However misguided they might be?PeterB wrote:I respect your right to hold your views chicka-Dee.
I suppose the real culprit is in holding a view, at all... :cookoo:
I think we should just forget the whole darn thing and all go for beer
However misguided they might be?PeterB wrote:I respect your right to hold your views chicka-Dee.
I repeat, I respect your right to hold your view Chicka-Dee. Although I get the impression that this might not be enough for you. Its almost as though you are demanding parity between your view and the view of the Buddha.chicka-Dee wrote:However misguided they might be?PeterB wrote:I respect your right to hold your views chicka-Dee.
I suppose the real culprit is in holding a view, at all... :cookoo:
I think we should just forget the whole darn thing and all go for beer
Sincerely, I was poking fun at myself (above). I'm just trying to figure this all out as best I know how, just like all of us.PeterB wrote:I repeat, I respect your right to hold your view Chicka-Dee. Although I get the impression that this might not be enough for you. Its almost as though you are demanding parity between your view and the view of the Buddha.chicka-Dee wrote:However misguided they might be?PeterB wrote:I respect your right to hold your views chicka-Dee.
I suppose the real culprit is in holding a view, at all... :cookoo:
I think we should just forget the whole darn thing and all go for beer
chicka-Dee wrote:Hovering over everything is this One Truth. All attempts at explaining this Truth are thus far incomplete...
I should really know when to quit (but apparently I don't.. sorry)...PeterB[i] wrote:Well actually i think you will find that the Buddha has pretty much done that for us. Our job is to now actualise it. [/i]So we start by researching what he said and trying out the range of practises that came into being around what he discovered. My guess is that if we really apply ourselves to that pretty soon we will have more than enough to occupy us and we will stop worrying about whether it is the same or different to Christianity, or Taoism, or Vedanta.
There are only 24 hours in a day and a whole lot of Buddhadhamma to actualise.
I think that the message of PeterB's post could be taken as: To really understand any Path, be it Theravada Buddhism, one of the many Mahayana schools, Christianity, Islam, Daoism, a Hindu school, ... would a lot of work, and not leave much time to think about all of the other Paths. This statement:chicka-Dee wrote: I dunno. It just sounds kinda like the reason I don't like Christianity (what I was raised in). It's a kinda 'don't ask questions, just believe this' sort of presentation (what I'm hearing.. which may not be what you are meaning, but what it sounds like to me). ...
could be applied to any Path. It would be a rare individual who could find time, and put in the effort, to read the teachings of all of those schools, spend time with competent teachers of each of them, spend weeks or months on retreats in each school, ...PeterB wrote:My guess is that if we really apply ourselves to that pretty soon we will have more than enough to occupy us and we will stop worrying...
appicchato wrote:chicka-Dee wrote:Hovering over everything is this One Truth. All attempts at explaining this Truth are thus far incomplete...
'...this One Truth'...In life there is suffering...pretty self explanatory (evident)...
Very well said. Thank you, Dan. I think it is vitally important to be aware of our tendencies that can sway us to one extreme or the other. This is becoming clearer for me. The middle way is sometimes difficult to find, or stay at. But we need to stay aware when we stray too far one way or the other. And like you say, I think some start out 'loose' while others start out 'tight', and with time come to meet at the middle ground. One is not necessarily more 'right' or 'wrong' than the other. Thanks so much for pointing this out.Dan74 wrote:Just like there is a danger of becoming too narrow, caught up in the details of the path and losing sight of the purpose, there is a danger of getting swept away by the wide vistas and forever staying on the surface while neglecting the details that the path entails.
Perhaps it is simply a matter of personalities. Some people may start off broad, loose and new-agey and then develop deep practice and discipline without losing an intuitive intimation of the overarching simplicity and commonality hinted at by the great mystics. Others may start off strict and narrow and through sincere dedicated practice loosen their grip and broaden their outlook in a genuine appreciation of the commonality within the diversity of spiritual paths.
Like with everything it is simple a matter of balance, I think. Aware of our tendencies we work on developing a balanced approach to practice. The Middle Way.
_/|\_
The part in bold i think is really what's key, not just stances but where we are in our life journies and practice. I know, for example, that Peter first became deeply involved with Buddhism in the 1960s, while you, Dee have only begun to explore Buddhism in the last year. Peter gave the example of Thomas Merton, who made a choice near the age of 60, to go with the dharma completely and deeply, leaving Christianity behind. How long did it take him to get to that point, to make that decision?chicka-Dee wrote: I like what the Buddha said.. (paraphrased): 'don't take my word for it, find out for yourself'. This is what I'm trying to do, find out for myself. Use my own experience as much as follow the guidance of the teachings. I have a feeling that what we are looking at is not so different afterall, it's just different views taken from different stances.
Anyways, I'll shut up now. Enough said.
I think so. Especially in this modern age where we have so much information available about alternate spiritual traditions. A hundred years ago such mixing and sampling was simply not possible.Dan74 wrote:Just like there is a danger of becoming too narrow, caught up in the details of the path and losing sight of the purpose, there is a danger of getting swept away by the wide vistas and forever staying on the surface while neglecting the details that the path entails.
Perhaps it is simply a matter of personalities. Some people may start off broad, loose and new-agey and then develop deep practice and discipline without losing an intuitive intimation of the overarching simplicity and commonality hinted at by the great mystics. Others may start off strict and narrow and through sincere dedicated practice loosen their grip and broaden their outlook in a genuine appreciation of the commonality within the diversity of spiritual paths.
Like with everything it is simple a matter of balance, I think. Aware of our tendencies we work on developing a balanced approach to practice. The Middle Way.
_/|\_
PeterB wrote:Its actually quite funny and ironic. I started this thread because I was pleased to see another thread get rescued from what i see as the treacle of good intention, only to see this this thread becoming treacly.. I guess there is a moral here for me, when things are looking good dont mess with them by dwelling in either aversion or attraction, just move on PeterB .