What Is Is That 'Makes' Someone Choose To Become Bhuddist?

[Brucenkhamen]

For me, that statement of yours is the most intriguing of anything that has been written in this thread...and for me it comes at just the right time.

I don't think the OP knows what he wants the answer to his question to be, but he seems to know in what form he wants the answer to be. Unfortunately, that doesn't lead him to either the place he wants to go, or to the "right" place. I think it leads him to a place of frustration.

So for me, for the time being, I'm going to let Buddhism take care of certain aspects of my life, and continue to explore other belief structures for other aspects of life.

The Acintita Sutta has some good advice on these kinds of questions, see http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html

[Xangsamhua]

For me, that statement of yours is the most intriguing of anything that has been written in this thread...and for me it comes at just the right time.

I don't think the OP knows what he wants the answer to his question to be, but he seems to know in what form he wants the answer to be. Unfortunately, that doesn't lead him to either the place he wants to go, or to the "right" place. I think it leads him to a place of frustration.

So for me, for the time being, I'm going to let Buddhism take care of certain aspects of my life, and continue to explore other belief structures for other aspects of life.

The Acintita Sutta has some good advice on these kinds of questions, see http://www.accesstoi...4.077.than.html

From the Sutta: "Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it."

Not too sure about individual "madness", but some people get pretty steamed up (vexatious) about these conjectures. Some nasty wars have been fought, not only about religion, but with a significant religious ingredient. And much injustice has been done in defence of religious institutions and dogma.

The Buddha's advice is good in general terms. However, it is certainly possible, once one has moved on from religious attachment, to discuss these matters in an non-combative, exploratory manner.

[Brucenkhamen]

The Buddha's advice is good in general terms. However, it is certainly possible, once one has moved on from religious attachment, to discuss these matters in an non-combative, exploratory manner.

I think the key word in that sutta is "conjecture". These kinds of topics are very worthwhile to be talking about, certainly much more than some of the topics of conversation people commonly choose... they are worthwhile once we have some facts to talk about.

The trouble is thousands of years of science, philosophy, and religion hasn't really produced much in the way of hard facts on some of these kinds of questions, and so sometimes people look to Buddhists. I don't think we should buy into that because there is a fair bit of scriptural evidence the Buddha didn't.

I'm not sure whether it matters whether one has moved on from religious attachment, unless the end result is some facts we didn't have before it was just entertainment at best or a diversion at worst.

Edited September 12, 2010 by Brucenkhamen

[Xangsamhua]

The Buddha's advice is good in general terms. However, it is certainly possible, once one has moved on from religious attachment, to discuss these matters in an non-combative, exploratory manner.

I think the key word in that sutta is "conjecture". These kinds of topics are very worthwhile to be talking about, certainly much more than some of the topics of conversation people commonly choose... they are worthwhile once we have some facts to talk about.

The trouble is thousands of years of science, philosophy, and religion hasn't really produced much in the way of hard facts on some of these kinds of questions, and so sometimes people look to Buddhists. I don't think we should buy into that because there is a fair bit of scriptural evidence the Buddha didn't.

I'm not sure whether it matters whether one has moved on from religious attachment, unless the end result is some facts we didn't have before it was just entertainment at best or a diversion at worst.

Yes, we lack the really necessary data and the conceptual ability to really pin these matters down. Wittgenstein was so frustrated that there was a world beyond the limits of his language that he accepted the need to talk "nonsense". He described his own earlier work- the Tractatus - as nonsense, though thoughtful people find it provocative and helpful.

Perhaps for many the exploration of human thought about non-empirically verifiable propositions is mere distraction or entertainment. Perhaps it is. After all, philosophers have tended to come from the leisured or academically tenured classes. Maybe there are better things we could do with our time. However, I think discussion of these conjectures when they arise (one isn't necessarily going to go out looking for them) has considerable purgative value in clearing out from our minds untenable propositions that we have inherited from our culture or may be put to us by others or that we may discern in others. (I've been an educator for 45 years, so I have this urge to correct people.)

We learn through exploring the logic behind invalid claims and discover thereby what simply will not do as assertions about why things are the way they are and where they're headed. Sometimes this can take quite a long time, but if we don't put it aside, we can reach a negative form of moksha, at which point we can say: "Well, I don't know what is ultimately true, but I am pretty clear on what is false." Being liberated from false belief and false consciousness, even in a limited domain, is very satisfying, and, I suggest, contributes to right view (as long as we don't forget that our personal views are tentative).

Edited September 12, 2010 by Xangsamhua

[sirineou]

IN My Opinion, Buddhism is less of a religion and more of a rational philosophy for achieving happiness.

Most of as we are born to a religion, that aside from the religious aspect ,also has a social, cultural aspect,and even though we might recognize a certain degree of irrationality in the religion we were born in. being social animals, we desire social interactione, and we find it difficult to leave the religion of our family and neighbors.

as we get older, for some of as , social interaction becomes less important and rather than looking outside of our selves for answers, we start to look IN,

That is where I believe Buddhism comes an important option to many of as.

[phetaroi]

For me, that statement of yours is the most intriguing of anything that has been written in this thread...and for me it comes at just the right time.

I don't think the OP knows what he wants the answer to his question to be, but he seems to know in what form he wants the answer to be. Unfortunately, that doesn't lead him to either the place he wants to go, or to the "right" place. I think it leads him to a place of frustration.

So for me, for the time being, I'm going to let Buddhism take care of certain aspects of my life, and continue to explore other belief structures for other aspects of life.

The Acintita Sutta has some good advice on these kinds of questions, see http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html

Funny, I don't think I've gone mad...yet.

[Brucenkhamen]

However, I think discussion of these conjectures when they arise (one isn't necessarily going to go out looking for them) has considerable purgative value in clearing out from our minds untenable propositions that we have inherited from our culture or may be put to us by others or that we may discern in others. (I've been an educator for 45 years, so I have this urge to correct people.)[/font]

We learn through exploring the logic behind invalid claims and discover thereby what simply will not do as assertions about why things are the way they are and where they're headed. Sometimes this can take quite a long time, but if we don't put it aside, we can reach a negative form of moksha, at which point we can say: "Well, I don't know what is ultimately true, but I am pretty clear on what is false." Being liberated from false belief and false consciousness, even in a limited domain, is very satisfying, and, I suggest, contributes to right view (as long as we don't forget that our personal views are tentative).

I think you are right about the purgative value and coming to a clearer understanding at least of what's false and can be discarded.

From my experience of practice is more a process of letting go of my expectations and preconceived ideas rather than accumulating supermundane revelations.

[christiaan]

I ask my questions because I want to know, I am passionate about knowing. I make my questions and the information to inform about these question long becos I do my best to make the question, the topic of it, clear, The fact that I am no native English speaker or writer makes it difficult to do this at the best and then there is lack of time, cos there is not always so much time to use as I would like to do. For the people who think I have nothing at hands, I work about 55-60 hours a week. I am a manager/adviser in a company. Beside that I have a small family.

When I have an experience, meet something manifested by words I like to know the truth of it, I like to know what the experience and words are telling me.

This also includes my own actions, thinking, believing, feelings and words.

I am not attached to any opinion, believe, doctrine or dogma.

So I write on this forum, since I have some experiences of different nature about Thailand.

I am interested in Thailand and I see unique and special positive and unique and special negative aspects of this country and culture.

And when people do not like remarks as I describe them in relation to Thailand, based on observation, and see this as a reason to remove them, I would say just read the other subforums where one can read many blunt insulting remarks about Thailand on an everyday base and they are not removed.

I would not repeat in detail or go more into detail about the special charactaristic negative aspects of Thai culture - as every culture has negative and positive aspects.- or go into detail with regard to the specific suffering of Thai people, in economical, political, medical, educational and all other views becos it is clear to me that when someone , coming out of an Eruopean country cannot 'see' this by own observation, ( without condemning or offending) this person must be 'blind' or about blind.

Beside writing here I ofcourse read and study a lot with regard to the subject choosen here and about none of the contributions here did change my idea to another direction, it did even made the idea's I met before and the ideas I developed myself during handling this subject more suitable and apropriate.

So her I go, .....in short....

The life of the Buddha is in an important aspect a model for the evolution of the I

It is by the I- awareness, the self awareness, a human can know about the world and about himself .

The human is living in a body, a body built from outside by means of the mineral world.

In the body lives the soul.

In the soul lives the I of the human and in the I of the human lives the spirit.

With our physical body, ou physical side of being, we know about the physical world

With our spiritual I, our spiritual being, built from the inside by spirit, we know about the spiritual world.

We cannot become aware of spirituality just only by means of our material existence and biological processes..

The ears and sound are both parts of the same, the eyes and the light are both parts of the same, and at the end our I and the spirit are also both parts of the same.

Like our body can and has to deal with bodily relations to the material world around us, it needs food and drinking to survive, our spiritual

I needs 'food and drinking' from the spiritual world to survive and be a life in a healthy way in the soul and the body.

In our material existence we have an independent living body, separated from, autonomos to, material world, but in exchanging relation.

In our spiritual existence we have an independent living I , separated from, autonomous to, spiritual world, but in exchanging relation.

Without bodyprocesses we would die, without spiritual processes like selfawareness, we still would be like animals.

It is by living in (high) selfawareness, by being a spirit in a living I, by choosing, by action, and not by a simple cause and action conditioning, Siddhartha Gasutama could make his journey' to enlightment.

The Buddha had to deal with his individuality, his personallity, his low I, the ego, and his higher I , to reach enlightment.

For this the Buddha had many incarnations before, living as a Bodhisattva.

It was only at the end of his journey when he came to enlightment, he came to meet and live in the pure spiritual world, the world of no-thing but spirit.

It was there that his I became pure spiritual existence as at the opposite our body becomes pure mineral existence again when (also) dissolving at the end.

So all people in the world have to deal with an I in some stage of development.

That is reality, that is why a person can say: I am a Buddhist ( and not: I am a Buddha) and that is no "labelling" that is reality of life on earth, that is inner experience and one does not become an Arahant when denying this.

The teachings of Aristoteles were: wisdom about faculty and essence of logic.

The teachings of this Buddha were: wisdom about faculty and essence of compassion and love.

Every Buddha brings something new into the world, right time right place, and no Buddha brings all.

(We will have the next Buddha in about 3000 year)

The last Buddha brought the most genuine, the most unique, the most valuable wisdom about love and compassion in the world.

The importance of the teachings of Buddha is difficult to describe or to emphasize.

Allthough this Buddha did bring the wisdom about the faculty and essence of compassion and love........

This Buddha did not bring the act of love.

And that is what answered my question from the beginning: why is the situation in Thailand (still) as it is?

[rockyysdt]

And that is what answered my question from the beginning: why is the situation in Thailand (still) as it is? .....

Most of the people of Thailand, as in most countries, are addicted to their five senses.

Humans take the easy path.

Pleasures which trigger touch, smell, sight, hearing & mind give instant response, but the Buddhas path initially requires much concentration, will power, time, and effort before one realizes any returns.

The human is lazy and will take instant gratification most of the time.

Edited September 14, 2010 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

And that is what answered my question from the beginning: why is the situation in Thailand (still) as it is?

Also the small I (ego) is extremely persuasive.

It wants to rule and will find every manner of argument and logic to ensure it maintains control.

The ego is so subtle and cunning it can cause travelers well along the path to fall.

Unless you have the strength and resolve to pick yourself up and continue, your quest could end at any time.

Those who succeed at any given point in time, will be in the minority.

Of course, re birth over an almost infinite period of time will eventually yield results for the rest of us.

Perhaps some of us have already been recycling for just such a period.

Edited September 14, 2010 by rockyysdt

[sabaijai]

Allthough this Buddha did bring the wisdom about the faculty and essence of compassion and love........

This Buddha did not bring the act of love.

And that is what answered my question from the beginning: why is the situation in Thailand (still) as it is?

You're confusing culture with Buddhism. Why is India the way it is despite being a mostly Hindu nation? Germany a Christian country? And so on.

Once again you seem to be implying that the West is superior to Thailand, and Thai Buddhism must be the problem.

The Thai social and political systems has been created by imperfect people, and hence the systems they have created are imperfect, same as in every system man has ever created.

[sabaijai]

The trouble is thousands of years of science, philosophy, and religion hasn't really produced much in the way of hard facts on some of these kinds of questions, and so sometimes people look to Buddhists. I don't think we should buy into that because there is a fair bit of scriptural evidence the Buddha didn't.

Yes. The suttas were quite clear on questions that tend not to edification. That does not mean they are not worth asking, only that in his enlightened opinion no answer would edify.

[phetaroi]

You're confusing culture with Buddhism. Why is India the way it is despite being a mostly Hindu nation? Germany a Christian country? And so on.

Once again you seem to be implying that the West is superior to Thailand, and Thai Buddhism must be the problem.

The Thai social and political systems has been created by imperfect people, and hence the systems they have created are imperfect, same as in every system man has ever created.

I think you're correct in saying that the OP is confusing culture with Buddhism. But it seems to me that is exactly what the Thais do on a fairly common basis. Every Thai I know mixes heavy doses of animism and Hinduism in with their Buddhism, yet each purports that they are faithful Buddhists. Except for one old Thai matriarch, I don't know a single Thai who goes to temple with any frequency or regularity, and this may relate to my frequent complaint that so many Thai Buddhist temples are generally closed to public. I see so many Thai people breaking so many Buddhist precepts, and not even connecting the acts with Buddhist morality.

You're correct in saying that, "The Thai social and political systems has been created by imperfect people, and hence the systems they have created are imperfect, same as in every system man has ever created." But that's irrelevant. This forum is about Thai Buddhism. About Buddhism in a country that defines itself as a "Buddhist nation". Thailand is not a country that believes in any separation of church and state.

[Xangsamhua]

This forum is about Thai Buddhism. About Buddhism in a country that defines itself as a "Buddhist nation". Thailand is not a country that believes in any separation of church and state.

I think there would be some focus on Buddhism as it's expressed in Thailand - it's a Thailand-based forum after all - but I hope the forum's not just about Thai Buddhism. That would be too constricting.

[dutchguest]

The life of the Buddha is in an important aspect a model for the evolution of the I

It is by the I- awareness, the self awareness, a human can know about the world and about himself .

The human is living in a body, a body built from outside by means of the mineral world.

In the body lives the soul.

In the soul lives the I of the human and in the I of the human lives the spirit.

With our physical body, ou physical side of being, we know about the physical world

With our spiritual I, our spiritual being, built from the inside by spirit, we know about the spiritual world.

We cannot become aware of spirituality just only by means of our material existence and biological processes..

The ears and sound are both parts of the same, the eyes and the light are both parts of the same, and at the end our I and the spirit are also both parts of the same.

Like our body can and has to deal with bodily relations to the material world around us, it needs food and drinking to survive, our spiritual

I needs 'food and drinking' from the spiritual world to survive and be a life in a healthy way in the soul and the body.

In our material existence we have an independent living body, separated from, autonomos to, material world, but in exchanging relation.

In our spiritual existence we have an independent living I , separated from, autonomous to, spiritual world, but in exchanging relation.

Without bodyprocesses we would die, without spiritual processes like selfawareness, we still would be like animals.

It is by living in (high) selfawareness, by being a spirit in a living I, by choosing, by action, and not by a simple cause and action conditioning, Siddhartha Gasutama could make his journey' to enlightment.

I.m.o. the effort of Buddha and of everybody who is seeking enlightenment, is to free oneself out of the unconscious, blind forces of nature, the laws of cause and effect.

You can not change those laws but by knowing how they function you can in a way transcend them, free yourself out of their grip: if you know you will burn yourself by touching fire, you don't touch it. You do not change the law of cause and effect but use your understanding of it. And your understanding comes not out of some separate spiritual world but out of the experience of pain. So in a way you have freed yourself from blind cause and effect, you have transcended blind, unconscious nature.

Buddha wanted to end suffering. So he tried to find out what are the causes suffering. If you know the causes you can transcend suffering. This is the way evolution functions. (i.m.o.)

[rockyysdt]

Allthough this Buddha did bring the wisdom about the faculty and essence of compassion and love........

This Buddha did not bring the act of love.

And that is what answered my question from the beginning: why is the situation in Thailand (still) as it is?

You're confusing culture with Buddhism. Why is India the way it is despite being a mostly Hindu nation? Germany a Christian country? And so on.

Once again you seem to be implying that the West is superior to Thailand, and Thai Buddhism must be the problem.

The Thai social and political systems has been created by imperfect people, and hence the systems they have created are imperfect, same as in every system man has ever created.

Even so, I do see to some extent where Christiaan is coming from.

Putting culture aside, why hasn't Thailand (which has been influenced by the Buddha's teachings for several millennia) yielded more in terms of the current situation, than have non Buddhist countries?

Things like, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, & right effort. Things that could transform the quality of a nation.

Edited September 21, 2010 by rockyysdt

[sabaijai]

Allthough this Buddha did bring the wisdom about the faculty and essence of compassion and love........

This Buddha did not bring the act of love.

And that is what answered my question from the beginning: why is the situation in Thailand (still) as it is?

You're confusing culture with Buddhism. Why is India the way it is despite being a mostly Hindu nation? Germany a Christian country? And so on.

Once again you seem to be implying that the West is superior to Thailand, and Thai Buddhism must be the problem.

The Thai social and political systems has been created by imperfect people, and hence the systems they have created are imperfect, same as in every system man has ever created.

Even so, I do see to some extent where Christiaan is coming from.

Putting culture aside, why hasn't Thailand (which has been influenced by the Buddha's teachings for several millennia) yielded more in terms of the current situation, than have non Buddhist countries?

Things like, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, & right effort. Things that could transform the quality of a nation.

I don't follow you. Could you give an example?

As far as 'putting culture aside' goes, I don't think that is possible -- in any country.

[Brucenkhamen]

As far as 'putting culture aside' goes, I don't think that is possible -- in any country.

In fact culture might just be one of the culprits he's looking for.

[Brucenkhamen]

And that is what answered my question from the beginning: why is the situation in Thailand (still) as it is?

You're confusing culture with Buddhism. Why is India the way it is despite being a mostly Hindu nation? Germany a Christian country? And so on.

It's not just an issue with religion.

Why is it that my body is degrading and slowly dying even though I put effort into looking after it? Why does my car and my electronic gadgets break down? Why do we need laws and police to enforce them to prevent society falling into chaos? Why do the teachings of spiritual leaders always get twisted and corrupted by later followers?

Anicca and Dukkha, impermamnence and unsatisfactoriness. The Buddha didn't come to create a perfect religion, or a perfect south east asian utopia, he cam to teach us how to not suffer over the imperfections of life.

Buddhist religion is not the truth, it's just a vehicle for the truth, a container for the truth. Like any vehicle or container it will degrade over time. Thailand is a country that contains some people who identify with the container.

[sabaijai]

Buddhism is not an official national religion in Thailand. You might argue that it is a de facto state religion, but that wouldn't change the fact that even in cases where a religion is nationally enshrined, you never see a belief system perfectly practised (or even practised at all) by a majority of the citizens. As has been often noted, much of what passes for religion or belief systems held to be significant or sacred by a culture is window dressing.

Deja vu from the earlier thread, 'Can Buddhism Save Thailand?'

[rockyysdt]

you never see a belief system perfectly practised (or even practised at all) by a majority of the citizens. As has been often noted, much of what passes for religion or belief systems held to be significant or sacred by a culture is window dressing.

I always viewed Thai Buddhism and its Sangha as a way to progress ones path.

In earlier experiences I found Western offerings tended to be tied to ego or money.

I now wonder how much of Thai Monkhood is window dressing and how difficult it would be to find worthy teachers.

I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that most don't practice or practice imperfectly.

As L P Sumedho Vesak said during a dhamma talk:

"we're all limited by the conditioning we've acquired".

Edited September 23, 2010 by rockyysdt

[phetaroi]

I always viewed Thai Buddhism and its Sangha as a way to progress ones path.

In earlier experiences I found Western offerings tended to be tied to ego or money.

I now wonder how much of Thai Monkhood is window dressing and how difficult it would be to find worthy teachers.

I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that most don't practice or practice imperfectly.

As L P Sumedho Vesak said during a dhamma talk:

"we're all limited by the conditioning we've acquired".

Don't misunderstand me, because I share some of your concerns, but I sometimes think we (note the all-inclusive "we") tend to show a little of our own ego when we imply that we in this forum are more...hmmmm, what word to use....faithful to Buddhist concepts than Buddhist monks.

[moe666]

What would cause one to become a Buddhist, dissatisfaction.

[dutchguest]

The life of the Buddha is in an important aspect a model for the evolution of the I

It is by the I- awareness, the self awareness, a human can know about the world and about himself .

The human is living in a body, a body built from outside by means of the mineral world.

In the body lives the soul.

In the soul lives the I of the human and in the I of the human lives the spirit.

With our physical body, ou physical side of being, we know about the physical world

With our spiritual I, our spiritual being, built from the inside by spirit, we know about the spiritual world.

We cannot become aware of spirituality just only by means of our material existence and biological processes..

The ears and sound are both parts of the same, the eyes and the light are both parts of the same, and at the end our I and the spirit are also both parts of the same.

Like our body can and has to deal with bodily relations to the material world around us, it needs food and drinking to survive, our spiritual

I needs 'food and drinking' from the spiritual world to survive and be a life in a healthy way in the soul and the body.

In our material existence we have an independent living body, separated from, autonomos to, material world, but in exchanging relation.

In our spiritual existence we have an independent living I , separated from, autonomous to, spiritual world, but in exchanging relation.

Without bodyprocesses we would die, without spiritual processes like selfawareness, we still would be like animals.

It is by living in (high) selfawareness, by being a spirit in a living I, by choosing, by action, and not by a simple cause and action conditioning, Siddhartha Gasutama could make his journey' to enlightment.

I.m.o. the effort of Buddha and of everybody who is seeking enlightenment, is to free oneself out of the unconscious, blind forces of nature, the laws of cause and effect.

You can not change those laws but by knowing how they function you can in a way transcend them, free yourself out of their grip: if you know you will burn yourself by touching fire, you don't touch it. You do not change the law of cause and effect but use your understanding of it. And your understanding comes not out of some separate spiritual world but out of the experience of pain. So in a way you have freed yourself from blind cause and effect, you have transcended blind, unconscious nature.

Buddha wanted to end suffering. So he tried to find out what are the causes suffering. If you know the causes you can transcend suffering. This is the way evolution functions. (i.m.o.)

I like to add a few more remarks:

So by growing our awareness, consciousness we can liberate ourself. There is something seemingly paradoxical in the laws of cause and effect and the transcendence of them, in the existence of awareness and matter. They are i.m.o. not two different, separated “things”, but two sides of the same phenomenon, so monism in stead of dualism. Our mind, and especially the western mind, is formed to a large extent by Aristotelian logic, which has only a limited reach and only is valid in the mechanica as far as I have understood. It can not transcend the dualities and paradoxes. Since a.o. Hegel and Einstein awareness begins to rise that aristotelian logic is not valid as far as concerning the laws of the development, evolution of nature, as well the universe as the evolution of life on earth. Here the dialectical logic gives a better tool to understand reality, it has a wider and deeper validity.

Concerning the remark of Christian above that without the spiritual world we are no more than animals:

We are animals, only a species that has developed a little bit more brains. Our mind may delude us that we are somehow special and separated from the rest of nature and other animals but these are just the dreams of the ego Buddha wants to extinguish. These dreams are the reason we have fallen in some respects under the level of animals: there are -as far as I know- no other species that are killing each other in a systematic way. Also I think we are the only species trying hard to destroy its own habitat. So untill now not so much reason to be proud.

[sabaijai]

What would cause one to become a Buddhist, dissatisfaction.

"I can't get no ..."

http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Lifestyle/News/Mick-Jagger-Monk-y-Man-920/

[Joop50]

There is not such thing as a do-er, there is only the thinking "I am the do-er"

Evenso, there is no free will, you only think there is.

So the mind is the cause of suffering.

Everybody is enlightend only the mind tells us not.

Nonduality means all is One, one Consiousness.

[Xangsamhua]

There is not such thing as a do-er, there is only the thinking "I am the do-er"

Evenso, there is no free will, you only think there is.

I have problems with the idea of free will, too, both in general terms and in relation to the doctrine of karma, but rather than extend this already very long and rambling thread I'll start a new one on the question.

[Joop50]

There is not such thing as a do-er, there is only the thinking "I am the do-er"

Evenso, there is no free will, you only think there is.

I have problems with the idea of free will, too, both in general terms and in relation to the doctrine of karma, but rather than extend this already very long and rambling thread I'll start a new one on the question.

that's fine

[christiaan]

Dutchguest:

We are animals, only a species that has developed a little bit more brains. Our mind may delude us that we are somehow special and separated from the rest of nature and other animals but these are just the dreams of the ego Buddha wants to extinguish. These dreams are the reason we have fallen in some respects under the level of animals: there are -as far as I know- no other species that are killing each other in a systematic way. Also I think we are the only species trying hard to destroy its own habitat. So untill now not so much reason to be proud.

Christiaan:

A stone is a mineral.

A plant is a living organism, built up by minerals.

An animal is a living organism, built up by minerals and in possession of a soul by wich it lives unaware of its instinct (specific way of thinking) within the world of knowledge.

A human is a living organism, built up by minerals, in possession of a soul (like an animal) living by selfaware thinking outside the world of knowledge.

So, a human is a collection of minerals, formed to a body where in his organs (also built up by minerals) are plant-like, with a soul where in his or her, will, feelings and thinking (called instinct for an animal) are living, at the best 'controlled' by the ' I ' in a selfaware thinking.

So yes, there is something animal in a human......That is a fact, no delusion.

As I wrote before human existence is from the material side built up by material and from the spiritual side built up by the spirit. They meet in the soul where the 'I' being the (still not complete) manifestation of our spiritual reality lives in aware thinking and can act in the world out of the developed human faculties within the freedom given by these faculties.

We not just have a little more brains, gorillas do have little more brains as ants, we have selfawareness, and no animal on earth has selfawareness.

In the human thinking meets the thinking in a reflecting action, this reflecting thinking is the activity of the spiritual entity, the I of a single individual human.

Even when Buddha showed this by his life, this thinking selfawareness up to a high level, this did not mean that at the same time all humanity was free and enlighted, it only showed this faculty came in to actual life at that time in human history and not only for Buddha but also to several other humans (philosophers out of that same period of history).

Every single person on earth who would like to be more selfaware, more free and enlighted has to make a personal free choice by his or her ' I ' and to act according to this free choice.

I wonder if at some time some person will write Sidharta Guatama was just a little more as an animal, because he just had a little more brainmaterial, and , because he had no ' I ' but just by some specific conditioning he had to, was forced to, live his life by effect to some cause outside his power, to become, in this way enforced, enlighted.

If I understand some other contributer I am wrong even thinking Buddha did do something at all, becos thinking such a thing - about doing -would be an illusion.

In general most people become Buddhist becos they are born in a Buddhist culture, so ..a condition, they do not choose to become Budhist with actual awareness. They are not 'free' to do so.

A number of people become Buddhists out of 'freedom', most of them are foreigners and I suspect most of those foreigners choose in freedom to become Buddhists.

Was this choice a free choice? Was this choice the outcome of cause and effect, aware or unaware? Was this choice the outcome of what the German philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte (19-05-1972 / 29-01-1814) wrote: The Philosophy a person choose for depends on the person someone is ?

(In modern language called projection)

I would say rejecting the I is a delusion, rejecting people actually ' do ' is a delusion.

People rejecting 'doing' are actually 'doing' rejecting.

I, by my awareness, know the difference between reality and delusions, this doesnot mean I cannot have a wrong 'view' some times, I can, but I can correct my wrong view by actively expand my awareness.

When the I would be a misconception (beside having a different interpretation of the I, - not being the ego nor the personality) what is knowing this is a misconception? The I ? Or the not existing delusion of the I ? Or the conditioned ego or Self? How could a conditioned ego or Self actualy comprehend the truth that the I is a misconception, a delusion? Then this self or ego would have to be free from conditioning to actually see this truth. A delusion however can never make true statements about realities and certainly not about delusions.

[dutchguest]

Dutchguest:

We are animals, only a species that has developed a little bit more brains. Our mind may delude us that we are somehow special and separated from the rest of nature and other animals but these are just the dreams of the ego Buddha wants to extinguish. These dreams are the reason we have fallen in some respects under the level of animals: there are -as far as I know- no other species that are killing each other in a systematic way. Also I think we are the only species trying hard to destroy its own habitat. So untill now not so much reason to be proud.

Christiaan:

A stone is a mineral.

A plant is a living organism, built up by minerals.

An animal is a living organism, built up by minerals and in possession of a soul by wich it lives unaware of its instinct (specific way of thinking) within the world of knowledge.

A human is a living organism, built up by minerals, in possession of a soul (like an animal) living by selfaware thinking outside the world of knowledge.

So, a human is a collection of minerals, formed to a body where in his organs (also built up by minerals) are plant-like, with a soul where in his or her, will, feelings and thinking (called instinct for an animal) are living, at the best 'controlled' by the ' I ' in a selfaware thinking.

So yes, there is something animal in a human......That is a fact, no delusion.

As I wrote before human existence is from the material side built up by material and from the spiritual side built up by the spirit. They meet in the soul where the 'I' being the (still not complete) manifestation of our spiritual reality lives in aware thinking and can act in the world out of the developed human faculties within the freedom given by these faculties.

We not just have a little more brains, gorillas do have little more brains as ants, we have selfawareness, and no animal on earth has selfawareness.

In the human thinking meets the thinking in a reflecting action, this reflecting thinking is the activity of the spiritual entity, the I of a single individual human.

Even when Buddha showed this by his life, this thinking selfawareness up to a high level, this did not mean that at the same time all humanity was free and enlighted, it only showed this faculty came in to actual life at that time in human history and not only for Buddha but also to several other humans (philosophers out of that same period of history).

Every single person on earth who would like to be more selfaware, more free and enlighted has to make a personal free choice by his or her ' I ' and to act according to this free choice.

I wonder if at some time some person will write Sidharta Guatama was just a little more as an animal, because he just had a little more brainmaterial, and , because he had no ' I ' but just by some specific conditioning he had to, was forced to, live his life by effect to some cause outside his power, to become, in this way enforced, enlighted.

If I understand some other contributer I am wrong even thinking Buddha did do something at all, becos thinking such a thing - about doing -would be an illusion.

In general most people become Buddhist becos they are born in a Buddhist culture, so ..a condition, they do not choose to become Budhist with actual awareness. They are not 'free' to do so.

A number of people become Buddhists out of 'freedom', most of them are foreigners and I suspect most of those foreigners choose in freedom to become Buddhists.

Was this choice a free choice? Was this choice the outcome of cause and effect, aware or unaware? Was this choice the outcome of what the German philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte (19-05-1972 / 29-01-1814) wrote: The Philosophy a person choose for depends on the person someone is ?

(In modern language called projection)

I would say rejecting the I is a delusion, rejecting people actually ' do ' is a delusion.

People rejecting 'doing' are actually 'doing' rejecting.

I, by my awareness, know the difference between reality and delusions, this doesnot mean I cannot have a wrong 'view' some times, I can, but I can correct my wrong view by actively expand my awareness.

When the I would be a misconception (beside having a different interpretation of the I, - not being the ego nor the personality) what is knowing this is a misconception? The I ? Or the not existing delusion of the I ? Or the conditioned ego or Self? How could a conditioned ego or Self actualy comprehend the truth that the I is a misconception, a delusion? Then this self or ego would have to be free from conditioning to actually see this truth. A delusion however can never make true statements about realities and certainly not about delusions.

I think the difference between animals and people is only gradual. Man has developed a few more skills then e.g. monkeys (like using tools, making fire, growing crops) which allowed him to settle down and create cultures, civilisations. In the course of time the knowlegde grew. And the knowlegde became also more abstract. This allowed man a growing power over the animal world and created in his thinking a growing gap between himself and animals, untill in the end he thought he was somehow essentially different. This also gave him the reassuring idea it is normal if he eats and kills animals.

I get the impression the division between animals and man for you is about the same as a division between concrete, experience knowlegde (animals and man) and abstract knowlegde (only man). I don't think this division is essential but only a result of the growing amount and complicateness of the knowlegde.

The "I" or "ego" is i.m.o. a product of the proces of civilisation. Indentification with a certain race, region, belief creates the "ego" and the idea of "I" as a separate being. The illusion is that the "I" or "ego" does not really exist but is just an idea, a dream. So you can say it exists and at the same time it does not exist. I think what I call "self" is for you the "I". The confusion about the definitions of the concepts makes it hard for me to understand you and vice versa I suppose. Also you use many words like "the spiritual world" of which I cannot make any imagination, how they function, how they are connected with my world of experience. May be this causes we just talking a different language and keep on repeating our own view, which does not bring us much further. I propose we continu at the "freedom" topic.