Buddhism doesn't care whether it is a religion or not.
This statement (well-said) by Terrier Jack made me think of a story…
___________________________________________________
A group of theologians and academic metaphysicians and lay-members of different schools were passionately involved in discussing, debating and—sometimes—preaching their various views, calling upon well-constructed formulae, commentaries, and venerable ancient texts. As they were so engaged, a stranger—a red-bearded barbarian, no less!—wandered uninvited and unannounced into the conference hall.
At first, no one noticed him—so immersed were they in their endeavors. But, slowly, one-by-one, they realized that someone had intruded. Discussion faded. Soon they were all looking—some with annoyance, some simply with curiosity—at the bearded old baldhead.
When he had their attention, he smiled, and said: “How strange that none of you knows the vastness that surrounds your own houses, the wilderness beyond the walls of your own gardens! None of you has dared to venture beyond the gridlines of your own—or even each others’—well-drawn maps! Your houses and your gardens and your maps are all you know, yet you spend your lives arguing over whose house, whose garden, whose maps, are the ‘right’ ones.”
Laughing softly, but not unkindly, he looked each one in the eyes—then turned and slowly walked out of the room.
Only one of the group got up and, leaving his texts and his papers on the table, followed the stranger out. The others gawked for a moment, shaking their heads at their erstwhile colleague’s foolishness, and then returned to their liturgies and disputations.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Among all the various characters that could be imagined as the dramatis personae in this little play, how might you—that’s a general “you”, for anyone reading this—using your imagination, describe them? Who might be the various conferees? How would you describe the character of the one who left with the stranger? Who might you cast to play the parts? Which character (or characters) is you? Why? (Look again, and maybe again, just to see….)
I am not asking for any posts here; only offering a little story. If no one wants to look into it, filling in the details as an exercise, that’s fine.
Either way, be well, along the way.
gate…
Originally posted by twhiteheadJust saw this exchange: a quick aside before I go—
Up until then you thought human life was just an illusion?
Illusion is when we paint our little conceptual pictures on the real that is right in front of us, and then mistake the picture for the reality. The old Zen saying is “painting legs on a snake.”
That person, that thing, that … right there! is not illusion—until you attempt to separate it from the environment of the whole (trying to lift the figure from the ground: e.g., the gulfstream from the ocean, my smile from my face), and begin generalizing, abstracting, projecting, etc. Denying either the figure or the ground is illusion.
The conceptual abstraction (the words) “human life” (although perhaps sometimes useful as a way of speaking) can become “illusion” when it stands as a generality in the stead of that specific being right there! Or—a man refers to a woman as “my wife”. Well, does he see her only in that context? Does he see—actually see—who she is today, or does he only see his already-formed idea of who she is, based on familiarity, say? Does he see her, or his memory of yesterday? Who does he really love: her, or his composite memory-hope-idea of “her”?
When someone does something unexpected and people say: “That just isn’t George!” Well, they had a concept, “George”, that was illusory. Sadly, people form illusory notions of who/what they, themselves, are. And often spend their whole lives trying to live their own illusion (or maybe trading in one illusion for another from time to time: “’I’ was a Christian, but now ’I’ am a Buddhist…” The fabricated (sometimes beginning very early in life) somebody-self construct we think we are—the “I-pictures” we paint (or have painted) on ourselves.
I’m off again; just dropped in briefly. Be well, old friend.
Originally posted by vistesdwell i started this thead so let me have a crack at answering this.
[b]Buddhism doesn't care whether it is a religion or not.
This statement (well-said) by Terrier Jack made me think of a story…
___________________________________________________
A group of theologians and academic metaphysicians and lay-members of different schools were passionately involved in discussing, debating and—sometimes—preaching their v ...[text shortened]... the details as an exercise, that’s fine.
Either way, be well, along the way.
gate…[/b]
I would say up until my 25th year the general'me' would have been one of the ones who stayed behind. Since then i,ve been in some similar situations where i have been the stranger who comes in and other times the one who follows him out. (i'm in my mid thirties now)
(any comments welcome)
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo. I had a teaching that was arguing for the illusionary nature of the world.
Up until then you thought human life was just an illusion?
It was attractive. It had some amount of veracity for Solomon in the Bible also said "Vanity of vanities. All is vanity"
Buddhism is of a number of philosphies which stress this essential vanity and emptiness of life.
When I mused on that young man hurrying across the street to avoid being struck by a car, I thought :
"No. there is SOMETHING solid about human life which we instinctively seek to preserve. The world and life cannot be totally an illusion."
I had been reading a lot of Allen Watts at the time and doing Zen meditation.
Originally posted by PalynkaDoes any of you even care if the OP's premise is completely wrong?
Do you have any data about this? Christianity has grown significantly in Asia.
How would your interpretations change if in fact more people left Buddhism to Christianity than the reverse?
Hindsight is not 20/20 vision, it's 20/20 delusion.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28004
Originally posted by PalynkaOK - what is your point? Are you arguing for statistical comparison as the basis of human decision? I don't do headcounts to to determine my thoughts and feelings. Do you?
Does any of you even care if the OP's premise is completely wrong?
How would your interpretations change if in fact more people left Buddhism to Christianity than the reverse?
Hindsight is not 20/20 vision, it's 20/20 delusion.
Originally posted by Palynkahindsight is not 20/20 vision it is a tool by which we may learn of our past mistakes and make changes to live better in the future
Does any of you even care if the OP's premise is completely wrong?
How would your interpretations change if in fact more people left Buddhism to Christianity than the reverse?
Hindsight is not 20/20 vision, it's 20/20 delusion.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28004
vistesd story reminds me of the story of the first patriarch of buddhism, Mahakasyapa. One day the buddha walked to eagle peak and instead of addressing those gathered, he simply held up a flower. Only Kasyapa understood this and thus the transmission to his leadership occurred when the buddha handed him the flower as he walked off.
It is however important to appreciate that fact that WE ARE ALL deluded by this universe, That is our essential condition. Most of the serious human tragedy on this planet is caused by people who believe that only they have seen thru this delusion and only they know the truth. A good story or a few wise words doesn't absolve you of your responsibility to continue to try to see clearly. It doesn't make you right and everyone who stayed in the room wrong. We are all wrong AND we are all right. The buddha said "you and I are not different."
Originally posted by TerrierJackMy point is that interpretation of the merits of buddhism vs christianity based on any such supposed "facts" are an illusion of hindsight where you rationalize some event based on your preferred interpretation.
OK - what is your point? Are you arguing for statistical comparison as the basis of human decision? I don't do headcounts to to determine my thoughts and feelings. Do you?
I'm just using the high likelihood of the OP's premise being wrong as an illustration.
Originally posted by karoly aczelYou can use a hammer to construct a house or to destroy it. Hindsight is only useful as a tool if you identify how you're using it.
hindsight is not 20/20 vision it is a tool by which we may learn of our past mistakes and make changes to live better in the future
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28004
Originally posted by PalynkaI don't understand this sentence. Please try and clarify your thought because I can't really get any meaning out of it.
My point is that interpretation of the merits of buddhism vs christianity based on any such supposed "facts" are an illusion of hindsight where you rationalize some event based on your preferred interpretation.
I'm just using the high likelihood of the OP's premise being wrong as an illustration.
If you'll read the first post I think you'll find that he wasn't asking which was better - he was asking how they differed. I don't know if anyone has statistics on any subject like leaving religions that are fully accurate. I think he was reporting some hearsay and asking a question related to it - not dependent on it. But if that's not the case then thread starter should elucidate by responding.
Originally posted by TerrierJacki started this thread for the number of reasonings, and possible questions, that this line of inquiry could lead to
I don't understand this sentence. Please try and clarify your thought because I can't really get any meaning out of it.
If you'll read the first post I think you'll find that he wasn't asking which was better - he was asking how they differed. I don't know if anyone has statistics on any subject like leaving religions that are fully accurate. I think ...[text shortened]... ent on it. But if that's not the case then thread starter should elucidate by responding.
(i am not postulating that bhuddism is superior to christianity in the long run but maybe in the early stages of SOME people's 'religious journey'😉
Originally posted by TerrierJackhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias
I don't understand this sentence. Please try and clarify your thought because I can't really get any meaning out of it.
If you'll read the first post I think you'll find that he wasn't asking which was better - he was asking how they differed. I don't know if anyone has statistics on any subject like leaving religions that are fully accurate. I think ...[text shortened]... ent on it. But if that's not the case then thread starter should elucidate by responding.
As for the second paragraph, it's clear what he was hinting at. Leaving room for plausible deniability is actually quite transparent.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28004
Originally posted by PalynkaI still don't have a clue what you are talking about. Snide remarks and innuendo are also quite transparent - I just don't know what they reveal in your case other than a propensity to engage in them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias
As for the second paragraph, it's clear what he was hinting at. Leaving room for plausible deniability is actually quite transparent.
Are you saying that his original question was disingenuous? I don't see how you can determine that without claiming the ability to either read minds or know the person. Is either the case?
Originally posted by TerrierJackIs the Wikipedia link too advanced for you?
I still don't have a clue what you are talking about. Snide remarks and innuendo are also quite transparent - I just don't know what they reveal in your case other than a propensity to engage in them.
Are you saying that his original question was disingenuous? I don't see how you can determine that without claiming the ability to either read minds or know the person. Is either the case?
It's called communication. If I say there are a lot of idiots in the world, do you understand what I mean?
And now don't complain about me offending your sensibilities when you took the gloves off in your previous post.