Mindfulness As A Useful Tool For People Of Any Persuation.

[Major Tom]

(Oops... misspelled "Persuasion" in my title, Oh well,,,)

HERE GOES.

 

Buddhism is a practice and philosophy, not a Religion. Mindfulness can be a useful tool in daily life for people of any persuasion.

 

According to the Webster's Dictionary, the definition of religion is as follows, "An organized system of beliefs, rites, and celebrations centered on a supernatural being power; belief pursued with devotion." Buddhism is not a religion because:IMO the Buddha is not a 'supernatural being. He never claimed to be Deity.

 

A practice and philosophy

 

The word philosophy comes from two words 'philo' which means 'love' and 'sophia' which means 'wisdom'. So philosophy is the love of wisdom or love and wisdom, both meanings describe Buddhism perfectly. Buddhism teaches that we should try to develop our intellectual capacity to the fullest so that we can understand clearly. It also teaches us to develop love and kindness so that we can be like a true friend to all beings. Mindfulness Meditation http://www.buddhanet.net/ans2.htmKnowing the Mind

 

"It is easy to spend a lifetime so caught up with thoughts, concerns, and activities as to preclude understanding deeply what makes us operate the way we do. People can easily be clueless as to what motivates them, the nature of their reactions and feelings, and even, at times, what they are thinking about. The first step in mindfulness practice is to notice and take stock of who we are, what is going on in the body, in the mind, in our emotional life? ...Mindfulness practice is a simple process of discovery; it is not judging something as good or bad. Meditative discovery is supported by stillness... When the focus is on knowing, we make no attempt to try to change anything. For people who are always trying to make something happen, just observing the mind can be a radical change and a relief". http://www.insightme...dhist-practice/

 

Training the Mind

 

The mind is not static. It is a process or, more accurately, a series of interacting processes. As such, the mind is malleable and pliable: it can be trained and shaped in new ways. An important part of Buddhist practice is taking responsibility for the dispositions and activities of our own mind so that it can operate in ways that are beneficial. When we don’t take responsibility for our own mind, external forces will do the shaping: media, advertisements, companions, and other parts of society. http://www.insightme...dhist-practice/

 

A good starting point is to train the mind in kindness and compassion. Buddhism does incorporate some basic moral principles.

 

The Pancha Shila, or five moral precepts :

1. Avoid killing, or harming any living thing.

2. Avoid stealing -- taking what is not yours to take.

3. Avoid sexual irresponsibility, which for monks and nuns means celibacy.

4. Avoid lying, or any hurtful speech.

5. Avoid alcohol and drugs which diminish clarity of consciousness.

http://webspace.ship...ddhamorals.html:

 

Sometimes how one makes effort in meditation can be counterproductive, for example in striving too hard or taking on too much. . An antidote to this struggle is training the mind to be more at ease with how things are. Rather than trying to organize the conditions of the world, we can cultivate an ability to be relaxed with whatever is happening.

http://www.insightme...dhist-practice/

 

 

Addressing our deepest personal concerns rationally:

 

"One of the greatest challenges facing civilization in the twenty-first century is for human beings to learn to speak about their deepest personal concerns—about ethics, spiritual experience, and the inevitability of human suffering—in ways that are not flagrantly irrational." This according to Sam Harris, An excerpt of this piece appears in our July 2009 "For 30 Years the Best of Buddhism in America: Commentary" retrospective. http://buddhism.abou...tent%26task%3Dv

 

.Buddhism is a practice and philosophy, not a Religion. The wisdom of mindfulness and the principles of the values of your own world view could very well be, arguably, the supreme philosophy.

[florduh]

I personally find it useful to employ concepts espoused in Buddhism (and elsewhere) such as meditation and mindfulness.

 

I don't think the original ideas espoused by the "Buddha" were intended to start a religion, but as in other areas, people have picked up the ball and created a world of various sects, monks, nuns, rules and costumes. There would be no way to exert control or make money from a philosophy of useful ideas without making a religion out of it.

 

I live near both a Buddhist monastery and a Buddhist temple. The rituals, dress and prayers certainly look like a religion to me, though I consider that to be a perversion of what should simply be a useful, common sense philosophy.

[Major Tom]

Hi, Tom. I've been practicing mindfulness for a couple years now, and it has changed my life. My relationships, in particular, have improved. Working on less clutter in the physical sense now.

 

I recommend The Miracle of Mindfulness, by Thich Nhat Hanh, if you haven't already read it. I often use the accompanying book, The Blooming of a Lotus for guiding my meditations.

 

Be well,

Phanta

 

 

Thanks, Phanta .

[Shyone]

That's really deep. I'd like to think that, to at least some extent, we each have to find our own system, but clearly reference to several systems allows us some way of taking the essence of the best of these systems.

 

An "organizing principle" is a good thing. It's interesting that it's possible to have more than one way to approach things and yet get the same basic result.

 

I dislike any system where the followers are blind to the best in other systems though. I would call my own system "rational empathy."

 

Be reasonable and try to see things as others see them before judging.

 

I notice that much of the Pancha Shila (is she related to Pancho Villa?) is based on the "Golden Rule" which, to me, is no more than one aspect of empathy (which incorporates all versions of the Golden Rule). The last, don't get stinkin' drunk, could be derived from "reason."

 

But I'm not offering my "system" as an alternative. It does not conflict with what you have written. They are either complementary, similar, or possibly identical.

 

Oh, and the thing about the Mexican bandit was a joke.

[Deva]

I am not an expert but I believe at the heart of Buddhism is emptiness. This is a concept like any other, but may be experienced and deeply understood through meditation. Basically, because everything is always changing, there is nothing solid or "real", including yourself.

 

Buddha's insight was that there is no existence of a permanent self, in contrast to Hinduism, which postulates a permanent soul, or "atman". Everything is interdependent and impermanent.

 

I personally find meditation rather difficult to do, but I like the emphasis on compassion and awareness. Also there is no idea of sin, everyone is a Buddha. This helps me in my relations with other people.

 

Buddhism is extremely broad and varied as you would expect from 2,500 years of history. There are different schools and philosophically it is very complex. I have only begun my own study of it, but in my opinion, it would be inaccurate to say that there is nothing of the supernatural in it. There are unseen realms and different beings. There are prayers, mantra, deities and pujas. There is guru yoga and reincarnation. It can be viewed purely as a philosophy perhaps easier than western monotheistic religions, but it can also be a religion. If you are saying that in its modern forms it has been corrupted by supernatural elements, then you have the problem, same as in Christianity, of finding the "true" variety.

 

There are different ways of understanding who the Buddha was, depending on the school. Theravada is different from the Mahayana and then within the Mahayana are subgroups including Zen and Vajrayana.

 

One of the better books I have read on the subject is "What the Buddha Taught" by Walpola Rahula. Another good one is "Peace is Every Step" by Thich Nhat Hahn.

[par4dcourse]

Buddhism fits right in with my "how the mind works" curiosity. I can't meditate, but the mindfulness and "quieting" of the brain chatter come in handy at times.

[Major Tom]

Consider "Buddhists without labels".

 

I am no guru. That is why I am pleased that my new found friend Emily started a new Group called Buddhists without labels which may be of interest to some. In fact i5t is brand new, and only a few posts have been made. But it will grow and the good thing is that a novice or non Buddhist even can speak one's mind without fear of a lecture from an old timer that may at some other Group attempt to impose his school of wisdom upon. The goal is a community of free thinking "mindful" folks, willing to consider new ideas. There are only three of us as of today... you will make four. Come introduce yourself. (You will recognize me as the old fart in the red shirt. And I go by Jon to my friends.).

 

http://peacegroundze...fusetouselabels

[Rev R]

Lots of stuff to respond to here...I'll be back.

 

edit: here is some stuff that may be of use and some random thoughts

 

Deva: “I am not an expert but I believe at the heart of Buddhism is emptiness”

In a sense you are correct. Gautama posited that there were three marks of existence.

(Thanks for the jumping off point D.  )

 

1. Impermanence (anicca): Explained at its most simple, all things are subject to change.

2. Non-Self (anatman): No thing is possessed of an independent self-nature; rather, all things are interdependent and interpenetrated. It is from the mark of non-self (anatman) that the doctrines of Dependent Origination and Emptiness are formulated.

3. Suffering/Dissatisfaction (dukkha): Our mental reaction and resistance to the first two marks. The identification, understanding and elimination of suffering is the heart of Gautama Buddha’s teachings (as he put it, “I teach suffering and the cessation of suffering.”).

 

The three marks of existence led to the formulation of the Four Truths.

1. Dukkha

2. The cause of dukkha

3. Cessation of dukkha is possible.

4. The method to the cessation of dukkha.

 

The fourth truth is called the Noble Eight-fold Path. I’ll list it below in its entirety, but personally I prefer the simplified version (perhaps I’ll call it the Three-fold path) based on the main headings.

I. Wisdom/ Insight

A. “Right” View

B. “Right” Thought/ Intention

II. Ethics

A. “Right” Speech

B. “Right” Action

C. “Right” Livelyhood

III. Mental Development

A. “Right” Mindfulness

B. “Right” Concentration

C. “Right” Effort

That is the root of “Buddhist” philosophy, practice, and religion. Yep I said religion.

 

It should be mentioned here that this root is not a collection of statements to be taken simply on faith but must be investigated through the direct experience and observation of the world and your own mind.

 

Major Tom: “Buddhism is a practice and philosophy, not a Religion.”

Sort of. Mostly that stance is a marketing tool to win over skeptics. The truth of the matter is that it depends on how you look at it and what you need from it.

 

As Chris pointed out, there are rituals, fancy costumes (got one of my own), beliefs in supernatural beings, afterlife ideas, magical incantations, legends of supposed miracles performed by masters, and prayers.

 

The thing is that while this stuff is certainly “Buddhism” it is not necessarily the Buddha’s Dharma. Are these things necessary to be a “Buddhist” or to the practice of the Way? Not at all.

 

Florduh: “The rituals, dress and prayers certainly look like a religion to me, though I consider that to be a perversion of what should simply be a useful, common sense philosophy.”

Most of the time I agree with you 100%. I’ll add that like Christianity, there is a whack-job strain in Buddhism. There are folks who believe in the validity of certain sets of sutras, certain ordination rites, specific sets of precepts, specific interpretations of doctrines. It’s not all sunshine and rainbows in Buddhism.

 

On the “golden rule”:

The “Buddhist” version is quite simple: “Consider others as your-self.”

 

On mindfulness:

I was having a discussion with a psychologist today concerning the benefits of mindfulness. She was a big fan of the idea and considers mindfulness to be an excellent way of taking charge of your own mental health.

 

If anyone is interested, I would suggest the Morita method as a look at Buddhist thought as applied to psychology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morita_therapy

[NotBlinded]

I'd like to clear a few concepts in my mind if I can use your thread Tom.

 

The Hindu concept of atman I thought was a permanent soul but a soul that is only spirit without mind and body. I don't see the concept of an individual in that thinking because an individual requires a mind I would think. It's more like they are a soul that possess a body and this soul is a part of God itself and will continue entering new bodies. So, how can the Hindus believe in an individual soul if that soul is without mind and part of God and keep entering new bodies and minds (where an individual would reside I presume)? Also, how is that different from the Buddhists that believe in reincarnation?

 

I'm confused. Help please?

[Deva]

I'm confused. Help please?

 

I don't feel I can properly explain this myself. You might check out this site:

 

http://www.khandro.n...distinction.htm

 

This is from the Tibetan point of view. I will see if I can round up some more links for you on the distinction between the Hindu atman and Buddhist view.

 

Here is some more information on the Indian philosophical schools:

 

http://www.berzinarc...ga_schools.html

 

Thing is, there were a number of different Hindu philosophies and I was sort of over generalizing.

[NotBlinded]

I'm confused. Help please?

 

I don't feel I can properly explain this myself. You might check out this site:

 

http://www.khandro.n...distinction.htm

 

This is from the Tibetan point of view. I will see if I can round up some more links for you on the distinction between the Hindu atman and Buddhist view.

 

Here is some more information on the Indian philosophical schools:

 

http://www.berzinarc...ga_schools.html

 

Thing is, there were a number of different Hindu philosophies and I was sort of over generalizing.

Thanks Deva...

 

I'll check out your links. I found one that puts forth the differences between the two and I can't figure out what the difference really is. They put it as one believes in the perfect self while the other believes in perfect selflessnnness. Then they put up some Hindu scripture to note that there is an individual self:

 

It is not born

 

it does not die

 

having been,

 

it will never not be;

 

unborn, enduring,

 

constant, and primordial,

 

it is not killed

 

when the body is killed

 

(II, 20)

 

 

Additionally, the Gita claims the self is something to be maintained:

 

 

Knowing the self beyond understanding

 

sustain the self with the self.

 

(III, 47)

 

I can't figure out where they get that from this. Aren't they saying the same thing but approaching it from different ends? The Hindus are saying that there is a greater Self that exists in you and the Buddhists are saying that the self is an illusion. Both are true...right? Both are saying that this little self, that is claimed to be what exists as the mind and body is not real. And, wouldn't the Buddhist need to believe in something that is unchanging in order for rebirth to occur at all?

 

What difference I can get is that this nature is seen as something permanent whereas the Buddhist see all as non-permanence. Again though, isn't the Tao something that is like a permanant flow, or the oxymoron, a never-ceasing change?

[lunaticheathen]

This thread reminds me of a whole week of lectures in my world religions class in college on Buddhism - half thought it was a religion, half had very good points, many posited here, that say it's not.

Well, what I can say is, scholars of ALL religions can't agree on exactly what a religion is. Buddhism is one of those sticking points that people use, when a definition is formulated about "supernatural beings" or "concern about the Ultimate", people go "but, what about Buddhism, huh??" Philosophically, yes, even dogmatically, it can appear as a non-religion because of no real belief in a Big G, a master architect, as it were. Many schools do hold to "Emptiness", therefore, appear nihilistic. There is a lot of confusion.

I can't remember the scholar, but apres pharm run so I can think straight, I'll look him up, but he proposed a "thread theory" of religious definition, where odd ducks like Buddhism fit. He outlines cultural ideas/habits/behaviors that if 3 or more are used, it's part of the "thread" of religion. So, basically, belief in an "ultimate god" isn't needed, the incense, costumes, rituals, and teachings make it a religion. An often non-deistic religion, but it's still a religion.

Buddhism is often more attractive to skeptics for the non-deistic approach, and it is a beautiful practice, imo. But like any religion/attitude/dress, it's not for everyone. And as a resident religious scholar (giggle) on this forum, I say, Buddhism is a religion.

Then again, I'm not as anti-religion as many people here. Maybe it's just "western" religions that have given people such a poor view of the whole world of whacky beliefs and practices. I certainly have no taste of Abrahamic religions, and fully understand people's aversion to them. But there is a whole lot more to the religious landscape than the big three, which is what informed Mr Webster's definition.

[Rev R]

The Hindu concept of atman I thought was a permanent soul but a soul that is only spirit without mind and body. I don't see the concept of an individual in that thinking because an individual requires a mind I would think. It's more like they are a soul that possess a body and this soul is a part of God itself and will continue entering new bodies. So, how can the Hindus believe in an individual soul if that soul is without mind and part of God and keep entering new bodies and minds (where an individual would reside I presume)? Also, how is that different from the Buddhists that believe in reincarnation?

 

I'm confused. Help please?

 

For all practical purposes, there isn't a difference since the ideas probably came from the same place- Hindu/Brahminist thought.

 

As Deva said there are many different varieties of Hindu thought, some of which do consider there to be a permanent self nature that transmigrates between bodies. It was such a philosophy which dominated the culture in which Gautama formulated his ideas.

 

Around the beginning of the current era, Buddha was absorbed into the Hinduism of the day as an avatar of Vishnu. As such, certain ideas were absorbed from Buddhism and some were done away with. It is also likely that concepts from Hinduism and Hellenistic thought filtered into Mahayana Buddhism as Hinduism absorbed the teachings of Buddha.

 

It doesn't do a lot of good to think of the principle of anatman as the conceptual opposite of atman, but rather to consider anatman as it is.

[Rev R]

Aren't they saying the same thing but approaching it from different ends?

Maybe

 

One thing to keep in mind is that in practice there is really no such thing as "Buddhism". There are so many different variations and interpretation even within the vehicles that it's impossible to make any real universal statement concerning what the greater Sangha actually believes. It's a term of convenience.

 

And, wouldn't the Buddhist need to believe in something that is unchanging in order for rebirth to occur at all?

that exact question figures into every debate on the subject I've seen.

[MultifariousBirdLady]

1. Avoid killing, or harming any living thing.

 

This may sound very strange to people, but I take issue with this one. Some of my work deals with invasive species issues, and control of invasive populations through killing them is an ecological necessity.

 

Besides, it's not possible to live at all without harming or killing ANY living thing.

 

 

Well, what I can say is, scholars of ALL religions can't agree on exactly what a religion is.

 

This was discussed at length in a "philosophy of religions" class that I took. If you look at the actual practices of various forms of Buddhism around the world, it very much indeed looks like a religion, talks like a religion, works like a religion...

[Deva]

For all practical purposes, there isn't a difference since the ideas probably came from the same place- Hindu/Brahminist thought.

 

I agree that too much is made of the division, or that Buddhism is somehow a reaction against Hinduism. Hinduism is too complex and varied to make a sweeping statement. Here is an interesting article, which says that many of these ideas were from the early Indus Valley civilization:

 

http://www.ecst.csuc...na/tree/ch2.txt

 

Buddhism and advaita vedanta Hinduism seem to me to be almost identical. I once found an article on this subject but can't seem to locate it.

[NotBlinded]

Deva and Rodney...thank you both very much. I have some reading to do.

 

Where the differences seem to be is on the surface. I have a hard time seeing any differences between many religious thoughts on a fundamental level. Maybe like eccentric vs concentric. They have a common center but outside this center, there are differences. Once we get to the heart of the matter, the outside differences aren't that important.

 

I was stating in end's thread about my experience and the thing that sweep me off my feet was that contradictions disappeared for me. Now, I'm wondering if that is such a good thing or not! No, really, I think for me that it all flows together now just wonderfully.

[Rev R]

Deva and Rodney...thank you both very much. I have some reading to do.

 

Not a problem.

 

As a little bit of lagniappe, in 1966 a council convened in Sri Lanka to discuss the points that unified all the various flavours called "Buddhism". Ven. Walpola Rahula came up with 9 points that were unanimously approved by the representatives, in 1981 he expanded on those 9 points:

 

* Whatever our sects, denominations or systems, as Buddhists we all accept the Buddha as our Master who gave us the Teaching.

* We all take refuge in the Triple Jewel: the Buddha, our Teacher; the Dhamma, his teaching; and the Sangha, the Community of holy ones. In other words, we take refuge in the Teacher, the Teaching and the Taught.

* Whether Theravāda or Mahāyāna, we do not believe that this world is created and ruled by a god at his will.

* Following the example of the Buddha, our Teacher, who is embodiment of Great Compassion (mahākaruṇa) and Great Wisdom (mahāprajñā), we consider that the purpose of life is to develop compassion for all living beings without discrimination and to work for their good, happiness and peace; and to develop wisdom leading to the realization of Ultimate Truth.

* We accept the Four Noble Truths taught by the Buddha, namely, Dukkha, the fact that our existence in this world is in predicament, is impermanent, imperfect, unsatisfactory, full of conflict; Samudaya, the fact that this state of affairs is due to our egoistic selfishness based on the false idea of self; Nirodha, the fact that there is definitely the possibility of deliverance, liberation, freedom from this predicament by the total eradication of the egoistic selfishness; and Magga, the fact that this liberation can be achieved through the Middle Path which is eight-fold, leading to the perfection of ethical conduct (sila), mental discipline (samadhi) and wisdom (panna).

* We accept the universal law of cause and effect taught in the Paṭiccasamuppada (Skt. pratītyasamutpada; Conditioned Genesis or Dependent Origination), and accordingly we accept that everything is relative, interdependent and interrelated and nothing is absolute, permanent and everlasting in this universe.

* We understand, according to the teaching of the Buddha, that all conditioned things (samkhara) are impermanent (anicca) and imperfect and unsatisfactory (dukkha), and all conditioned and unconditioned things (dhamma) are without self (anatta).

* We accept the Thirty-seven Qualities conducive to Enlightenment (bodhipakkhiyadhamma) as different aspects of the Path taught by the Buddha leading to Enlightenment, namely:

o Four Forms of Presence of Mindfulness (Pali: satipatthana; Skt. smrtyupasthana);

o Four Right Efforts (Pali. sammappadhana; Skt. samyakpradhana);

o Four Bases of Supernatural Powers (Pali. iddhipada; Skt. rddhipada);

o Five Faculties (indriya: Pali. saddha, viriya, sati, samadhi, panna; Skt. sraddha, virya, smrti, samadhi, prajna);

o Five Powers (bala, same five qualities as above);

o Seven Factors of Enlightenment (Pali. bojjhanga; Skt. bobhyanga);

o Eight-fold Noble Path (Pali. ariyamagga; Skt. aryamarga).

* There are three ways of attaining Bodhi or Enlightenment according to the ability and capacity of each individual: namely, as a Sravaka (disciple), as a Pratyekabuddha (Individual Buddha) and as a Samyaksambuddha (Perfectly and Fully Enlightened Buddha). We accept it as the highest, noblest and most heroic to follow the career of a Boddhisattva and to become a Samyksambuddha in order to save others. But these three states are on the same Path, not on different paths. In fact, the Sandhinirmocana-sutra, a well-known important Mahayana sutra, clearly and emphatically says that those who follow the line of Śrāvakayāna (Vehicle of Disciples) or the line of Pratyekabuddha-yana (Vehicle of Individual Buddhas) or the line of Tathagatas (Mahayana) attain the supreme Nirvana by the same Path, and that for all of them there is only one Path of Purification (visuddhi-marga) and only one Purification (visuddhi) and no second one, and that they are not different paths and different purifications, and that Sravakayana and Mahayana constitute One Vehicle One Yana (ekayana) and not distinct and different vehicles or yanas.

* We admit that in different countries there are differences with regard to the ways of life of Buddhist monks, popular Buddhist beliefs and practices, rites and rituals, ceremonies, customs and habits. These external forms and expressions should not be confused with the essential teachings of the Buddha.

[Deva]

As a little bit of lagniappe, in 1966 a council convened in Sri Lanka to discuss the points that unified all the various flavours called "Buddhism". Ven. Walpola Rahula came up with 9 points that were unanimously approved by the representatives, in 1981 he expanded on those 9 points:...

 

Thanks for posting that Rev. Walpola Rahula has had quite an impact on my life. I have tapes of the conversations of Rahula, Krishnamurti and Bohm. Listening to him in these conversations persuaded me to learn about Buddhism.

[NotBlinded]

As a little bit of lagniappe, in 1966 a council convened in Sri Lanka to discuss the points that unified all the various flavours called "Buddhism". Ven. Walpola Rahula came up with 9 points that were unanimously approved by the representatives, in 1981 he expanded on those 9 points:...

 

Thanks for posting that Rev. Walpola Rahula has had quite an impact on my life. I have tapes of the conversations of Rahula, Krishnamurti and Bohm. Listening to him in these conversations persuaded me to learn about Buddhism.

Yes, thanks again Rodney. I enjoyed that.

 

 

Deva! I wanna hear those tapes...can I get them somewhere?

[Deva]

Deva! I wanna hear those tapes...can I get them somewhere?

 

 

Some of the discussions are transcribed in this book: http://www.shambhala.com/html/catalog/items/isbn/978-1-59030-072-5.cfm?selectedText=EXCERPT_CHAPTER

 

They are all on DVD now, I think. I will get back to you later on the link for those.

[Major Tom]

I'd like to clear a few concepts in my mind if I can use your thread Tom.

 

The Hindu concept of atman I thought was a permanent soul but a soul that is only spirit without mind and body. I don't see the concept of an individual in that thinking because an individual requires a mind I would think. It's more like they are a soul that possess a body and this soul is a part of God itself and will continue entering new bodies. So, how can the Hindus believe in an individual soul if that soul is without mind and part of God and keep entering new bodies and minds (where an individual would reside I presume)? Also, how is that different from the Buddhists that believe in reincarnation?

 

I'm confused. Help please?

 

As I said I am no guru, and I may not be able to answer your question, but I have learned this. There are as many schools of thought under the umbrella of Buddhism as there are denominations within Protestantism. Just for example some schools revere the Buddha as a deity whille others are atheistic. I mention this only because I think that we have to give ourselves permission to think for ourselves. As the Buddha himself said, "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."

 

I am just a novice, unqualified as a teacher. I am quite qualified however to seek, observe and select, I am a non denominational Buddhist, cherry picker, a heretical Christian believing in reincarnationas well as some forn of heavenly unity, who holds a residual Christian value known as the Golden Rule, which is no different than Confusius' Silver Rule. Love everybody, ... simplicity itself.

 

Do not be too concerned with any given Buddhist or Hindu school of thought, except to observe it, note it, ... see if perhaps a piece of it makes sense to you. They can't all be right, and whether or not you "get it right" makes no difference whatsoever except to give you persoanally a peace of mind, it comes with a mindfulness and a love of humanity. Look at as many schools of thought as you wish. Give yourself permission not to know. The quest for understanding, and of knowing yourself... and your place in the Universe is a path. Allow yourself to follow it off and on the the roads of other religions. Your truth will come to you in its' season. You have my formal permission now to cherry pick. I hope that you will feel empowered. Peace be with you.

[NotBlinded]

Deva! I wanna hear those tapes...can I get them somewhere?

 

 

Some of the discussions are transcribed in this book: http://www.shambhala.com/html/catalog/items/isbn/978-1-59030-072-5.cfm?selectedText=EXCERPT_CHAPTER

 

They are all on DVD now, I think. I will get back to you later on the link for those.

Thanks Deva!

[NotBlinded]

As I said I am no guru, and I may not be able to answer your question, but I have learned this. There are as many schools of though under the umbrella of Buddhism as there are denominations within Protestantism. Just for example some schools revere the Buddha as a deity whille others are atheistic. I mention this only because I think that we have to give ourselves permission to think for ourselves. As the Buddha himself said, "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."

 

My recommendation is to not be too concerned with any given Buddhist or Hindu dogma, or school, except to observe it, note it and see if it makes sense to you. Look at as many scools of though as you want. Give yourself permission not to know. The quest for understanding, and of knowing yourself and your place in the Universe is a path. Allow yourself to follow it off and on the the roads of other religions. Your truth will come to you in its' season. You have my permission to cherry pick.

Thank you Tom. That was beautiful!

[Major Tom]

As I said I am no guru, and I may not be able to answer your question, but I have learned this. There are as many schools of though under the umbrella of Buddhism as there are denominations within Protestantism. Just for example some schools revere the Buddha as a deity whille others are atheistic. I mention this only because I think that we have to give ourselves permission to think for ourselves. As the Buddha himself said, "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."

 

My recommendation is to not be too concerned with any given Buddhist or Hindu dogma, or school, except to observe it, note it and see if it makes sense to you. Look at as many scools of though as you want. Give yourself permission not to know. The quest for understanding, and of knowing yourself and your place in the Universe is a path. Allow yourself to follow it off and on the the roads of other religions. Your truth will come to you in its' season. You have my permission to cherry pick.

Thank you Tom. That was beautiful!

 

notblindedbytheblight

 

While you were reading it, I edited just a bit. Peace. - Tom