ;)

http://th09.deviantart.net/fs49/PRE/i/2009/167/f/f/Face_Palm_by_magicswordz.jpg

[another bob]

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!


http://i44.tinypic.com/x6ekgl.jpg




http://i44.tinypic.com/qrghnm.gif

:yo:

[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]

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;


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMUiwTubYu0


http://www.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.


http://www.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


http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt81/sakasvattaja/babaji9.jpg


All is well


Jorr

[another bob]

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.


http://i39.tinypic.com/33z7dxx.gif



http://i40.tinypic.com/2wm46tw.gif



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

http://i44.tinypic.com/fu9v82.gif


:yo:

[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]

Ive also seen "At the circus" with the
Marx brothers from 1939.


http://i40.tinypic.com/20b01ok.jpg




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


http://i40.tinypic.com/hsq98o.jpg



:yo:

[Carmody]

I came, and I wasn't.

:p

[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