I'm too tired (poem)
Tsultrim
Hawaii Veteran
I'm too tired to write now,
But that gives me something to write about!
Even the universe gets tired i'm told, well at least entropic
And as it entropies (no such word, return to sender)
One wonders what will happen to us and the tropic birds.
It'll be a hot time in the old town for sure.
And what will happen to enlightenment with no one to experience it?
Not to worry Dear Reader, it will be fine "öf that i know,""
Since like god it has always been and always will be
Although, just between us, i'm a bit worried about god.
She's a dualistic type, if you follow me, and without worshipers she could be in trouble.
On the other hand, seeing without a seer, self existing awareness and imperishable emptiness
Will be just fine, thank you very much, although no one will know of them
(actually just like it is now, come to think of it"').
Still "No one will know"" makes me sad , doesn't it you Dear Reader?
Of course, there could always be someone out there way too smart to contact us.
Philosophy, astronomy and physics aren't strong points of mine, so maybe i'm just full of starstuff.
But i've had some intimations from nowhere about nothing and they "tell me so"
(Even nothingness has to cover its ass now and then) ( that don't sound like no nothingness to me, boy).
In any case, if there was nothing to experience enlightenment, along with trees, mountains and horses, what a tragedy it would be, a small one granted, with billions of strars in our galaxy and billions of galaxies, but a tragedy nevertheless.
WELL DON'T LET IT GET YA DOWN, PUT A SMILE ON YOUR FACE, A SHINE ON YOUR SHOES AND WHISTLE A HAPPY TUNE!
I talked to an astronomer yesterday elated about all that had been found in his lifetime and i agreed.
He didn't seem too worried in general and he thinks about billions of billions.
Maybe Deus ex Machina will save us and we can still be enlightenment just like the old days.
In that case, let's say a little prayer to god now and then just to keep her going.
Comments
Stimulating...
Ricky Gervais ( who is very funny, but not always popular) was arguing the Atheist corner, and he stated (I'm paraphrasing) that 'if you were to remove every - single - vestige, of every - single - thing that is written, on God or gods, and eradicated all signs, all literature, all physical evidence, and any manifestation of any belief in a God or Gods - in 250 years, nobody would notice. Nothing would be revived.
If you were to do the same to the Science corner (astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology) in 250 years, it would all come back. Because people are curious, people want to know, and if there is an answer, people want it, and will find it.
This is why currently, Theological religion is in a gradual nosedive....
And on that, I shall say no more, because the topic is your prose, not my response.
They talk about multiple universes now, as if one isn't enough to comprehend. Who cares , emptiness inseparable from awareness can handle it, which is actually the basis of vajra (indestructable) in the word Vajrayana. I wonder why I'm telling you this. Do you practice Vajrayana?. No need to answer. Thanks for the note, federica.
I think @federica’s note on science coming back if it’s eliminated because it’s essentially driven by curiosity about the real world is very telling. It’s just a shame it took many thousands of years for the scientific method to be discovered... the pace of human invention is not so quick, the steam train to the smartphone still took over 200 years.
Religion’s attempt to explain the world has been superseded by science, and people only see a need to return to it to cover the invisible world of spirit. I don’t think we need multiple universes, we do need a better scientific explanation for the inner world and the afterlife.
Nice poem Tsultrim
Hi Kerome. Are you considering Buddhism a religion? If so, most religions believe in things, god a lot of times. Certainly, there is belief in Buddhism for a while until belief turns to the actual experience of Buddhism (without an experiencer) and the true nature of mind and reality(they are the same at that point) is revealed. So essentially Buddhism is an experience based, not a belief based, system that does not recognize any other, including god, and therefore to me does not fulfill the criteria for a religion,
Buddhism has not been superseded by science. Incidentally, I think of science as a study of the physical world and Buddhism as a study of mind.The discoveries about mind's true nature have not changed since Buddha's time. Why mind has that nature may be approached through neurotransmitters etc, but there is something about mind that must be factored in first: it does not feel like it's ours, which is why such terms as self existing awareness are used. Mind feels like it is everywhere and that we are simply its receiver, like an antenna for a radio signal. When we die the antenna dies but the signal continues, hence reincarnation and such.
So, when we study mind or our inner world ( at some point inner and outer no longer apply) we may be learning through science only what receives mind and not about mind itself. So science may be at a loss concerning mind.
As for the afterlife, i haven't experienced it, so i'm not comfortable rendering any opinions. Thanks for your comment about the poem.
No, I don’t really consider Buddhism a religion, I think it’s more of a way of life. When I think of religions I think of Christianity, Judaism and so on. Apologies for being unclear, but Buddhism is an exception among world religions in so many ways.
I’d agree that Buddhism and science exist very neatly alongside one another.
I think, for my part, many Buddhist Monks and Nuns consider Buddhism to be their religion. Religion doesn't need a God; it requires dedication, devotion, personal sacrifice, (to a lesser or greater degree) and constance. The word 'Religion' stems from the Latin root religare , to bind, to tie.... we bind ourselves to our practice, our dedication and we commit ourselves to following our chosen path. Buddhism IS a religion, without question. And no God comes into it, to complicate it in any way.
To discrete it from this definition renders it as much a pastime as reading Jung, Freud, Sartre and other more modern-day psychological tomes (many of them, new-age mumbo-jumbo, if you'd like my opinion, FWIW....)
Perhaps... for me, Buddhism is all about insight, ehi passiko. It unfolds in a largely effortless fashion as you see deeper into it, and it has its effect on you as you let it permeate your deeper self.
If I were to bind or tie myself to it, it becomes a form of violence that I do to myself. My dedication is to the insight, and to the process of letting go, and those will carry me along the path. For me Buddhism is a guide to be followed, not an iron set of dictats that I need to commit to.
That doesn't contradict what I wrote...
Yes.... and....?
The word 'religion' is under discussion here. I'm merely defining it to differentiate the Religion of Buddhism, from a Theistic religion. The word's root has its meaning. What you do with it, is up to you. Whenever you dedicate yourself to a specific course of action, and you prefer that course of action to other options available to you, you bind yourself to that opinion. What you think, say and do, represents your dedication to your opinion.
You are tied to Buddhism, whether you choose the semantics or not.
So you are bound by those ethics. You see? Semantics.
And so say all of us. I don't think anyone is arguing against that. Your perception of the word 'religion' and its meaning, is both revealing and possibly troublesome...