from a buddist....

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]============================
The Buddha, as Teacher, instructs us, but we ourselves are directly responsible for our purification.
================================

Is that a little bit like what the Apostle Peter wrote?

"Having purified your souls by obedience to the truth."

Or Paul "Work out your own salvation with fe and spirit"

Similar concepts as to some New Testament utterances there Scriabin.[/b]

Clearly Scriabins origonal blurb on bhuddism sought to highlight the differences between bhuddist thought and fundamentalist christian thought. His points were well made even if they were somewhat exclusive.
As for myself i see bhuddism neither as a religion or a theology. I see it as more of a system of psycology. A complete system unlike Freud.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Clearly Scriabins origonal blurb on bhuddism sought to highlight the differences between bhuddist thought and fundamentalist christian thought. His points were well made even if they were somewhat exclusive.
As for myself i see bhuddism neither as a religion or a theology. I see it as more of a system of psycology. A complete system unlike Freud.

thanks for a bit of sanity.

I think of religions as institutionalized forms of irrationality.

Imagine believing in human beings endowed with supernatural powers relating to a being that created a universe far more complex and vast than any the true believers can comprehend -- yet they know "the truth" because they can quote it from a book written by human beings. Priceless.

I'm not a Buddhist, for I do not practice rituals or sit the right way, or wear orange robes, etc.

But I'm sensitive to the essential message I get from a Buddhist teacher -- who happens to be a psychotherapist. In meetings with her and about 200 others each week, I learned many of the basic techniques -- not beliefs -- that have helped me cope with some of life's more drastic and tragic challenges.

It helps a lot to separate belief and thought from knowledge and awareness of what is happening in the present moment, as it happens.

I have been able to withstand physical pain from the aftermath of serious surgery and even a gall bladder attack, without using drugs, only the power of my mind. One can train one's self to quell the fear and accept pain and whatever else reality is without denial, without hiding behind beliefs or faiths.

And I have learned why a lot of the representations of the Buddha show him laughing. One of the sessions on Vipassna or Insight Meditation was entitled "How to take it as it comes." The teacher began by welcoming us to the "Oh, wellness lesson."

One need not be a Buddhist to appreciate the techniques, the process, the usefulness and essential rationality of what they espouse.

And I'm not aware of any congregation of Apatheists anywhere nearby ...

Originally posted by Scriabin
thanks for a bit of sanity.

I think of religions as institutionalized forms of irrationality.

Imagine believing in human beings endowed with supernatural powers relating to a being that created a universe far more complex and vast than any the true believers can comprehend -- yet they know "the truth" because they can quote it from a book written by h ...[text shortened]... espouse.

And I'm not aware of any congregation of Apatheists anywhere nearby ...

Yes bhuddism is a nice 'flavour' even if myself I am not a bhuddist

Buddhism comes in more than one flavor. Perhaps one could speak of Buddhisms. Scriabin’s first post, as an overview, is not bad—but it certainly was not intended as a treatise on the range of “Buddhisms”.

I am pretty much a Zennist, as many of you know. That does not mean that I do not draw from other sources.

Some time back, No.1 Marauder presented Seng Ts’an’s Hsing Hsing Ming on these threads. Seng Ts’an was the third Zen Patriarch (6th century). Palynka made the cogent point that, unless one already has some understanding of the terminology used by such as Seng Ts’an, it is difficult to see through his spare poetic style. I spent a good deal of time on here, back then, trying to present the principles of Zen in more conventional language—which turned out to be a long-winded effort.

Tathata is a word that simply labels the just-so-suchness of the world as it is, including ourselves, prior to all of the conceptualizations we formulate in thinking and speaking of the world. Meditation, of various forms, is just a tool for getting in touch with that, prior to thinking/conceptualizing about it.

All Zen-talk is aimed, not at weaving a conceptual “map” of tathata (or weaving a conceptual somebody-self that we then take as who we are), but at pointing to the territory itself—before we begin to map it with our thoughts. Zennists will say that their words are no more than “fingers pointing at the moon”. The map is not the territory, and it is an error to judge the territory according to the map, rather than the other way around. (As Scriabin has condensed the message before: “Don’t believe everything you think.” One could take that as a kind of Zen koan.)

The Zen master’s whack on the head is no more than a kind of “ostensive definition”, aimed at awakening the student from his/her convolutions of map-making thought.

Siddhartha Gautama is called the Buddha (the awakened one; they are two different people in Hesse’s book, by the way). In Zen, at least, he is also called the tathagata: the “thus come one”, the one who lives from the “bedrock” of tathata, and points to just that. One’s own tathata is just what the Zennists call one’s “original nature”. That original nature includes the ability for thought/conceptualization, but is not any particular set of thoughts/conceptualizations about “I”—or anything else..

I am the Buddha, you are the Buddha, we are all Buddhas. Some people have come (again) to realize that, some have not. One’s particular religion, if one has a religion, has nothing to do with it. One does not have to be a “Buddhist” to be Buddha.

As a Zennist, I don’t spend any time focusing on such things as “nirvana” or the “transmigration of souls” or such metaphysical speculations (except, perhaps, as metaphors). I only keep re-immersing myself in tathata. I am not concerned with perfection or “enlightenment”—I only keep re-immersing myself in tathata. I do not “follow” such teachers as Seng T’san and Linchi (Rinzai): I simply use them as reminders to—re-immerse myself in tathata. As a Zennist—even a Zen Buddhist—I am not required to accept any teachings, doctrines or beliefs: I only keep re-immersing myself in tathata.

Ah, that word: “enlightenment”! There seems to be tendency to see that as some kind of “angelized” state (or experience). And so I eschew that word altogether. I prefer not to translate such words as satori or its near-equivalent kensho.

My only “Buddha-message” is: to find a meditation practice (any meditation practice) that allows you to become immersed in that here-now tathata that is prior to all words, thoughts, names, conceptualizations, speculations. And in that tathata you will also find your tathata—which is also prior to all that, and which is no more separable from the larger tathata than the gulfstream is separable from the ocean, or your smile from your face.

Be well.

Originally posted by Scriabin
thanks for a bit of sanity.

I think of religions as institutionalized forms of irrationality.

Imagine believing in human beings endowed with supernatural powers relating to a being that created a universe far more complex and vast than any the true believers can comprehend -- yet they know "the truth" because they can quote it from a book written by h ...[text shortened]... espouse.

And I'm not aware of any congregation of Apatheists anywhere nearby ...

I'm not a Buddhist, for I do not practice rituals or sit the right way, or wear orange robes, etc.

Once visited a Zen temple (San Francisco): we were invited to visit the zendo, but the receptionist (or whoever) said, “Please don’t walk directly in front of the altar.” !!

At another one, was asked by a woman who was intent on seeing to it that we didn’t see the roshi, “Do you practice?” Was a very Soto place: zazen is satori, and all that. [Not that Dogen was wrong, just that it seems to have led to a lot of people sitting around with little more intention (or attention) than to just (a ritualized) sitting around.]

One of Shunryu Suzuki’s students went to Japan to be ordained. They told him he wasn’t really a monk, because Suzuki hadn’t taught him all the right “this way, that way” stuff. When he saw Suzuki again, he asked: “Am I a monk or not?” Suzuki answered: “It goes the way your mind goes: if you think you’re a monk, then you’re a monk.”

“It goes the way your mind goes…” “If you think you’re…” We make what we think. Then we believe what we think, and we believe that what we think is not of our own making (or somebody else’s making, if we’ve been well-conditioned).

Now, I don’t mean to sound like a slipshod Zennist. It’s just that when you come out the other end, you can walk in front of the altar or not walk in front of the altar, and it doesn’t have any ultimate significance. (Unless you think so&hellip😉

You have understood that Buddha is not about escapism. A lot of Buddhists, I suspect, have not figured that out yet (even Zen Buddhists). A lot of people seem (to me anyway) to talk about “enlightenment” as if it’s some escape from our basic existential condition. That’s “religion”. If someone wants a religion, they can surely find a Buddhist version to bind themselves to—and then pretend that they have “escaped”. Or that they can escape, if only they “practice” hard enough.

The only “escape” is from illusion. Zen is about dis-illusionment. That’s all. Nothing esoteric.

Too much talk; time to go to bed.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b] I'm not a Buddhist, for I do not practice rituals or sit the right way, or wear orange robes, etc.

Once visited a Zen temple (San Francisco): we were invited to visit the zendo, but the receptionist (or whoever) said, “Please don’t walk directly in front of the altar.” !!

At another one, was asked by a woman who was intent on seeing to ...[text shortened]... s about dis-illusionment. That’s all. Nothing esoteric.

Too much talk; time to go to bed.[/b]

edit:
"Too much talk; time to go to bed."


Whilst sleeping your ego does not think good and does not think not-good; then, what your true self is tathata-doing?
😵

Originally posted by Scriabin
thanks for a bit of sanity.

I think of religions as institutionalized forms of irrationality.

Imagine believing in human beings endowed with supernatural powers relating to a being that created a universe far more complex and vast than any the true believers can comprehend -- yet they know "the truth" because they can quote it from a book written by h espouse.

And I'm not aware of any congregation of Apatheists anywhere nearby ...

============================
Imagine believing in human beings endowed with supernatural powers relating to a being that created a universe far more complex and vast than any the true believers can comprehend -- yet they know "the truth" because they can quote it from a book written by human beings. Priceless.
=========================================

I fail to see your irony here. First of all we have to "imagine" that on your say so a book authored by 40 different diverse people in three languages over a period of 1600 years is merely "written by humans".

Yea, it was written by humans. It didn't come floating down to earth on a cloud. But some of us see that there is no other book like it. The unity of scheme, of theme, the wisdom, the prophetic utterances and fulfillment persuade us that we are dealing with a book written by people superintended and inspired by God.

And such a book is indeed "priceless".


============================
I'm not a Buddhist, for I do not practice rituals or sit the right way, or wear orange robes, etc.
===========================

I wouldn't say that all Buddhist fundamentally had to dress thus or sit thus.

It is your adherance to the central concepts that would mean to me that you are a Buddhist or at least in possession of a philosophy influenced by or reminiscient of Buddhist.

Don't worry we won't insist that you sit in the lotus position and wear yellow.

============================
But I'm sensitive to the essential message I get from a Buddhist teacher -- who happens to be a psychotherapist. In meetings with her and about 200 others each week, I learned many of the basic techniques -- not beliefs -- that have helped me cope with some of life's more drastic and tragic challenges.
=========================================

Techniques but not beliefs?

I think you're trying too hard to be unlike people of other faiths.


=======================================
It helps a lot to separate belief and thought from knowledge and awareness of what is happening in the present moment, as it happens.

I have been able to withstand physical pain from the aftermath of serious surgery and even a gall bladder attack, without using drugs, only the power of my mind. One can train one's self to quell the fear and accept pain and whatever else reality is without denial, without hiding behind beliefs or faiths.
==========================================

So you believe. And maybe you did. I said that the Buddhists had various techniques. You hooted that down as "stereotypical crap".

Seems you agree now.

"I learned many of the basic techniques ..."

Anyway your techniques are based also on beliefs. Sorry. I'll go further. Some of those beliefs and techniques may have a strong element of truth in them.

There is such a thing as psychycical power of the mind. There are many many science of the soul, science of the mind techniques to tap into the latent power of the human soul.

Usually, some amount of something true has the effect of attracting millions of adherents. In the East it may be called Buddhism. In the West they may refer to it as "Christian Science".

What was your koan for today visted ?

Originally posted by Scriabin
Buddhism is not a religion in the sense in which that word is commonly understood...

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Source...?

Originally posted by Scriabin
Well, a lot of different ones, actually. Why not look at these: [blah blah blah]

What an odd - but perhaps revealling - little lie. "A lot of different sources", eh? It is in fact an unattributed word for word cut and paste from http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell03.htm, cribbed by another plagiarist blogger at http://anilpuapananda.wordpress.com/ and probably others. This is not the first time Scriabin has tried to pass off someone else's writing as his own and posted it on these Forums. One wonders why he does it?

That aside, I personally found Buddhism fascinating to delve into when I was at university but less relevant as I grew older.

Originally posted by FMF
What an odd - but perhaps revealling - little lie. "A lot of different sources", eh? It is in fact an unattributed word for word cut and paste from http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell03.htm, cribbed by another plagiarist blogger at http://anilpuapananda.wordpress.com/ and probably others. This is not the first time Scriabin has tried to pass off someone else's wr ...[text shortened]... uddhism fascinating to delve into when I was at university but less relevant as I grew older.

Just keep up walking till there are no footrpints for you to follow, then feel free to enjoy the journey😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Just keep up walking till there are no footrpints for you to follow, then feel free to enjoy the journey😵

Thnx for replying something to that. How sweet you posters are...truly make my day.
😉

Originally posted by black beetle
Just keep up walking till there are no footrpints for you to follow, then feel free to enjoy the journey

Yes. As I said I personally found dabbling in Buddhism excellent when I was at university and everything around me and inside me was changing, as it does. But then less relevant after that as the sense of oneself sets (relatively speaking) and -isms lose their traction.

However, I would still credit it as being an influence. A formative influence perhaps.

Originally posted by FMF
Yes. As I said I personally found dabbling in Buddhism excellent when I was at university and everything around me and inside me was changing, as it does. But then less relevant after that as the sense of oneself sets (relatively speaking) and -isms lose their traction.

However, I would still credit it as being an influence. A formative influence perhaps.

-isms stink, sure thing; however a strong Irish would anyway do😵

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Clearly Scriabins origonal blurb on bhuddism sought to highlight the differences between bhuddist thought and fundamentalist christian thought. His points were well made even if they were somewhat exclusive.
As for myself i see bhuddism neither as a religion or a theology. I see it as more of a system of psycology. A complete system unlike Freud.

===========================
Clearly Scriabins origonal blurb on bhuddism sought to highlight the differences between bhuddist thought and fundamentalist christian thought. His points were well made even if they were somewhat exclusive.
=====================================

Really?

What were these differences that he highlighted ?

Techniques without beliefs?
No allegiance to an authoritative person?

You can't run wild in a Buddhist monastary anymore than you can do whatever you want in the Navy.

I am not saying there are no differences. I say I really didn't see him point out any.

One exception perhaps - stirring up power of the mind to overcome pain. But then again healing by grace and faith healing run close to such concepts.

In other words what your mind is doing has a great deal to do with how you feel. That is not a unique concept only to Buddhism.

"And do not be fashioned according to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of the mind that you may prove what the will of God is ..." (Romans 12:2)

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Thnx for replying something to that. How sweet you posters are...truly make my day.
😉

😵