Theology of Weather.

[CG]

I disagree, but that's just me, the concept of a priori has it's place in my life when I observe animals such as birds knowing how to build nests before they actually experience building nests. When I observe bees evolve as necessary to become a queen, when all bees are born knowing "the waggling dance"- I guess this is one of those concepts we may have to agree to disagree on.
You are talking here about instinct. At one time it was believed that animals acted on pure instinct. We are coming to believe that instinct, although there, does not play as big a part as first thought. For example, it was believed that Ducks flew South for the winter, by instinct. Yet, several cases have shown that wild baby Ducks, raised by humans and deprived of the company of older, wild ducks, show no sign of wanting to fly south - even when they see other Ducks flighting overhead. Young Ducks have to be shown, but older Ducks not only the way to go but when to go. It is a learned action. I wonder how many other actions are not instinct, but learned.


So would it be fair to say then, that you adopt/welcome precepts and principles of Buddhism that you can accept for right now; and leave yourself open in states of meditation to receive the ability to accept the precepts and principles you can't accept right now? Is it a matter of CAN NOT accept...or WILL NOT accept?
It is a case of cannot, at this time. In Buddhism one is not required to accept everything, lock, stock and barrel - right away - in order to be a Buddhist. In fact it is possible to accept very little of the teachings and still benefit from, for example, Buddhist meditations.

The Buddhist life is one of growing. Some grow quicker than others but they can claim to be Buddhist even if they are having trouble with some doctrines. Sometimes these "troubles" last a lifetime, sometimes they are resolved quickly. Yet, there is no "guilt" in Buddhism for those having these troubles. I know that in the Christian faith that might be blasphemy! A Christian is required to believe a number of doctrines, and to swear allegiance to them at the time of confirmation. Yet, a person can become a Buddhist by simply saying he is, even with all his doubts. Buddhism is an introspective religion - and you can't fool the self into belief. If you don't believe, you don't believe. But it is wise to "work" on those un-beliefs.


...Well CG, maybe it is doubtful - that's understandable. For me, it is not, I'll explain why. The Two trees planted in Eden for Edom and Hawwah to eat from were two schools of thought. For all intents and purposes, let's suppose that The Tree of Life is YAHWEH, and all that They are. And the other tree, let's suppose that this is the tree of Alternate States of Consciousness and Perception, sponsored by Lucifer. Pretty much the same role he played in the Vulgate's account of Job.
Let's supposed that the ONLY way he could get Edom and Hawwah to try the fruit of this tree, was to trick them. Let's suppose that with the bliss-blinders on they couldn't see the deception clearly for what it was- bear in mind that they were created a posteri and were never deceived before.
They ate from The Tree of Life and only the Tree of Life, they were welcome to eat from any other tree within Eden or without, except Lucifer's OR they would "die."
Well, you can't have both- either you continue on eating from one tree, or you eat from the other. They were tricked into eating the other tree, and they have not been able to return their consciousness BACK to it's original state. This is why EVEN now it appears that what Lucifer said was true, "You will not die, but you will change." But understand this was taken out of context.
This IS the initial meaning of the word "death" to change. YAHWEH created everything as They would've liked it. Dependant upon Them for sustenance. For that in any way to change would mean what? Death. Lucifer gave them a different definition for "death", "then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." So imagine how Edom and Hawwah must've felt, when they felt themselves falling away from that state of bliss. They were no longer humans operating within the capacity within which they were supposed to...being exsiting and basking in righteousness and knowing what their purpose was. They were now humans, who were now suddenly aware of the Darkness's propensity for deception and chaos. They were now aware that animals could be destroyed, all the ways the "wand" and "vesica/aureole" could be abused. All they had ever known was ORDER, now, they knew Chaos. They ceased to exist as they previously had. They changed. They died.
YAHWEH didn't need to "check" for propensity of evil or chaos, it was always there. This is where we were from, earth, sky, sun, moon, stars...And I afford this much to The Freemasons, at the very least they got that right -"Order out of Chaos" was how it began, but what upsets me, is the way they subtely go about bringing "Chaos out of Order."
Sometimes you seem to take Christianity as actual, as it was written, history and sometimes as metaphor. You seem to suggest here that the Garden story is metaphor. You seem to be saying that the tress were not actually trees, but Adam and Eve's feeling were actual. Is this so?


Or they would plead "entrapment" or "guilty" depending on whether they want to blame others or themselves for their mistake. You omitted those options. And this be the problem, the things you cannot see, the things you are not willing to accept, and the things you cannot accept may very well be the things you are not meant to know, accept, experience and understand in THIS life. You have been given free will to be exercised within parameters. You can go right ahead and blame others or yourself for that.
Those parameters include, situations, lifetimes, diverse processes and conditions. Some may argue that, "Then that's not free will, is it?"
No, it is not.


But when you spend the night at a married man's house, and he tells you make yourself at home, does that mean he wants you to sex his wife?
Now, you may be in bliss under that man's roof -ignorant and indifferent to the cold and hardship outside, BUT it is YOUR responsibility to KNOW what "Make yourself at home" means, because if you don't and you exercise your free will to sex his wife...you will EXPERIENCE what it means. And if you do that at the house of ANY man I know...you will be taught, and you will "change" and you will have a new "home."
In theory, if one were stronger that the man one could exercise one's free will and take her, as King David did. Yet, one of the "growing things" we do is to understand that free will is not licence. We are subject to the laws and customs of the time and we, if we are wise, allow ourselves to be subject to those laws and customs even if we are strong enough to ignore them.
P.S. In some cultures the man's wife is part of "make yourself at home..." To refuse would be rude. (This used to happen in the Eskimo culture, I am not sure if it still does.)

[parietal_03]

You are talking here about instinct. At one time it was believed that animals acted on pure instinct. We are coming to believe that instinct, although there, does not play as big a part as first thought. For example, it was believed that Ducks flew South for the winter, by instinct. Yet, several cases have shown that wild baby Ducks, raised by humans and deprived of the company of older, wild ducks, show no sign of wanting to fly south - even when they see other Ducks flighting overhead. Young Ducks have to be shown, but older Ducks not only the way to go but when to go. It is a learned action. I wonder how many other actions are not instinct, but learned.
Instinct is knowledge a priori. Animals have this and the ability to learn and develop a posteriori (sorry about my misspelling in the above posts). Were they in the company of their own species I'm sure they'd do what this instinct required of them. You said they were raised by humans, were they fed by humans or did they have to forage for themselves? How big a role did human benevolence have to play in their adaptation to domestication?


It is a case of cannot, at this time. In Buddhism one is not required to accept everything, lock, stock and barrel - right away - in order to be a Buddhist. In fact it is possible to accept very little of the teachings and still benefit from, for example, Buddhist meditations.
"At this time." COOOOL. :tup:


The Buddhist life is one of growing. Some grow quicker than others but they can claim to be Buddhist even if they are having trouble with some doctrines. Sometimes these "troubles" last a lifetime, sometimes they are resolved quickly. Yet, there is no "guilt" in Buddhism for those having these troubles. I know that in the Christian faith that might be blasphemy!
In some sects and among certain circles that call themselves such. What Yeshua taught back then and teaches now is consonant to this.

A Christian is required to believe a number of doctrines, and to swear allegiance to them at the time of confirmation.
Like the thief on the cross, who joined Yeshua in Eden the very day they both died? That above seems more pertainent with Roman Catholicism and Terrorism.

Yet, a person can become a Buddhist by simply saying he is, even with all his doubts. Buddhism is an introspective religion - and you can't fool the self into belief. If you don't believe, you don't believe. But it is wise to "work" on those un-beliefs. Christ taught the VERY same thing. Be true to yourself, about yourself look objectively at all there is that you can see and bring about an inside-out change...via crucifying your Self and being born anew. In a nutshell, "Love what I was, am and will be - do likewise...and then love your neighbor as you love yourself." As far as judgement is concerned, you will be judged based on a system you yourself will choose by lifestyle. One of justice or mercy.



Sometimes you seem to take Christianity as actual, as it was written, history and sometimes as metaphor. You seem to suggest here that the Garden story is metaphor. You seem to be saying that the trees were not actually trees, but Adam and Eve's feeling were actual. Is this so?
Yes, for me they were not actual trees. The first Psalm gives a possible, more clearer insight to this matter.
"3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper."
Also in The Gospel according to Luke Chapter 3
"9 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire."
And especially The Gospel according to John Chapter 15
"1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener.
2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful."



When reading the Vulgate: this information was important to its translators in translating it, so it is necessary to understand when reading it.

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~hanly/chaucer/coursematerials/humours.html
Literal (historical)-what story actually says ("Litera gesta docet")
Typological (allegorical)-illustrates truths ("Allegoria quod credas")
Moral (tropological)-conversion of soul, what should be done ("Moralia quod agas")
Anagogical (eschatological)-deals with "4 last things (Heaven, Hell, Death & Judgment)," eternity ("Quo tendas anagogica")
for example: Exodus read on the 4 levels would include
The actual crossing of the Red Sea by the Hebrews
reading the Hebrews as a "type" of the soul redeemed by Christ
reading the crossing of the sea as a lesson: that humans are all sinful and must leave wicked habits and cross over to God, with His help
reading the whole passage as illustrative of the way God's universe is ordered, all leading out of evil and upward into Heaven




No, it is not.
Then levitate and walk on water CG. Your free will, is limited by your capacity. That is a parameter. You have the free will to attempt, but you will not accomplish the attempt if your will goes beyond the parameter of your capacity. Even if you have license, your will is still limited by your capacity. Look at some Bahamian drivers as an example. Just because they have a Driver's License doesn't mean they are good drivers does it? Matter of fact and concern, I have a Bah DL and my wife'll tell you, 'Don't let Omar drive stick-shift if you ain't at peace with yourself.'



In theory, if one were stronger than the man one could exercise one's free will and take her, as King David did.
Stronger...in theory and successful in the practical. The proof is in the practical. LOL "Remington Wingmaster 870 12 Gauge."

Yet, one of the "growing things" we do is to understand that free will is not licence. We are subject to the laws and customs of the time and we, if we are wise, allow ourselves to be subject to those laws and customs even if we are strong enough to ignore them.
Exactly, like gravity, but only until we find a way to move from capability to capability - from capacity to capacity. For example, in order for pilots to obtain a license, they must first prove their what? Capacity and capability. License is not necessary, it is an optional code we consider mandatory and at best it is something we obtain after establishing capacity and capability for public approval.

P.S. In some cultures the man's wife is part of "make yourself at home..." To refuse would be rude. (This used to happen in the Eskimo culture, I am not sure if it still does.)
LOL, I should've been more specific as to which cultures this scenario would naturally by applied in then, my apologies...this would not be applicable in a Chukchee/Luoravetlan Society. Even so, I'll post it again, "BUT it is YOUR responsibility to KNOW what "Make yourself at home" means, because if you don't and you exercise your free will to sex his wife (or not)...you will EXPERIENCE what it means."

[CG]

Instinct is knowledge a priori. Animals have this and the ability to learn and develop a posteriori (sorry about my misspelling in the above posts). Were they in the company of their own species I'm sure they'd do what this instinct required of them. You said they were raised by humans, were they fed by humans or did they have to forage for themselves? How big a role did human benevolence have to play in their adaptation to domestication?
Quite a bit I should think! But that is my point. If animals were "hard wired" for instinct, no amount of human intervention would work.


Like the thief on the cross, who joined Yeshua in Eden the very day they both died? That above seems more pertainent with Roman Catholicism and Terrorism.
Try belonging to a Christian group and publically doubting the Trinity, or the need for Baptism, or even the Divinity of Christ! Remember the Creed? "I believe in God the Father all mighty......" One must believe it. Christianity is a Creedal religion.

Re: the thief on the cross. As I remember my Greek, when the New Testament was written there were no punctuation marks at all! Words were run together with no punctuation. Our full stops, etc were added later, much later. It indeed can change the meaning of a sentence. (Look at the punctuation) "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." or was it "I tell you the truth today. You will be with me in paradise." There are some Christian groups that teach that only on the last day will heaven be opened, others state that one goes to heaven right away. One had better make sure he has his doctrine straight so that it fits the right Church and says the right Creed!


Yes, for me they were not actual trees. The first Psalm gives a possible, more clearer insight to this matter.
"3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper."
Also in The Gospel according to Luke Chapter 3
"9 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire."
And especially The Gospel according to John Chapter 15
"1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener.
2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful."
Here, you and I agree. The Bible is metaphor. When it is read as such it become much clearer. But when it is read as a set, true history, one can run into problems.


Then levitate and walk on water CG. Your free will, is limited by your capacity. That is a parameter. You have the free will to attempt, but you will not accomplish the attempt if your will goes beyond the parameter of your capacity. Even if you have license, your will is still limited by your capacity. Look at some Bahamian drivers as an example. Just because they have a Driver's License doesn't mean they are good drivers does it? Matter of fact and concern, I have a Bah DL and my wife'll tell you, 'Don't let Omar drive stick-shift if you ain't at peace with yourself.'
Exactly, like gravity, but only until we find a way to move from capability to capability - from capacity to capacity. For example, in order for pilots to obtain a license, they must first prove their what? Capacity and capability. License is not necessary, it is an optional code we consider mandatory and at best it is something we obtain after establishing capacity and capability for public approval.
When I used the word "licence" I meant it as, lack of due restraint. Restraint and free will must go hand in hand in a civilized person.

As for walking on water. I'll leave that to people like The Buddha and Christ and the others who in metaphorical stories used that image to show that they were above change (water often means change, or a symbol for it) or that they were the masters of the elements.

As for levitation. I have heard that some Buddhist and Hindu monks can. Never seen it myself. Anyhow, walking on water or levitation does not show fee will, free will means one has the ability to choose between two, or more things. One might fail at one or more of them, but one is free to try! But I do agree that we can fail in things because of our self imposed, or other people's, limitations. For example "Man can't fly!" No he cannot if one sees flying only as a thing birds do. But man did fly when he put his mind to it and invented an airplane.

[parietal_03]

Quite a bit I should think! But that is my point. If animals were "hard wired" for instinct, no amount of human intervention would work. They are also "hard wired" to adapt as necessary. Someone, I cannot for the life of me remember their name, proposed a thesis, somewhat along the lines of "The universe (or nature) will always perpetuate itself by using the least amount of energy possible." I think I might agree with that someone.



Try belonging to a Christian group and publically doubting the Trinity, or the need for Baptism, or even the Divinity of Christ! Remember the Creed? "I believe in God the Father all mighty......" One must believe it. Christianity is a Creedal religion. Anything in the vein of the Roman Catholic brand of "Christianity" is in many ways different from what Christ taught. I judge and gauge Christianity by Christ alone, so these creeds mean little or nothing to me in terms of relevance. I go by the judgement Christ will give, not the judgements or respective beliefs-given-licence by men. If you asked me to repeat the Nicean Creed or the Apostle's Creed, I'd have to go look it up on the internet.


Re: the thief on the cross. As I remember my Greek, when the New Testament was written there were no punctuation marks at all! Words were run together with no punctuation. Our full stops, etc were added later, much later. It indeed can change the meaning of a sentence. (Look at the punctuation) "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." or was it "I tell you the truth today. You will be with me in paradise."
True, books written in Greek (and their translations) can be faulty which is why I go by way of Ruach HaKodesh. Which leads me to believe that if YAHWEH could comfortably receive Enoch and Elijah (who I'm pretty sure swore to none of the modern creeds, weren't baptized BUT did the best they could with what was given to them [Parable Of The Talents]) They could do it to anyone they chose.


There are some Christian groups that teach that only on the last day will heaven be opened, others state that one goes to heaven right away. One had better make sure he has his doctrine straight so that it fits the right Church and says the right Creed! Again, mankind's diverse creeds applied to the Will/Way of YAHWEH mean little or nothing to me. That has to do with those who are members of denominations.



As for levitation. I have heard that some Buddhist and Hindu monks can. Never seen it myself. Anyhow, walking on water or levitation does not show free will, free will means one has the ability to choose between two, or more things.
It does if you choose to do so and you have the capacity to, just as those that walk on hot coals, or those that have concrete blocks broken on their stomach while lying on beds of nails, or those that can snatch arrows shot at them in mid-flight, or those that can headbutt 17 planks of oak in two at one time. To pursue these disciplines requires free will, to study the theory and be successful in the practicals requires discipline and free will. To keep doing it requires free will. When putting yourself in a trance, first and foremost free will is required.

[CG]

Anything in the vein of the Roman Catholic brand of "Christianity" is in many ways different from what Christ taught. I judge and gauge Christianity by Christ alone, so these creeds mean little or nothing to me in terms of relevance. I go by the judgement Christ will give, not the judgements or respective beliefs-given-licence by men. If you asked me to repeat the Nicean Creed or the Apostle's Creed, I'd have to go look it up on the internet.

Again, mankind's diverse creeds applied to the Will/Way of YAHWEH mean little or nothing to me. That has to do with those who are members of denominations.
I think you might be in the blessed minority here!


It does if you choose to do so and you have the capacity to, just as those that walk on hot coals, or those that have concrete blocks broken on their stomach while lying on beds of nails, or those that can snatch arrows shot at them in mid-flight, or those that can headbutt 17 planks of oak in two at one time. To pursue these disciplines requires free will, to study the theory and be successful in the practicals requires discipline and free will. To keep doing it requires free will. When putting yourself in a trance, first and foremost free will is required.

As I understand it Free-will is, the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies. Or, something done of ones own accord. In that sense one chooses to learn the skills you mentioned. The only thing that keeps one doing it is a continued interest it that activity. At the same time, one has the free-will to stop at anytime one wishes. That is the only part free-will plays. If it is something that drives one to learn or continue, then it is not fully free-will.

[parietal_03]

The only thing that keeps one doing it is a continued interest it that activity. At the same time, one has the free-will to stop at anytime one wishes. That is the only part free-will plays. If it is something that drives one to learn or continue, then it is not fully free-will.


Possibly, but "drive" is more often than not acquired, isn't it? And yet another koan: the "giving in"/forfeiture of total free will to accomodate a desire/habit/addiction requires the use of free will...Much like the ducks chose to adapt to their enviroment of human benevolence as opposed to perpetual plans of escape...A box within a box.

Eheh..."The blessed minority."

[parietal_03]

Hey Vicki, I was just reviewing this thread and I wanted to say thank you for your concern about my wife. forgive me for taking so long to say that, but I must've missed your post in my zeal. Again I apologize and say thank you. By the way, how're you holding up?

And CG, "How do you touch the tip of your finger with the same finger?" I was watching this special on Physics the other day and they said that there are about 11 dimensions in this plane of existence. They said you can eat an orange from the inside out in the sixth dimension. I'm gonna look into this and get back to you. LOL

[CG]

...And CG, "How do you touch the tip of your finger with the same finger?" ....
I'll give you the answer in a private email. I don't want to give away the answer in case there is anyone undergoing Zen training, it would spoil their understanding. May I assume you are not taking such training?

So, hold on to your hat! You are about to enter inscrutable Eastern logic! I'll send you that email to you soon, but right now I have a class to lead.

[bsmbahamas]

In Buddhism there is no higher power, no Deity, no one to appease, or please, or even to pray to. One awakes the Buddha Nature within by meditation and following the Four Noble Truths and the Eight Fold Path. Having said all that, I try to follow the above but I am one of those Buddhists (and there are some) who believe there is a God, but I do not see "him" as perhaps the Christian does. I see him as another kind of sentient being as much in the need of awakening as any being. (Though I would suppose him to be more awakened that us!)


Perhaps you have already answered this, but you follow/practice the Four Noble Truths and the Eight Fold Path and meditation. Did this just come to you one day? Weren't you instructed by a deity to do these things? Where did he get the instructions for the Four Noble Truths and the Eight Fold Path
and why do you meditate?

Buddha may not be looked as as a deity of higher power - but he did give you the template that he got from somewhere else. So in that sense you are not chanting or following him as your diety - but you are bound by and practice his teachings.

in other words you don't worship/follow/subscribe a diety as in a god, but you follow the texts/teachings left behind of an earthly diety i.e. all religions have paremeters which are given by a deity - whether a god or a man, whether alive or dead.

but you probably don't agree. look forward to your response, as buddhism is the only 'religion' I actually like, except for its passiveness.

still reading this thread, on page 2 - thought it was about weather. :D

[bsmbahamas]

I am not sure that his view is what the Bible says but I like it! I have seen a lot of good in the last few days. I have seen people helping people they don't even know. People have a concern for those on other islands in our chain - islands they hardly ever think about. They have sent help to those island folks.

People are asking each other how they faired in the storm, and it is not just an idle question that requires an "I'm cool!" They ask, listen and often embrace.

People have faced a common enemy, together. It is a shame that this feeling of closeness will not last. We will soon be back to "business as usual." But in the mean time I rejoice in it.


Indeed tradgedy and the onset of it when known often brings about much prayers and love. If everyone would just practice their religion toward mankind daily instead of in secret we would be following the second greatest commandment.

Matthew 22:35-39
Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

But the second is still subject to the first ... I like hurricane season for this very reason, cause when there is no tv to watch people start getting into little groups and you may get to know some of your neighbours. :D

[CG]

Perhaps you have already answered this, but you follow/practice the Four Noble Truths and the Eight Fold Path and meditation. Did this just come to you one day?
That is a hard question. I don't think it just "came to me." I had studied Buddhism, along with many other religions. At the time Buddhism was just that, another religion. But as I became more and more "disenchanted" (for want of a better word) with the Christian faith, I was drawn back to Buddhism. I spent two years in concentrated study, all the while still practicing my Christian faith, be it only in a limited manner. I still think of myself as a person with a major in Buddhism and a minor in Christianity.


Weren't you instructed by a deity to do these things?
That is also an interesting question! I believe there is a Deity - the Christians call him God, other faiths by other names but it is the same God. Did "he" instruct me? I cannot say.


Where did he get the instructions for the Four Noble Truths and the Eight Fold Path.
By he, I am sure you mean the Buddha. Here is the short story. He was a rich prince, dissatisfied with life and puzzled by death and suffering. He was by the way a Hindu. One day he gave up his rich life to go into the forest to meditate, hoping to find the answers to suffering and death. For seven years he meditated, hardly ate anything, but still found no answer. He was about to give up but he gave it one more try. He sat under a Fig tree and vowed not to get up until he had the answer. After seven days it came to him! All life IS suffering. If we cling to life, we will suffer. Give up the clinging, not just to life but to anything and suffering ends.


and why do you meditate?
I meditate because I have not reached the point where I can say, "Give up the clinging, not just to life but to anything and suffering ends." I still suffer, but not as badly as I used to! I have a feeling I (we) will always suffer, in one form or another. But my goal, as unattainable as it might seem, can be reached, theoretically. So far, I have come a long way in my understanding. I have a long way to go but the journey is most enjoyable.


Buddha may not be looked as as a deity of higher power - but he did give you the template that he got from somewhere else. So in that sense you are not chanting or following him as your diety - but you are bound by and practice his teachings.
As the Buddhist sees it, a deity is a creator, some being that is alive that can help one through life - a spiritual being of great power, wisdom and compassion. The Buddhist does not see such a being anywhere, or in some case they do but believe the deity is in as much need of Enlightenment as any human.
The Buddha got his "revelation" through meditation, it was his own discovery of something that was already there that have been suppressed by life and religions. In fact, some of the Buddhist stories say that the Gods (the Hindu ones I guess) were so impressed that they asked him to teach "for the enlightenment of all people and all the Gods."
As for being bound by his teachings. No Buddhist is bound by anything - it is one of the true religions of freedom. However, if one wants to get the benefit from Buddhism one binds oneself to the teachings. It is rather like this. If you get a new car but you are not bound to drive it. You can park in your yard and take a bus! But you are not getting the benefit of the car. The same hold true for Buddhism - why follow it if one is not prepared to follow it? Why get the car if you are not going to drive it? Try this site and listen, or download part 1 of "why Buddhism?" it might give you a better idea than I can give. www.thubtenchodron.org/OtherArticlesAudio/why_buddhism.html


in other words you don't worship/follow/subscribe a diety as in a god, but you follow the texts/teachings left behind of an earthly diety i.e. all religions have paremeters which are given by a deity - whether a god or a man, whether alive or dead.
We do not see Buddha as a deity. He was a man with no connections to a deity. The name we have been using, Buddha, simple means "the awakened one, the enlightened one." It is a title of respect, and here is a shocker to some! Any awakened being can be given that title, Buddha - in fact there have been many Buddhas, there are some now and there will be more. In fact all Buddhist should strive to become a Buddha. But THE Buddha is Siddhartha Gautama.


but you probably don't agree. look forward to your response, as buddhism is the only 'religion' I actually like, except for its passiveness.
Passiveness is not always a bad thing, and it does not mean a weakling. Some of the greatest Buddhist I have met are the Fighting Buddhists, skilled in the art of combat and war. Who have about them an feeling of peace that is illuminating.


still reading this thread, on page 2 - thought it was about weather
Perhaps it still is! The storms in our souls?

[CG]

Indeed tradgedy and the onset of it when known often brings about much prayers and love. If everyone would just practice their religion toward mankind daily instead of in secret we would be following the second greatest commandment.

Matthew 22:35-39
Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

But the second is still subject to the first ... I like hurricane season for this very reason, cause when there is no tv to watch people start getting into little groups and you may get to know some of your neighbours. :D

It is a shame we all can't unite except when we are faced with a common enemy. But then again we are face by a common enemy(s) suffering, fear, death, hunger, and many more. Perhaps we are so used to seeing them that we can't "see" them.

[parietal_03]

I'll give you the answer in a private email. I don't want to give away the answer in case there is anyone undergoing Zen training, it would spoil their understanding. May I assume you are not taking such training?

So, hold on to your hat! You are about to enter inscrutable Eastern logic! I'll send you that email to you soon, but right now I have a class to lead.


Nope, I had to cease study of Oriental Philosophy for a while, I had to focus on other modes and methods for the time being.
But I got your answer kind of reminds me of the process of "drinking Cha from an empty cup."
What I like about Eastern Philosophy is its ability to remain abstract, so every/anyone can come up with a different answer. But I'm going to have to admit I did enjoy your answer but I prefer Stephen Hawkings's.
M-Theory. Now THAT'D be interesting!

[CG]

Nope, I had to cease study of Oriental Philosophy for a while, I had to focus on other modes and methods for the time being.
But I got your answer kind of reminds me of the process of "drinking Cha from an empty cup."
What I like about Eastern Philosophy is its ability to remain abstract, so every/anyone can come up with a different answer. But I'm going to have to admit I did enjoy your answer but I prefer Stephen Hawkings's.
M-Theory. Now THAT'D be interesting!

Glad you liked my answer to you. I cant compete with Professor Hawkings. LOL :D

May I quickly point out something that I hope you understand? The study of Oriental Philosophy is different from the practice of Oriental Philosophy. I studied it, but when I went where those people live I found that most of what I had learned was either irrelevant or wrong! Are, or were you, studying in a class setting or on your own?

You wrote, "What I like about Eastern Philosophy is its ability to remain abstract, so every/anyone can come up with a different answer." Well, yes and no. Yes, in the sense that an abstract concept really has no right or wrong answer as long as the concept remains abstract. In the West we like to concretize things and make the abstract fact. Buddhism allows the abstract to remain so. Yet, an answer, if it is called for, must fall into some kind of parameter. Here is the story I sent you.
"Nan-in received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen. Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full and then kept on pouring.The professor watched the overflow until he could restrain himself no longer. "It is overfull. No more will go in!""Like this cup", Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"
Some might say the "moral" of that story is, don't overfill your guest's tea cup! But that is clearly not the right answer is it? The answer is about emptying not filling.

[parietal_03]

Glad you liked my answer to you. I cant compete with Professor Hawkings. LOL :D

May I quickly point out something that I hope you understand? The study of Oriental Philosophy is different from the practice of Oriental Philosophy. I studied it, but when I went where those people live I found that most of what I had learned was either irrelevant or wrong! Are, or were you, studying in a class setting or on your own?
I agree, I learned that the hard way. I was studying by myself, every now and then I would discuss my findings/discoveries with others, but I would always go back to plunging the depths by myself and seeing if I could come up with ways in which my findings/perceptions could be useful in some, none and/or all things.


You wrote, "What I like about Eastern Philosophy is its ability to remain abstract, so every/anyone can come up with a different answer." Well, yes and no.
Yes, in the sense that an abstract concept really has no right or wrong answer as long as the concept remains abstract. In the West we like to concretize things and make the abstract fact. Buddhism allows the abstract to remain so. Yet, an answer, if it is called for, must fall into some kind of parameter. Here is the story I sent you.
"Nan-in received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen. Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full and then kept on pouring.The professor watched the overflow until he could restrain himself no longer. "It is overfull. No more will go in!""Like this cup", Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"
Some might say the "moral" of that story is, don't overfill your guest's tea cup! But that is clearly not the right answer is it? The answer is about emptying not filling.

Somewhat, were we concerned about an answer within the context of emptying one's preconceptions we could say that Nan-in's answer was more in order. I agree, but to me it remains an answer in order. One of many possible answers. No two realist painters would paint the same tree the exact same way even with the same mentor/training and under the same conditions. It is the same with Zen instructors. It is this ability, the ability to convey a myriad of potential meanings, definitions and practicality in an exercise that I find beauty.