BuddhismI a

[erniefernandez]

I am a practicing Buddhist. Do any other INTJs find that this discipline is appealing and sensical to them?

[deicruxified]

compared to christianity (as implemented by authorities) i find it more sensical and humanitarian...

but i see no prob with christianity per se or other religions as buddha's always been universal...

[qwerty]

Not practicing but the general idea of an enlightened state is awesome.

[Rei]

I grew up with a lot of Buddhist ideals etc. But I'm probably never going to practice it as a religion.

I see Buddhism as more of a teaching than as a deity for worship. (Especially because Buddhist "gods" never dictated that they should be worshiped)

Please correct me if I'm wrong though :thumbsup:

[jeffersonian]

I do find it appealing, and have read a great deal about it.

I consider myself to be an atheist. I'm not entirely sure that is incompatible with some interpretations of Buddhism, though.

[Jbmontag]

I've always thought of Buddhist teaching as the anti-thesis of religious dogma. Where as dogma gives you the answers, Buddhism tells you to find them.

My two cents.

[Epicurus]

I think budhism suck, because all the assholes like to make Buddha their dead God. Except for that its just fine.

[Entropy]

I think budhism suck, because all the assholes like to make Buddha their dead God. Except for that its just fine.Depends on what sect of Buddhism you're talking about. Some reject the idolization of the Buddha.

[Blendy]

I practice buddhist meditation, though I agree with Rei in considering it more of a practice, and perhaps life philosophy, than a religion (at least as it applies to my life). I consider myself to be more an athiest than buddhist, as I don't subscribe to the whole rebirth/karma/multiple lives thing, though I'm not sure if that's an essential component of all forms of buddhist religion (ie Zen)

[Epicurus]

I think budhism suck, because all the assholes like to make Buddha their dead God. Except for that its just fine.Depends on what sect of Buddhism you're talking about. Some reject the idolization of the Buddha. Yeah you're right, but I have got the feeling that its not such a big share of the budhists that do that. Or does anyone know if Im wrong here?

[biased]

nondualism is unfalsifiable. i've found many "pseudointellectuals" love to champion buddhism as oh-so superior to the judeo-christian religions.

[deicruxified]

I do find it appealing, and have read a great deal about it.

I consider myself to be an atheist. I'm not entirely sure that is incompatible with some interpretations of Buddhism, though.

a lot of people say buddhism is quite atheistic due to this retort, "when you see buddha in your path, kill him" they say so because in buddhism, you can be or be beyond buddha. first step would be to submit your will and accept that there is no self and rid yourself of any attachments... then you reach enlightenment... as they say, "to you naropa, loyal and trusted disciple. i give to you the teachings of the mahamudra. be hollow as a bamboo".

[deicruxified]

I practice buddhist meditation, though I agree with Rei in considering it more of a practice, and perhaps life philosophy, than a religion (at least as it applies to my life). *I consider myself to be more an athiest than buddhist, as I don't subscribe to the whole rebirth/karma/multiple lives thing, though I'm not sure if that's an essential component of all forms of buddhist religion (ie Zen)
all religions are as good as practice than the fundamental religious rituals etc... i do found a lot of commonalities with all religions and they all mean the same thing - enlightenment. the vatican is constipated with this issue as they are trying to intllectualize the bible.

[Epicurus]

nondualism is unfalsifiable. i've found many "pseudointellectuals" love to champion buddhism as oh-so superior to the judeo-christian religions.Well you can't blame them for being non-rationall, as thats what dualism is all about and you can't defend it with anything else than santaclaus and hobbits altough some poeple like to believe in those.

[matthew]

I am a practicing Buddhist. Do any other INTJs find that this discipline is appealing and sensical to them?

Hello ernie-

Yes, but it depends on how you do it, doesn't it.

[matthew]

I've always thought of Buddhist teaching as the anti-thesis of religious dogma. Where as dogma gives you the answers, Buddhism tells you to find them.

My two cents.

The Kalama Sutta does indicate, however, that one's pursuit of the "answers" should be guided by "wise persons".

Obviously it is left to the individual to ascertain who is and is not "wise" in the way that is so advised.

[matthew]

I think budhism suck, because all the assholes like to make Buddha their dead God. Except for that its just fine.

You're going to have to clarify your opinion if you have any interest in having what looks like generalizations, based probably upon unfortunate but merely incidental encounters, confronted and corrected.

[matthew]

a lot of people say buddhism is quite atheistic due to this retort, "when you see buddha in your path, kill him"

Quote is taken out of context.
The development of Zen, through the Ch'an school of Sinitic Buddhism, and its consequent mingling with Taoist influences, is very interesting.

Zen was, at one time, effectively a form of Buddhist counter-culture (one can find quotes expressing the death of Zen too).
Actually it can also be very useful to look at modern atheism in this way (as a culturally generated contra phenomenon).

Buddhism is, properly speaking, non-theistic - in the sense that its doctrinal concepts do not delimit the mind through deification.


they say so because in buddhism, you can be or be beyond buddha.


There is no beyond Buddha - Buddha (including Buddha-nature) "is" the beyond.
It's a categorically meaningless distinction, when stated out of context.
There have been provisional subdivisions of Buddha-hood categorized, but these are more like ways of dwelling, than differences.


first step would be to submit your will


Meaningless construct borrowing from Western preconceptions.

and accept that there is no self

see Aggi Vacchagotta Sutta


and rid yourself of any attachments...


More like "tame the mind".
There are points where "ridding" and "attachment" are paired up but this is a provisional part of a longer process.


then you reach enlightenment...


"Enlightenment" is a practically meaningless term. Usually the most it will signify to people is "something better than right now".


as they say, "to you naropa, loyal and trusted disciple. i give to you the teachings of the mahamudra. be hollow as a bamboo".

The Mahamudra teachings of the Kagyu school of Tibetan Buddhism, as with the advanced teachings of any school of Tibetan Buddhism, should not be taken out of context, much less equivocated in one piece of writing with misplaced Zen quotes.

[matthew]

(Especially because Buddhist "gods" never dictated that they should be worshiped)

Please correct me if I'm wrong though :thumbsup:

The long-life devas love to be worshipped.
MahaBrahma is only one example.

This does not mean that Buddhist doctrine advocates that they should be. :)

There are cultural propitiations of spirits which serve to preserve a relationship with one's environment as well, which is not worship.

Then there is the devotion to one's lama in Tibetan Buddhism, which is a token of the highest respect that one holds for such a being.

Finally, there are the forms of appreciation for the Buddhas, bodhisattvas, and enlightened beings that one maintains as a means of retaining one's purpose or direction - which in various cultures has, yes, degenerated into mere worship. Again, it is not that it is a doctrinal requirement to worship, but merely that ignorance allows purposeful attention to degenerate into mere ritual observances that are often 'reclaimed' individually (for mostly psychological reasons) as 'worship'. Buddhist doctrine explicitly warns against such mere ritual observances. We are, however, considered to be dwelling within a degenerate age.

[matthew]

I practice buddhist meditation, though I agree with Rei in considering it more of a practice, and perhaps life philosophy, than a religion (at least as it applies to my life). I consider myself to be more an athiest than buddhist, as I don't subscribe to the whole rebirth/karma/multiple lives thing, though I'm not sure if that's an essential component of all forms of buddhist religion (ie Zen)

There are degenerate forms of Zen, yes.

Consider that the essence of Buddhism is the pursuit of existential liberation. All means available are turned toward this end.

Including death.

If death were considered to be a valid form of existential liberation, the doctrine of Buddha would be quite simple.

Commit suicide.

Thus, the process of rebirth is in fact one of the fundamental experiences upon which the Awake one based the Dharma.

[matthew]

nondualism is unfalsifiable. i've found many "pseudointellectuals" love to champion buddhism as oh-so superior to the judeo-christian religions.

Breaking the quote to say here - pseudo-intellectuals should be ignored, or taught how to more capably think.

Nevertheless, depending upon the criteria for evaluation, Buddhism is demonstrably superior to Judeo-Christian, and other religions.


Well you can't blame them for being non-rational, as that's what dualism is all about and you can't defend it with anything else than santa claus and hobbits although some people like to believe in those.


You can in fact blame "them" for being irrational, although non-rationality should not be confused with irrationality per se.

Non-dualism is unfalsifiable because categories for falsifiability do not apply to the scope of non-dualism.
There is no distinct object within non-dualism with which to engage as a distinct subject.

The "I" of non-dualism is another type of thing altogether, and thus a "the" is another type of thing altogether, and since the perspective of non-dualism is qualified by these altered types of relationship, it becomes impossible to quantify these relationships from a position external to those relationships, because any attempt to engage in such activity leads to the existential primacy of the object overwhelming any pretense to existential primacy of the subject.

Non-dualism naturally incorporates dualism, and monism, and eternalism, and nihilism, and in fact all extremes within its non-categorical dwelling beyond the usual categories. Its only explicit extension into the usual categories dwells as a position of emptiness that is free of extremes within those categories, and it is by means of such extension that the dualist forms of rationality can and are engaged with and overthrown. A system should not be denigrated merely on the basis of the incapacity of its incidental representatives. It exists as a system for taming the proliferation of views within the mind. It is utilitarian, and successful in what it does, when approached genuinely.

As a practicing non-dualist Buddhist I refute the implication that any actual practitioner of my tradition should be excused for mere irrationality. Alternatively, I refute your more explicit equation of non-rationality with "santa claus" and "hobbits".

[Epicurus]

I think budhism suck, because all the assholes like to make Buddha their dead God. Except for that its just fine.

You're going to have to clarify your opinion if you have any interest in having what looks like generalizations, based probably upon unfortunate but merely incidental encounters, confronted and corrected.Basically its the same problems with all religions and also a lot of political doctrines, conflict. Now there are usually a big majority wich doesn't create it, but there are always those who are and will, and its usually not persons but groups, and maybe its not even directly creating it. An godlike idol or idolisation or a God wich all of these views include, it holds a great deal in doing this.

People also like to start crusades and holocausts and so on caused by these mindly conflicts wich is the top of the ''conflict scale'', yes it takes some effort and as it is today its not very likely that anything the like will happen, but there will always be time for the plebs to take control under whatever conditions there is and to get whatever they want.

Now you could just consider me a dull cynic, but what we have learned from history is that we haven't learned from history, and yes all people have a tendency to follow the mass no matter how stupid their thougts and wantings would be later shown to be. Religion and other similar groupings in the way of handling with people, indoctrination, isn't in my view desirable, it creates dumb people in the terms of thinking and sometimes even their actions.

Altough I consider budhism great compared to christianity and almost all other religions, but that doesn't make it universally great or anything that you should choose.

[deicruxified]

I practice buddhist meditation, though I agree with Rei in considering it more of a practice, and perhaps life philosophy, than a religion (at least as it applies to my life). *I consider myself to be more an athiest than buddhist, as I don't subscribe to the whole rebirth/karma/multiple lives thing, though I'm not sure if that's an essential component of all forms of buddhist religion (ie Zen)

There are degenerate forms of Zen, yes.

Consider that the essence of Buddhism is the pursuit of existential liberation. All means available are turned toward this end.

Including death.

If death were considered to be a valid form of existential liberation, the doctrine of Buddha would be quite simple.

Commit suicide.

Thus, the process of rebirth is in fact one of the fundamental experiences upon which the Awake one based the Dharma.
i think i would have to disagree on this one. the reason why people reincarnate is for them to learn for the evolution of their souls and accepting suffering as a major experience for this evolution. as one learns from suffering he or she will become and adept. "adepts" (or a buddha or a christ or whatever the term) are "men and women perfected by ancient suffering". just for the sake of comparison, in ancient egypt, adepts are referred to dung beetles (like the one in my avatar). as everyone knows, dung beetles crafts out of shit... making shit beautiful to lay their eggs on and be their broods nest... when the sun shines on them, they regain new strength and starts to mold on shit again. in the same way, an adept sees something as beautiful and useful in the end for the benefit of one's soul. adepts are souls that have been reincarnating for thousands of years and will be reincarnating again to help other souls evolve such as the famous buddha. ending one's life is a way of depriving one's self to evolve and thus would result to negative karmic consequences once he or she reincarnates again and this would slow his or her pace in his way to enlightenment. no one can stop the process of reincarnation as the force leads all souls to nirvana (however, sacrifice is a different issue for the sake of the good, soldiers for instance kill and offer their lives as the wheel of karma wills them to). everyone would achieve enlightenment but everyone has his or her own time. the only way a person can is to collect good karma by doing acts of kindness to other people, radiating good thoughts and good tidings to the world or submit to the higher will, an inner voice or to his or her master, an adept who have attained "buddha"-hood.

just to see stuff in general, imagine a soul as carbon undergoing a process to be a diamond, a caterpillar secluding itself from the outer world to become a beautiful butterfly or an incense which needs to be burned to reveal it's fragrance. a soul eventually will achieve nirvana or a state of perfction... or heaven as they call it. i do believe that this idea is not constricted by just one sect of buddhism but in other religions as well.

do correct me if i got it all wrong as most of the time i'm not into specifics such as terminologies but i do want to learn more as this religion arouses my interests.

[matthew]

Basically its the same problems with all religions and also a lot of political doctrines, conflict. Now there are usually a big majority which doesn't create it, but there are always those who are and will, and its usually not persons but groups, and maybe its not even directly creating it. An godlike idol or idolisation or a God which all of these views include, it holds a great deal in doing this.


Yep, fanatics can be scary.

Fortunately, the traditions which actually take the superior state of a Buddha seriously also recognize the ubiquity of the Buddha-nature, and a great number (infinite really) of past and future Awakened ones, so it isn't the kind of faith where you can really properly maintain the kind of fixation required to be a religious fanatic of the kind to which you refer.


People also like to start crusades and holocausts and so on caused by these mindly conflicts which is the top of the ''conflict scale'', yes it takes some effort and as it is today its not very likely that anything the like will happen, but there will always be time for the plebes to take control under whatever conditions there is and to get whatever they want.


I don't see how this part either applies to, or conceivably criticizes, the only religion in the world that advocates a self-motivated taming of your own mind, usually for the benefit of all (differentiated or undifferentiated) sentient beings. It seems in fact as though you should be advocating its pursuit.


Now you could just consider me a dull cynic, but what we have learned from history is that we haven't learned from history, and yes all people have a tendency to follow the mass no matter how stupid their thoughts and wantings would be later shown to be. Religion and other similar groupings in the way of handling with people, indoctrination, isn't in my view desirable, it creates dumb people in the terms of thinking and sometimes even their actions.


I think you have never seen Tibetan monks debating. They do a lot of memorization and chanting work, which could be considered willful indoctrination, but they also traditionally sharpen their reasoning and argumentation skills for a number of years. The monasteries in Tibet tended to function as universities. If they had been given a chance to acquire departments of science and of economics (and perhaps international politics) before being generally destroyed, I have no doubt these would be among some of the most highly regarded schools in the world. Amazing feats of memory were achieved there, particularly of phonological memory. In the meantime, of course, the West has acquired some of their best teachers, but this is merely a silver lining.

Anyway, as foolish as some people can be, it requires a special kind of foolish to take something like Shantideva's Bodhicaryavatara and turn it into political rhetoric of the kind to which you refer. Perhaps you can explain how these words could be taken out of context, even if indoctrinated: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think the worst that could be said is that they would not be applied at all. Which is again hardly a criticism, is it.


Although I consider buddhism great compared to christianity and almost all other religions, but that doesn't make it universally great or anything that you should choose.

I should draw up a list of the foundational premises, cosmological background aside, that actually constitute the basis of Buddhist thought. If anyone wants it. I don't want to push things really - but ignorance is one of those things that bring suffering.

[matthew]

There is a lapis lazuli scarabaeus on a tight cord around my neck always.
This will not be discussed.


the reason why people reincarnate is for them to learn for the evolution of their souls and accepting suffering as a major experience for this evolution.

Rebirth can occur without awareness, or with awareness, but only with the right motivation can rebirth with awareness be sustained - as without the aspiration of the bodhisattva, awareness liberates. It should be understood that this "evolution" is contra suffering - whether suffering is understood as an opponent or as a catalyst, or as the means of compassion, is merely incidental to the progress of such means. The outset is a position taken contra, as is required for dwelling within the dual. In this way all listeners are encompassed, regardless of dialectical sophistication (barring individual obscurations of knowledge).

"Reincarnation" is an adapted term implying a continuum of consciousness which is not sustained post-mortem. The argumentation of atman and anatman is quite old. The generally preferred alternative for Buddhists is "rebirth".


as one learns from suffering he or she will become an adept. "adepts" (or a buddha or a christ or whatever the term) are "men and women perfected by ancient suffering".


A Buddha is something a little more than an adept, as would have been Christ, although the term is not entirely inadequate, if understood to be provisional. You might equally use the term Arya, and in fact be more historically accurate in so doing.


just for the sake of comparison, in ancient egypt, adepts are referred to dung beetles (like the one in my avatar). as everyone knows, dung beetles crafts out of shit... making shit beautiful to lay their eggs on and be their broods nest... when the sun shines on them, they regain new strength and starts to mold on shit again. in the same way, an adept sees something as beautiful and useful in the end for the benefit of one's soul. adepts are souls that have been reincarnating for thousands of years and will be reincarnating again to help other souls evolve such as the famous buddha.

Certainly, the symbolism is effective.


ending one's life is a way of depriving one's self to evolve and thus would result to negative karmic consequences once he or she reincarnates again and this would slow his or her pace in his way to enlightenment.

The original context of the statement was that rebirth is doctrinally necessary since, without it (whether true or not, which can be individually experientially verified eventually, anyway, once one has stability in the meditative jhanas - although that isn't a minor undertaking, certainly), the propositions with which Buddhism is philosophically argued would quickly lead to the conclusion that one should in fact commit suicide.

I was not in fact advocating it as a tenable conclusion, merely showing how the removal of one aspect of doctrine, often disputed these days, allows the purpose and efficacy of the rest to crumble.

The actual effects of suicide would depend upon firstly awareness of conditions, then intent. For instance there are instances of Great Compassion in which a bodhisattva has given up a body for the sake of other beings. It is not advised, in fact it is advised against, unless one is an accomplished arya bodhisattva. These instances should not be used to justify typical acts of suicide, which are brought about by suffering and delusion. The awareness of an arya bodhisattva includes knowledge permitting an accurate assessment of relative benefits & detriments.

The primary effects of a typical suicide would involve a number of complications, yes. For one thing, the state of the mind at the time of death (thus the throwing karma between births) would be conditioned by the negative circumstances. It would not likely be a favourable rebirth for quite some time. Human birth is a rare and valuable thing.


no one can stop the process of reincarnation as the force leads all souls to nirvana (however, sacrifice is a different issue for the sake of the good, soldiers for instance kill and offer their lives as the wheel of karma wills them to).

Rebirth is a natural process of cause & effect. The destination does not propel the process implicitly, like a pendulum on the end of a cord will cause that cord to move with tension. The process is regulated by the conditioning of the mind-instants through intent and development generally. Past, present, and future aspirations must be negotiated skillfully. There is provision made in Buddhism for a certain freedom of choice, although this should not be conflated with "free will"; it is certainly not determinism.

Also, a soldier does not acquire an exemption from cause & effect simply due to appropriation of agency.


everyone would achieve enlightenment but everyone has his or her own time.


There is no guarantee of "time" until the aspiration has been generated and implemented.


the only way a person can is to collect good karma by doing acts of kindness to other people, radiating good thoughts and good tidings to the world or submit to the higher will, an inner voice or to his or her master, an adept who have attained "buddha"-hood.

Many people have voices in their minds - some are okay, some are not so okay. Mahasiddhas are born with the karma to have occasion to encounter genuine sambhogakaya manifestations with clarity. If there is any question about such manifestations they are not genuine. Knowledge is direct and supportable in such cases.

The Buddhist paramitas are ways of accumulating good karma. These have negative counterparts which, when avoided, serve as accumulations of neutral (lack of virtue and lack of non-virtue) karma. There are also specific purificatory practices which serve to ameliorate the effects of negative karma. Karma is merely "action", although its explanation is rather complex, and it relies more upon awareness and intent in its effects than upon mere presenting behaviour. "Action" is thus a somewhat 'pervasive' term.


just to see stuff in general, imagine a soul as carbon undergoing a process to be a diamond, a caterpillar secluding itself from the outer world to become a beautiful butterfly or an incense which needs to be burned to reveal it's fragrance. a soul eventually will achieve nirvana or a state of perfection... or heaven as they call it. i do believe that this idea is not constricted by just one sect of buddhism but in other religions as well.

Nirvana, in Theravada Buddhism, is considered an unconditioned state that is free from suffering (dukkha), and is the opposite of samsara (here and now). In Mahayana Buddhism it is held that the two must be encountered simultaneously, as the kind of 'perfection' implied by pursuit of merely nirvana is a kind of escapism; an extreme of avoidance.

Some Vedanta sects have similar terminology, although none posit cessation, or emptiness free from extremes, as Buddhism does. The furthest extent in even the Vedantist tantric sects is progress into a heavenly state, accompanied by the presence of one or more deities, up to the point of pure Brahma. Or in Advaita Vedanta there is a kind of non-dualism espoused, which even still does not utilize emptiness as does Buddhist non-dualism.

In even the most basic forms of Buddhism, one seeks the state of a Tathagata, and as for what that is considered to be, I will point you first toward the Aggi Vacchagotta Sutta.


do correct me if i got it all wrong as most of the time i'm not into specifics such as terminologies but i do want to learn more as this religion arouses my interests.


Well I'm not sure exactly what you were disagreeing with at the outset, but with a modicum of dialogue I'm sure it can be sorted out somewhat easily. I am not a qualified teacher within my tradition by the way, so please do not accept everything I write on these topics without personal investigation for consistency and detail. Although parts of the internet should be checked for dung balls in any case.

[deicruxified]

There is a lapis lazuli scarabaeus on a tight cord around my neck always.
This will not be discussed.
rights respected

Well I'm not sure exactly what you were disagreeing with at the outset, but with a modicum of dialogue I'm sure it can be sorted out somewhat easily. I am not a qualified teacher within my tradition by the way, so please do not accept everything I write on these topics without personal investigation for consistency and detail. Although parts of the internet should be checked for dung balls in any case.
hmm ... thanks for the lengthy discourse. it kinda cleared a lot of things in mind. of course i'll do some research too. i am actually scouting for books on buddhism and so far siddharta was recommended to me as a jump-off point to other things in buddhism. we're all students here sharing ideas about life ;D

[Epicurus]

Basically its the same problems with all religions and also a lot of political doctrines, conflict. Now there are usually a big majority which doesn't create it, but there are always those who are and will, and its usually not persons but groups, and maybe its not even directly creating it. An godlike idol or idolisation or a God which all of these views include, it holds a great deal in doing this.


Yep, fanatics can be scary.

Fortunately, the traditions which actually take the superior state of a Buddha seriously also recognize the ubiquity of the Buddha-nature, and a great number (infinite really) of past and future Awakened ones, so it isn't the kind of faith where you can really properly maintain the kind of fixation required to be a religious fanatic of the kind to which you refer.


People also like to start crusades and holocausts and so on caused by these mindly conflicts which is the top of the ''conflict scale'', yes it takes some effort and as it is today its not very likely that anything the like will happen, but there will always be time for the plebes to take control under whatever conditions there is and to get whatever they want.


I don't see how this part either applies to, or conceivably criticizes, the only religion in the world that advocates a self-motivated taming of your own mind, usually for the benefit of all (differentiated or undifferentiated) sentient beings. It seems in fact as though you should be advocating its pursuit.


Now you could just consider me a dull cynic, but what we have learned from history is that we haven't learned from history, and yes all people have a tendency to follow the mass no matter how stupid their thoughts and wantings would be later shown to be. Religion and other similar groupings in the way of handling with people, indoctrination, isn't in my view desirable, it creates dumb people in the terms of thinking and sometimes even their actions.


I think you have never seen Tibetan monks debating. They do a lot of memorization and chanting work, which could be considered willful indoctrination, but they also traditionally sharpen their reasoning and argumentation skills for a number of years. The monasteries in Tibet tended to function as universities. If they had been given a chance to acquire departments of science and of economics (and perhaps international politics) before being generally destroyed, I have no doubt these would be among some of the most highly regarded schools in the world. Amazing feats of memory were achieved there, particularly of phonological memory. In the meantime, of course, the West has acquired some of their best teachers, but this is merely a silver lining.

Anyway, as foolish as some people can be, it requires a special kind of foolish to take something like Shantideva's Bodhicaryavatara and turn it into political rhetoric of the kind to which you refer. Perhaps you can explain how these words could be taken out of context, even if indoctrinated: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think the worst that could be said is that they would not be applied at all. Which is again hardly a criticism, is it.


Although I consider buddhism great compared to christianity and almost all other religions, but that doesn't make it universally great or anything that you should choose.

I should draw up a list of the foundational premises, cosmological background aside, that actually constitute the basis of Buddhist thought. If anyone wants it. I don't want to push things really - but ignorance is one of those things that bring suffering.I didn't mean that budhism will cause plague or an end of the world nor even the smallest of ''bad'' things, what I were saying was ment as a principle wich does apply on all these kinds of doctrines. Therefore its worthless for me to debate my point further, as there is nothinig to debate except perhaps if Im throwing knives on a picture of religious icons/idols or not.

Also I've been thinking that budhism would be a good idea to practice, as with a few other religions as well, but I don't think I would be religious untill I would be living as some form of monk.

[dissident]

I practice, or at least try to, pure non-duality as taught by "a course in miracles" ... similar to buddhism.


I was raised a catholic and had dabbled with material about life after death and reincarnation for years but nothing that really got my attention...


for me it was like I stumbled upon something that I had studied in a past life, something that just intuitively ringed true, like a light switch was flipped on when I happened to pick up a book by David Hawkins a couple of years ago... after doing more research and finding better books on non-duality such as "a course in miracles" and "disappearance of the universe" my "faith" has only strengthened and this journey has become the primary focus in my life.

Why is it so appealing? Because it's about taking complete responsibility for everything in one's life and undoing things like judging and projecting onto others. Because it's a disciplined journey and requires effort one one's part to do, and rewarding. Because for an INTJ that never had much of an interest or attachment to the world at all in this life, it's nice to find a philosophy that encourages leaving the world behind because the world is nothing more then a dream, like anyone has at night.. a dream that can be changed, or awakened from...

I really think that lots of INTJs who are kind of lost or directionless in life but have an interest in spirituality would find the book "disappearance of the universe" a great read, as the writing style of "arten" and "pursah" the two ascended masters, is very direct... they say right from the beginning that they are not here to tell people what they want to hear to make them feel good.... plus their sarcastic sense of humor is something that can be appreciated by INTJs too.

Even INTJs not into spirituality but who just want change in their lives can get it through a non-dualistic journey.. the benefits are there even if one doesn't believe in the spiritual aspects of it.. whatever it takes really.. nothing really has special meaning in the world.. so whatever it takes for each person to get ahead.. live and let live...

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[raconteur213]

"If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him."

"Be a lamp unto yourselves."

[thod]

Assuming the theory to be true then certain questions arise.

Firstly we all have karma, we cant see it, measure or manipulate it. Thus how do we know it exists at all given that scripture is also considered suspect. Since we have no measure of it how can we know that certain practices or actions lead to an increase in it.

Sitting in the lotus position for hours may well calm the mind of the practitioner but not in any mystical way. They may be convinced that they are becoming more Buddha like but how to distinguish that from self delusion.

How will a practitioner know when he reaches nirvana and not some stop on the road. In the thousands of years one would hope that more than few have achieved this state. How do you tell those that have form the charlatans.

If the soul really is reincarnated then it must be quick. The Tibetans seem to find a new reincarnation of a llama right away. This is easy with 6 billion people. But what about when there were only 100 million. Either new souls are being created to fill them or they used to be a long waiting time for a body. Why are llama's always born in Tibet, wouldn't one fancy a try at being an American some time.

Although Buddhism has many admirable qualities stemming from the self reflection the theology is suspect.