Rebel Buddha

[camerata]

From the new book Rebel Buddha by Dzogchen Ponlop:

"We often mix together spirituality and religion as if they were one thing. But this doesn't quite work. A spiritual path can exist within or outside a religious context. Religion and spirituality can be complementary or separate practices and experiences. A spiritual path is an inner journey that begins with questions about who we are, and about the nature and meaning of our existence. It's naturally a process of introspection and contemplation.

Religion, as conventionally defined, refers to a set of beliefs about the cause and nature of the universe, our relationship to the creation and creator, and the source of spiritual authority. We can accept those beliefs at face value or explore and examine our own experience of them. Some religions embrace such questioning, while others discourage it, either openly or implicitly. The point is, we need to be clear about what we're really doing in our spiritual or religious life.

Although Buddhism can be practiced "religiously," in many respects, it isn't really a religion. Because of its emphasis on questioning and working with the mind, it is spiritual in nature. But because it relies on logical analysis and reasoning, as well as on meditation, many Buddhist teachers regard Buddhism as a science of the mind rather than a religion. In each meditation session, we gather knowledge about the mind through observation, questioning, and testing. We do this over and over, until we gradually develop a meaningful understanding of our own mind. Some people may even become weary of Buddhism because it gives them so much work to do — they have to ask all the questions and find all their own answers."

Source

[christiaan]

All the topics in this part of the book 'Rebel Buddha', (this makes me think of the book 'Broken Buddha) are very interesting.

It tells a lot about the writer. It does invite a lot of questions.

What are the essential real differences between spirituality and religion and being religious?

When can we say it is complementary and when separate?

As written here is the difference : spirituality is an inside -experienced (subjective or objective) activity and religion is an outside objectivity ?.

Can we also say: Buddhisme refers to a set of beliefs about the cause and nature of the universe, our relationship to the creation and creator, and the source of spiritual authority ?.

We can accept those beliefs at face value or explore and examine our own experience of them?

Do people, Buddhist people in each meditation session gather knowledge about the mind through observation?,

We do this over and over, to develop a meaningful understanding of our own mind. At what point do we start to and how do we develop a meaningfull understanding of the world, the origin, the nature, the meaning, the future of it?

When there is religion, spirituality, there is also philosophy, what is their position, relation to eachother?

[khaowong1]

Here at Wat Promkunaram in Arizona, many Americans come asking these same questions. If any one comes up with a decent answer, I sure would be interested... thanks

[christiaan]

Here at Wat Promkunaram in Arizona, many Americans come asking these same questions. If any one comes up with a decent answer, I sure would be interested... thanks

When many Americans come with those questions what are the answers they get in...... Wat Promkunaram?

[Brucenkhamen]

As written here is the difference : spirituality is an inside -experienced (subjective or objective) activity and religion is an outside objectivity ?.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Can we also say: Buddhisme refers to a set of beliefs about the cause and nature of the universe, our relationship to the creation and creator, and the source of spiritual authority ?.

No

We can accept those beliefs at face value or explore and examine our own experience of them?

The Buddha advised us not to accept beliefs at face value, and I fail to see the value in doing so.

Do people, Buddhist people in each meditation session gather knowledge about the mind through observation?

Sometimes.

We do this over and over, to develop a meaningful understanding of our own mind. At what point do we start to and how do we develop a meaningfull understanding of the world, the origin, the nature, the meaning, the future of it?

We gain understanding of our own mind, and come to an understanding of our personal interactions with and our place in the world. From that we begin to realise that we aren't so different and the minds of others work in much the same way, but I don't think that really extends to "understanding of the world, the origin, the nature, the meaning, the future of it".

When there is religion, spirituality, there is also philosophy, what is their position, relation to eachother?

They are all concepts.

[christiaan]

Just like Buddhism they are all phenomena in the world, and being phenomena and concepts they do have some relation to eachother and for some people it is interesting to learn about their relation, meaning and future.

[Samuian]

The answer may be found somewhere when "closing" the gates of perception, of cognition, practice mindfulness, develop awareness at all times, even when asleep and all those questions need no answers!

as questions, doubts and so on are products of the mind, it is it's very nature, without doubts and questions it loses it's base for existence!

As it is a simple fact that to say itwith Locke's word:

"The Understanding, like the Eye, whilst it makes us see, and perceive all other Things, takes no notice of itself!"

Who ask's?

Regarding "Spirituality and Religion" the first can easely do and survive, as it has for thousands of years, without the latter!

[christiaan]

The Understanding, like the Eye, whilst it makes us see, and perceive all other Things, takes no notice of itself!"

When the understanding takes no notice of it self people cannot have awareness.

The eye cannot see the processes of actual seeing. the mind however, our thinking, can 'see', take notice of its processes of thinking.

Is this sooooooooo difficult to see??

The eye and the nature of the eye is NOT the same as understanding and the nature of understanding. The eye is physical and sees the physical world, the understanding at its best is spiritual and makes healthy people see the spirituality of the world in wich they live and doing so people can follow every step of the proces of this seeing.. The mind, the understanding, is the eye by wich we can see the living spiritual ideas of the spiritual world, like the laws of nature as they work in nature.

To deny this or to not take note of this one can only do after first valueing the act itself as being existent. How can one deny or not take note of something that not even exists?

And denying this in such an artificial way is bringing humans in a situation of sleep as we can see in animal existence.

Animals dont asks questions to get answers , they only 'ask' for matter.