How Buddhism Found Me And Made Me Happy

[christiaan]

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?

Hello Rocky.

I refer to Buddhism as it came to existence in reaction to the experiences of Siddhartha Gautama who became the Buddha.

So in fact I am referring to the 'religion' that came to existence and the culture(s) that came to existence out of the religion.

With concern to the kind of experiences of Siddhartha Gautama, I think they will evolve more and more to , transform more and more to higher and higher awareness.

Humanity will evolve to higher awareness to become complete spiritual at some point in future.

But not all humans will evolve at the same 'level' there are 'pioneers' and followers.

To answer your other question:

I am my spirit, living in my soul.

My ego is more or less my soul, it is by my soul that my spirit is connected to this special experiece of life on earth.

It is by my spiritual activity that I become aware, aware of the world and aware of my soul, my ego, and it is by awareness that I can clean my soul, my ego.

[christiaan]

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 also 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 ?

Nobody said Buddha ever claimed he was a Buddhist or born a Buddhist, but now somebody brings this up to have a talk about it?

The only thing I did... was pointing to the fact, a fact I did not make up, that Buddha was no Buddhist himself. And it was not me who ever suggested or wrote Buddha was born or not born, claimed or not claimed to be born as a Buddhist.

So what do you suggest in this context I think before in: also ?

I do not believe anyone born into any religion cannot switch or can switch to another religion.

Why should I believe what I can see as facts happening all the time.

All the time I 'see' people switch from one religion to another religion, desperately seeking for a suitable 'truth' to comfort their ego.

It is even a fact that especially westerners tend to do this as it is also a fact some of the western converts to another religion turn out to be the most fundamental fundamentalists of their 'new' religion agressively spreading the absolute truth they, in their private enlightment, have found in this religion.

You can find those people at the side of the road trying to catch 'Asians' , you can find those people placing roadside bombs, you can find those people on forums demonstrating their intolerance.

But there are also people who have a quiet, investigating, open mind, looking for knowledge by their questions, in the awareness wisdom is an ongoing proces of evolving awareness.

[Brucenkhamen]

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.

You might want to check your geography, Christianity is originally from the middle east, as is Judaism.

[Brucenkhamen]

With concern to the kind of experiences of Siddhartha Gautama, I think they will evolve more and more to , transform more and more to higher and higher awareness.

Humanity will evolve to higher awareness to become complete spiritual at some point in future.

But not all humans will evolve at the same 'level' there are 'pioneers' and followers.

You may well think that, but it wouldn't be a Buddhist point of view.

Buddhism hinges upon the notion that the Buddha evolved into the best a human can be and therefore showed us the way.

If you believe there have been humans that evolved over the last 2500 years to a higher awareness than the Buddha please present some evidence.

I am my spirit, living in my soul.

My ego is more or less my soul, it is by my soul that my spirit is connected to this special experiece of life on earth.

It is by my spiritual activity that I become aware, aware of the world and aware of my soul, my ego, and it is by awareness that I can clean my soul, my ego.

I'm happy for you, but where is the connection to Buddhism?

[Brucenkhamen]

All the time I 'see' people switch from one religion to another religion, desperately seeking for a suitable 'truth' to comfort their ego.

This is true, I think most people start their search for the wrong reasons, if they have found something real though evidence of that is that their motivations will be transformed by it.

But there are also people who have a quiet, investigating, open mind, looking for knowledge by their questions, in the awareness wisdom is an ongoing proces of evolving awareness.

Indeed.

[Brucenkhamen]

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 ?

Actually the Buddha himself said one day his teachings would disappear (how many founders of religions have said such a thing?). However the core of Buddhism is composed of universal truths that are discoverable by anyone, so from that point of view Buddhist religion or belief in the Buddha is not the main thing.

Edited January 21, 2011 by Brucenkhamen

[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.

You might want to check your geography, Christianity is originally from the middle east, as is Judaism.

That is an interesting situation. Jezus was originally from the east allthough a very special part in the east since Israel did became a very special 'part' int he middle east as old and modern history shows. Christianity however was not accepted as the natinal religion in any eastern country, this in contrary to any one of the other main religions in the world.

Christianity became a religion in the Roman empire, became culture by and in the Roman empire and so, since I was talking about religions, I think there is a good reason to write Christianity is from the western world. History showed further on, that by the conquer of a big part of the western world by the romans Christianity quite fast did spread alover what we now call western Europe and from there later on to America. That was the Karma of Christianity as a religion.

Buddhism as a religion spread alover Asian.

[christiaan]

With concern to the kind of experiences of Siddhartha Gautama, I think they will evolve more and more to , transform more and more to higher and higher awareness.

Humanity will evolve to higher awareness to become complete spiritual at some point in future.

But not all humans will evolve at the same 'level' there are 'pioneers' and followers.

You may well think that, but it wouldn't be a Buddhist point of view.

Buddhism hinges upon the notion that the Buddha evolved into the best a human can be and therefore showed us the way.

If you believe there have been humans that evolved over the last 2500 years to a higher awareness than the Buddha please present some evidence.

I am my spirit, living in my soul.

My ego is more or less my soul, it is by my soul that my spirit is connected to this special experiece of life on earth.

It is by my spiritual activity that I become aware, aware of the world and aware of my soul, my ego, and it is by awareness that I can clean my soul, my ego.

I'm happy for you, but where is the connection to Buddhism?

The inner proces of thinking.

[rockyysdt]

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.

When I speak, it is important to know that my purpose is that we we gain better understanding of each other and grow in terms of our Buddhist path.

I never speak to attack or harm anyone.

Your Christian friend has taught you a bad habit.

In English to call one very ignorant and small minded is a very big insult.

But more importantly it is not very Buddhist as it shows an attachment to intolerance of others.

I'm sure, as you indicated, this was not your intention.

The Buddha taught Metta which is a friendly caring toward others when communicating.

I had an experience today which lacked metta.

I visited my favorite general store to buy some fruit and groceries but didn't realize that it was after closing time.

I was at the end of the line and noticed the cashier was very cool and unengaged.

She appeared inwardly upset and dealt with each customer without eye contact and with great indifference.

When it was my turn I greeted her but she remained distant without any expression.

I handed the money and extended my hand to receive the change but she deliberately placed it on the bench.

Without any eye contact she went onto the next customer as though I was not even present.

She made me feel very bad and left me thinking I had done something wrong.

The lady failed to extend Metta, which is free.

The Buddha taught that we should have metta in our interactions with others, regardless of their state of awareness and/or level of knowledge in Buddhist terms.

We are all equal and important in life.

To knowingly reject or make others feel bad, because they have different beliefs, can be seen as a display our attachment to aversion.

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.

There may be people exactly as you describe.

Making such assumptions based on a few postings shows an attachment to a conditioned response.

One of the Buddha's teachings is to be mindful or to observe without attachment.

When we observe something we should observe it exactly as it is in its pure form without assumptions or speculation as to what it may mean.

An example is that if a poster disagrees or poses a contrary view, we should take it as being exactly that.

Making assumptions that posts are made by Christians who are deliberately attempting to undermine Buddhism is an assumption.

The Buddha taught against conditioned response.

Believe me Health, I have many automatic responses and conditioned thinking, but I, as others, strive in my life to improve my awareness and overcome these things.

The main point is that the Buddha taught not to accept his word without question and encouraged understanding through testing and self experience.

We should look at all fellow travelers, regardless of their level of awareness and/or caution, with loving kindness or friendly care.

What are your thoughts?

Edited January 21, 2011 by rockyysdt

[healthcaretaker]

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.

When I speak, it is important to know that my purpose is that we we gain better understanding of each other and grow in terms of our Buddhist path.

I never speak to attack or harm anyone.

Your Christian friend has taught you a bad habit.

In English to call one very ignorant and small minded is a very big insult.

But more importantly it is not very Buddhist as it shows an attachment to intolerance of others.

I'm sure, as you indicated, this was not your intention.

The Buddha taught Metta which is a friendly caring toward others when communicating.

I had an experience today which lacked metta.

I visited my favorite general store to buy some fruit and groceries but didn't realize that it was after closing time.

I was at the end of the line and noticed the cashier was very cool and unengaged.

She appeared inwardly upset and dealt with each customer without eye contact and with great indifference.

When it was my turn I greeted her but she remained distant without any expression.

I handed the money and extended my hand to receive the change but she deliberately placed it on the bench.

Without any eye contact she went onto the next customer as though I was not even present.

She made me feel very bad and left me thinking I had done something wrong.

The lady failed to extend Metta, which is free.

The Buddha taught that we should have metta in our interactions with others, regardless of their state of awareness and/or level of knowledge in Buddhist terms.

We are all equal and important in life.

To knowingly reject or make others feel bad, because they have different beliefs, can be seen as a display our attachment to aversion.

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.

There may be people exactly as you describe.

Making such assumptions based on a few postings shows an attachment to a conditioned response.

One of the Buddha's teachings is to be mindful or to observe without attachment.

When we observe something we should observe it exactly as it is in its pure form without assumptions or speculation as to what it may mean.

An example is that if a poster disagrees or poses a contrary view, we should take it as being exactly that.

Making assumptions that posts are made by Christians who are deliberately attempting to undermine Buddhism is an assumption.

The Buddha taught against conditioned response.

Believe me Health, I have many automatic responses and conditioned thinking, but I, as others, strive in my life to improve my awareness and overcome these things.

The main point is that the Buddha taught not to accept his word without question and encouraged understanding through testing and self experience.

We should look at all fellow travelers, regardless of their level of awareness and/or caution, with loving kindness or friendly care.

What are your thoughts?

Yes, I totally agree with you but I think I can never achieve that, I can never be Buddha.

I think tolerance should have a limit. Buddhism has been too kind and soft. So we always see christians in Asian countries trying to influence them with all sorts of lies and tricks.

I found out that christians in western countries do not behave as "bad" as those in Asian countries. Maybe over there, there are less non-christian prospects compared to Asia.

On the "assumption" part, I know I have not accused anyone wrongly. Actually my intentions are not bad to them. I also wish to save these people from their wrongful thoughts over Buddhism.

In another post in a thread I started, I can prove the poster's intention. I mentioned there I found "5". I just wait and see how he/she react before I will point them out.

Not long ago, I also discover his/her accomplice trying to do the same and when I questioned her/him further, she realised she will be exposed by me soon and "escaped" from that thread without further responses.

I think for the benefits of everyone(since this forum is open to public) and in order that they will not be misled by these anti-Buddhism posts, we should act accordingly to expose them.

Keep in mind that the christianity and their church is very rich(due to that 10% donation I called scam), they can afford to get people to work all day and night to recruit members or trying to save their religion.

Buddhism is very soft(especially Thais, always sweet and friendly) and temples/organisations are not rich.

Anyhow, I feel that whether these people are ill-intentioned or not don't make difference, we should still help them by pointing out their mistakes or wrongful thoughts. Of course they may never admit but other readers can still benefit from them.

[christiaan]

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.

When I speak, it is important to know that my purpose is that we we gain better understanding of each other and grow in terms of our Buddhist path.

I never speak to attack or harm anyone.

Your Christian friend has taught you a bad habit.

In English to call one very ignorant and small minded is a very big insult.

But more importantly it is not very Buddhist as it shows an attachment to intolerance of others.

I'm sure, as you indicated, this was not your intention.

The Buddha taught Metta which is a friendly caring toward others when communicating.

I had an experience today which lacked metta.

I visited my favorite general store to buy some fruit and groceries but didn't realize that it was after closing time.

I was at the end of the line and noticed the cashier was very cool and unengaged.

She appeared inwardly upset and dealt with each customer without eye contact and with great indifference.

When it was my turn I greeted her but she remained distant without any expression.

I handed the money and extended my hand to receive the change but she deliberately placed it on the bench.

Without any eye contact she went onto the next customer as though I was not even present.

She made me feel very bad and left me thinking I had done something wrong.

The lady failed to extend Metta, which is free.

The Buddha taught that we should have metta in our interactions with others, regardless of their state of awareness and/or level of knowledge in Buddhist terms.

We are all equal and important in life.

To knowingly reject or make others feel bad, because they have different beliefs, can be seen as a display our attachment to aversion.

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.

There may be people exactly as you describe.

Making such assumptions based on a few postings shows an attachment to a conditioned response.

One of the Buddha's teachings is to be mindful or to observe without attachment.

When we observe something we should observe it exactly as it is in its pure form without assumptions or speculation as to what it may mean.

An example is that if a poster disagrees or poses a contrary view, we should take it as being exactly that.

Making assumptions that posts are made by Christians who are deliberately attempting to undermine Buddhism is an assumption.

The Buddha taught against conditioned response.

Believe me Health, I have many automatic responses and conditioned thinking, but I, as others, strive in my life to improve my awareness and overcome these things.

The main point is that the Buddha taught not to accept his word without question and encouraged understanding through testing and self experience.

We should look at all fellow travelers, regardless of their level of awareness and/or caution, with loving kindness or friendly care.

What are your thoughts?

This is not meant to be an addition to respond to and to disturb a dialogue for this is just a message.

I am in no way connected to any institutional religion, I was born Catholic but left this institution decennia ago. I never have and I never will try to convert or to 'prevent' anybody to go to a christian church or any other church, temple, pagoda or mosk.

In my library there are many books about all kinds of religious and spiritual phenomenons in the world. I study them all, I question them all.

And in my life I also had many experiences with regard to the subjects I study about.

I am interested in questions, I am interested in knowledge, I am interested in the truth, I am interested in awareness.

The only thing I promote is the proces of healthy thinking and awareness, as my contributions do show.

To look at me as someone promoting Christian religion can only be the projection of the onlooker.

To suggest I do is not only an assumption it is in fact un-true.

[Brucenkhamen]

I found out that christians in western countries do not behave as "bad" as those in Asian countries. Maybe over there, there are less non-christian prospects compared to Asia.

I wouldn't bank on it.

On the "assumption" part, I know I have not accused anyone wrongly. Actually my intentions are not bad to them. I also wish to save these people from their wrongful thoughts over Buddhism.

In another post in a thread I started, I can prove the poster's intention. I mentioned there I found "5". I just wait and see how he/she react before I will point them out.

Not long ago, I also discover his/her accomplice trying to do the same and when I questioned her/him further, she realised she will be exposed by me soon and "escaped" from that thread without further responses.

I think for the benefits of everyone(since this forum is open to public) and in order that they will not be misled by these anti-Buddhism posts, we should act accordingly to expose them.

Keep in mind that the christianity and their church is very rich(due to that 10% donation I called scam), they can afford to get people to work all day and night to recruit members or trying to save their religion.

Buddhism is very soft(especially Thais, always sweet and friendly) and temples/organisations are not rich.

I suggest it might be a good thing to learn to chill out.

They aren't all out to get you, there aren't any reds under the bed, there's nothing to be paranoid about.

More about Buddhism and less about conspiracy theories would be a good idea.

[Brucenkhamen]

I never have and I never will try to convert or to 'prevent' anybody to go to a christian church or any other church, temple, pagoda or mosk.

In my library there are many books about all kinds of religious and spiritual phenomenons in the world. I study them all, I question them all.

Do you spend equal time and bandwidth on the forums of all these other religions?

If not why not?

[christiaan]

I never have and I never will try to convert or to 'prevent' anybody to go to a christian church or any other church, temple, pagoda or mosk.

In my library there are many books about all kinds of religious and spiritual phenomenons in the world. I study them all, I question them all.

Do you spend equal time and bandwidth on the forums of all these other religions?

If not why not?

I have done and do, but not all at the same time.

But for many years ago there where no forums so I had talks with people from different views of life at different places.

But....., I do not keep records of it.

For the people who did read most of my contributions, I started to question Buddhisme, being a product of the followers of Buddha, after I started to experience Thailand and Buddhist culture in my life.

[Brucenkhamen]

For the people who did read most of my contributions, I started to question Buddhisme, being a product of the followers of Buddha, after I started to experience Thailand and Buddhist culture in my life.

There is no such thing as Buddhist culture. Experiencing Thai culture has that affect on most people, to get a balanced view I think it's important to be able to distinguish between Thai culture and Buddhism. Of course there is no Thai culture in Burma, Sri Lanka, Tibet, or Japan etc.

[christiaan]

For the people who did read most of my contributions, I started to question Buddhisme, being a product of the followers of Buddha, after I started to experience Thailand and Buddhist culture in my life.

There is no such thing as Buddhist culture. Experiencing Thai culture has that affect on most people, to get a balanced view I think it's important to be able to distinguish between Thai culture and Buddhism. Of course there is no Thai culture in Burma, Sri Lanka, Tibet, or Japan etc.

Well you can ofcourse have your opinion, as other people have their opinion.

half a million results on Google on the topic Buddhist culture

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

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bogoda/bl139.html

[christiaan]

For the people who did read most of my contributions, I started to question Buddhisme, being a product of the followers of Buddha, after I started to experience Thailand and Buddhist culture in my life.

There is no such thing as Buddhist culture. Experiencing Thai culture has that affect on most people, to get a balanced view I think it's important to be able to distinguish between Thai culture and Buddhism. Of course there is no Thai culture in Burma, Sri Lanka, Tibet, or Japan etc.

Well you can ofcourse have your opinion, as other people have their opinion.

half a million results on Google on the topic Buddhist culture

http://en.wikipedia....nts_of_Buddhism

http://www.accesstoi...goda/bl139.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Isn't it very confusing?

Some people overhere write 'Buddhism' is no religion, but a philosophy, other people write it is a religion.

Then there seem to be Buddhists who seem to be outspoken Buddhism is a religion as the following advertisement show.

It does not even tell Buddhism is a religion of freedom it even tells it is the Religion of Freedom

Dhamma Talk With Sayadaw U Jotika

‘Buddhism is the Religion of Freedom’

Thursday 27th January 2011

at Bodhgaya Hall, Amarin Tower, Ploenchit, Bangkok

6:30 – 8:30 pm

[healthcaretaker]

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.

When I speak, it is important to know that my purpose is that we we gain better understanding of each other and grow in terms of our Buddhist path.

I never speak to attack or harm anyone.

Your Christian friend has taught you a bad habit.

In English to call one very ignorant and small minded is a very big insult.

But more importantly it is not very Buddhist as it shows an attachment to intolerance of others.

I'm sure, as you indicated, this was not your intention.

The Buddha taught Metta which is a friendly caring toward others when communicating.

I had an experience today which lacked metta.

I visited my favorite general store to buy some fruit and groceries but didn't realize that it was after closing time.

I was at the end of the line and noticed the cashier was very cool and unengaged.

She appeared inwardly upset and dealt with each customer without eye contact and with great indifference.

When it was my turn I greeted her but she remained distant without any expression.

I handed the money and extended my hand to receive the change but she deliberately placed it on the bench.

Without any eye contact she went onto the next customer as though I was not even present.

She made me feel very bad and left me thinking I had done something wrong.

The lady failed to extend Metta, which is free.

The Buddha taught that we should have metta in our interactions with others, regardless of their state of awareness and/or level of knowledge in Buddhist terms.

We are all equal and important in life.

To knowingly reject or make others feel bad, because they have different beliefs, can be seen as a display our attachment to aversion.

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.

There may be people exactly as you describe.

Making such assumptions based on a few postings shows an attachment to a conditioned response.

One of the Buddha's teachings is to be mindful or to observe without attachment.

When we observe something we should observe it exactly as it is in its pure form without assumptions or speculation as to what it may mean.

An example is that if a poster disagrees or poses a contrary view, we should take it as being exactly that.

Making assumptions that posts are made by Christians who are deliberately attempting to undermine Buddhism is an assumption.

The Buddha taught against conditioned response.

Believe me Health, I have many automatic responses and conditioned thinking, but I, as others, strive in my life to improve my awareness and overcome these things.

The main point is that the Buddha taught not to accept his word without question and encouraged understanding through testing and self experience.

We should look at all fellow travelers, regardless of their level of awareness and/or caution, with loving kindness or friendly care.

What are your thoughts?

This is not meant to be an addition to respond to and to disturb a dialogue for this is just a message.

I am in no way connected to any institutional religion, I was born Catholic but left this institution decennia ago. I never have and I never will try to convert or to 'prevent' anybody to go to a christian church or any other church, temple, pagoda or mosk.

In my library there are many books about all kinds of religious and spiritual phenomenons in the world. I study them all, I question them all.

And in my life I also had many experiences with regard to the subjects I study about.

I am interested in questions, I am interested in knowledge, I am interested in the truth, I am interested in awareness.

The only thing I promote is the proces of healthy thinking and awareness, as my contributions do show.

To look at me as someone promoting Christian religion can only be the projection of the onlooker.

To suggest I do is not only an assumption it is in fact un-true.

You may deny but your nickname, behaviour and many messages here can't.

[jdinasia]

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.

Great thread Cam!

I took Refuge 3 years AFTER ordaining as a methodist minister. I dealt with a lot of stuff from my past because of that and it all made me a better person. Buddhism found me.... I wasn't looking, it just happened.

[Brucenkhamen]

Well you can ofcourse have your opinion, as other people have their opinion.

half a million results on Google on the topic Buddhist culture

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

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bogoda/bl139.html

Of course Buddhism contains cultural elements from the cultures within which it exists, and of course any group of people who get together for a common purpose can be said to have a culture (though this is a slightly different meaning of the word).

To me the phrase "Buddhist Culture" implies one culture that pervades all of Buddhism, it should be obvious to anyone that this is not the case.

If this is not what you meant then ok.

[Brucenkhamen]

Isn't it very confusing?

Some people overhere write 'Buddhism' is no religion, but a philosophy, other people write it is a religion.

Then there seem to be Buddhists who seem to be outspoken Buddhism is a religion as the following advertisement show.

It does not even tell Buddhism is a religion of freedom it even tells it is the Religion of Freedom

I wouldn't lose any sleep over it, it's obviously many different things to many different people. I think the question to be asked should be is "what did the Buddha intend it to be?"

PS Thanks for the plug on the Saydaw U Jotika talk.

[christiaan]

Healthcaretaker:

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.

There may be people exactly as you describe.

Making such assumptions based on a few postings shows an attachment to a conditioned response.

One of the Buddha's teachings is to be mindful or to observe without attachment.

When we observe something we should observe it exactly as it is in its pure form without assumptions or speculation as to what it may mean.

An example is that if a poster disagrees or poses a contrary view, we should take it as being exactly that.

Making assumptions that posts are made by Christians who are deliberately attempting to undermine Buddhism is an assumption.

The Buddha taught against conditioned response.

Believe me Health, I have many automatic responses and conditioned thinking, but I, as others, strive in my life to improve my awareness and overcome these things.

The main point is that the Buddha taught not to accept his word without question and encouraged understanding through testing and self experience.

We should look at all fellow travelers, regardless of their level of awareness and/or caution, with loving kindness or friendly care.

What are your thoughts?

This is not meant to be an addition to respond to and to disturb a dialogue for this is just a message.

I am in no way connected to any institutional religion, I was born Catholic but left this institution decennia ago. I never have and I never will try to convert or to 'prevent' anybody to go to a christian church or any other church, temple, pagoda or mosk.

In my library there are many books about all kinds of religious and spiritual phenomenons in the world. I study them all, I question them all.

And in my life I also had many experiences with regard to the subjects I study about.

I am interested in questions, I am interested in knowledge, I am interested in the truth, I am interested in awareness.

The only thing I promote is the proces of healthy thinking and awareness, as my contributions do show.

To look at me as someone promoting Christian religion can only be the projection of the onlooker.

To suggest I do is not only an assumption it is in fact un-true.

You may deny but your nickname, behaviour and many messages here can't.

To make things not more complex as it sometimes is I would like to ask you to inform the readers what exactly are the facts I am denying in your view ?

It would be helpfull to be as honest about this as you can be and as you tell is important to be and if possible not expand too much to in explaining what you aready have explained before.

Seen the fact that you have informed us about your intention to 'help' your fellow human I know I do not ask too much.

[christiaan]

Isn't it very confusing?

Some people overhere write 'Buddhism' is no religion, but a philosophy, other people write it is a religion.

Then there seem to be Buddhists who seem to be outspoken Buddhism is a religion as the following advertisement show.

It does not even tell Buddhism is a religion of freedom it even tells it is the Religion of Freedom

I wouldn't lose any sleep over it, it's obviously many different things to many different people. I think the question to be asked should be is "what did the Buddha intend it to be?"

PS Thanks for the plug on the Saydaw U Jotika talk.

Well it was on a topic with an impressing concept: Freedom.

I could not have missed it.

I do not sleep one minute lesser about all the different aproaches and meanings people give to ' Buddhisme'

Whenever people are logic I do not call this Aristotelisme but just logic and so does Buddhisme has a meaning to me.

As far as I could have 'observed' by all the information I met, to me it is quite clear Buddha was not creating or founding the creation of a (new) religion.

To me Buddha was an Asian Philosopher, no religious figure.

At his time in his way he was the most important and the most high aware philosopher 'in the field of' compassion in the world.

When there are no 'teachings' or 'sayings' known to be certainlty from Buddha about any kind of or any form of institutionalisation around his manifestation, teachings and sayings, I would not encourage to go into a question what Buddha intended Buddhisme to be or to become.

In my opinion the most important aspect of the life of Buddha besides he was the manifestation of compassion, is the aspect of the proces.

The life of Buddha was a proces, as life is proces.

In other words it is very important not to emphasize as main component what came out of the life of Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha, but mainly to emphasize how.

This how is mainly a secret because the proces was an inner proces, a non- material proces- and in this way a spiritual proces.

What became known out of this proces where products, becos words are no processes but 'dead' concepts, concepts that only can come to live again inside a human in an inner spiritual proces as by wich they where once before 'seen'.

We are not aware of all what Buddha did think or see with regard to many phenomenons in the world.

He did not talk about it maybe becos he was not asked, and sometimes he even did not talk about it when he was asked.

When we meet the teachings of Buddha we can only understand these up to the level of development of our inner understanding abbilities, our individual level of comprehension

Out of this fact it speaks for itself it is very naive to think, tell or write Buddha was, and in some way still would be the most aware and the most best human ever living on earth.

To have the awareness to be able to have such kind of judgement one should at least be a Buddha, in fact even be more higher in awareness and perfection as Buddha.

Who are the students to tell their teacher is the best teacher in the world???

When they do they only project their level of awareness.

The teachings of Buddha have become available to humanity by the life and the proces of the life of Buddha, just like logic has become available by the proces of life of Aristotle.

This doesnot tell eveybody is (always) inspired by the philosophy of compassion of Buddha or by the logic of Aristotle.

But it did become part of the aspects of being human, it was meant to be becos all these qualities are making humans human.

Buddhisme originally and probably will have been a living part of the proces of Buddha as long as Buddha was still living on earth.

The society around the living Buddha will have been inspired by the living Buddha .

But after the dead of Buddha the life of the living proces was fading away and probably gone not very long after about the time the last person actualy having experienced Buddha, also died.

From that time on all there was left were the products.

And the caracteristics of the product is conservatisme. As we can see with any 'religion', at the moment the living experiences have become product the conserving powers come to 'life' taking over and shape the culture.

Buddhisme (as any religion) in the world is to a large extend conservatisme. Thai Buddhisme is conservatisme.

The products are conserved traditions, teachings and interpretations in writings, on tape, DVD, anything one can think of and repeated over and over again and the 'guards' of the products are in power.

Dealing with the 'spiritual products' on earth has become enclosed in material thinking. Thinking based on the material brain.

We think and discuss about those products in combinating deductive thinking and all this thinking activity is not called spirituality but nowadays energy.

We ourselve are becoming - and thinking about ourselfs as being organic- computers.

The fastest brain with the ' biggest harddisc' and the most ' extended RAM memory ' and the most energy (electricity) will become The Most Wise Person in our future world.

Fortunately other things will happen, let's hope so and 'work' for it.

We can only meet the teachings of Buddha in the products when we meet them in an inner individual spiritual proces where they can live (again) and transcend to a broader and even higher awareness (as we had before)

.

[Brucenkhamen]

Well it was on a topic with an impressing concept: Freedom.

I could not have missed it.

...

We can only meet the teachings of Buddha in the products when we meet them in an inner individual spiritual proces where they can live (again) and transcend to a broader and even higher awareness (as we had before)

I agree that the Buddha probably wasn't really interested in founding a new religion, the same may be true of other religious founders, Jesus is probably another good example. I also think he was quite aware of the nature of people and that it would before long institutionalise into a religion anyway.

I don't agree that he was a philosopher though, philosophy is all about theory, it's explanation driven rather than solution driven, Buddhism is the opposite of that.

Rather the Buddhist teaching is best seen as a process, a methodology of awakening, of freedom from suffering. Whether this is seen as a day by day process or as an ultimate event it's still practical rather than theoretical or religious. Another aspect of his teaching was a social movement, a way of life that debunked some of the negative aspects of the culture of the day.

As for the question "Who are the students to tell their teacher is the best teacher in the world?" it's not a matter of saying my teacher is better than your teacher, I think it's a matter of determining what makes sense, what matters, and then asking who best teaches that or personifies that. If I were someone who was impressed by claims of divinity or dying to pay for the sins of others then I'd be following another path wouldn't I?

What does impress me is a teaching about coming to terms with our reactions to experience and the suffering we create and through a process of training the mind gaining total freedom from that, and that any human can do the same. The best example of that that I know of is Gautama Siddhartha the Buddha, but if you know of a better example lets of hear it.

[christiaan]

Well it was on a topic with an impressing concept: Freedom.

I could not have missed it.

...

We can only meet the teachings of Buddha in the products when we meet them in an inner individual spiritual proces where they can live (again) and transcend to a broader and even higher awareness (as we had before)

I agree that the Buddha probably wasn't really interested in founding a new religion, the same may be true of other religious founders, Jesus is probably another good example. I also think he was quite aware of the nature of people and that it would before long institutionalise into a religion anyway.

I don't agree that he was a philosopher though, philosophy is all about theory, it's explanation driven rather than solution driven, Buddhism is the opposite of that.

Rather the Buddhist teaching is best seen as a process, a methodology of awakening, of freedom from suffering. Whether this is seen as a day by day process or as an ultimate event it's still practical rather than theoretical or religious. Another aspect of his teaching was a social movement, a way of life that debunked some of the negative aspects of the culture of the day.

As for the question "Who are the students to tell their teacher is the best teacher in the world?" it's not a matter of saying my teacher is better than your teacher, I think it's a matter of determining what makes sense, what matters, and then asking who best teaches that or personifies that. If I were someone who was impressed by claims of divinity or dying to pay for the sins of others then I'd be following another path wouldn't I?

What does impress me is a teaching about coming to terms with our reactions to experience and the suffering we create and through a process of training the mind gaining total freedom from that, and that any human can do the same. The best example of that that I know of is Gautama Siddhartha the Buddha, but if you know of a better example lets of hear it.

I am impressed to see this time you actually did read my long contribution.

In general I do see simmilarities in your view and mine.

I see Buddha as being a philosopher but not only or just a philosopher. Then, in my view, philosophy, as a moving dynamic aspect of being human, mainly is a way of thinking and giving information out of thinking about the thinking. Sometimes it explains, sometimes it can be a help to solve something but its core qualty is showing the way of thinking about the world we live in out of some personal experience. A written philosophy is always the product of thinking, even when this thinking is thinking about experiences of (high) enlightment.

The value of (judging) a philosophy is not within its results/product - they are just the 'signs' that point out to the past proces- , but in the proces of how this philosophy came to 'life

And I cannot see your contribution about judging the teacher otherwise as a conformation of the fact that one can only understand and qualify a teacher up to the level of ones own awareness.

That is why people choose the teachers that fits them the best.

looking back in time I can come along Buddha was one of the finest teachers 2500 years ago in relation to compassion, as Aristotle at about that was the best teacher in relation to logic.

But in the past 2500 years there have been a sequence of very qualified teachers with high awareness too.

[christiaan]

a correction:

looking back in time I can come a long way in understanding Buddha was one of the finest teachers 2500 years ago in relation to compassion, as Aristotle at about the same time was the best teacher in relation to logic.

[christiaan]

So logic could maybe also become The Religion of Freedom.

[Brucenkhamen]

I am impressed to see this time you actually did read my long contribution.

It was on topic.

I see Buddha as being a philosopher but not only or just a philosopher. Then, in my view, philosophy, as a moving dynamic aspect of being human, mainly is a way of thinking and giving information out of thinking about the thinking. Sometimes it explains, sometimes it can be a help to solve something but its core qualty is showing the way of thinking about the world we live in out of some personal experience. A written philosophy is always the product of thinking, even when this thinking is thinking about experiences of (high) enlightment.

The value of (judging) a philosophy is not within its results/product - they are just the 'signs' that point out to the past proces- , but in the proces of how this philosophy came to 'life.

This is exactly why Buddhism is not a philosophy. While Buddhism does contain some philosophical background it's primarily a set of tools and methods by which the mind can be trained and freed, it's a methodology not a philosophy, it's something to do not something to think about or talk about at cocktail parties. This is why gaining knowledge about Buddhism is pointless if you don't actually use the tools to do the job.

It would be a bit like collecting weight watchers recipes while continuing to eat at McDonalds every day.

And I cannot see your contribution about judging the teacher otherwise as a conformation of the fact that one can only understand and qualify a teacher up to the level of ones own awareness.

That is why people choose the teachers that fits them the best.

You can make that judgement if you want but that's up to the level of your own awareness.

looking back in time I can come along Buddha was one of the finest teachers 2500 years ago in relation to compassion, as Aristotle at about that was the best teacher in relation to logic.

But in the past 2500 years there have been a sequence of very qualified teachers with high awareness too.

You say that humans are evolving to a greater and greater awareness but even though I've asked a couple of times you've yet to suggest someone who has developed a greater level of awareness than the Buddha over the last 2500 years. It makes your refrain sound empty.

It's all very well to pontificate about the vast stores of knowledge you may have stored up over the years but where is the practical use? what methods have you applied to make substantive change to your wellbeing and the wellbeing of others?

[christiaan]

Christiaan:

I am impressed to see this time you actually did read my long contribution.

Brucenkhamen:

It was on topic.

Christiaan:

Was it?

to write this one was on topic tells you did also read the other ones and concluded they, to your opinion where not on topic.

Just as I expected it was the case.....

Christiaan:

I see Buddha as being a philosopher but not only or just a philosopher. Then, in my view, philosophy, as a moving dynamic aspect of being human, mainly is a way of thinking and giving information out of thinking about the thinking. Sometimes it explains, sometimes it can be a help to solve something but its core qualty is showing the way of thinking about the world we live in out of some personal experience. A written philosophy is always the product of thinking, even when this thinking is thinking about experiences of (high) enlightment.

The value of (judging) a philosophy is not within its results/product - they are just the 'signs' that point out to the past proces- , but in the proces of how this philosophy came to 'life.

Brucenkhamen:

This is exactly why Buddhism is not a philosophy. While Buddhism does contain some philosophical background it's primarily a set of tools and methods by which the mind can be trained and freed, it's a methodology not a philosophy, it's something to do not something to think about or talk about at cocktail parties. This is why gaining knowledge about Buddhism is pointless if you don't actually use the tools to do the job.

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

It would be a bit like collecting weight watchers recipes while continuing to eat at McDonalds every day.

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

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

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

Christiaan:

And I cannot see your contribution about judging the teacher otherwise as a conformation of the fact that one can only understand and qualify a teacher up to the level of ones own awareness.

That is why people choose the teachers that fits them the best.

Brucenkhamen:

You can make that judgement if you want but that's up to the level of your own awareness.

Ofcourse it is.

Christiaan:

looking back in time I can come along way in understanding Buddha was one of the finest teachers 2500 years ago in relation to compassion, as Aristotle at about the same time was the best teacher in relation to logic.

But in the past 2500 years there have been a sequence of very qualified teachers with high awareness too.

Brucenkhamen:

You say that humans are evolving to a greater and greater awareness but even though I've asked a couple of times you've yet to suggest someone who has developed a greater level of awareness than the Buddha over the last 2500 years. It makes your refrain sound empty.

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

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

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

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

Brucenkhamen:

It's all very well to pontificate about the vast stores of knowledge you may have stored up over the years but where is the practical use? what methods have you applied to make substantive change to your wellbeing and the wellbeing of others?

Pontificate about vast stores of knowledge I stored up?

Out of what precept is such remark?

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

Contemplation and meditation, study, questioning.

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

I mainly strive for awareness being a spiritual quality.

[Brucenkhamen]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pontificate about vast stores of knowledge I stored up?

Out of what precept is such remark?

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

Contemplation and meditation, study, questioning.

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

I mainly strive for awareness being a spiritual quality.

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

Again rather than answering the question you pontificate.

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

Edited January 23, 2011 by Brucenkhamen