Magic

[thaiclan]

Amulets work with subtle energies which modern science chooses not to explore, except perhaps a little in quantum physics.

I'm sorry but statements like this are meaningless unless you have proof.

So lets have the proof then.

It is common currency in many ancient and occult arenas.

Hardly a ringing endorsement.

Ok, quantum physics has proven many theories in this regard. Mutable matter contains many "strange and magical" actualities. Quantum Entanglement or non-locality states that once photons and electrons have come into contact they will remain "entangled" and influenced by each other instantaneously REGARDLESS of distance, despite the absence of the usual things that pyshics understand are responsible for influence, such as an exchange of force or energy. When entangled, the actions of one will always influence the other in the same or opposite direction no matter how far they are separated.

Today even themost conservatist scientists accept non-locality as a feature of subatomic reality.

Another aspect is that a "thought" (including a wish a dream a hope a curse) has a vibrational electromagnetic output in much the same way as eny other energy field.

Therefore once a "thought" has been attached to an amulet or any other artefact (crystals are an excellent source of retaining magnetic fields) there is no reason according to quantum physicists why it wouldnt retain that energy over years or miles.

Quantum Physicists use this to describe the overwhelming prrof that placebos are mostly MORE effective than chemical drugs in the medical world. Once a belief (which is a strong thought) has manifested either mentally or verbally then the motions have been set for the body to respond to what is expected of it.

Fascinating!

[Simon255]

Thank you Thai Clan - very nicely put

As far as understanding how everything functions from the microcosm to the macrocosm, including all the subtle energies and which hold us together, hold the atoms together and sustain every part of the universe and other realms.....

Big question but as you want proof then I would have to encourage you to plunge into the heavy waters of esoteric world. By far the most illuminating study I have made which covers absolutely everything conceivable and inconceivable is the Pratyabhijna-hrdayam by the Kashmiri sage Kshemaraja.

Proof is all around you all the time but you don't see it. It is not for other people to prove to you.

[domus]

hi,

so what are your thoughts on 'sak yant'?

The tattoos that many thais, and indeed MANY, if not MOST monks have.

[domus]

The problem with science is that it is materialistically bound; ignoring anything that cant be tested in a lab, calculated mathematically, or probed by the 'so-called' 5 senses.

Anything metaphysical, or spiritual, is simply dismissed as untrue! Belief is replaced with so called 'knowledge', which in turn, propogates the myth that man is master of the world.

Next, we are all shopping at Tesco lotus etc, and making those that 'have', have much more............how convenient!!!

What about those senses beyond the 5 that we now only refer too?

Has capitalist ideology succeeded in oppressing our spiritual being....sadly, i think so

rgds

[Simon255]

The symbols have a natural resonance with the universe. In sanskrit is called Yantra.

Sometimes the monks, or shamen or whoever is making the tattoo calls a deity / demon/ warrior / animal or could be something else to reside in the tattoo. Sometimes its like a contract and the person has to do sometihing on a regular basis to uphold the power of the tattoo or it will fade in it potency or the person will become sick or unfortunate.

Example of where this happens is Wat Bang Pra where many mafia types go for protection. The monks often wear the Ru-See (Rishi) head mask and call the spirit to become empowered within the tattoo. Not sure about this point, but I think sometimes the monk becomes possessed by the spirit while the tattoo is tapped in.

[Brucenkhamen]

Therefore once a "thought" has been attached to an amulet or any other artefact (crystals are an excellent source of retaining magnetic fields) there is no reason according to quantum physicists why it wouldnt retain that energy over years or miles.

Quantum Physicists use this to describe the overwhelming prrof that placebos are mostly MORE effective than chemical drugs in the medical world. Once a belief (which is a strong thought) has manifested either mentally or verbally then the motions have been set for the body to respond to what is expected of it.

Fascinating!

So you are saying that the power of an amulet is the power of positive thinking, that this positive thinking has an affect on the atomic level on the object. Because you believe it will bring you good luck then it will, it's the placebo affect. Is that correct?

It sounds plausable. What concerns me is that it encourages spiritual immaturity, a reliance on an inanimate object to secure your good fortune is something most intelligent people grow out of when they are children.

How does it contribute to gaining freedom from greed, hatred, and delusion? How does it contribute to gaining freedom from suffering and liberation for yourself and others?

Do you know of a reference in the Pali Canon where the Buddha encouraged sucvh belief in an inaminate object?

[Brucenkhamen]

Big question but as you want proof then I would have to encourage you to plunge into the heavy waters of esoteric world. By far the most illuminating study I have made which covers absolutely everything conceivable and inconceivable is the Pratyabhijna-hrdayam by the Kashmiri sage Kshemaraja.

Sorry, I'm too busy trying to practice the Buddhas parth to awakening, I don't think I can afforc the luxury of sideshows.

Proof is all around you all the time but you don't see it. It is not for other people to prove to you.

It's very easy to make high sounding sweeping statements on life the universe and everything without backing them up because they are so high sounding they don't seem to need backing up. Of course anyone who doesn't agree is just "unable to see it".

All I ask is you to provide just one anecdote where you put your faith in an amulet, got a good result from it, and how you determined it was the amulet that did it.

If you can't do that I'd prefer you desist from high sounding sweeping statements on life the universe and everything and limit the discussion to the Buddhas teachings.

[CuriousGeorge77]

Everyone has a passion. Yours might be painting. Each passion will probably be tested out. Each individual should make there own choices about what they do. The universe is limitless, all limitations come from a lack of understanding truth. If you want to learn more about this kind of thing from a Buddhist perspective, you might look at Vajrayana and the supporting tantras.

Yes but what's it in aid of?

In terms of the four noble truths and the noble eightfold path where does it get you?

Following your passion sounds kind of fun, but it sounds more like a spritual dead end to me, a distraction from what the Buddha would have you do, remember the handful of leaves.

If you understand the limitlessness of the universe but still don't understand your own heart you've got nothing, other than perhaps interesting topics to discuss at cocktail parties.

I'd like to ring in on this ... I'm a professional musician, and I've found that playing music can be the best meditation I've ever done. It has everything to do with knowing yourself, and know what you can do, what you can't do, and gradually erasing what you can't do. IMHO, the particular activity is moot. Painting is as good as running is as good as music is as good as archery. It is not the particular activity or the physical skills learned so much as it is the methods of study - how you interact with the things around you. In order to play at a high levelm, these things are absolutely required. If they are not present, it is clear to all in sundry (if they care to look)

* Being present in your body - Awareness of self / emotional state/physical state/posture

* Being present in your environment

Additionally, countless hours of practice are required - this includes siting at the drum and making the perfect sounds, and grappling with yourself(actually, they aren't countless. 10,000 hours of practice time is required to "master" anything, from poker to golf) These practice hours involve being present, and also involve the process by which the ability to be fully present is achieved. Playing music when fully present is quite possibly the best experience I've ever had. It is fulfilling in a way that other things (i.e. physical desires/intellectual desires) simply aren't.

Another example - You have to balance your ego - not have no ego, nor have a big ego - in order to play. At least for the time that you are playing. Many master musicians seem to adopt other modes when not performing, most are extremely modest, others not so much. However, when playing, in order to play at a high level, you need to combine what you are doing with what is going on around. If you are stuck thinking about whether people like you, and trying to impress people, then you just don't do a good job.

Again IMHO, there are things learned mastering something that you just can't get as a jack-of-all trades. At very least, it is its own path. To be able to perform at a high level requires a high level of achievement along buddhist lines.

Another point: A Passion for one thing opens the doors to passion for other things ... and a passion for everything is where we are all trying to get, correct? Perhaps the word "passion" itself is not a good one?

[CuriousGeorge77]

The problem with science is that it is materialistically bound; ignoring anything that cant be tested in a lab, calculated mathematically, or probed by the 'so-called' 5 senses.

I would object here. I'm a huge science-geek you might say. First, there are more than 5 senses - FAR more. Science looks at everything that has an effect. whither this is through magnatism, electricity, quantum mechanics, what have you, if it has an effect, it can be observed (somehow) If it doesn't have an effect of any kind, science doesn't care about it. (and should you, really?) The 'placebo' effect. whereby expectations themselves create an effect is it's own form of effect.

Additionally, I would like to point out that the objectives of Buddhism and Science are synonymous. They use different techniques, but the objective is the same. Whatever the techniques, the results are dovetailing nicely. Many things that Buddhism has been proscribing, such as meditation, are gaining mighty scientific support. The idea that everything is unified is also gaining scientific support. Granted, Buddhism puts an additional step on the end - that gaining this knowledge and understanding will have good effects for you and everyone else. Sciecne attempts to stay completely neutral.

Additionally, the argument that science is materialistically bound is/has been used constantly as a "Because I said so" argument - meant to end all discussion. this is not a method that leads toward edification. Again, if it has an effect of any kind, it can be observed. If there is no effect, well, probably nothing is happening. Maybe we just aren't looking in the right place - this is a point where the scientific community is quite open - however skeptical. There have been a great many scientific experiments conducted that have shown no effect from Amulets, per se, and the like. If want to make predictions based on their effects and look to see if those predictions match up with the real world, then the science community would be happy to hear about it. However, you might look to see if it has already been done. A lot of them have. Thus the skepticism.

Science is all about being able to learn for one's self. Thats exactly why being able to duplicate results hold such importance! The experimental design is published, and the results are published, so that anyone who wants to can do the same experiment and get the same results. If people get different results with the same experiment, then something is wrong.

Regarding the spiritual - spirituality has effects. 'God' has effects. IMHO, 'God' is everything. If there was a monotheistic creator, then it created everything, and the study of 'material' is the study of 'God'. Any attempt to deform objective understanding is thus Hubris.

In other words, the material world IS the spiritual world. I don't think (know) that we don't have anywhere near a complete understainding of it, but they are one and the same. They cannot be separated. (Isn't that one thing that Buddhism says? .... well, I guess if anyone knew the answer to that they'd be truly enlightened... )

Bringing the argument back to the amulets in particular, I think they have some value. They can be a reminder of many good things - a reminder to be present, to cultivate compassion and objectivity. They can also be a crutch to support someone who isn't walking on their own. Sometimes that is exactly what is needed to help someone move around, to be discarded as such when it is time. One could make the argument that if they haven't been discarded, then it isn't time. However, those with crutches have the understanding that they are using a crutch, that the objective is to walk freely. This understanding is something that amulet wearers often don't have.

[domus]

I am sorry, but i cant agree with you.

I don't see how you can say that the physical (material) world and the metaphysical (spiritual) world are one and the same.

Are you therefore saying that we should not believe that ghosts exist, because science can't prove that they do, or to put it another way, because we cant see them in the material world!

Can science prove that dogs can't see spirits?

Science is incapable of giving us any insight whatsoever into what is probably the most fundamental question of all mankind: what happens to us after death!

Interesting reading what you have to say, but I am afraid I am more of philosophical rather than scientific persuasion.

After all, it wasnt philosophers who invented the bomb!

As i said in my previous post; science propogates the myth that man is master of the world....this is just NOT true!

rgds

Edited March 12, 2008 by domus

[Brucenkhamen]

I'd like to ring in on this ... I'm a professional musician, and I've found that playing music can be the best meditation I've ever done. It has everything to do with knowing yourself, and know what you can do, what you can't do, and gradually erasing what you can't do. ...

Again IMHO, there are things learned mastering something that you just can't get as a jack-of-all trades. At very least, it is its own path. To be able to perform at a high level requires a high level of achievement along buddhist lines.

A very good point.

What you describe would be called in Buddhist terms as Samadhi. A strong positive step in training the heart and mind, though not the ultimate goal of Buddhism.

Is the affect of the intensity of your experience permanant or does it dissipate when you are no longer are practicing? Does it change you from the inside out or does it create a cocoon where the negativities or distractions don't bother you?

The next step is to use that Samadhi to develop the wisdom leading to permanant freedom.

I envy you that you have something that has helped you develop Samadhi because I think it will give you a good boost to your practice.

[sabaijai]

The problem with science is that it is materialistically bound; ignoring anything that cant be tested in a lab, calculated mathematically, or probed by the 'so-called' 5 senses.

Anything metaphysical, or spiritual, is simply dismissed as untrue! Belief is replaced with so called 'knowledge', which in turn, propogates the myth that man is master of the world.

Next, we are all shopping at Tesco lotus etc, and making those that 'have', have much more............how convenient!!!

What about those senses beyond the 5 that we now only refer too?

Has capitalist ideology succeeded in oppressing our spiritual being....sadly, i think so

rgds

You're omitting one obvious advantage science/empiricism has over intuition, magic, etc. It's statistically more predictive and reliable than any other epistemology yet seen in known human history.

BTW placebos are not more effective than targeted pharmas, when the real thing is properly prescribed, statistically speaking.

[CuriousGeorge77]

After all, it wasnt philosophers who invented the bomb!

No, it was "philosophers" that use them! And it was philosophers that ponied up the money to pay for the research that led to the bomb.

This is, in fact, the exact reason that I so strongly disagree with the mode of investigation you subscribe too. I am not saying this describe you, not at all, in fact it almost certainly doesn't... however, it does describe a large number of people. Whenever you rationalize something with "you can't prove it, just trust me", the next step is "I'm right and you're wrong, because I said so".

It is "philosophy", not science, that powered the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, WWII, the Hundred Years War and the Four Days War. "Philosophy" outlines the tenets of capital punishment and torture. I respectfully wholly reject the denileation you seem to be making.

But really, this is a moot argument. Science is, itself, philosophy. it is the philosophy of objectivity. The idea is that objective analasis ought to be used to discern the real world. this is so difficult, however, that nothing can ever actually be proved, only described. there are many theories, ways that we think the world is, but these change, and that is part of science. There are even scientific books written that describe how ideas and opinions change, amongst the scientific community. It is well accepted. The technical term is "zeitgeist"

Now that we are debating the pros and cons of one philosophy versus another, sabaijai brings up a very good point. Science is certainly the most effective philosophy ever at describing the outside world. There are 2 more arguments that I would like to include.

* How do you know whose spirits are right and whose are wrong? the christians believe that here is god, jesus, + the Holy Spirit, and THATS IT. period. How do you know they are wrong? I presume you disagree.... What about disagreements as to the nature of ghosts? The nature of ghosts varies WIDELY worldwide. As does the nature of god.

* dang, I forgot the second point. It was my best one! I expect that as soon as i hit "Add Reply" that I'll reemember, so I'll leave this here for future editing

I am sorry, but i cant agree with you.

I don't see how you can say that the physical (material) world and the metaphysical (spiritual) world are one and the same.

I would respectfully agree to disagree. I find that the union of the physical and the metaphysical to be fundamental to my beliefs. Incidentally, my belief that the material and the spiritual world is mine, and not general amongst scientists. It is borne of the logic that if there is a god that created everything, this would all be it's creation, and thus holy. if there isn't a creator, then we are all god. the other explanation is that there is no meaning to anywhing, whatsoever. I don't like that one as much, but is me. Thats how i read the cards at the present moment, at any case

Science's reaction to that idea is "Thats very interesting and all, but its not objective. can you come up with a way to demonstrate how this idea, in a way that stands up to any and all rational questioning and skepticism?"

Can science prove that dogs can't see spirits?

Science doesn't ever prove anything. It is simply not possible given its mode. Science does not exclude the idea. However, it does say that "The is no objective evidence to date that demonstrates any sort of effect by ghosts. It doesn't say that they aren't there, but it does say that if they aren't there, then we aren't looking in the right place.

Additionally, if dogs can see spirits, why can't we? We have better eyesight and better hearing. Of course, they have FAR better smell. Moreover, they are less likely to inhibit the 'natural', most 'organic' functioning of the brain than humans, so maybe thats where you are heading?

Science is incapable of giving us any insight whatsoever into what is probably the most fundamental question of all mankind: what happens to us after death!

Actually, science has a very accurate description, involving bacteria and worms. perhaps a better question is : Who are "us"? Science doesn't have any way to examine that question, because there is no way to be objective about another person. Buddhism has much better answers here.

Interesting reading what you have to say, but I am afraid I am more of philosophical rather than scientific persuasion.

like I said above, they are one and the same.

[garro]

I explored Buddhism "slightly" last year. I found it rather confusing and contradictory and definitly yet another "convenient" religion in the world. However I have since read a book "A New Earth" by Eckhart Tolle. It is hands down the best spirituality book I have ever read, and it has helped me understand the basis of all the major religions and belief systems in the world. I thoroughly recommend it to anyone if they are looking for a clear and conscise guide to achieving enlightenment. That is not to say it is easy to achieve but I feel this book describes enlightenment/salvation/nirvana far better than any other scripture or writings.

"Know Thyself" is broken down to explain exactly what that means, as in behind the "I" which is purely the ego lies the source of our true selves.

Are you serious? You feel that slightly exploring a religion gives you the right to judge that it's 'definitely another convenient religion'. What does that mean anyway?

Buddhism is a system of dealing with life which has made sense to millions and millions of people for over 2,500 years. Other religions could make similar claims. Slightly exploring any of these religions is not a good basis for dismissig them in my opinion. Live and let live. If Buddhism works for people isn't that a good thing? It works for me.

I always think that it's wise to not make definite statements about things I know little about as it tends to make me look arroagnt and ignorant. If there is a subject which doesn't interest me I steer clear and avoid making sweeping statements. Do you not agree?

[CuriousGeorge77]

I'd like to ring in on this ... I'm a professional musician, and I've found that playing music can be the best meditation I've ever done. It has everything to do with knowing yourself, and know what you can do, what you can't do, and gradually erasing what you can't do. ...

Again IMHO, there are things learned mastering something that you just can't get as a jack-of-all trades. At very least, it is its own path. To be able to perform at a high level requires a high level of achievement along buddhist lines.

A very good point.

What you describe would be called in Buddhist terms as Samadhi. A strong positive step in training the heart and mind, though not the ultimate goal of Buddhism.

Is the affect of the intensity of your experience permanant or does it dissipate when you are no longer are practicing? Does it change you from the inside out or does it create a cocoon where the negativities or distractions don't bother you?

The next step is to use that Samadhi to develop the wisdom leading to permanant freedom.

I envy you that you have something that has helped you develop Samadhi because I think it will give you a good boost to your practice.

It is not a cocoon. It is not that i don't think about other things, it feels more like my mind is operating naturally, efficiently, and that this gives me a very satisfied feeling. It is not accomplishment per se, it is the act itself, on a mental level. (mental/physical union rather)

It is not only during the time which i am playing, but it has an effect that lasts beyond it - often all day long, sometimes longer. It is only a state that I have been able to glimpse lately, and I feel that one of the key factors allowing me to reach this state is the recognization that emotions and other things need to be included in performance. For example, butterflies in the stomach is the natural result of adrenaline, and this is something that needs to be felt, and allowed to contribute.

does it create a cocoon where the negativities or distractions don't bother you?

Thus, I could not perform at a high level in a 'cocoon'. I need to get into a place where the negativites are positives. Likewise, I have to be in a place where I don't feel obliged to show off, or impress anyone. Feeding that impulse is almost always self-defeating.

I don't feel that it is the end all and be all of anything, but it is a platform that allows me to reach other places, and is a forum/laboratory where I can try out things and get to know myself. These things can then get applied to life in general.

Samadhi

(Sanskrit) A compound word formed of sam, meaning "with" or "together"; a, meaning "towards"; and the verbal root dha, signifying "to place," or "to bring"; hence samadhi, meaning "to direct towards," generally signifies to combine the faculties of the mind with a direction towards an object.

OK - I just looked up Samadhi, and, the first part of the definition would be just about exactly what I'm talking about. I have only recently arrived at a place where I understand this, how it works, although actually achieving it is another matter entirely. I would like to stress that I have NOT attained Samadhi, I just kind of sense its form. Thank you for the compliment, though, but I am nowhere near that! I would like to get there, but my feeling is that I never will. I see how I could, but I don't think i will ever actually commit the resources to it. The definition turned my head around because the fundamental player in my flow chart is "resource allocation" ... as in the above example, when you ignore or try to inhibit "stage fright", then you are limiting the resources available to you when you actually perform ... You have lost the battle of being present already, and it is simply 'being fully present' that is required.

Incidentally, I even went so far as to write out a concept map/flow chart as to how this can be achieved, using brain schematics as a basis. its fundamentall pretty simple and jives completely with my understanding of buddhism (at least those aspects of Buddhism that make sense to me!)

There seemed to be some sort of spiritual 'mumbo-jumbo' attatched to the definition that I didn't include, because I don't feel/sense that at all. I just feel that I can direct my attention more effectively and more efficiently.

Can you point me to a good place to read more about attaining Samadhi, and also what the 'next step' is? I would presume it is expanding the tasks that you attain Samadhi with, to the point where you are Samadhi all the time? Or is that what is meant by Samadhi in the first place? (Like I said, I haven't gotten there!!) Or is it more along the lines of acting more in line with the 8fold path?

thanks

[j0hnga1t]

hmmmmm it was a innocent enough question.....but I like the Quantum Physics explanation........

[Simon255]

Big question but as you want proof then I would have to encourage you to plunge into the heavy waters of esoteric world. By far the most illuminating study I have made which covers absolutely everything conceivable and inconceivable is the Pratyabhijna-hrdayam by the Kashmiri sage Kshemaraja.

Sorry, I'm too busy trying to practice the Buddhas parth to awakening, I don't think I can afforc the luxury of sideshows.

Proof is all around you all the time but you don't see it. It is not for other people to prove to you.

It's very easy to make high sounding sweeping statements on life the universe and everything without backing them up because they are so high sounding they don't seem to need backing up. Of course anyone who doesn't agree is just "unable to see it".

All I ask is you to provide just one anecdote where you put your faith in an amulet, got a good result from it, and how you determined it was the amulet that did it.

If you can't do that I'd prefer you desist from high sounding sweeping statements on life the universe and everything and limit the discussion to the Buddhas teachings.

Your contempt at stating an outstanding piece of philosophy as a sideshow really does highlight serious lack of awareness. Buddha never said that his path and the splitting of the Buddhist paths into separate yanas is the only viable perfected path. It is widely accepted that there are more and they feed and assist each other to some degree in the human experience. I am here to debate and I am free to talk about subtle energy, not put on a circus for you. Don't presume what you feel is relavent in the thread is what everyone wants. Also don't pick up spelling mistakes with others when you have several.

[CuriousGeorge77]

All I ask is you to provide just one anecdote where you put your faith in an amulet, got a good result from it, and how you determined it was the amulet that did it.

Its a fair question ....  

which covers absolutely everything conceivable and inconceivable

 

Thats truly impressive.  Too good to be true,  some migh even go so far as to say!

[Brucenkhamen]

Can you point me to a good place to read more about attaining Samadhi, and also what the 'next step' is? I would presume it is expanding the tasks that you attain Samadhi with, to the point where you are Samadhi all the time? Or is that what is meant by Samadhi in the first place? (Like I said, I haven't gotten there!!) Or is it more along the lines of acting more in line with the 8fold path?

Samadhi is strengthening your concentration, much like sharpening a tool. It is impermanant and dependant on conditions but with practice you get better at it. Ultimately it can lead to altered states called Jhana.

This is generally not considered to be the goal of practice, the idea is once you have sharpened your tool sufficiently you can then put it to work, use your one pointedness and presence of mind to develop wisdom.

Your tool my already be relatively sharp because of your music and you may find you progress in meditation better than others might.

Here's a couple the websites of a couple of teachers that emphasize concentration practice and a Wikipedia subject on the topic, I hope this gets you started;

http://www.bswa.org/

http://www.leighb.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samadhi

[Brucenkhamen]

Your contempt at stating an outstanding piece of philosophy as a sideshow really does highlight serious lack of awareness.

I am aware that your high sounding rhetoric is short on substance, are you? That's why I ask you to clarify, to give you the opportunity to explain what you are saying in terms most of us will understand. Now we may still agree to disagree in the end but that's ok.

Of course the easier thing to do would be just to write it of as new age pseudo buddhist psycho-babble and ignore it, but what if there is some substance after all?

I'm surprised a thread on magic amulets gained any traction on this forum at all.

Buddha never said that his path and the splitting of the Buddhist paths into separate yanas is the only viable perfected path.

The Buddha didn't split his path into seperate yanas, people did, there were no seperate yanas until after he died.

It is widely accepted that there are more and they feed and assist each other to some degree in the human experience.

So you are saying there are more yanas than we know about? widely accepted by whom? How do they feed and assist each other to some degree in the human experience? This would be much easier if you'd explain things plainly.

I am here to debate and I am free to talk about subtle energy, not put on a circus for you.

Why would we want to talk about subtle energy? Do you mean it's subtle energy that makes amulets magic? If so please explain how it works.

I'm still waiting on the one anecdote where you put your faith in an amulet, got a good result from it, and how you determined it was the amulet that did it.

Now I'm sure that the world is much much more than we know, however I don't choose to speculate on the unknown.

Don't presume what you feel is relavent in the thread is what everyone wants. Also don't pick up spelling mistakes with others when you have several.

Yes you are right it's not my place to say what should be discussed, and pointing out your spelling mistake was a bit petty on my part.

Edited March 16, 2008 by Brucenkhamen

[CuriousGeorge77]

Your tool my already be relatively sharp because of your music and you may find you progress in meditation better than others might.

If that is the case, then the 'others' are in trouble.... I admittedly like to think I'm good at it, but objectively, I'm slower than a downs syndrome kid with a walker.

Thanks for the links ... some of the ideas have sorta filled up my head for the time being ... I'll have to sort through 'em. Like I said before, some of it I can clearly understand, but other aspects just don't make sense to me yet.

[thaiclan]

I explored Buddhism "slightly" last year. I found it rather confusing and contradictory and definitly yet another "convenient" religion in the world. However I have since read a book "A New Earth" by Eckhart Tolle. It is hands down the best spirituality book I have ever read, and it has helped me understand the basis of all the major religions and belief systems in the world. I thoroughly recommend it to anyone if they are looking for a clear and conscise guide to achieving enlightenment. That is not to say it is easy to achieve but I feel this book describes enlightenment/salvation/nirvana far better than any other scripture or writings.

"Know Thyself" is broken down to explain exactly what that means, as in behind the "I" which is purely the ego lies the source of our true selves.

Are you serious? You feel that slightly exploring a religion gives you the right to judge that it's 'definitely another convenient religion'. What does that mean anyway?

Buddhism is a system of dealing with life which has made sense to millions and millions of people for over 2,500 years. Other religions could make similar claims. Slightly exploring any of these religions is not a good basis for dismissig them in my opinion. Live and let live. If Buddhism works for people isn't that a good thing? It works for me.

I always think that it's wise to not make definite statements about things I know little about as it tends to make me look arroagnt and ignorant. If there is a subject which doesn't interest me I steer clear and avoid making sweeping statements. Do you not agree?

You get me wrong. I think it is absolutely amazing and fantastic that Buddhism has made millions of people happy, content and peaceful. Ditto Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Paganism etc etc etc

[Brucenkhamen]

You get me wrong. I think it is absolutely amazing and fantastic that Buddhism has made millions of people happy, content and peaceful. Ditto Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Paganism etc etc etc

Making people happy is not enough, drugs can maske people happy, Ignorance is bliss. There needs to be more to it than just making people happy.

[garro]

You get me wrong. I think it is absolutely amazing and fantastic that Buddhism has made millions of people happy, content and peaceful. Ditto Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Paganism etc etc etc

Making people happy is not enough, drugs can maske people happy, Ignorance is bliss. There needs to be more to it than just making people happy.

Not enough for who? You?

I don't believe that drugs make people happy.

[Brucenkhamen]

Not enough for who? You?

I don't believe that drugs make people happy.

I believe that was my point. Surface happiness is not enough to measure the value of a spiritual practice.

[garro]

Not enough for who? You?

I don't believe that drugs make people happy.

I believe that was my point. Surface happiness is not enough to measure the value of a spiritual practice.

Huh? You say 'drugs can make people happy.'

I say 'I don't believe that drugs make people happy.'

You say 'I believe that was my point.'

Sorry I don't understand and it's a bit too early in the morning for koans.

Edited March 17, 2008 by garro

[IMChris]

Buddhas teachings are just a guide or hint on how your mind works. If I took 100 people and told them that this high tech pill Im going to give them will have some side effects, one of the side effects is that it will make you feel very good, and I also said that some of you will get very sick. The pill of course is just a sugar pill and there will be a percent of people saying that after they took the pill thet felt great and also some of them would report that the pill made them sick. Is this MAGIC ?

I have and collected magic amulets and the old guys around the Temple will show and campare amulets even to the point of examing said amulet with a magnifying glass, some are very big some are small. Some give you luck some keep you safe ect. ect. There are many people that would swear that thier amulets saved them or gave them a Boy baby ect. ect. Do they give you MAGIC ?

[Brucenkhamen]

Huh? You say 'drugs can make people happy.'

I say 'I don't believe that drugs make people happy.'

You say 'I believe that was my point.'

Sorry I don't understand and it's a bit too early in the morning for koans.

My reference to drugs as an example is irrelavent. Chocolate can make you happy, Icecream can make you happy, winning the lottery can make you happy.

The point is happiness is impermanant, subject to conditions, so I don't thaiclan's statement that "I think it is absolutely amazing and fantastic that Buddhism has made millions of people happy, content and peaceful. Ditto Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Paganism" is enough reason to validate a spiritual path.

Not only that but if that happiness is based on ignorance then that's counterproductive, in some cases even dangerous.

Edited March 18, 2008 by Brucenkhamen

[garro]

Huh? You say 'drugs can make people happy.'

I say 'I don't believe that drugs make people happy.'

You say 'I believe that was my point.'

Sorry I don't understand and it's a bit too early in the morning for koans.

My reference to drugs as an example is irrelavent. Chocolate can make you happy, Icecream can make you happy, winning the lottery can make you happy.

The point is happiness is impermanant, subject to conditions, so I don't thaiclan's statement that "I think it is absolutely amazing and fantastic that Buddhism has made millions of people happy, content and peaceful. Ditto Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Paganism" is enough reason to validate a spiritual path.

Well my point is that it is search for happiness (or to escape from suffering) that draws people to different paths. It is my view that the Buddha provided a practical means to achieve this. I don't think that it is any coincedence that when people achieve insights it is often accomplished with great happiness. The Buddha himself praised the rapture associated with these states. Of course, the ideal would be to become an arahant, but then again this state is often described in reference to happiness. I suppose though that until we achieve this ourselves it is mere speculation. So for me happiness is a very important part of the path. When I experience happiness from my practice it is often a sign that I'm doing something right. I don't think that the Buddha wanted people to merely repeat his words but to experience things for themselves - see the experience is impermanent for myself but not dismiss it.

[Brucenkhamen]

Well my point is that it is search for happiness (or to escape from suffering) that draws people to different paths. It is my view that the Buddha provided a practical means to achieve this. I don't think that it is any coincedence that when people achieve insights it is often accomplished with great happiness. The Buddha himself praised the rapture associated with these states. Of course, the ideal would be to become an arahant, but then again this state is often described in reference to happiness. I suppose though that until we achieve this ourselves it is mere speculation. So for me happiness is a very important part of the path. When I experience happiness from my practice it is often a sign that I'm doing something right. I don't think that the Buddha wanted people to merely repeat his words but to experience things for themselves - see the experience is impermanent for myself but not dismiss it.

All good, and when the time comes and you are going through a dry patch in your practice and the happiness has gone temporarily I'd be willing to bet that you won't say "Sod this I'll go and be a Jehovah's Witness because they always look happy".

Why? because there is more to your path than just being happy, hence my original point "There needs to be more to it than just making people happy."