Buddhism

[Panjandrum]

^^Catchy soundbites do not a sound arguement make.

[Queso]

 

Who ya gonna call?

 

Ghostbusters, duh.

[Racoon]

^^Catchy soundbites do not a sound arguement make.

 

whats there to argue?

 

Inner peace? or reaching a state of enlightenment?

meditation with science?

 

Catch. B) B)

 

I love Baseball. and I love basketball. I wish there was a Football emoticon, because I love Football too.

[Panjandrum]

I meant more that simply saying something is so is not sufficient for persuading someone. If UncleAl thinks europeans 'spewed christ' he should explain why he thinks this way. personally, I think the influence of religion in world history is exaggeratted. People do things for selfish reasons, and justify them with religion. Some mongols were Buddists, afterall. ;)

[Racoon]

I meant more that simply saying something is so is not sufficient for persuading someone.

 

When was the last time a Buddhist tried to convert you?

exactly, none.

No knocks on the door with a person handing out "literature"

No Hell for non-believers.

No killing because you do not believe in Buddhist philosophy...

 

Thus the beauty of Buddhism. You go to it, not it comes to you.

 

I am paraphrasing some of the Tao Te Ching here,

>> If something says this is the way, or this is it... then that is not the true way.

 

to me, Buddhism is the glow that draws the moth. the Tao exists, the Tao is.

but where it came from I do not know.

 

Tao just means "the Way"

the way Quasars pull in electrons at such a high speed that they emit electromagnetic radiation.

The way life evolves...

[Racoon]

Buddhism can be broken down into 3 philosophical components:

 

Sila - which is virtue - or good conduct, morality

based on equality and reciprocity. :)

 

Samadhi - mental development. (not blind devotion:naughty: )

meditation, mind control, emotional mastery

 

Prajna - insight and wisdom.

 

:D

 

What Buddhism doesn't share with Christianity:

 

Garden of Eden and Original Sin

a Personal Savior or salvation

Heaven or Hell for all eternity

End of the World

 

Makes Buddhism a nice philosophy to compliment Science to me. ;)

There should be a positive moral social structure, without the Heaven/Hell preachy crap that goes on.

 

Those who live in Euroland are lucky that Evangelical Christianity is not on the rise.

I heard a stat the other day that 25% of Americans now identify themselves as such...a so called "Spiritual Awakening" :star:

 

How about a "Spiritual-Pull-Your-Head-Out-of-Your-***-Reckoning?" :phones:

Its ok to believe what you want though.

 

Bottom line:

Do what you want as long as you don't hurt anyone or cost them money. ;)

[Jehu]

Buddhism can be broken down into 3 philosophical components:

 

Sila - which is virtue - or good conduct, morality

based on equality and reciprocity. :D

 

Samadhi - mental development. (not blind devotion:naughty: )

meditation, mind control, emotional mastery

 

Prajna - insight and wisdom.

 

:(

 

What Buddhism doesn't share with Christianity:

 

Garden of Eden and Original Sin :)

a Personal Savior or salvation :hihi:

Heaven or Hell for all eternity ;)

End of the World :D

 

Makes Buddhism a nice philosophy to compliment Science to me. ;)

There should be a positive moral social structure, without the Heaven/Hell preachy crap that goes on.

 

Those who live in Euroland are lucky that Evangelical Christianity is not on the rise.

I heard a stat the other day that 25% of Americans now identify themselves as such...a so called "Spiritual Awakening" :)

 

How about a "Spiritual-Pull-Your-Head-Out-of-Your-***-Reckoning?" :D

Its ok to believe what you want though.

 

Bottom line:

Do what you want as long as you don't hurt anyone or cost them money. ;)

 

Are you a practitioner of the “perennial philosophy”, or do you merely find it of passing interest?

 

The Path(Tao) is said to begin with “right view”, which is the realization of the true nature of things. Have you realized this “true nature” which the Buddha said was “Not One and Not Two”? Have you discovered the law or principle that is embodied in the Tai Chi Tu? If not, then you have not completed even a single step along the path to liberation. This eight-fold path leads to a tranquil mind, and tranquil mind is the gate to cognitive insight (prajna). Cognitive insight (into the true nature of reality) puts and end to all fear and suffering, for it puts an end to death itself. But please be warned, this Path leads to the dissolution of the self, not to its enhancement, for it is said that, in truth, there are no Buddhists.

 

Bottom line: Do always what is appropriate in the given situation, and rely only upon your innate humanness to guide you.

[InfiniteNow]

Bottom line: Do always what is appropriate in the given situation, and rely only upon your innate humanness to guide you.

How about innate "lifeness?" Otherwise, good points all. Be like the water.

 

 

Cheers. :cup:

[Racoon]

Are you a practitioner of the “perennial philosophy”, or do you merely find it of passing interest?

 

Bottom line: Do always what is appropriate in the given situation, and rely only upon your innate humanness to guide you.

 

The Noble 8-fold path Jehu...

What am I missing here?

 

Right view - see clearly

Right purpose - decide

Right speech - speak so as to aim

Right conduct - act

Right vocation - livelihood must not conflict

Right effort - go forward

Right awareness - feel and think incessantly

Right concentration - learn to contemplate with deep mind.

 

Am I perfect? No.

I grew up in Christian Central dude.

And when I began Martial Arts training and learned Buddhist philosophy, I was sold.

I had an inclination towards it. It attracted me like a moth to flame.

 

I don't have a "brand" or "sect". I just am.

I do eat meat sometimes. I do occasionally drink, and I do, or at least did, have sex.

So I am not a strict Buddhist in that sense. at least yet.

I have always wanted to be in a Shaolin Temple for at least a few years.

 

This thread is to provide information, positive contemplation, and discuss ideals.

Are you questioning my integrity here???

[Jehu]

Are you questioning my integrity here???

 

No Sir, I do not question your integrity! Quite the opposite, in fact, for to have even a cursory interest in the Dharma is, in my opinion, deserving of the highest esteem. My questions were purely intended to determine whether you viewed the Buddhist doctrine as merely an “interesting philosophy”, or had you actually taken it as your path, that is to say, are you living it. I, like yourself, do not belong to any religious sect, but have the greatest respect for those who may chose to do so. The truth, you see, is not the exclusive purview of any particular religion, nor of religion itself. The truth is, in fact, open to anyone who is willing to go looking for it. Since you appear to be just such a person, please allow me to offer the following explication regarding the noble path.

 

Right View, which you have interpreted as “clear seeing”, means that ones sees that the true nature things is “empty”. By this we mean that there is no innate substance to anything, not to our ideas, not to our, sensations, not to material objects, not to properties, not to activities, and not to ourselves. This is not, however, to deny existence categorically, but only the existence of “things”. Just as the Upanishad says, “it is not that which the eye can see that is Brahman (Reality), but that whereby the eyes is able to see ….” In order to hold “right view”, it must be realized (made real), and to realize a thing, one must experience it directly, otherwise, it remains merely a theory, a concept. If one is curious as to what a certain food tastes like, one must taste it, and not simply ask another how it tastes. For this reason, we employ the three instruments of study, contemplation, and mediation. In the Buddhist tradition, it is the self that becomes the subject of ones relentless logical analysis, however, anything at all will suffice, so long as one delves deeply enough to uncover the five primitive elements of which all things are comprised.

 

I hope that you will accept this small teaching in the same spirit with which it is given.

[Racoon]

I hope that you will accept this small teaching in the same spirit with which it is given.

 

I accept. :cup:

 

"The path that is bright seems dull,

and the one who is going towards the Tao

Seems, in fact, to be going backwards -

And those who think the Way is easy

Will find it extremely hard."

 

__Tao Te Ching chpt. 41.

 

I find Taoism and Buddhism to be compatible. :confused:

 

Racoon

[Jehu]

How about innate "lifeness?" Otherwise, good points all. Be like the water.

 

 

Cheers. :)

 

I must say InfiniteNow, my curiosity has finally gotten the better of me. Why is it that you would have me substitute the term, “lifeness”, in place of the term, “humanness”, and please, what do you mean by, “Be like the water”?

 

Regards, Jehu

[IDMclean]

Panjandrum, I doubt that you are fully free from emotional reasoning. If you were you wouldn't be on these forums. Every person that can do problem solving also has emotions. Without your emotions you wouldn't have the motivation to do just about anything.

 

I've already been discussing this particular phenomena with some friends of mine on another forum.

 

As for Buddhism? It is quantum in nature, Philosophy one moment and religion the next. Siddartha himself was one of the first social scientist. He professed enlightenment through the middle path, where as most of the religions of his time were enlightenment through an extreame, most of the time this enlightenment would be unwholesome, and left Siddartha desiring more.

 

It was through his continued observation of the world that he was said to have reached enlightenment. I ask you, how is it that scientist reach the truth? I am not one for placing people and things on pedestals, so I refrain from referring to Siddartha as buddha.

 

I believe he was first and foremost a Scientist, and Philosopher. That his understanding of the world came through religious means does not reduce the truths that he grokked by any measure.

 

Buddhism happens to be one of the core pieces to my stab at my own personal unification of the truths of the universe.

[IDMclean]

I believe that "be as the water" is the eastern philosophy of being dynamic, be without form, always poised to become as you need to be, to adapt, to swirl around the rock rather than move it by brute force.

 

"Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate."

-Sun Tzu's the Art of War

[InfiniteNow]

I must say InfiniteNow, my curiosity has finally gotten the better of me. Why is it that you would have me substitute the term, “lifeness”, in place of the term, “humanness”, and please, what do you mean by, “Be like the water”?

Let me preface by saying that I made up the term "lifeness" as I typed it, although it may appear somewhere else in literature, I was not referencing one particular concept or definition.

 

 

My motivation was to expand your "bottom line" to an even greater eschelon, to include a more encompassing set.

 

Do always what is appropriate in the given situation, and rely only upon your innate humanness to guide you.

If you consider only humans, you are leaving out the abundance of other life with which we not only share the planet, but which assist us in our own survival. Perhaps when we stop seeing ourselves as human, white, black, hispanic, asian, indian, male, female, young, old, ad infinitum... and recognize that despite everything else we are all coinhabiting the Earth, we might move forward and make progress beyond any current societal conceptions allow.

 

I was not stating that you had to substitute the term lifeness for humanness, but only posed it as (what I hoped to be) a thought provoking suggestion.

 

My reference to water was in the context of the Tao te Ching. Flowing, smooth, hard... it does not resist it's reality, but adapts WITH it, is never seperate FROM it, and is infinitely a part OF it. However, it means something different to everyone, and was simply my way of ending the post in a manner that had the highest probability of being perceived positively by the reader.

 

 

Cheers. :P

[Jehu]

Let me preface by saying that I made up the term "lifeness" as I typed it, although it may appear somewhere else in literature, I was not referencing one particular concept or definition.

 

 

My motivation was to expand your "bottom line" to an even greater eschelon, to include a more encompassing set.

 

 

If you consider only humans, you are leaving out the abundance of other life with which we not only share the planet, but which assist us in our own survival. Perhaps when we stop seeing ourselves as human, white, black, hispanic, asian, indian, male, female, young, old, ad infinitum... and recognize that despite everything else we are all coinhabiting the Earth, we might move forward and make progress beyond any current societal conceptions allow.

 

I was not stating that you had to substitute the term lifeness for humanness, but only posed it as (what I hoped to be) a thought provoking suggestion.

 

My reference to water was in the context of the Tao te Ching. Flowing, smooth, hard... it does not resist it's reality, but adapts WITH it, is never seperate FROM it, and is infinitely a part OF it. However, it means something different to everyone, and was simply my way of ending the post in a manner that had the highest probability of being perceived positively by the reader.

 

 

Cheers. :hihi:

 

I’m afraid I may have misled you as to the intent of my “bottom line”, for I did not mean to imply that we, as human beings, have any more worth than does any other living thing. What I meant by the phrase was that everything has a function, an appropriate mode of activity whereby it fulfils its purpose, and this function is inherent in the thing’s nature. When a thing functions in accordance with its nature, such as when a knife cuts, we say that the thing is good, but when it does not function so, we say it is bad. Now the same pertains to human beings, for we too have a function, and that function may be found in the very definition of the term, “humane”: this being to be benevolent, compassionate, and to minimize the amount of pain and suffering we inflict upon the world. So you see, I was merely pointing out the fact that we (humans) need only act in accordance with our “true nature”, and all will then be well in the world. Hence for the authentic human being, there is no need to live according to any set of static rules, whether they be imposed from without (laws or precepts) or from within (moral codes).

 

In any event, thank you, InfiniteNow, for your though provoking suggestion, and may we all be like water, for water is precisely what we are.

 

Regards, Jehu

[Jehu]

Panjandrum, I doubt that you are fully free from emotional reasoning. If you were you wouldn't be on these forums. Every person that can do problem solving also has emotions. Without your emotions you wouldn't have the motivation to do just about anything.

 

I've already been discussing this particular phenomena with some friends of mine on another forum.

 

As for Buddhism? It is quantum in nature, Philosophy one moment and religion the next. Siddartha himself was one of the first social scientist. He professed enlightenment through the middle path, where as most of the religions of his time were enlightenment through an extreame, most of the time this enlightenment would be unwholesome, and left Siddartha desiring more.

 

It was through his continued observation of the world that he was said to have reached enlightenment. I ask you, how is it that scientist reach the truth? I am not one for placing people and things on pedestals, so I refrain from referring to Siddartha as buddha.

 

I believe he was first and foremost a Scientist, and Philosopher. That his understanding of the world came through religious means does not reduce the truths that he grokked by any measure.

 

Buddhism happens to be one of the core pieces to my stab at my own personal unification of the truths of the universe.

 

I’m afraid the Buddha would not have been pleased with your characterizing him as either a Scientist or a Philosopher, for the former were not yet invented (scientist being a term coined in the nineteenth-century), and the latter he held to be unwholesome at best, for they trafficked in theories and suppositions, just as do the scientists of today. The Buddha was primarily a healer, who’s only motivation was to put an end to the suffering of the world. He followed many of the religio-philosophical practices of his day, but these practices had long ago cease to bear fruit, for the true doctrine had been lost over time, as indeed all things are lost over time. In the end, he resolved to remain steadfast in his place, until either death or the Truth overcame him. In this resolve, he fell upon the one key that would unlock the door to cognitive insight, the complete and traceless elimination of the self.

 

Now, he did not come upon the Truth by experimentation, nor by the accumulation and analysis of empirical data, he came upon it by the faculty of reason, and by an unwillingness to succumb to the lure of theories or suppositions. He was such a man as Aristotle would have said was “in want of an education”, for he would have demanded a logical demonstration of any and every proposition, not matter how “self-evident” others believed it to be. I suppose one could call him a philosopher in the platonic sense, for he love the Truth above life itself, and his doctrine of emptiness is surely a metaphysical one, but not in the present sense of the term, for philosophers today take particular stances (materialist, idealist, realist, etc.) and then expend most of their lives simply defending their positions. No, I’m afraid the Buddha would not have been pleased in the least …

 

Regards, Jehu