How Buddhism Found Me And Made Me Happy

[rockyysdt]

Then, it would be something to dwell for some time about the fact that the new Buddha, who will be the Buddha 5000 years after Siddharta Gautama did became Buddha, is a Boddhisatva now. (this Bodhhisatva reincarnates all the time) You think his awareness will be exactly the same and his teachings will be exactly the same as the Gautama Buddha? The 'evolution' of awareness is continueing since Buddha for almost 2500 year already. ..

This is an interesting point.

Is Nirvana (full Enlightenment) an absolute value or can we achieve ever increasing levels of awareness?

[christiaan]

Then, it would be something to dwell for some time about the fact that the new Buddha, who will be the Buddha 5000 years after Siddharta Gautama did became Buddha, is a Boddhisatva now. (this Bodhhisatva reincarnates all the time) You think his awareness will be exactly the same and his teachings will be exactly the same as the Gautama Buddha? The 'evolution' of awareness is continueing since Buddha for almost 2500 year already. ..

This is an interesting point.

Is Nirvana (full Enlightenment) an absolute value or can we achieve ever increasing levels of awareness?

Well, as I think every Buddhist should know , there will be a new Buddha, being a Boddhisatva now, this should make some people wonder about this absolute state of Nirvana.

Nirvana is a no 'stand' still situation but a developing one also.

Did Buddha ever tell Nirvana is a ' stand still situation' .

It is a situation one will not leave after becoming to full enlightment but does it mean there is no further transcendence?

I would think that is even impossible.

[Brucenkhamen]

Is Nirvana (full Enlightenment) an absolute value or can we achieve ever increasing levels of awareness?

A bit like white being whiter than white.

The Buddha describes Nibbana variously as letting go, cooling out, the unconditioned, so of course the mind stuck in samsara is bound to want to know "can I have fries with that?", it's hard to imagine what you could add.

I guess it's possible, but I won't be worrying about that until I get there.

[rockyysdt]

Well, as I think every Buddhist should know , there will be a new Buddha, being a Boddhisatva now, this should make some people wonder about this absolute state of Nirvana.

Nirvana is a no 'stand' still situation but a developing one also.

Did Buddha ever tell Nirvana is a ' stand still situation' .

It is a situation one will not leave after becoming to full enlightenent but does it mean there is no further transcendence?

I would think that is even impossible.

It sounds like stage 2 of a computer game!

[Brucenkhamen]

It sounds like stage 2 of a computer game!

Indeed, and I think too much theory with not enough practise and computer games have much in common?

[christiaan]

Brucenkhamen:

I wouldn't flatter yourself.

You cannot flatter myself and I don't.

It's a matter of quickly scanning the text to determine if it's going to be worth my time and effort to read through or not, it's also a matter of considering whether the post it was replying to warranted such a verbose reply or not. It's also a matter of how much spare time I have at the time.

It was not about flattering. I just remembered you wrote at that time you did not read it, and then you made clear you had a judgement about it so it is quite obvious you did read it.

But now it turned out you did not read it but you scanned it. Well, well.

Christiaan:

The teachings about the methods are part of the philosophy and do not differ from it at all, since they (the teachings) deal with thinking about the thinking, it just depends how you or I define philosophy, I made clear how I define it.

Brucenkhamen:

I must have skimmed over the post where you defined Philosophy but the online dictionary defines it as "the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct."

Wikipedia:

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.^[1][2] It is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.

This is not Buddhism because Buddhism doesn't see rational investigation as an end in itself.

That is what the ' Philosophy of Buddhism' is telling?

Is this your pontification out of your 'store' of knowledge?

.

No core Buddhist method or technique deals with thinking about thinking.

So no........ reflection...... about thoughts?

No method (and no teaching) comes to life (manifest) after previous thinking.

Becos even after intuitive aquired knowledge one has to think about how to transfer that knowledge to other people, and every word, every sentence is the expression of thinking.

This is something one can become aware of by thinking about thinking. Reflection.

The enlightment of Buddha was enlightment since it was direct awareness, without thinking.

(Which Buddhist has this same awareness nowadays? You have? But maybe you are no Buddhist at all.

Buddhism however is all about thinking. Thinking about Buddha, thinking about his teachings, thinking about his life, thinking about the precepts, thinking about the methods.

All thinking. That is why there is so much talking about Buddhism in Buddhism and sometimes outside Buddhism..

Christaan:

It is only like weight watchers collecting recipes, as folllowers of Buddha can collect teachings, when a person doesnot act upon the philosophy.

I wrote up to 2 times when the teaching is met with an inner proces of thinking it becomes living again and connected with the origin of the teachings of Buddha.

So that is how I wrote it is pointless to meet philosophy without inner personal activity and so I wonder why you answer this in the way you do.

Brucenkhamen:

Yes you are right my point was it is like collecting recipes when a person does not act upon the teachings by implementing the methods.

I was right?

So what Buddhist techniques and practices have you practised? for how long? and what benefits did you see as a result?

Are you going to scan this or read this and then tell me I pontificate about vast stores of benefits I have?

What benefits are there out of the so called Buddhist method?

How many enlighted persons are there in the world?

Looking at Asia, how many enlightened persons are there in Asia?

What is the benefit of Buddhisme for a person and for the world?

Just look at the benefits out of Buddhism as it is in Thailand, Thailand in general does not benefit from Buddhism, it maybe is more the other way round.

I did read many of his books and ' met ' Krishnamurti, not in person but as a visitor to several of his talks, allthough I ofcourse cannot tell how enlighted he was, I noticed he was enlighted to at least some extend, he was no Buddhist, not out of the 'Buddhist method'. I still did not learn to know about a Buddhist having the same impact as Krishnamurti. Not on me at least (and I am not into some kind of Krishnamurtism)

But I ofcourse did not learned to know about all the important Buddhist teachers.

But answering your question, reading what people write about the experience of the benefits of ' Buddhist method , being experience, meditation, contemplation, questioning, - being methods out of the time before Buddha - following the precepts, I can confirm I do know the same benefits as in general described, out of my personal experience and my personal way of life.

Christiaan:

I limit my self in filling the minds of other people, especially when I have the intuitive feeling there maybe is no dialogue, on the other hand I do not want this to become a discussion about te awareness of others since this is complicated enough.

Then, I also do not think it is up to you or to me to decide which person in the history had the greatest level of awareness in the past history of human mankind.

That is why I just wrote I know of teachers in the past history with high awareness too and not go into how high they were or are.

Brucenkhamen:

So I can only assume that your statement that humanity is continually evolving into greater awareness is an empty meaningless statement because you refuse to provide any evidence.

The thing is that it's really irrelevant which teacher has higher awareness or not when all one is doing is collecting information on teachings. However when one chooses to implement a methodology then it does matter that one has chosen a methodology that leads to results that one considers are worthwhile.

With this line I would definitely say you are correct in ...... subjective choices, subjective results.

The fact is that one cannot choose for a methodology before knowing the methodology.

For where are you choosing for when you do not know the methodology?

And when one 'choose' for a methodology after learning to know this methodology, one cannot choose to have the results that one considers to be wortwhile without before knowing the results.

And how does one know these results?

Out of personal experience? Or hear say?

Choosing before knowing in general is a matter of sympathy and not a matter of gained knowledge.

I would say most Westerners that 'choose' for Buddhism do out of plain sympathy.

Christiaan:

Pontificate about vast stores of knowledge I stored up?

Out of what precept is such remark?

Methods..........?

As I wrote : Contemplation and meditation, study, questioning.

All of them are not specific Buddhist, they all existed even before Buddha was born. I do not suffer and so I do not even try to 'solve' suffering, I am not attached in doing so.

I mainly strive for awareness being a spiritual quality.

Brucenkhamen

If you claim to not suffer then from a Buddhist perspective either you are enlightened or deluded.

Yes, Buddhism seems only to have these two categories, you are suffering (maybe of delution) or enlighted

Again rather than answering the question you pontificate.

So again where is the practical use? what methods have you applied to make substantive change to your wellbeing and the wellbeing of others?

I did make substantive change to my wellbeing and certainly to the wellbeing of others, I did not do out of suffering, I did do out of compassion and - developing- awareness.

I will give you just one example: I worked with autistic children for about ten years in a special hospital.

The 2 children that developed significantly compared to the other children of the same primary autistic level, and for what (method I used) there was advised to have an academic follow-up study, were the children I took care of.

[Brucenkhamen]

Christaan:

Wikipedia:

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] It is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.

Thanks for that, it pretty much confirms what I said.

Christaan: That is what the ' Philosophy of Buddhism' is telling?

Is this your pontification out of your 'store' of knowledge?

No, that's what my experience of Buddhist practise is telling.

So now we are playing tit for tat games? Because I use the term pontificate you want to throw it back at me even though such a direct and to the point sentence as you are replying to is the opposite of the term, try to find some originality.

.

Christaan: So no........ reflection...... about thoughts?

Not about the content of thoughts, instead about the nature of the process of thought among other things, and no I wouldn't call this thinking about thinking.

Christaan:

No method (and no teaching) comes to life (manifest) after previous thinking.

Becos even after intuitive aquired knowledge one has to think about how to transfer that knowledge to other people, and every word, every sentence is the expression of thinking.

This is something one can become aware of by thinking about thinking. Reflection.

The enlightment of Buddha was enlightment since it was direct awareness, without thinking.

(Which Buddhist has this same awareness nowadays? You have? But maybe you are no Buddhist at all.

Buddhism however is all about thinking. Thinking about Buddha, thinking about his teachings, thinking about his life, thinking about the precepts, thinking about the methods.

All thinking. That is why there is so much talking about Buddhism in Buddhism and sometimes outside Buddhism..

You are only revealing your lack of understanding of the topic you are discussing.

Christaan: I was right?

You'll notice from my past posts I'm more than happy to acknowledge when I agree with you.

Christaan:

Are you going to scan this or read this and then tell me I pontificate about vast stores of benefits I have?

What benefits are there out of the so called Buddhist method?

How many enlighted persons are there in the world?

Looking at Asia, how many enlightened persons are there in Asia?

What is the benefit of Buddhisme for a person and for the world?

Just look at the benefits out of Buddhism as it is in Thailand, Thailand in general does not benefit from Buddhism, it maybe is more the other way round.

Again more pontification as a strategy of avoiding answering the question.

Christaan:

I did read many of his books and ' met ' Krishnamurti, not in person but as a visitor to several of his talks, allthough I ofcourse cannot tell how enlighted he was, I noticed he was enlighted to at least some extend, he was no Buddhist, not out of the 'Buddhist method'. I still did not learn to know about a Buddhist having the same impact as Krishnamurti. Not on me at least (and I am not into some kind of Krishnamurtism)

But I ofcourse did not learned to know about all the important Buddhist teachers.

I assume this is in response to my asking you to suggest somebody who may have evolved in awareness beyond that of the Buddha, actually I wondered if Krishnamurti would come up.

I've read a few of his books though it was more than a few years ago and now I'm a bit hazy but I got the impression his teaching were very much in line with the Buddhas teachings on awareness.

A couple of other things struck me;

The way he delivered his teachings was very thick, something more likely to appeal to intellectuals rather than common folk, wheras the Buddha was able to adapt his teaching to the situation, use parables and metaphors and communicate to a much wider audience.

Krishnamurti's teaching seemed to be all theory, he didn't seem to offer and practical techniques through which to bring the mind to a greater level of awareness, wheras as I've said before in Buddhism the practical techniques and processes are the main thing.

So while there is no way of knowing for certain who was more enlightened as there is such a big difference in the level of impact each man had on this world to me that's a pretty good indicator.

If you ever wanted to setup a thread on comparing Krishnamurtis teachings with the Buddhas that I think would be interesting.

Christaan:

But answering your question, reading what people write about the experience of the benefits of ' Buddhist method , being experience, meditation, contemplation, questioning, - being methods out of the time before Buddha - following the precepts, I can confirm I do know the same benefits as in general described, out of my personal experience and my personal way of life.

Let me get this straight, so you are saying that you read about other peoples experiences but were surprised you didn't get the same experiences by just reading about them?

Perhaps you could clarify as I assume something has been lost in translation, I can't see you being that thick.

Christaan:

With this line I would definitely say you are correct in ...... subjective choices, subjective results.

The fact is that one cannot choose for a methodology before knowing the methodology.

For where are you choosing for when you do not know the methodology?

And when one 'choose' for a methodology after learning to know this methodology, one cannot choose to have the results that one considers to be wortwhile without before knowing the results.

And how does one know these results?

Out of personal experience? Or hear say?

That's a very obtuse way of looking at it. First you try the methodology, if you get good results you try it some more and so on, if don't get good results you quit or maybe modify your approach. If you stick with it after sometime time you look back and realise this is taking me somewhere worthwhile, this is where I want to go, this is something I can identiy with.

This is the same with any worldly skill or pastime, so why would you expect people to be so obtuse with spiritual ones?

Christaan:

Choosing before knowing in general is a matter of sympathy and not a matter of gained knowledge.

I would say most Westerners that 'choose' for Buddhism do out of plain sympathy.

I think the word you want to use here is attraction rather than sympathy. People try something because there is something about it that attracts them, people stick with something hopefully only because they find it of benefit.

Christaan:

As I wrote : Contemplation and meditation, study, questioning.

All of them are not specific Buddhist, they all existed even before Buddha was born. I do not suffer and so I do not even try to 'solve' suffering, I am not attached in doing so.

I mainly strive for awareness being a spiritual quality.

So what contemplation and meditation techniques do you practice? How regularly? How many intensive retreats? Under which teachers did you spend quality time? What about these pre-Buddhist techniques makes you feel you are qualified to tell Buddhists about Buddhism?

Christaan:

I did make substantive change to my wellbeing and certainly to the wellbeing of others, I did not do out of suffering, I did do out of compassion and - developing- awareness.

I will give you just one example: I worked with autistic children for about ten years in a special hospital.

The 2 children that developed significantly compared to the other children of the same primary autistic level, and for what (method I used) there was advised to have an academic follow-up study, were the children I took care of.

This appears to be saying that you taught two autistic children some of your meditation techniques and they developed developed significantly as a result, if so then this is more interesting than accumulating theories isn't it?

Edited January 25, 2011 by Brucenkhamen

[christiaan]

So, when I understand well, your experience showed you read what Buddha told or you experienced the enlightment Buddha told about?

One can experience the methods as described by Buddhism, and wellknown by other cultures before, by practicing them, one can experience the change that comes out of these kind of practices but they are not Buddhist, since they were wellknown before, and I would rather say : they are human,

The 'practices of Buddhism' were also practice in esoteric activity throughout history. A couple of thousand years ago there was also a lifestyle looking somehow like Buddhism, to find in the group of Essenes in Israel.

Buddhism itself however was not known in western culture up to the time of Schopenhauer. (1788)

The rational investigation ofcourse is no end in itself but it is the road to it.

For how can someone follow the teachings of Buddha when he can not understand it? Not even knows it?

How can someone meditate, complentate, question, when he never learned to know, understand and comprehended it.

All understanding nowadays is by thinking.

All our understanding is investigation of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. It is distinguished from other ways of understanding such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument. I would add to this also the understanding feeling of logic.

The thinking can lead to the 'end' but it is impossible for a modern human, a human living in this time of history, to pass the thinking and come to an end.

Anyone telling so is not telling out of experience but telling an abstract theory.

I used the term pontificate in my contribution only to have some attention and awareness to it since I think your remark: " It's all very well to pontificate about the vast stores of knowledge you may have stored up over the years " is no sign of sympathy, not even neutrality (balance) but plain antipathy.

And this remark is no theory but my intuitive experience.

The outcome of my observations so far with regard to Buddhism is now even confirmed by several remarks of you related to thinking and thoughts.

The thinking, and thinking about thinking are the aspects that brought great material development to the western - non Buddhism culture - world.

That world was and to some extend still is a Christian world, but also the Muslim world had many scientifical practice and results that even inspired the western Christian world.

This material development out of thinking diminished a lot of the so called ' suffering ' in the world. When one compares the life in the western world today with life of western world at the time of Buddha there probably will be some differences. But, just look at the situation in Thailand now:

How would life in ocre Thailand be when all the products of western thinking would disappear out of it?

No dentists, no computers, no 'modern' medical facillities, no telephone, no mercedes to transport monks, no... well you name it.

As petharoi wrote: (in my words) there is about no science in Asia, I would say especialy in the country Thailand there is not much of science - history of science.

And we can consider the origin of the continuation of the specific problems in Thailand as the general absence of - reflecting - thinking and so, very little selfawareness. Just look at the behavior of most 'political' figures in Thai politic, the corruption everywhere people are in power, the behavior in trafic and so on. It seems when someone is realy trying to do good in Thailand e studied in a western Country. (Abhisit?)

The thinking about Buddha and Buddhism in Thai Buddhism is repetition, conservatism, traditionalism, and so on. Nothing new.

New things arise out of intuition, out of actual direct awareness. That should be the benefit of Buddhism.

Am I revealing lack of understanding or are we just writing about different things.

I could also say : you reveal lack of understanding.

I do not avoid to answer any question you ask, maybe I do not give the answer you like but that is another situation.

I never wrote I know someone wo evolved to greater awareness, an awareness beyond Buddha.

This is what I wrote: But in the past 2500 years there have been a sequence of very qualified teachers with high awareness too.

As I explained before it is not up to me........... to tell wich teacher was of higher awareness as Buddha.

The sixth Buddha (there are six more to come) teached especially about morallity, the morallity of love and compassion.

And after his life and reaching of awareness, his conclusion was teached in the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path.

At that time the Highest Wisdom related to morality in humanity.

So, my remarks about Krishnamurti were not meant to be related to an awareness beyond that of Buddha.

It was telling of my personal experience in knowing a persons of high awareness out of the so called Buddhist method.

I could also have mentioned Ms. Blavatsky, Asita (who told Siddharta would become a famous king or a su[preme relgious leader), Hildegard von Bingen, Bayazid Bastami, Jezus, Jacob Lorber, Rudolf Steiner, Socrates. Allthough I did not meet them.

All these people seem to have had some special kind of awareness sometimes related to different aspects of the world they lived in.

Krishnamurti got questions that in fact were very thick and yes his talks were directed to people who were not too lazy to think for themself, not exclusively intellectuals. This I can tell out of my own experience.

It is within his 'theory' that 'Krishnamurti' would not and did not give techniques, he even preferred people did not know what food he used, what he drank or how he spend his day. Becos he knew people would even copy him in all he did. He also firmly rejected any Krishnamurtism and Krishnamurti followers.

Krishnamurti was very much aware people prefer to choose for an easy life, to lean on - spiritual- authority, to continue not thinking themself but to copy, repeat his words and..... to rely on technics and methods.

Maybe one can tell his talks where theories but they were no abstract theories, not by my opinion and as I wrote before I studied his biography, read most of his books and 1 time did go to Brockwood in England to meet him in life.

Where do you get the impression I in someway have been surprised I did not get the same experiences as were other people wrote about?

I did nowhere wrote I was surprised, instead confirmed I had the same experiences as I learned to know by reading about other peoples experiences out of the 'Buddhist' methods - being methods out of the time before Buddha.

I did not even wrote I got the benefits out of reading but: I can confirm I do know the same benefits as in general described, out of my personal experience and my personal way of life.

I even till now have not read in descriptions of ' Buddhists' about some other experiences I had and have in my life

I hope this will clarify.

I would say: a matter of good reading.

Then, it is not an obtuse way to write what I write about choosing.

I would say it is pure logic.

It is pure subjective to think this is obtuse.

How can you try a methodology before knowing it ????

How can you try something you do not know??

How do you come to know it?

In general the first movement is a movement out of sympathy, that is: feeling atracted to something

That is not an objective starting point but pure subjective.

Out of this I did write especially westerners feel atrackted to Buddhisme out of feelings of unaware sympathy, unaware becos they are not aware of their individual proces of sympathy as it is happening.

Millions of Thai are not atracted to Buddhisme, they have no free choice, they are born into it.

I would say it is obtuse to think worldly skills or pastime are learned the way you described.

About what worldy skills are you talking?

About what level of awareness are you talking , being a child of 3 years, 7, 13 or a mature person?

Wordly skills and pastimes are learned by copying them when you are a child, sometimes while we are forced to - so no free choice.

At the time we can choose we only choose to do the things we have learned to know before and we prefer, when we can, only to do the things we like, the things we meet with sympathy.

And........ to feel atracted to something is the description, the synonym, for sympathy.

I have to say, when I have to choose between your 'non theoretical way of thinking' and my 'theoretical way of thinking' I prefer mine since it is more close to healthy and logical thinking. I like the mind to be the eye to see the living idea in the living world.

I do not have to follow any Buddhist method and technique to be qualified to tell people, Buddhists and non Buddhists about Buddhism.

Or do you try to explain me one can only do when memeber of some club?

The Buddhist techniques are not invented, not created, not patented by Buddhism.

There is also no Buddhist crying, Buddhist thinking, Buddhist concentration, Buddhist contemplation. At the moment we do this we are into human activity, some of them over 3000 years old or more.

They are plain human activity when done by a human and only humans can do.

The only thing I need to do is to observe, question, study, meditate and contemplate and concentrate on the phenomenon of Buddhism to tell something about Buddhism.

I can even do when I am the Chief of a North American Indian tribe, converted to Judaism and married with an African partner out of a small village in Namibie.

Then to the last part:

Where do you get the idea I teached primary autistic children my meditation techniques?

I nowhere wrote how I succeeded in taking care these two children developed significantly.

But I can tell you I , and not any other person, did do it sitting in an ocre robe with shaven head and eyebrows, meditating about suffering, hoping

that trying this, because there is something about it that attracts me, and made me stick with something hopefully only because I find it of benefit.

Doing it in the way I did, out of intuition developed by compassion, observation, thinking, study, meditation and concentration, was more interesting then to accumulate in selfinvolvement .

[Brucenkhamen]

Far too long.

It's more than 3 times the size of the post you are replying to

I don't have the time nor patience to read a thesis, and I doubt antyone else here has either but if they do I'm sure they'll pick up the discussion where I left off.

As I mentioned before if you feel the need to blog you're in the wrong place.

[AYJAYDEE]

but as an example to me of the ego at work, he makes a fine contribution.

Far too long.

It's more than 3 times the size of the post you are replying to

I don't have the time nor patience to read a thesis, and I doubt antyone else here has either but if they do I'm sure they'll pick up the discussion where I left off.

As I mentioned before if you feel the need to blog you're in the wrong place.

[meadish_sweetball]

Ego is a state of MINE, MINE and only MINE. Thank you for the insights, people. I haven't read the entire thread but quite a lot of it. The thing that stuck with me is the need to practice.

[healthcaretaker]

One is going all out to "question" Buddhism with all the time allowed. Go visit any religious forum you will see similar "full-time" christians professionals all out to undermine Buddhism. Christianity is rich, no doubt. Can afford to do so. Remind me of those full-timers who are out in Asia everywhere trying to convert others to christianity.

Another one who cannot even know the difference between "detachment" and "non-attachment" is trying to defend his ego with very limited knowledge.

A sentence from christiaan struck me. He/she claimed she never avoid any questions. In another thread where she tried to do the same(disagreed with Buddhism but put them in a questionable manner) I asked her a few short questions, she sensed she has met a tougher person and avoided it for good.

To christiaan & pheteroi,

It's time you change your attitude or your nickname. We know you well already.

1) A person who genuinely wish to learn Buddhism will not disagree with it and find every possible means to undermine it.

2) A person who is not agreeable to Buddhism will not spend so much time in a forum with the subject.

All those actions by christians going against Buddhism do in fact proved something:

1) Buddhism is gaining popularity and christianity find it their biggest competitor and threat(otherwise why should they behave such a way ?)

2) Buddhism is too soft and kind-hearted, thus easy to bully.(if anyone go against christianity in their forum, don't you think he/she will get banned ?)

3) Thais are too kind and easy, so some people think they can be easily swayed.(remember the japanese attack ?)

4) Christianity is definitely richer in financial terms while Buddhism is richer in all other areas.(So much so that others even call it a PHILOSOPHY)

May the Lord enlighten all of you sooner :jap:

Edited January 27, 2011 by healthcaretaker

[Brucenkhamen]

One is going all out to "question" Buddhism with all the time allowed... May the Lord enlighten all of you sooner

Anyone heard the sound of a broken record?

[camerata]

Go visit any religious forum you will see similar "full-time" christians professionals all out to undermine Buddhism.

Perhaps, but I've never seen this on a Buddhism web forum. Anyway there aren't any Christian evangelists here, so quit making veiled accusations.

What you do find on Buddhist forums is various people criticizing Buddhism for other reasons. Generally, they fall into two categories: those who are atheists or have their own customized philosophical/religious system and want to prove it's superior, and those who have tried Buddhism and become disillusioned with it. Perhaps a third category would be those who just feel compelled to run down anything related to Thailand.

Whatever their reasons, it's our job as Buddhists to answer their criticisms and explain the Buddhist perspective. If they don't like it, that's their problem.

[christiaan]

One is going all out to "question" Buddhism with all the time allowed. Go visit any religious forum you will see similar "full-time" christians professionals all out to undermine Buddhism. Christianity is rich, no doubt. Can afford to do so. Remind me of those full-timers who are out in Asia everywhere trying to convert others to christianity.

Another one who cannot even know the difference between "detachment" and "non-attachment" is trying to defend his ego with very limited knowledge.

A sentence from christiaan struck me. He/she claimed she never avoid any questions. In another thread where she tried to do the same(disagreed with Buddhism but put them in a questionable manner) I asked her a few short questions, she sensed she has met a tougher person and avoided it for good.

To christiaan & pheteroi,

It's time you change your attitude or your nickname. We know you well already.

1) A person who genuinely wish to learn Buddhism will not disagree with it and find every possible means to undermine it.

2) A person who is not agreeable to Buddhism will not spend so much time in a forum with the subject.

All those actions by christians going against Buddhism do in fact proved something:

1) Buddhism is gaining popularity and christianity find it their biggest competitor and threat(otherwise why should they behave such a way ?)

2) Buddhism is too soft and kind-hearted, thus easy to bully.(if anyone go against christianity in their forum, don't you think he/she will get banned ?)

3) Thais are too kind and easy, so some people think they can be easily swayed.(remember the japanese attack ?)

4) Christianity is definitely richer in financial terms while Buddhism is richer in all other areas.(So much so that others even call it a PHILOSOPHY)

May the Lord enlighten all of you sooner :jap:

You are breaking the 4th precept with full force.

And when anyone can know when you are writing about me, insinuating, suggesting, accusing, impeaching me, then I am the one who knows the full truth. Not only about my Self but also about your attitude as far as you exhibit at this forum.

At the moment I had to discover you cannot even accept the simple fact that my name Christiaan is the name given to me by my parents, out of any aware religious context, and is named in my passport , I concluded there is no purpose in having a discussion or dialogue with you.

Of all active persons on this forum to my opinion it is you actually who is damaging the remembrance of Buddha the most by your way of thinking and expressing yourself.

It is showing clearly people project themself to fight the illusion that is the reality inside them self.

I continue to see no reason to answer any of your contributions. it is not in line wth the example of Buddha, it is not in line of clear and healthy thinking.

Further on I am aware I am not considered to be a 'sympathiser of Buddhisme' in the eyes of some people overhere and I realy wonder if healthcaretaker would have been allowed to continuously attack any of the people who are part of the club of 'full sympathisers of nowadays Buddhism' .

[christiaan]

but as an example to me of the ego at work, he makes a fine contribution.

Far too long.

It's more than 3 times the size of the post you are replying to

I don't have the time nor patience to read a thesis, and I doubt antyone else here has either but if they do I'm sure they'll pick up the discussion where I left off.

As I mentioned before if you feel the need to blog you're in the wrong place.

Since only pure enlightment is the absence of ego I would say your remark is as much ego as any other so it doesnt add any substance to the discussion it only shows subjective feelings.

[christiaan]

but as an example to me of the ego at work, he makes a fine contribution.

Far too long.

It's more than 3 times the size of the post you are replying to

I don't have the time nor patience to read a thesis, and I doubt antyone else here has either but if they do I'm sure they'll pick up the discussion where I left off.

As I mentioned before if you feel the need to blog you're in the wrong place.

It is not: " Far too long" it is " Far too long for you"

Looking at other contributions I noticed some of them are long too, sometimes even longer but I do not read you complain it is too long as long as it is not questioning Buddhism and certainly not when it is supporting your sympathy to Buddhism. (By the way, for some people this forum seems to be: " The forum for outspoken sympathisers of nowadays Buddhism")

It makes me wonder if you ever had the time or the patience to listen to or to read publications of nowadays Buddhist teachers.

Then you also never advised anyone " to blog " just becos their contribution is too long.

I gues you are overasked, not by the length, but by the substance .

And you probably do not feel attracted to do anything with it, no sympathy at all, not even neutral cos you choose to react int the way you liked to do.

With regard to people reading my or your or anyone elses contribution:

There are just a small number of people reading this forum at all and telling you doubt anyone else has the time and the patience to read it is more another expression of antipathy and aversion since you in fact not know the truth and reality of what all people overhere do read or 'scan' at this forum.

Then , the effect of your attitude is that it is possible when people who do read and like to react in a neutral way are scared of by your attitude.

Not much of a Buddhist attitude.

As some other people would concude: all subjective ego.

No problem with that but ...just face it, .......... when you have time,......... in patience and impatience.

[Brucenkhamen]

It is not: " Far too long" it is " Far too long for you"

It's far too long for a discussion board.

I'd be interested to see if you can give an example of a longer post by somebody else.

Yes, I read publications of nowadays Buddhist teachers and I don't have a problem with the length of them because they write books rather that try to sermonise on a discussion board. Also because generally they stay on topic and are able to make points concisely without too much waffle, and finally because they don't spend a lot of it maintaining or defending their egos.

It's your choice, sermonise in a vacuum or develop some netiquette and have a discussion.

[camerata]

Since the thread is way off-topic and has degenerated into personal remarks and bickering... topic closed.