Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
As wise and interesting as these paths are they will not lead to the permanent cessation of suffering and liberation.
Mmm, i believe that what we 'think' becomes our reality.. Therefore if you believe those paths wont lead to permanent cessation of suffering then you are right (HOWEVER you shouldnt talk for others, there are many paths up the same mountain remember.
What doesnt work for you, may indeed work for another!
There is no ONE and only scientific path which leads to enlightenment! I honestly believe there could be many!
I thought happiness did not belong to us and it was ever changing between happiness, unhappiness, not noticing, and non-dual. And perhaps there are more categories.
On topic:
Advaita has some dear teachers for me such as Mooji and Gangaji. I think exposure to these ideas can encourage someone somehow. Each teacher is different and during a given teachers life often they give different teachings at different times.
For myself I have detected differences among traditions. I feel better about that topsy turvy anxiety of 'who is right' now that I am committed to my guru and the dharma she expounds. But that is just my experience.
Why is it that dharma is flagged as a spelling error?
The path of philosophy, the path of the warrior (like Castanedas shamanism), Druidism, idk ... Words are interesting. Like, if you replace the word 'path' with 'philosophy' then it sounds a bit odd to say you should only stick to one philosophy because to stick to one philosophy is to not do philosophy.
Also, is a path defined by who created it, or by what it teaches? Like, could stoicism be considered a form of Buddhism since it teaches the importance of dispassion and righteousness? Or vice versa, could the Buddha be considered a stoic?
If I read a bunch of different books by different philosophers about righteousness, and they all help me understand what righteousness is and I try and practice what I learn, I am not a dabbler.
If I read a bunch of different books by different philosophers about righteousness, and they all help me understand what righteousness is and I try and practice what I learn, I am not a dabbler.
Well said. Keep on the path. Righteous for example does not mean 'self righteous'. It is right action.
In order to find any water in Alchemy, I had to dig very deep. They are one of the paths that dig upwards or when striking oil, start drinking. Very strange and convoluted, mostly crazy. However as a veiled form of mystic expression it is quite universal and alchemy can be found in Buddhism.
In Christianity even their contemplative branch have difficulties and sometimes approach Buddhism to learn meditation . . .
Buddhism has the tools. Right on the surface. Right from the start. Meditation. The Bore Whole.
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Whether you think its better or dont think its better, you're right!!!!
Whatever works for you!
"Take what is useful , reject what is useless.."
(I personally love buddhism AND tao , so i mixed them up and found Zen Buddhism) :-)
That's kind of how my journey and practice began except that if the labels were dropped, a bit of Hinduism is there too.
In a way, my way is the way of all ways... Not that it is any better than any other way but that it sees all ways as valid on some level.
I'm a bit of an agnostic, omni-theistic Buddhist with no clear sect.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Any recommendations? Insights? . . . or should we as I was once advised: 'find a well and drink deeply'?
I practised tai chi for many years... This sums my personal truth up (wikipedia) :
The Vinegar Tasters (三酸圖, three sours; 嘗醋翁, vinegar tasting old-men; 嘗醋圖, 尝醋图), is a traditional subject in Chinese religious painting. The allegorical composition depicts the three founders of China's major religious and philosophical traditions: Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism. The theme in the painting has been interpreted as favoring Taoism and critical of the others. The three men are dipping their fingers in a vat of vinegar and tasting it; one man reacts with a sour expression, one reacts with a bitter expression, and one reacts with a sweet expression. The three men are Confucius, Buddha, and Laozi, respectively. Each man's expression represents the predominant attitude of his religion: Confucianism saw life as sour, in need of rules to correct the degeneration of people; Buddhism saw life as bitter, dominated by pain and suffering; and Taoism saw life as fundamentally good in its natural state. Another interpretation of the painting is that, since the three men are gathered around one vat of vinegar, the "three teachings" are one.
You just need to find what makes you happy. Everyday, when I learn something new about Buddhism, or when i meditate, that is something for me. Im feeling better and happier !
“The first lesson to learn is to resign oneself to the little difficulties in life, not to hit out at everything one comes up against. If one were able to manage this one would not need to cultivate great power; even one's presence would be healing.” ― Boddhisatvah Hazrat Inayat Khan
“When you realise the difference between the container and the content, you will have knowledge” Idries Shah, The Book of the Book
Everyone in the ordinary world is asleep. Their religion - the religion of the familiar world - is emptiness, not religion at all Sanai
At a certain point on ones path one realizes that there is no such thing as Buddhism. And this can be really bothersome but at the same time we start to see the commonality between all religious thought. There is the external forms but really what we are examining is the esoteric, experiential, tested and tried methods of transforming a suffering human being into a human being that knows the depths of suffering and its release. The outflow of this is love and freedom.
There is one thing better than Buddhism. It is a wide open heart and responds accordingly to the needs of those around.
Taiyaki, I totally agree with you regarding the Buddhist seeing the commonality between all religions. The opposite of that statement is not true. There really is a thing such as Buddhism.
@ Lobster. What you are really saying is that the Buddhist experience and the Sufi experience is identical for you and you have this experience by different means. An really are these experiences identical?
At a certain point on ones path one realizes that there is no such thing as Buddhism. And this can be really bothersome but at the same time we start to see the commonality between all religious thought. There is the external forms but really what we are examining is the esoteric, experiential, tested and tried methods of transforming a suffering human being into a human being that knows the depths of suffering and its release. The outflow of this is love and freedom. There is one thing better than Buddhism. It is a wide open heart and responds accordingly to the needs of those around.
@taiyaki I think that an ever widening heart that teaches other hearts how to similarly unfold, is a pretty good description of the Buddha. Buddhism, with varying degrees of success, is just the momentum of that intent.
Because of this, your description of what is better than Buddhism reminds me of a snake swallowing it's own tail.
@taiyaki I think that an ever widening heart that teaches other hearts how to similarly unfold, is a pretty good description of the Buddha. Buddhism, with varying degrees of success, is just the momentum of that intent.
Because of this, your description of what is better than Buddhism reminds me of a snake swallowing it's own tail.
Uroborus, the eternal serpent, or its Buddhist equivalent the endless knot represents the Mahayana ideal of the heart unfolding like a self perpetuating eternal lotus.
The Dalai Lama in a poignant moment described Buddhism as 'a matter of the Mind' and he pointed to his Heart. This meeting ground where the Heart Centred mystics find their minds have changed about Cod and other superficial fishy fabrications . . . is somewhere on this scaled serpent . . .
As mama Lobsters teach their krill, one day fish feed one day fish food be kind to the fish
Comments
Whatever works for you!
"Take what is useful , reject what is useless.."
(I personally love buddhism AND tao , so i mixed them up and found Zen Buddhism) :-)
What doesnt work for you, may indeed work for another!
There is no ONE and only scientific path which leads to enlightenment! I honestly believe there could be many!
(If we are regarding the water as happiness, or the path or tao, then its RIGHT HERE)
No need to dig any holes..
On topic:
Advaita has some dear teachers for me such as Mooji and Gangaji. I think exposure to these ideas can encourage someone somehow. Each teacher is different and during a given teachers life often they give different teachings at different times.
For myself I have detected differences among traditions. I feel better about that topsy turvy anxiety of 'who is right' now that I am committed to my guru and the dharma she expounds. But that is just my experience.
Why is it that dharma is flagged as a spelling error?
...
Words are interesting. Like, if you replace the word 'path' with 'philosophy' then it sounds a bit odd to say you should only stick to one philosophy because to stick to one philosophy is to not do philosophy.
Also, is a path defined by who created it, or by what it teaches? Like, could stoicism be considered a form of Buddhism since it teaches the importance of dispassion and righteousness? Or vice versa, could the Buddha be considered a stoic?
If I read a bunch of different books by different philosophers about righteousness, and they all help me understand what righteousness is and I try and practice what I learn, I am not a dabbler.
http://www.pbase.com/1heart
In order to find any water in Alchemy, I had to dig very deep. They are one of the paths that dig upwards or when striking oil, start drinking. Very strange and convoluted, mostly crazy. However as a veiled form of mystic expression it is quite universal and alchemy can be found in Buddhism.
In Christianity even their contemplative branch have difficulties and sometimes approach Buddhism to learn meditation . . .
Buddhism has the tools. Right on the surface. Right from the start. Meditation.
The Bore Whole.
In a way, my way is the way of all ways... Not that it is any better than any other way but that it sees all ways as valid on some level.
I'm a bit of an agnostic, omni-theistic Buddhist with no clear sect.
These days increasingly, some are digging deep in many places.
And now back to the quenching.
:wave:
:wave:
Much like Buddhism.
:rolleyes:
This sums my personal truth up (wikipedia) :
The Vinegar Tasters (三酸圖, three sours; 嘗醋翁, vinegar tasting old-men; 嘗醋圖, 尝醋图), is a traditional subject in Chinese religious painting. The allegorical composition depicts the three founders of China's major religious and philosophical traditions: Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism. The theme in the painting has been interpreted as favoring Taoism and critical of the others.
The three men are dipping their fingers in a vat of vinegar and tasting it; one man reacts with a sour expression, one reacts with a bitter expression, and one reacts with a sweet expression. The three men are Confucius, Buddha, and Laozi, respectively. Each man's expression represents the predominant attitude of his religion: Confucianism saw life as sour, in need of rules to correct the degeneration of people; Buddhism saw life as bitter, dominated by pain and suffering; and Taoism saw life as fundamentally good in its natural state. Another interpretation of the painting is that, since the three men are gathered around one vat of vinegar, the "three teachings" are one.
http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/study/islam/general/relation_between_buddhism_sufism.html
“The first lesson to learn is to resign oneself to the little difficulties in life, not to hit out at everything one comes up against. If one were able to manage this one would not need to cultivate great power; even one's presence would be healing.”
― Boddhisatvah Hazrat Inayat Khan
“When you realise the difference between the container and the content, you will have knowledge”
Idries Shah, The Book of the Book
Everyone in the ordinary world is asleep. Their religion - the religion of the familiar world - is emptiness, not religion at all
Sanai
and now back to the practicing . . .
:wave:
the teaching of Gotamo Buddho is leading out of the circles of reincarnation.
sakko
You say this. "In experiential essence identical, in form and methodology very different. "
Can you please explain this in your own words?
There is one thing better than Buddhism. It is a wide open heart and responds accordingly to the needs of those around.
@ Lobster. What you are really saying is that the Buddhist experience and the Sufi experience is identical for you and you have this experience by different means. An really are these experiences identical?
I think that an ever widening heart that teaches other hearts how to similarly unfold, is a pretty good description of the Buddha.
Buddhism, with varying degrees of success, is just the momentum of that intent.
Because of this, your description of what is better than Buddhism reminds me of a snake swallowing it's
own
tail.
The Dalai Lama in a poignant moment described Buddhism as 'a matter of the Mind' and he pointed to his Heart. This meeting ground where the Heart Centred mystics find their minds have changed about Cod and other superficial fishy fabrications . . . is somewhere on this scaled serpent . . .
As mama Lobsters teach their krill,
one day fish feed
one day fish food
be kind to the fish
:wave: