How Buddhism Found Me And Made Me Happy

[camerata]

How Buddhism found me and made me happy

by Judy Steed

I wasn't expecting this — but I guess that applies to most things in life. Good thing, too.

Near-death experiences tend to wake us up.

Mine came in the form of blurry vision in my right eye, which I noticed in September 2007 . I had just started research for my Atkinson Fellowship in Public Policy. My report was “Boomer Tsunami,” a study of the impact of aging baby boomers and the most crucial issues they — and society — face.

My blurry vision turned out to be caused by a giant aneurysm pressing against the optic nerve behind my eye. When the brilliant neurosurgeons at Toronto Western Hospital informed me of the risks of my condition — simply put, I might die — I realized this: Life can change in an instant.

A month after surgery, still unsteady, I stumbled into a bookstore and a title caught my attention: The Places that Scare You: A Guide to Fearlessness in Difficult Times, by Pema Chodron.

I devoured Chodron's book. She's an American Buddhist nun who runs Cape Breton's Gampo Abbey, the first Tibetan Buddhist monastery for Westerners.

“Life does continually go up and down,” she wrote. “People and situations are unpredictable and so is everything else. Everybody knows the pain of getting what we don't want: saints, sinners, winners, losers . . . That nothing is static or fixed, that all is fleeting and impermanent, is the first mark of existence.”

She conveyed the Buddhist perspective on the human condition in a way that illuminated my inchoate sense of things. I was adrift. Raised in the United Church, I'd abandoned Religion with a capital R. I don't believe in God.

Buddhism is not a religion; there is no god to worship. More than a philosophy, it encompasses a journey, a practical approach to daily life. It is about waking up to reality, feeling compassion for ourselves and others, experiencing gratitude.

Meditation and mindfulness are its two core practices.

Pay attention. Set the table. Peel carrots. Drink tea. Experience every action, every moment. Soften. Remove the armour. Let go of the past. Make a fresh start. Cultivate strong determination “to use discomfort as an opportunity for awakening,” Chodron said. Don't be afraid of pain. Learn from it. Be curious about yourself.

Observe the “monkey mind,” but don't let it drag you around in endless cycles of repetitive thinking.

Chodron described how she told her teacher, Trungpa Rinpoche, that she was having trouble with transitions. “He looked at me sort of blankly and said, ‘We are always in transition. If you can just relax with that, you'll have no problem.”

I was in transition, struggling. Mindfulness was my path out of the shock of surgery, the uncertainty of my post-craniotomy vulnerability. Somehow, this new awareness helped me emerge, do my work — illuminated by a deeper awareness of things.

I recovered and got back to teaching fitness classes at the Metro Central YMCA.

“We're fully alive in the present moment, filled with loving kindness for ourselves,” I would say, as we got into the yoga and Pilates, “totally accepting ourselves as we are, with all our strengths and limitations.”

Thinking these thoughts every day, my mind opened. On street corners, I'd stop and look up at the sky, and touch the miracle of being alive. It sounds corny, but it feels good.

Eckhart Tolle calls Buddha “the greatest psychologist the world has ever known.” Born 2,500 years ago, Siddhartha Gautama was an Indian prince, the son of a powerful king. Raised in luxurious surroundings, he renounced his privileges at the age of 29 to search for spiritual understanding and ways to cope with the suffering that afflicts all humans.

Buddha was right. Mindfulness practice not only trains the brain but actually changes the brain. Dr. Norman Doidge, author of The Brain that Changes Itself, notes that “neurons that fire together wire together.” We can shut down certain “worry circuits” and strengthen alternate brain circuitry.

A new generation of neuroscientists tells us that ancient Buddhist teachings about mindfulness are scientifically valid. When we focus our attention in constructive ways, negative thoughts fade away. The brain actually changes — chemically, physically — in response to thoughts. You are what you eat. You are what you think.

Mindfulness is the opposite of brainwashing. It's about being open and present, letting go of repetitive mental habits, from obsessive compulsive disorder to depression, and sparking synapses and firing neurons in healthier ways.

Mindfulness and meditation, in calming the mind, can delay the onset of dementia.

This is not about attaining perfection — there's no such thing. Everything's in process. I still experience stress and disappointment and difficulty — life is never perfect, we always cycle back and forth between samsara (suffering) and nirvana (enlightenment and joy).

I'm just a novice, an amateur. I know nothing about the lineages that define different Buddhist traditions, but I am grateful for the wisdom that lights up my life, one moment at a time.

When I asked my husband how I've changed, he said, “You float now. You go through crises and find pathways. You keep moving. You don't get stressed the way you used to. You realize things aren't as bad as you thought. There's a spaciousness. It's all about living in the moment. I'm learning that, too. You're happier.”

That's what everyone says about the Dalai Lama: despite the suffering he has experienced — the loss of his homeland, Tibet, the loss of his people — he's happy. He laughs a lot.

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/880035--how-buddhism-found-me-and-made-me-happy

[OxfordWill]

Its lovely at its core, but it gets annoying to me when people or certain buddhist groups try to make the philosophy more complicated than it actually is. There is a habit among some of seeing less value in simple ideas, which ironically buddhism also has something to say about. Often the worst examples of an idea are the ones who are most personally invested in it. Thanks for the share, interesting read.

[Xangsamhua]

She's lucky to have had such a positive initial contact with Buddhism, through Pema Chodron.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Pema_Chödrön

[phetaroi]

Its lovely at its core, but it gets annoying to me when people or certain buddhist groups try to make the philosophy more complicated than it actually is. There is a habit among some of seeing less value in simple ideas, which ironically buddhism also has something to say about. Often the worst examples of an idea are the ones who are most personally invested in it. Thanks for the share, interesting read.

I think that some of us -- and I include myself -- expected to find in Buddhism "the ANSWERS" to the great spiritual questions that man has always asked. Instead, in my humble view, Buddhism (at best) answers a few basic questions related to spiritual survival, all clustered around the concept of how to avoid and deal with suffering.

[OxfordWill]

Yes, we are forever married, as a species, to our desire to humanize the universe.

[camerata]

Instead, in my humble view, Buddhism (at best) answers a few basic questions related to spiritual survival, all clustered around the concept of how to avoid and deal with suffering.

Dealing with suffering by investigating and embracing it, yes, but not avoiding it.

[fabianfred]

"This is not about attaining perfection — there's no such thing. Everything's in process. I still experience stress and disappointment and difficulty — life is never perfect, we always cycle back and forth between samsara (suffering) and nirvana (enlightenment and joy)."

don't know where she got this weird concept from...definitely not Theravada thought...

[phetaroi]

Instead, in my humble view, Buddhism (at best) answers a few basic questions related to spiritual survival, all clustered around the concept of how to avoid and deal with suffering.

Dealing with suffering by investigating and embracing it, yes, but not avoiding it.

Here is one of the few times I will say someone is completely wrong. You can avoid some suffering. You can deal, to some extent or another, with the rest.

[camerata]

Here is one of the few times I will say someone is completely wrong. You can avoid some suffering. You can deal, to some extent or another, with the rest.

Sure, but you said avoiding suffering was a central Buddhist concept. Where did the Buddha say anything about avoiding suffering? The classic teaching is that old age, sickness and death are inevitable, which is why we need to find ways to deal with them. Typically, a meditation instructor will tell you not to scratch an itch, but to focus your attention on it. The point is that avoiding suffering is usually only a temporary solution, and it keeps on returning unless you deal with it.

[phetaroi]

Sure, but you said avoiding suffering was a central Buddhist concept. Where did the Buddha say anything about avoiding suffering? The classic teaching is that old age, sickness and death are inevitable, which is why we need to find ways to deal with them. Typically, a meditation instructor will tell you not to scratch an itch, but to focus your attention on it. The point is that avoiding suffering is usually only a temporary solution, and it keeps on returning unless you deal with it.

Once again, I disagree. There are many times in life that we suffer over a temporary situation. Most illnesses (e.g., the intestinal flu), my insomnia last night, etc.

[camerata]

Exactly. Those are the situations that we can't avoid, so Buddhism teaches us how to deal with the suffering (using the mind) rather than try to avoid it.

The way this is presented by Dhamma teachers is as a means of spiritual development rather than spiritual survival.

[phetaroi]

Exactly. Those are the situations that we can't avoid, so Buddhism teaches us how to deal with the suffering (using the mind) rather than try to avoid it.

The way this is presented by Dhamma teachers is as a means of spiritual development rather than spiritual survival.

I think we don't quite see eye to eye on this, or perhaps to some extent it's semantics. Probably not worth debating.

[rockyysdt]

Where did the Buddha say anything about avoiding suffering?

In the four noble truths Camerata.

The Buddha said that suffering is Dukkha.

The cornerstone of the Buddhas teaching is that the cessation of suffering (Dukkha) is possible by following the Noble Eightfold Path.

The message is that suffering is undesirable and can be eliminated.

[rockyysdt]

I think that some of us -- and I include myself -- expected to find in Buddhism "the ANSWERS" to the great spiritual questions that man has always asked.

Didn't the Buddha teach that to find "the ANSWERS", you must practice?

Unless Buddhists practice "the ANSWERS" will always elude them.

The path of practice leading to the cessation of dukkha: the Noble Eightfold Path of right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.

[Xangsamhua]

Where did the Buddha say anything about avoiding suffering?

In the four noble truths Camerata.

The Buddha said that suffering is Dukkha.

The cornerstone of the Buddhas teaching is that the cessation of suffering (Dukkha) is possible by following the Noble Eightfold Path.

The message is that suffering is undesirable and can be eliminated.

There's some discussion of dukkha here http://buddhism.abou...kkhaexplain.htm

When the Buddha described birth, sickness, ageing, etc as dukkha we usually use the umbrella term "suffering" and then clarify it, as the author does in the short piece above.

If dukkha (or suffering) refers to any or all of pain, impermanence or the lack of personal sovereignty, then it probably isn't avoidable, or not for long. However, one view I've encountered is that suffering, whatever it is, will not be overcome by denying it (thinking positively, putting on a happy face, thinking of those worse off, etc), but by acknowledging it, observing it and accepting it, to the extent that the pain or distress loses its force as a producer of emotions such as self-pity, resentment, envy and the like - emotions that feed the suffering and thereby generate more.

Acknowledging pain, for example, as something that just is - an epiphenomenon of reality - appears to give strength to those who actually do suffer chronic pain, but appear able to transcend it. And it's not necessarily a Buddhist or yogic approach. The Evangelical writer, Philip Yancey, interviewed several people who have experienced paralysis and pain for his book Where is God When it Hurts? and these people were able to find joy in life through Christian faith, despite the pain and the lost opportunities that were central to their personal histories.

I suspect the annoying kind of pain one experiences in a moderate headache that can be relieved via paracetamol is not really what the Buddha had in mind when he spoke about dukkha; however, for those of us who do not normally live with pain, a headache can be quite distressing at the time. I think what the Buddha and subsequent Buddhist teachers have tried to do is to prepare us to accept life as it is even if the pain/suffering/loss really gets ramped up - and this can happen to all of us at any time. We are, as the Buddha said, like children playing in a burning house.

On that note, Happy New Year to all! May it be a healthy, happy and prosperous one.

[rockyysdt]

There's some discussion of dukkha here http://buddhism.abou...kkhaexplain.htm

When the Buddha described birth, sickness, ageing, etc as dukkha we usually use the umbrella term "suffering" and then clarify it, as the author does in the short piece above.

If dukkha (or suffering) refers to any or all of pain, impermanence or the lack of personal sovereignty, then it probably isn't avoidable, or not for long. However, one view I've encountered is that suffering, whatever it is, will not be overcome by denying it (thinking positively, putting on a happy face, thinking of those worse off, etc), but by acknowledging it, observing it and accepting it, to the extent that the pain or distress loses its force as a producer of emotions such as self-pity, resentment, envy and the like - emotions that feed the suffering and thereby generate more.

Acknowledging pain, for example, as something that just is - an epiphenomenon of reality - appears to give strength to those who actually do suffer chronic pain, but appear able to transcend it. And it's not necessarily a Buddhist or yogic approach. The Evangelical writer, Philip Yancey, interviewed several people who have experienced paralysis and pain for his book Where is God When it Hurts? and these people were able to find joy in life through Christian faith, despite the pain and the lost opportunities that were central to their personal histories.

I suspect the annoying kind of pain one experiences in a moderate headache that can be relieved via paracetamol is not really what the Buddha had in mind when he spoke about dukkha; however, for those of us who do not normally live with pain, a headache can be quite distressing at the time. I think what the Buddha and subsequent Buddhist teachers have tried to do is to prepare us to accept life as it is even if the pain/suffering/loss really gets ramped up - and this can happen to all of us at any time. We are, as the Buddha said, like children playing in a burning house.

On that note, Happy New Year to all! May it be a healthy, happy and prosperous one.

Excellent explanation X.

A good reference for future access as well.

Non the less "ordinary suffering" although not the entire range of dukkha, appears to be included.

Quote: Suffering or Pain (Dukkha-dukkha). Ordinary suffering, as defined by the English word, is one form of dukkha. This includes physical, emotional and mental pain.

Isn't eternal "Dukkha-dukkha" one of the things we save ourselves from via the Noble Eightfold Path.

Happy New Year.

2011. My how time passes!

Edited December 30, 2010 by rockyysdt

[Brucenkhamen]

Here is one of the few times I will say someone is completely wrong. You can avoid some suffering. You can deal, to some extent or another, with the rest.

Once again, I disagree. There are many times in life that we suffer over a temporary situation. Most illnesses (e.g., the intestinal flu), my insomnia last night, etc.

Looking at this I think you've made a common mistake in understanding what the term suffering means in Buddhism. The word Dukkha (that suffering is a poor but common translation of) refers to our reaction to our experience not the experience itself.

So if I am in a great deal of pain the pain is just pain, the pain is not suffering. However my reaction in not being able to accept the pain, tensing out of reaction to the pain, struggling with it, the mental pain I experience as a result of the physical pain this is suffering.

The flip side of course is the craving of the pleasant which is also dukkha.

This is what it is we need to fully embrace and let go of, we can have total freedom from our reaction to unpleasant experience but not even the Buddha had freedom from experiencing unpleasant experience.

[phetaroi]

Here is one of the few times I will say someone is completely wrong. You can avoid some suffering. You can deal, to some extent or another, with the rest.

Once again, I disagree. There are many times in life that we suffer over a temporary situation. Most illnesses (e.g., the intestinal flu), my insomnia last night, etc.

Looking at this I think you've made a common mistake in understanding what the term suffering means in Buddhism. The word Dukkha (that suffering is a poor but common translation of) refers to our reaction to our experience not the experience itself.

So if I am in a great deal of pain the pain is just pain, the pain is not suffering. However my reaction in not being able to accept the pain, tensing out of reaction to the pain, struggling with it, the mental pain I experience as a result of the physical pain this is suffering.

The flip side of course is the craving of the pleasant which is also dukkha.

This is what it is we need to fully embrace and let go of, we can have total freedom from our reaction to unpleasant experience but not even the Buddha had freedom from experiencing unpleasant experience.

You've misunderstood what I wrote because I wrote only a couple of sentences, rather than a missive. When you are my age and have health issues, a night of insomnia or a few days of the flu brings on a whole host of potentially serious problems -- significantly higher blood pressure (which can lead to stroke) and significantly higher pulse rates (which can lead to heart attack), so you begin suffering...not because of the insomnia itself or the body ache of the flu itself...but because you begin to worry about other medical implications (which probably won't happen), and even long-term survival and being able to take care of oneself beyond the immediate event.

[Brucenkhamen]

so you begin suffering...not because of the insomnia itself or the body ache of the flu itself...but because you begin to worry about other medical implications (which probably won't happen), and even long-term survival and being able to take care of oneself beyond the immediate event.

Yes, this is the part that Buddhism is designed to free us of.

[christiaan]

Here is one of the few times I will say someone is completely wrong. You can avoid some suffering. You can deal, to some extent or another, with the rest.

Once again, I disagree. There are many times in life that we suffer over a temporary situation. Most illnesses (e.g., the intestinal flu), my insomnia last night, etc.

Looking at this I think you've made a common mistake in understanding what the term suffering means in Buddhism. The word Dukkha (that suffering is a poor but common translation of) refers to our reaction to our experience not the experience itself.

So if I am in a great deal of pain the pain is just pain, the pain is not suffering. However my reaction in not being able to accept the pain, tensing out of reaction to the pain, struggling with it, the mental pain I experience as a result of the physical pain this is suffering.

The flip side of course is the craving of the pleasant which is also dukkha.

This is what it is we need to fully embrace and let go of, we can have total freedom from our reaction to unpleasant experience but not even the Buddha had freedom from experiencing unpleasant experience.

You've misunderstood what I wrote because I wrote only a couple of sentences, rather than a missive. When you are my age and have health issues, a night of insomnia or a few days of the flu brings on a whole host of potentially serious problems -- significantly higher blood pressure (which can lead to stroke) and significantly higher pulse rates (which can lead to heart attack), so you begin suffering...not because of the insomnia itself or the body ache of the flu itself...but because you begin to worry about other medical implications (which probably won't happen), and even long-term survival and being able to take care of oneself beyond the immediate event.

An evolving spiritual awareness as a moving proces of selfeducation can help us to overcome the suffering we have to deal with related to our material existence.

It doesnot mean the suffering will leave us, it can mean we can come to more awareness by it.

Spiritual awareness is spiritual awareness, as selfeducation is selfeducation, it can be out of a Buddhist inspiration but there are more 'roads' to reach awareness.

Buddhisme at its best is spiritual development in the Asian way, one of the ways in the human existence, in the human life on earth.

[healthcaretaker]

In a nutshell:

All feelings like sufferings or happiness can be controlled by the mind because the mind can produce useful energy to the body through it's PLACEBO effect and such effect may cure illness that medicines won't. Religions have the EASIEST influence so far with 2 methods:

1) The BLIND or "cheating way" - for example "Just believe in god or pray to god, you will be saved from illness or sufferings" "god bless you" etc, etc Such ways is easier to accept for the simple minded people and sometimes it work too. Very often we hear of people in hu8ndreds attending a group session like religious mass-healing. At the end of the session, only a very few minority will get cured out of the placebo effect, definitely NOT through the act of god. very simple, anyone who got cured are those suffering from nerve system problem like stroke or a misfunction in the body due to the nerve, Other problems for example a big wound will never get cured in such religious healing session. If god is the cause, why is god only curing a minority few and not the others ?

2) The UNDERSTANDING or "sensible/logical way" for example understanding why the illness existed and how one can overcome it. So far Buddhism used this way to the best effect. By understanding our problem, one gets "enlightened" to it and will be able to accept it and overcome it with the energy produced from the mind. It is also a result of placebo effect but it will be more effective than the "blind" way that lacks sense, logic and fairness thjat can only be explained through Buddhism's karma theory.

I will conclude that the the OP "may" also get cured out of the placebo effect if he/she will to pray to other's god but of course the cure will be shortlived and sickness will be back once he or she realised the "truth" behind any false or blind belief. I hope the OP do not think that the cure out of Buddhism knowledge is a "supernatural" one, or else the sickness may be back once the "thoughts" are over. If the OP learns more about Buddhism and understand knowledge well on the effect, the chance of a permanent cure is much higher.

BTW, anyone who thinks that Buddhism is an "Asian" way is ver small-minded or ignorant. It is a "universal" way as its theory do not contradict science or any universal laws or theories like christianity did.

Buddhism's theory is reaching worldwide already.

[healthcaretaker]

Exactly. Those are the situations that we can't avoid, so Buddhism teaches us how to deal with the suffering (using the mind) rather than try to avoid it.

The way this is presented by Dhamma teachers is as a means of spiritual development rather than spiritual survival.

I think we don't quite see eye to eye on this, or perhaps to some extent it's semantics. Probably not worth debating.

I noticed you and christiaan have many posts here in this Buddhism forum that "don't quite see eye to eye" to all the theories and explainations given by others based on Buddhism knowledge.

I wonder why you have been around here despite that you never agrees or learn Any other objective ?

[rockyysdt]

BTW, anyone who thinks that Buddhism is an "Asian" way is very small-minded or ignorant. It is a "universal" way as its theory do not contradict science or any universal laws or theories like christianity did.

Buddhism's theory is reaching worldwide already.

Hi Health.

The English language can often convey unintended meaning.

Using the expressions, very small-minded or ignorant, give the impression of a lack of metta (loving kindness or friendly caring).

Perhaps lack of awareness might be more apt.

[christiaan]

Exactly. Those are the situations that we can't avoid, so Buddhism teaches us how to deal with the suffering (using the mind) rather than try to avoid it.

The way this is presented by Dhamma teachers is as a means of spiritual development rather than spiritual survival.

I think we don't quite see eye to eye on this, or perhaps to some extent it's semantics. Probably not worth debating.

I noticed you and christiaan have many posts here in this Buddhism forum that "don't quite see eye to eye" to all the theories and explainations given by others based on Buddhism knowledge.

I wonder why you have been around here despite that you never agrees or learn Any other objective ?

Maybe you could find your answer in imagining there are people who study al kinds of phenomenons and for this reason are interested in the history, the life of Buddha, the way personal experience of Siddartha Gautama became religion and at the end all kind of different interpretations and 'Buddhist' cultures in Asia. Not all people writing on this forum made the choice to ' become Buddhists out of their inner projection this 'Budhisme' is the one and only true religion in the world'

There are als people who are enlighted enough to reject such a choice.

As I wrote before Buddha himself was not a Buddhist, he lived by his personal experiences and inner activtivity and did not seem to have any desire to become a 'follower' or to borrow teachings of other 'enlighted' persons, he did not becos he knew, did see, by himself.

[christiaan]

BTW, anyone who thinks that Buddhism is an "Asian" way is very small-minded or ignorant. It is a "universal" way as its theory do not contradict science or any universal laws or theories like christianity did.

Buddhism's theory is reaching worldwide already.

Hi Health.

The English language can often convey unintended meaning.

Using the expressions, very small-minded or ignorant, give the impression of a lack of metta (loving kindness or friendly caring).

Perhaps lack of awareness might be more apt.

Buddhisme origially is Asian, in fact Indian. Christianity originally is western. Buddhism as a religion, even as a philosphy is not an important factor in Western cultures. It is not and it will never be.

Spirituality, being the main quality we are dealing with, where in Chistianity, Buddhisme and also Islam and some other phenomenons are having their place in, has developed in their way everywhere and they ' meet ' eachother. this happens especially in the westen world.

Spirituality will develop, philosophies will 'transform' , religions will disapear.

[rockyysdt]

Buddhisme origially is Asian, in fact Indian. Christianity originally is western. Buddhism as a religion, even as a philosphy is not an important factor in Western cultures. It is not and it will never be.

Spirituality, being the main quality we are dealing with, where in Chistianity, Buddhisme and also Islam and some other phenomenons are having their place in, has developed in their way everywhere and they ' meet ' eachother. this happens especially in the westen world.

Spirituality will develop, philosophies will 'transform' , religions will disapear.

Yes, but it depends on which Buddhisme you refer to.

If you refer to Buddhisme as a cultural religion (annimism, lucky charms, superstition, culture, born into, politics etc) I agree.

But if you mean Buddhisme, the Four Noble Truths & the Noble Eight Fold Path, as taught by the Buddha in its pure form, and practiced faithfully, I'm not so sure.

I believe the Buddha indicated there will be a time in the future when the practice of the Noble Eight Fold Path will die off.

I can see this easily occurring as the human mind is relentless at persuading one to take the easy (attachment, habitual, lazy, obsessive, craving) options in life.

You see, Spiritualism (permanent soul or spirit) seems a little ego bound.

Have you met your spirit or soul?

Edited January 20, 2011 by rockyysdt

[healthcaretaker]

Exactly. Those are the situations that we can't avoid, so Buddhism teaches us how to deal with the suffering (using the mind) rather than try to avoid it.

The way this is presented by Dhamma teachers is as a means of spiritual development rather than spiritual survival.

I think we don't quite see eye to eye on this, or perhaps to some extent it's semantics. Probably not worth debating.

I noticed you and christiaan have many posts here in this Buddhism forum that "don't quite see eye to eye" to all the theories and explainations given by others based on Buddhism knowledge.

I wonder why you have been around here despite that you never agrees or learn Any other objective ?

rockyysdt,

sorry if my description is insulting in anyway :jap:

I only learn to use the word "ignorant" from a christian friend. This christian friend of mine always tried to get me and my friends to the church trying to convert us. The ways he tried to promote christianity and what he said are quite similar to what phetaroi(a regular member here, my spelling may be wrong) and christiaan's. So we question him about christianity and whenever we point out to him that christianity is proven to be unbelievable, he will reply by saying "a little knowledge is ignorance" and that we must read the whole bible to understand.

In fact I have been kind to use the words ignorant or narrow-minded when it already showed these people are simply not honest. THey are just around to go against Buddhism because Buddhism is the biggest threat to christianity in Asia. Unlike Islam is tighted by law, Buddhism is free, so these christians will go all out to stop Buddhism from speading in order to protect their own interests. I know there is a group of people from the church who are "sent" out to do such works in forums. You can easily identity their similarities in their arguement.

Edited January 20, 2011 by healthcaretaker

[healthcaretaker]

Exactly. Those are the situations that we can't avoid, so Buddhism teaches us how to deal with the suffering (using the mind) rather than try to avoid it.

The way this is presented by Dhamma teachers is as a means of spiritual development rather than spiritual survival.

I think we don't quite see eye to eye on this, or perhaps to some extent it's semantics. Probably not worth debating.

I noticed you and christiaan have many posts here in this Buddhism forum that "don't quite see eye to eye" to all the theories and explainations given by others based on Buddhism knowledge.

I wonder why you have been around here despite that you never agrees or learn Any other objective ?

Maybe you could find your answer in imagining there are people who study al kinds of phenomenons and for this reason are interested in the history, the life of Buddha, the way personal experience of Siddartha Gautama became religion and at the end all kind of different interpretations and 'Buddhist' cultures in Asia. Not all people writing on this forum made the choice to ' become Buddhists out of their inner projection this 'Budhisme' is the one and only true religion in the world'

There are als people who are enlighted enough to reject such a choice.

As I wrote before Buddha himself was not a Buddhist, he lived by his personal experiences and inner activtivity and did not seem to have any desire to become a 'follower' or to borrow teachings of other 'enlighted' persons, he did not becos he knew, did see, by himself.

Who said anyone who is born a non-Buddhist cannot be a Buddhist or becomer Buddha ? Have Gautama Buddhda ever claimed he was born a Buddhist ?

Do you also think that anyone born into any religion cannot switch to another religion ?

Why then are the christians spending so much money and time to "catch" Asians by the roadside and public places trying to convert them to christians ?

BTW, you have not replied me to a few questions in another thread. Have you "dumped" that thread which you fought so hard against someone ?

[healthcaretaker]

BTW, anyone who thinks that Buddhism is an "Asian" way is very small-minded or ignorant. It is a "universal" way as its theory do not contradict science or any universal laws or theories like christianity did.

Buddhism's theory is reaching worldwide already.

Hi Health.

The English language can often convey unintended meaning.

Using the expressions, very small-minded or ignorant, give the impression of a lack of metta (loving kindness or friendly caring).

Perhaps lack of awareness might be more apt.

Buddhisme origially is Asian, in fact Indian. Christianity originally is western. Buddhism as a religion, even as a philosphy is not an important factor in Western cultures. It is not and it will never be.

Spirituality, being the main quality we are dealing with, where in Chistianity, Buddhisme and also Islam and some other phenomenons are having their place in, has developed in their way everywhere and they ' meet ' eachother. this happens especially in the westen world.

Spirituality will develop, philosophies will 'transform' , religions will disapear.

Broaden your mind, don't be so small.

The whole world and universe was created by the same source ie. the universal energy(some called it GOD) so see it as a whole, don't divide it into eastern, western or asian. It is not important which part of the world created which. Most important is there are improvements made through better knowledge.

Buddhism merely have better knowledge on life and the world.

You are right that religions will disappear(reason is it's no longer needed since proven to be wrong or unbelivable). I mentioned many times too but the theories and knowledge of Buddhism will never disappear. How could you make correct knowledge disappear ? Buddhism is far ahead of time and science. By right, it's not suppose to be considered a "religion".

[christiaan]

We are not writing overhere how broad your mind or my mind is, that is shown by our contributions. We are writing about the historical fact that Buddhism is originally Asian and Christianity is originally western, as Islam is originally from the middle east. How 'broad' your mind ever will become to be, these historical facts are not changed by it.

Christianity is not 'created' by the western world as Buddhism was not 'created' by the Asian world. It became reality at the place where it became reality out of Karmic reason. A Bhuddist with original inner experience would see these facts and not bend it to some essay about the origin of the world and the laws of importancy as he sees it.