The problem with all religions

[weary]

Before you consider ordaining, why not try a few meditation retreats? Also, it could be a good idea to listen to Dhamma talks from monks of the tradition in which you think you may want to ordain.

Thannissaro Bhikkhu, Ajahn Jayasaro, Ajahn Sumedho are some of the Western monks from the Thai Forest tradition. Dhamma talks of theirs are available online. Dhamma talks by their teacher Ajahn Chah are also easy to find for example on Youtube. There are also guided meditations which can be useful to get started.

[transam]

Religion is man made............YES or NO..........?

[Kan Win]

When I say one should eat when one is hungry, I'm referring to the one meal per day. If I'm not hungry at 8 am, I might sometimes prefer to have my daily meal at 12 am or 5 pm. I'm not keen on the idea that, "you'd better eat now (at 8 am) even if you are not hungry, because by 5 pm you probably will be hungry but will not have the opportunity to eat". I also believe in the benefits of fasting.

Now I admit that such concerns in the general scheme of things are probably trivial, especially for any short period. However, on a long term basis, I would consider the nutritional quality of one's diet very important.

I recently came across some photos of that famous Thai monk, Buddhadasa, who had some interesting ideas on the concept of reincarnation, that is, it's one's thoughts that are reincarnated rather than an entire life after death.

I was rather amazed that Buddhadasa appeared so overweight in the photos. He seemed half way to being a Laughing Buddha. I'd definitely place him in the 'obese' category. How did he manage that on one meal per day, I wonder? Hope no-one thinks I'm being too disrespectful here. I'm just trying to get to the truth.

Well I only eat once per day when I am not driving my car for hours on end, when at home after a morning of a couple of coffees or two, then a lot water until Beer o, Clock. Once that is done Dinner Time and of to bed.

100 kgs same as always for the last 15 years, so all in all, One meal a Day keeps me happy and still looking like a bit porky.

Win

[sustento]

So what were you prior to birth. What are you prior to mind. What are you prior to consciousness?

Is there a God, a creator of all things? If there is a God, who created God? If the universe began with a big bang, what existed before the Big Bang?

I believe that both Confucius and the Buddha advised against speculating on the existence of a creator God,

The Parable of the Poisoned Arrow.

[VincentRJ]

So why are you speculating on the existence of a creator God? How is it possible for something to be created from nothing?

I'm not speculating. I'm merely giving an example of the useless speculation and meaningless questions that are often raised, and trying to explain why such questions may be meaningless.

'How is it possible for something to be created from nothing', or 'why is there something rather than nothing', are just more examples of a confusion in the human mind due to the meaning we've ascribed to ordinary words.

'Nothing' simply doesn't exist. No-one has discovered a region of space that contains nothing. There is always something. The concept of 'nothing' is an illusion in the human mind.

Even if we were to do our best to create an enclosed space at a temperature of absolute zero, which we imagined contained nothing because the space was shielded form all known forms of electromagnetic radiation, we'd probably be wrong in thinking there was nothing inside the enclosure because it is now believed by the majority of astrophysicists that 90% of all the matter and energy in the universe is completely invisible and undetectable. They call it Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

[fabianfred]

So what were you prior to birth. What are you prior to mind. What are you prior to consciousness?

Is there a God, a creator of all things? If there is a God, who created God? If the universe began with a big bang, what existed before the Big Bang?

I believe that both Confucius and the Buddha advised against speculating on the existence of a creator God, but the discipline of Physics didn't exist in those days of course. What existed before the Big Bang might be another meaningless question. However, there is a sort of answer, although perhaps not completely satisfactory. There is a fourth dimension of 'time'. Time was created during the Big Bang, therefore, the question 'what existed before the Big Bang' could be considered meaningless. The word 'before' is a quality of time. Time did not exist before the Big Bang.

Your questions, what was I prior to my birth, mind and consciousness, I place in the same category as the above questions, although it's true to say that prior to my birth I was a developing embryo in the womb. Perhaps you meant to ask what was I before conception.

Theravada Buddhism teaches that...

1. The past is infinite ... the future is infinite.

2. We (our consciousness) have always existed ... no starting point. Therefore we have been trapped in the cycle of rebirth since beginingless time. Therfore we have experienced rebirth in every one of the 31 realms, as every type of human, animal, etc.

3. Everything in nature is cyclic, so before the Big bang was the previous Big Crunch. The period from one big bang to the next is a Maha kappa.

[fabianfred]

Religion is man made............YES or NO..........?

Religions are created by people....

The Buddha did not intend to start a religion called Buddhism. He merely taught the Dhamma, the truth, the natural laws, which had been forgotten, misunderstood, since the passing of the previous Buddha's dhamma.

[rockyysdt]

What I find unappealing is not the one meal a day scenario, but the clockwork regularity, for example, of rising at 3 am and taking the daily meal at 8 am whether I like the food or not, and whether I think it's wholesome or not.

I find that 'elimination', as you put it, is not regular for me if my diet lacks fibre, which is often the case when I eat white rice without compensating for its lack of fibre by taking a high-fibre supplement such as All Bran, or lots of vegetables.

When I say one should eat when one is hungry, I'm referring to the one meal per day. If I'm not hungry at 8 am, I might sometimes prefer to have my daily meal at 12 am or 5 pm. I'm not keen on the idea that, "you'd better eat now (at 8 am) even if you are not hungry, because by 5 pm you probably will be hungry but will not have the opportunity to eat". I also believe in the benefits of fasting.

Now I admit that such concerns in the general scheme of things are probably trivial, especially for any short period. However, on a long term basis, I would consider the nutritional quality of one's diet very important.

I recently came across some photos of that famous Thai monk, Buddhadasa, who had some interesting ideas on the concept of reincarnation, that is, it's one's thoughts that are reincarnated rather than an entire life after death.

I was rather amazed that Buddhadasa appeared so overweight in the photos. He seemed half way to being a Laughing Buddha. I'd definitely place him in the 'obese' category. How did he manage that on one meal per day, I wonder? Hope no-one thinks I'm being too disrespectful here. I'm just trying to get to the truth.

Hi V.

If Thailand was the place you were considering, I highly recommend an international retreat before any thought of ordaining.

Wat Suan Mokkh would be ideal for you.

http://www.suanmokkh-idh.org/idh-rules.html

Approx $70 for 10 days, food and board included.

Wholemeal rice (nothing white).

Eat twice a day, except the eight day when it goes to one meal.

After the 10 days you can then stay at the dormitory in the Monastery grounds.

Continue to dine all you can eat once a day for I think 25 or 30 baht (self serve & includes wholemeal).

Ask one of the Monks if you can be his apprentice during your stay.

Stay a day, a week, a month a year.

A friend of mine stayed and practiced under the British Monk resident in the forest for 3 months.

Eating and eliminating is a habitual thing.

The idea is that after time on retreat or under tutelage as an ordained Monk or Novice, your system will eventually acclimatize to your new regimen.

Eventually the eating/eliminating part of your day becomes optimized and ideally becomes a minimal part of your routine, freeing you for the work at hand (growing awareness).

Once living a much slower, less physically demanding lifestyle, eating becomes a balancing act between eating enough to sustain you and facilitating elimination vs over consumption with associated lethargy and bloat.

Wat Suan Mokkh offers whole rice to keep you regular but also include wild grasses, grown on the retreat grounds, which offer a natural mild laxative affect.

Given time you will become aware of your body and learn to feed it optimally.

Perhaps Buddhadasa had a genetic predisposition to becoming overweight.

We often view obese people as complicit in their situation, when quite often, many might find themselves in such states despite doing all the right things.

Edited October 14, 2014 by rockyysdt

[VincentRJ]

Wat Suan Mokkh offers whole rice to keep you regular but also include wild grasses, grown on the retreat grounds, which offer a natural mild laxative affect.

Given time you will become aware of your body and learn to feed it optimally.

Perhaps Buddhadasa had a genetic predisposition to becoming overweight.

We often view obese people as complicit in their situation, when quite often, many might find themselves in such states despite doing all the right things.

Thanks for the tip, Rocky. That Wat Suan Mokkh offers whole (brown) rice is a great attraction. I wonder how this place compares with the forest retreat at Wat Pah Nanachat, near Ubon Ratchathani. There are also lots of English-speaking Westerners who frequent that retreat.

http://www.watpahnanachat.org/stay.php

As regards Buddhadasa's obesity (I would place him in the category of obese rather than merely overweight) I see a lot of confusion. One cannot deny that our genes influence every aspect of our lives. If just 5% of our genes were different (or even less than that) we could be monkeys instead of humans.

However, any genetic propensity to put on weight would have to be considered as normal. To fail to put on weight despite overeating, would be considered as abnormal and a genetic defect.

Just a few thousand years ago, frequent food shortage would have been quite common. When food was plentiful, people would tend to stuff themselves and put on weight. When food shortages occurred, as they inevitably did sooner or later, the weight put on during periods of plenty would allow such people to withstand the subsequent famines and droughts. Those who hadn't been able to put on weight during times of plenty, due to a genetic defect, would not survive.

The current obesity epidemic in many countries, including Thailand, is not due to genetic defects, but due to 3 very basic factors. (1) overeating, (2) lack of exercise, and (3) lack of famine or food shortages which impose a degree of natural fasting.

Overeating is encouraged by the food processing industry. The more people eat, the more profits are make.

A major tenet of Buddhism which appeals to many of us, is its emphasis on self-control, particularly the control over our desires. But no-one's perfect. It would seem that Buddhadasa failed to control his appetite, or perhaps he didn't see any good reason to control his appetite. He lived to a reasonably ripe old age despite his obesity. Could he have achieved more if he'd lived longer? I'm not sufficiently expert to know.

Hope no-one finds me disrespectful. Just trying to get to the truth.

[rockyysdt]

Wat Suan Mokkh offers whole rice to keep you regular but also include wild grasses, grown on the retreat grounds, which offer a natural mild laxative affect.

Given time you will become aware of your body and learn to feed it optimally.

Perhaps Buddhadasa had a genetic predisposition to becoming overweight.

We often view obese people as complicit in their situation, when quite often, many might find themselves in such states despite doing all the right things.

Thanks for the tip, Rocky. That Wat Suan Mokkh offers whole (brown) rice is a great attraction. I wonder how this place compares with the forest retreat at Wat Pah Nanachat, near Ubon Ratchathani. There are also lots of English-speaking Westerners who frequent that retreat.

http://www.watpahnanachat.org/stay.php

As regards Buddhadasa's obesity (I would place him in the category of obese rather than merely overweight) I see a lot of confusion. One cannot deny that our genes influence every aspect of our lives. If just 5% of our genes were different (or even less than that) we could be monkeys instead of humans.

However, any genetic propensity to put on weight would have to be considered as normal. To fail to put on weight despite overeating, would be considered as abnormal and a genetic defect.

Just a few thousand years ago, frequent food shortage would have been quite common. When food was plentiful, people would tend to stuff themselves and put on weight. When food shortages occurred, as they inevitably did sooner or later, the weight put on during periods of plenty would allow such people to withstand the subsequent famines and droughts. Those who hadn't been able to put on weight during times of plenty, due to a genetic defect, would not survive.

The current obesity epidemic in many countries, including Thailand, is not due to genetic defects, but due to 3 very basic factors. (1) overeating, (2) lack of exercise, and (3) lack of famine or food shortages which impose a degree of natural fasting.

Overeating is encouraged by the food processing industry. The more people eat, the more profits are make.

A major tenet of Buddhism which appeals to many of us, is its emphasis on self-control, particularly the control over our desires. But no-one's perfect. It would seem that Buddhadasa failed to control his appetite, or perhaps he didn't see any good reason to control his appetite. He lived to a reasonably ripe old age despite his obesity. Could he have achieved more if he'd lived longer? I'm not sufficiently expert to know.

Hope no-one finds me disrespectful. Just trying to get to the truth.

Hi V.

Much of what you say is right on the money.

However there are many who become overweight/obese due to other factors.

For example more than 15 million Americans suffer from hypothyroidism, a genetic thyroid disease which plays havoc with weight.

Most go undiagnosed.

I have three offspring.

My firstborn's genetic body type fits into your example ((1) overeating, (2) lack of exercise, and (3) lack of famine or food shortages).

Weight varies due to diet/exercise and I have seen his body weight fluctuate due to the variables.

My second born is quite thin and can eat anything he likes, and often does, without any affect on his weight. He remains thin.

My third born is large and has undertaken surgery to limit meal sizes with limited success despite regular exercise and diet.

They were all raised in the same environment as a close family but, due to genetics all turned out quite different from each other.

We don't know Bikkhu Buddhadasa's personal story.

I used to look down on obese people.

With my emerging awareness I now keep an open mind.

Having said that, those whose obesity is due to their lifestyle will not be able to avoid Vipaka (the fruits of Kharma).

NB: Regarding Wat Suan Mokkh.

Lectures and instruction are given in English at the Wat Suan Mokkh International Retreat.

Although frowned upon by traditional Buddhists, there is daily group Yoga given by a German instructor very early in the morning.

A great way of keeping the body flexible, and in good condition as well as sharpening ones concentration.

Upon conclusion of the retreat, if you stay at the Wat (as long as you like) there is a British Monk who would be an excellent mentor.

Edited October 15, 2014 by rockyysdt

[trd]

A major tenet of Buddhism which appeals to many of us, is its emphasis on self-control, particularly the control over our desires.......

It is not possible to control desire in the sense of preventing its appearance. A desire rises spontaneously in the mind and is recognised as such by an apparent individual self who will either act on it to satisfy the desire, or will examine it in a contemplative manner without necessarily acting on it. By the time it is appreciated by the conscious mind as a desire it is too late to subdue it. The horse has already bolted. So control can only mean that we refuse to quench the thirst of the desire. However, if we choose not to satisfy it, we are merely replacing it with another desire to not fulfill the initial desire. There can be no spiritual value in that because we just continue to identify with desires. It is not the desires themselves that are the issue, but the identification with them as being part of the apparent self which is forever changing and impermanent.

It would be wrong to say that we should not satisfy a desire. To refuse to satisfy the desire for food is an obvious example that would threaten personal survival. Yet, both Buddhist and Vedic teachings speak of liberation as being a "desireless" state. What this really means is that when the mind, through practice, has achieved perfect stillness and knows without a shadow of doubt that its true nature is unbounded, undifferentiated awareness, then we can say the mind cannot be disturbed by any phenomena, including desire. It is like swimming in a turbulent sea at the mercy of the waves. But dive down into the depths and you will be unaffected by the agitation on the surface. All will be calm.

There is really only one authentic teaching. Whatever terminology is used, however it is presented, it all comes back to one thing. There can be no thought, idea, concept or object, or perception of an object that can ever be the reality. Only the knower, the subject of these perceptions can be truly real, because all external phenomena are constantly in a state of flux, while the seer is unchanging, without beginning or end. The only way to know that is to dive within.

[VincentRJ]

It is not possible to control desire in the sense of preventing its appearance. A desire rises spontaneously in the mind and is recognised as such by an apparent individual self who will either act on it to satisfy the desire, or will examine it in a contemplative manner without necessarily acting on it.

I'm afraid this just doesn't seem to me to be entirely correct, Trd. What happened to cause and effect? Do you consider that to be an illusion too? Desires and thoughts do not necessarily rise spontaneously without cause, although sometimes they might appear to rise spontaneously because we are not being sufficiently attentive to our thoughts.

Thoughts always have associations and connections. The advertising industry realises the truth of this. Their goal is to stimulate desires and craving for the products of their clients. They do this by frequently creating an association in their advertisements, between a naturally appealing and attractive thing (person or scenario) and the product they are selling.

An obvious example would be an advertisement for a new model of car in which a semi-clad, attractive young lady is shown leaning against the car, stroking the bonnet and swooning with delight.

The idea behind such an advertisement is to create an association in the minds of prospective buyers, (many of whom may be single, young males) between a rather unappealing lump of metal and plastic (the car) and a very appealing, nubile young lady.

Now of course, most young men have the nous and sense of logic to understand that the girl does not automatically come with the car. However, once the association has been made, the mind (brain) retains a memory of it. If a young man who has seen such an advertisement on TV and elsewhere, perhaps several times, happens to visit a 'car sales' company one day, and notices the same model of car in the showroom that he has seen in advertisements which showed an attractive lady swooning over the car, then it would be natural and not unexpected if the young man were to have at least a momentary thought and desire for the young lady he'd seen in the advertisements, and a hope and desire that possession of the car could lead to his attracting a similar young lady, eventually.

It can not be claimed that such thoughts of the lady would arise spontaneously. They are provoked by the sight of the new model of car in the showroom, and the memory of the advertisements.

[trd]

You are mistaken. All thoughts appear to rise spontaneously in the mind to the seer regardless of their content and apparent cause. Your mistake arises because you identify with external phenomena. I did say that you need to dive within to know this without the contamination of mind.

[trd]

The idea that a particular thought has appeared because it was triggered by another thought or association is itself just another thought which appears in the mind without a doer or personal self to initiate it. Don't be misled into thinking that observable cause and effect confers reality. Cause and effect themselves are just passing phenomena. But what doesn't change is the passive witnessing consciousness. That alone is real.

[VincentRJ]

The idea that a particular thought has appeared because it was triggered by another thought or association is itself just another thought which appears in the mind without a doer or personal self to initiate it. Don't be misled into thinking that observable cause and effect confers reality. Cause and effect themselves are just passing phenomena. But what doesn't change is the passive witnessing consciousness. That alone is real.

You appear to be tying yourself in knots, Trd. If what you write is true, the notion that one thought triggered by another thought or association is just another thought that appears in the mind without a 'doer' to initiate it, then all the comments on this forum are essentially meaningless, just evanescent, fleeting occurrences without consequence or effect, plucked out of thin air by non-existent people.

Is that your position?

[trd]

There is no entity called a doer or self. When investigated it is found to be false. There are some easy to read books about Buddhism which you may find helpful, but they are no substitute for practice. Find out. Investigate!

[VincentRJ]

Is this your position, Trd?

[trd]

Difficult Position.jpg

Is this your position, Trd?

No, I couldn't get my leg behind my head like that.

[trd]

What happened to cause and effect? Do you consider that to be an illusion too?

I didn't actually use the word "illusion" in any of my posts, but as you used it, it is important to define what it means. Clearly the world appears to have some substance, but on the other hand it is transient in its nature (as experienced by the seer). So we could say, it is neither real nor unreal.

In the Samyutta Nikaya (12.15), the Buddha says the following to Maha Kaccana:

"'All exists,' Kaccayana, this is one extreme. 'All does not exist,' this is the other extreme. Without veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata teaches the dhamma by the middle way."

[RandomSand]

Modern man is privy to new facts and knowledge which neither the Buddha, nor Jesus, nor Mohammed were aware of. Circumstances have changed and therefore, if we are sensible, our practices should change accordingly.

Renunciation: It is what it is.

All your comments in this thread and especially in the original post suggest you're very interested in the appearances & fashions of nature & society so I suggest enjoying it whilst you can.

Life is short.

By the way; from an certain point of view; reality itself is already the result of a practice. In the view; your unconscious mind has solidified into a form you perceive as the world around. This form appears to your, regular, conscious mind as a singular phenomenon comprising a plurality of objective phenomena. (i.e "it" appears to yourself). Anyway; the point is that there's no need to change practices, as "karma" functions as pre-emptive "divine agency".

Edited October 16, 2014 by RandomSand

[RandomSand]

You see, in this "doctrine of mind"; it is mind which acts as causal agent. Phenomena appears (i.e is manifested) due to ignorance. Due to compassion of Buddha reality is apparently provided so that the mind may learn of its own ignorance. For example; a coin where one face is samsara and the other nirvana would be an eloquent illustration. in this "doctrine of mind"; Buddha manifests residual ignorance in a state of nirvana out of wisdom & compassion. However; in our apparent ignorance we can only perceive samsara. This is the doctrine of Buddha-Mind.

Basically... You kinda said "Buddhism needs to change its mind according to the external environment". Which is ironic as the "mind only" doctrine states that the external environment is a response to the Mind!

Edited October 16, 2014 by RandomSand

[RandomSand]

To follow on from my above two posts, and in relation to the "the time is always now" thread, this Mind-Only doctrine can show that there "exists" a rarefaction of Mind (spacetime?), ending up as form, to be perceived, at least, by the gross apparatus of mind i.e the brain.

In this model; Buddha-Mind exists omniversally yet any other-point is only perceptible as a duality occurring "outside" the singularity of the Mind.

Although modern science can't yet compute these ideas of infinity, which have existed for thousands of years; they're pretty similar to current ideas in quantum-physics.

The above drawing explains the idea. Another explanation, far better than my own, is known as :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra's_net

Far away in the heavenly abode of the great god Indra, there is a wonderful net which has been hung by some cunning artificer in such a manner that it stretches out infinitely in all directions. In accordance with the extravagant tastes of deities, the artificer has hung a single glittering jewel in each "eye" of the net, and since the net itself is infinite in dimension, the jewels are infinite in number. There hang the jewels, glittering "like" stars in the first magnitude, a wonderful sight to behold. If we now arbitrarily select one of these jewels for inspection and look closely at it, we will discover that in its polished surface there are reflected all the other jewels in the net, infinite in number. Not only that, but each of the jewels reflected in this one jewel is also reflecting all the other jewels, so that there is an infinite reflecting process occurring.

Edited October 16, 2014 by RandomSand

[RandomSand]

I would suggest that white rice is preferred because of 3 reasons which are un-Buddhist characteristics

Bo ho nonsense. You must be American. Honestly; to seriously suggest that brown people like white rice because, like white skin, it's more sophisticated.. What a hoot you are!

Ostensibly; white rice is preferred because it is more quickly assimilated into the body.

In fact, brown rice would be considered by many to be a 'coarse' food compared with white rice.

Is that so? That certainly tells me as much as I need to know. Consider this:

A tree has branches yet doesn't branch out any further than it should.

You won't find a tree preaching to the birds about the benefits of un-milled rice.

Now you might say "a tree's DNA doesn't allow it to espouse the virtues of any certain grain over another" -and you might be right- but did you ever properly consider this?...

~ a tree preaches not, and this is due to inherent wisdom.

Edited October 16, 2014 by RandomSand

[beautifulthailand99]

Enjoy your life be good to those you meet along the way and accept all things will end.......oh and keep coming back to Christopher Hichens to be refreshed.

Edited October 29, 2014 by beautifulthailand99

[MAJIC]

"One of the attractions of Buddhism for me is it's spirit of enquiry, which unfortunately often tends to get buried under a heap of rituals and mindless incantations"

Sooner or later all Religions have to comply and perform "rituals' and mindess incantations"and Ceremonies,to keep the followers involved and happy! seemingly semi Religion,was an easy transformation! but never intended by Bhuddha, to be a part of Bhuddism! or be a Religion,neither was Bhuddisim bogged down with Dogma! found in most Religions!

Edited October 29, 2014 by MAJIC

[VincentRJ]

Modern man is privy to new facts and knowledge which neither the Buddha, nor Jesus, nor Mohammed were aware of. Circumstances have changed and therefore, if we are sensible, our practices should change accordingly.

All your comments in this thread and especially in the original post suggest you're very interested in the appearances & fashions of nature & society so I suggest enjoying it whilst you can.

RandomSand,

I'm genuinely puzzled how you could get such an impression from my comments in this thread.

In post # 15 I wrote:

"I'm concerned about nutrition for the reasons mentioned above, but I'm not concerned with appearance. I'm questioning why monks are concerned with their appearance. I would have no concern for my own appearance if I became a monk. My concern would be only with hygiene, nutrition and meditation practices, and possibly any opportunity to engage in charity work. I would object to wasting my time shaving my face and head every few days. Life is precious. Why waste time doing ridiculous things."

In post #26, in reply to Fabianfred, I wrote:

"I fail to see how such a question would be relevant to my circumstances since I have no desire for fine fashionable clothing nor any craving for fine foods. My preference for certain types of food, such as a preference for brown rice over white rice, is not based on a craving, but based on a respect for the health of the body and an awareness of what is good for myself and others with regard to diet. In fact, brown rice would be considered by many to be a 'coarse' food compared with white rice."

However, because I'm honest, I admit that it would be an exaggeration for me to claim that I have no concern whatsoever for the appearance of clothes and food. If I see grey blotches of mould on food, I will refrain from eating the food because the appearance of the grey blotches imply that the food is not fresh.

Likewise, I am concerned to some extent about the appearance and taste of an apple when eating it, in order to be able to identify it as an apple, as opposed to an orange or a banana. I haven't yet reached that advanced stage of enlightenment whereby I would express the attitude, "Give me any food. I don't care if it's an apple or a mushroom, white rice or brown rice, fresh or rotten".

A similar situation applies to the clothes I wear. I'm concerned about the appearance of my clothes to the extent that the appearance allows me to identify the type of garment I find useful. For example, my shirts contain two pockets, each with a buttonable flap; not for any considerations of 'fashion', but for purely practical reasons. I find it convenient to carry my spectacles in my shirt pockets. Without a buttonable flap over the pockets, the spectacles (or anything else I'm carrying in the pockets) would tend to fall out when I bend over to tie my shoelaces, for example.

Regarding such matters, it can be misleading to claim that one is either 'concerned' or 'not concerned' about appearances. In reality there is a continuum of concern, ranging from an unreasonable and obsessive concern at one end of the spectrum, to an almost complete lack of concern at the other end of the spectrum.

Examples of people with a complete lack of concern for their appearance would include homeless derelicts sleeping by the roadside, and the Naga Sadhus of India who don't even bother to cover their genitals.

Songs of Freedom

Dance, Lalla, with nothing on

but air. Sing, Lalla,

wearing the sky.

Look at this glowing day! What clothes

Could be so beautiful, or

More sacred?

---Lalla

[rockyysdt]

"One of the attractions of Buddhism for me is it's spirit of enquiry, which unfortunately often tends to get buried under a heap of rituals and mindless incantations"

Sooner or later all Religions have to comply and perform "rituals' and mindess incantations"and Ceremonies,to keep the followers involved and happy! seemingly semi Religion,was an easy transformation! but never intended by Bhuddha, to be a part of Bhuddism! or be a Religion,neither was Bhuddisim bogged down with Dogma! found in most Religions!

The Abhidama quotes "rites-and-rituals" as one of the four clingings.

Quote: belief that rites alone could directly lead to liberation, typified in the texts by the rites and rituals of "ox practice" and "dog practice."

The poison called "Aversion" would be prominent in many who might find it easier to observe ritual rather than expend effort towards regular practice.

[willyumiii]

The problem with all religions.......is that they are all superstitions based on the false existence of invisible friends.

​Invisible friends are somewhat acceptable for children, but not adults.

People kill people over who's invisible friend is best.

The world needs to wake up and ban religion!

Let's grow up!

( Buddhism should not be referred to as a religion. It is a philosophy, not a religion. The Buddha was not a god, just an enlightened man. )

Edited November 1, 2014 by willyumiii

[VincentRJ]

The problem with all religions.......is that they are all superstitions based on the false existence of invisible friends.

​Invisible friends are somewhat acceptable for children, but not adults.

People kill people over who's invisible friend is best.

The world needs to wake up and ban religion!

Let's grow up!

( Buddhism should not be referred to as a religion. It is a philosophy, not a religion. The Buddha was not a god, just an enlightened man. )

Willyumiii,

I sympathise with what you are saying, but banning ideas, however ludicrous they may seem, doesn't work. Such censorship has been tried in dictatorial regimes, such as Communist Russia and China.

What should be banned, and punished, is any harmful behaviour of any citizens of any country, whether or not such behaviour is associated with a particular religion. That would include not only violent behaviour but any incitement to violent behaviour.

People have a right to believe in foolish things, as long as such foolish beliefs do not threaten or harm other individuals.

Remember, what is foolish or not foolish is merely an opinion in the mind of a beholder.

However, I think there is a case to be made that a specific religion should not be made a compulsory subject in the general education system of any country. If religion is on the curriculum, it should be of the nature of Comparative Religion, and include a discussion of all the major religions, and their history, origins and views.

[fabianfred]

The problem isn't with different beliefs. It lies with beliefs which tell it's followers to go out and convert everyone else or treat those of other beliefs as sub-human and therefore not wrong to kill or abuse.