Krishnamurty-inspired off-topic posts

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Post Reply
Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Drawing parallels with nature to rationalize Buddhism

Post by Saengnapha » Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:39 am

Bundokji wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 6:04 pm
Saengnapha wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:17 pm
You're correct. It is JK that did use the terms attention and observation. With UG, attention and observation were not considered tools as in Buddhism, that one used to discover nibbana or the natural state. But the implication of what he constantly pointed to, the limitation of the thought structure to sort all of this out, is not possible without some kind of attention and observation of it. It is not a practice as in Buddhism where some action is repeated like noting or labeling thoughts as thoughts. This is my personal take on it, not UG's choice of words. He considered all observations as within the thought structure and part of the delusion. Thanks for that reminder.
J.K emphasized the psychological, UG focused on the physical.

UG denies everything including awareness. He thinks choiceless awareness is a technique
Yes. UG's transformative moment was a physical change in the body that he said was irreversible and had nothing to do with the psychological or any other thing he had ever done. This is why he criticized JK and his psychological approach. And, as well as the Buddha's, if Theravada is really the Buddha's approach and not an approach developed after his death. His statement about JK seeing it, but not tasting it explains this.

User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 1755
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Drawing parallels with nature to rationalize Buddhism

Post by Bundokji » Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:46 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:39 am
Yes. UG's transformative moment was a physical change in the body that he said was irreversible and had nothing to do with the psychological or any other thing he had ever done. This is why he criticized JK and his psychological approach. And, as well as the Buddha's, if Theravada is really the Buddha's approach and not an approach developed after his death. His statement about JK seeing it, but not tasting it explains this.
When UG said that JK saw the "sugar cube" but have not tasted it, it was before his transformation or "calamity". I once encountered personal notes of JK describing what he experienced before sitting under the pepper tree. He also experienced a lot of physical pain.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Drawing parallels with nature to rationalize Buddhism

Post by Saengnapha » Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:49 am

Sam Vara wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 11:43 pm
Saengnapha wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 6:52 am

The 8 fold path as described in Theravada is a path of 'becoming', imo. I don't want to go into why this is so as I've posted many times why I think this. To me, this is in contradiction to what the Buddha taught about 'not grasping', 'not being attached'.
I've not asked about UG. Maybe I'll ask later. And then maybe we can have a talk about it. At the moment, I'm concerned with your numerous assertions (quotes given of your posts on request!) that the Eightfold Path (or Graduated Training, or the Path of Purification, or other epithets for accepted trajectories of Theravadan practice) don't work. As has been pointed out many times to you, it would be more honest to say that you tried it, and it didn't work for you. Are you saying that it can't work? For anyone?

Try this question again - you didn't answer it the first time, but doing so might clarify a few points:

You talk of a process or thing called "transformation". Now, you might be saying that the Eightfold Path, or meditation, is not required for this "transformation". And you might be right. But for those wishing to attain nibbana, do you consider the Eightfold Path necessary? Or is there no nibbana?
I use the word transformation because it is a common theme running through most religious thought and philosophies. I will try to stop using this word as it signifies something in the future that may or may not exist. How would I know what nibbana is? Only from reading or hearing what others say. What others have said may or may not be true. What I do see is that these images that are formed in my thought structure compel me to chase after some things and reject others. Is there any difference in the images that we chase after and the other images? They are all images, are they not? Images are said to be impermanent, unsatsifying, and have no inherent self structure. How can nibbana be anything other than an image for you or me? This is what we chase, do we not? This is grasping, is it not?

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Drawing parallels with nature to rationalize Buddhism

Post by Saengnapha » Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:53 am

Bundokji wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:46 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:39 am
Yes. UG's transformative moment was a physical change in the body that he said was irreversible and had nothing to do with the psychological or any other thing he had ever done. This is why he criticized JK and his psychological approach. And, as well as the Buddha's, if Theravada is really the Buddha's approach and not an approach developed after his death. His statement about JK seeing it, but not tasting it explains this.
When UG said that JK saw the "sugar cube" but have not tasted it, it was before his transformation or "calamity". I once encountered personal notes of JK describing what he experienced before sitting under the pepper tree. He also experienced a lot of physical pain.
UG said this when I was present many times. I met him post-calamity.
JK seemed to have experienced a lot of physical pain throughout his life. Is there a point that you are trying to make?

User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 1755
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Drawing parallels with nature to rationalize Buddhism

Post by Bundokji » Mon Jul 02, 2018 7:38 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:53 am
When UG said that JK saw the "sugar cube" but have not tasted it, it was before his transformation or "calamity". I once encountered personal notes of JK describing what he experienced before sitting under the pepper tree. He also experienced a lot of physical pain.
UG said this when I was present many times. I met him post-calamity.
JK seemed to have experienced a lot of physical pain throughout his life. Is there a point that you are trying to make?
[/quote]

I am just drawing parallels between the two stories and whether enlightenment is a physiological or psychological transformation. Severe physical pain was also described by people who spoke about kundalini awakening.

When we hear different stories from different sources, we might realize that all of this means nothing to us as individuals, this is where Buddhism and the eight fold path makes sense to me personally. It gives us practicle guide on how to live a good life. The focus on impermanence does not only serve as a reminder of suffering, but also it can be used to remind us that we have a certain degree of freedom, and within that freedom, we can work on reaching our personal ideal.

This is why i find UG to be quite useless,, and as you know him better than me , he would most likely agree with my description of him.

My personal conclusion is that those who follow UG are more fixated about enlightenment than those who follow the Buddha's teachings because he indirectly claims to be the last step in people's search for it. This whole fixation about enlightenment is neurotic in my opinion, a mere fantasy.

This is where the real path (or i would call it maturity) begins in my opinion, when we are no longer driven by fantasies or wild claims. In the world we live in, things are often quite the opposite of what they appear to be.

In the world we live in, UG is the final word in spirituality (criticizing the Buddha and JK for not being as straightforward as him), and Theravada is called Hinayana ...etc.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4487
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Drawing parallels with nature to rationalize Buddhism

Post by Sam Vara » Mon Jul 02, 2018 8:25 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:49 am

I use the word transformation because it is a common theme running through most religious thought and philosophies. I will try to stop using this word as it signifies something in the future that may or may not exist.
There's no need to stop using it. My concern is whether you are confusing it with the term "nibbana" or a synonym. But it's worth noting that a cautious, non-dogmatic approach is better when we can't be sure of the existence of something.
How would I know what nibbana is? Only from reading or hearing what others say. What others have said may or may not be true.
I take most practitioners posting here to be referring to nibbana. That's the aim of their practice. So are you saying that their practice will not get them to nibbana? If so, you are saying that you know that their practice will not get them to something of which your knowledge is dependent upon what others say. If they can be wrong, then presumably so can you. You might be claiming (repeatedly!) that their practice will not lead to something which you have completely misconstrued.
What I do see is that these images that are formed in my thought structure compel me to chase after some things and reject others.
Here's another logical error based upon an unwarranted generalisation from one's own experience. These images might compel you to chase after things and reject others, but they don't compel me. Or, by extension, anyone else. The compulsion is subjective.
Is there any difference in the images that we chase after and the other images? They are all images, are they not? Images are said to be impermanent, unsatsifying, and have no inherent self structure.
Your continuation of the "chasing" metaphor seems to lead you further astray here. Where does the Buddha advocate the chasing of images? Certain actions of body, speech, and mind, but not the pursuit of imagery.
How can nibbana be anything other than an image for you or me? This is what we chase, do we not? This is grasping, is it not?
Again, you extrapolate from the "I" to "we". You might have chased nibbana, and you may have grasped onto the image of it. I don't, and I don't see it as grasping. I can't recall any practitioners who would see it that way, unless we are talking about a different type of grasping, as per MN 22. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

Dinsdale
Posts: 6071
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Drawing parallels with nature to rationalize Buddhism

Post by Dinsdale » Mon Jul 02, 2018 8:52 am

Bundokji wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:55 pm
As far as i know, UG never spoke about attentiveness and observation as necessary elements. JK spoke about "choiceless awareness" though.
Ajahn Sumedho has also talked about "choiceless awareness".
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Dinsdale
Posts: 6071
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Drawing parallels with nature to rationalize Buddhism

Post by Dinsdale » Mon Jul 02, 2018 8:54 am

Bundokji wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 7:38 am
This is why i find UG to be quite useless,...My personal conclusion is that those who follow UG are more fixated about enlightenment than those who follow the Buddha's teachings because he indirectly claims to be the last step in people's search for it. This whole fixation about enlightenment is neurotic in my opinion, a mere fantasy.
:thumbsup:
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Drawing parallels with nature to rationalize Buddhism

Post by Saengnapha » Mon Jul 02, 2018 9:34 am

Bundokji wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 7:38 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:53 am
When UG said that JK saw the "sugar cube" but have not tasted it, it was before his transformation or "calamity". I once encountered personal notes of JK describing what he experienced before sitting under the pepper tree. He also experienced a lot of physical pain.
UG said this when I was present many times. I met him post-calamity.
JK seemed to have experienced a lot of physical pain throughout his life. Is there a point that you are trying to make?

I am just drawing parallels between the two stories and whether enlightenment is a physiological or psychological transformation. Severe physical pain was also described by people who spoke about kundalini awakening.

When we hear different stories from different sources, we might realize that all of this means nothing to us as individuals, this is where Buddhism and the eight fold path makes sense to me personally. It gives us practicle guide on how to live a good life. The focus on impermanence does not only serve as a reminder of suffering, but also it can be used to remind us that we have a certain degree of freedom, and within that freedom, we can work on reaching our personal ideal.

This is why i find UG to be quite useless,, and as you know him better than me , he would most likely agree with my description of him.

My personal conclusion is that those who follow UG are more fixated about enlightenment than those who follow the Buddha's teachings because he indirectly claims to be the last step in people's search for it. This whole fixation about enlightenment is neurotic in my opinion, a mere fantasy.

This is where the real path (or i would call it maturity) begins in my opinion, when we are no longer driven by fantasies or wild claims. In the world we live in, things are often quite the opposite of what they appear to be.

In the world we live in, UG is the final word in spirituality (criticizing the Buddha and JK for not being as straightforward as him), and Theravada is called Hinayana ...etc.
In a real sense, these are all stories. We pick and choose those that appeal to our prior views or use an image of what we think we should be and strive for that. One just tries things, over and over. Why do you want to live a good life? I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't. It is a prior image that you have in your mind that you strive for and think it will help you in some way to a goal that you hold. This works in the same way for everyone. Can you deny this?

Concluding anything about UG or his followers is part of the conditioned thought structure. The thought structure can only compare notes that it already holds within it. If you noticed, UG always dismisses what he says, usually with a smile. He is the first to agree with you that he is useless. There is an honesty there that is hard to accept. UG was not fixated on enlightenment. Sure, many of the people who came to see him, were fixated. I left when the Rajneesh folks started to show up.

But what is UG supposed to be useful for? I found him very useful for showing me the illusions that I held regarding everything. And this was not done using any kind of model or map or system of regarding myself or the world and walking a path towards an imaginary goal that lived somewhere in the future or even the present. I think it would be very hard for you to say what a real path is, but I can understand why you want to do so.

What I might have hoped for here on this board is more of a dialogue about what takes place in each of us and not talking about UG or anyone else's view. Your view against my view is kind of a useless conversation to me. Same with Buddha vs UG or UG vs JK. These are all images we hold. At least come to this agreement that everything you think you know is not the point.

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Drawing parallels with nature to rationalize Buddhism

Post by Saengnapha » Mon Jul 02, 2018 9:39 am

Sam Vara wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 8:25 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:49 am

I use the word transformation because it is a common theme running through most religious thought and philosophies. I will try to stop using this word as it signifies something in the future that may or may not exist.
There's no need to stop using it. My concern is whether you are confusing it with the term "nibbana" or a synonym. But it's worth noting that a cautious, non-dogmatic approach is better when we can't be sure of the existence of something.
How would I know what nibbana is? Only from reading or hearing what others say. What others have said may or may not be true.
I take most practitioners posting here to be referring to nibbana. That's the aim of their practice. So are you saying that their practice will not get them to nibbana? If so, you are saying that you know that their practice will not get them to something of which your knowledge is dependent upon what others say. If they can be wrong, then presumably so can you. You might be claiming (repeatedly!) that their practice will not lead to something which you have completely misconstrued.
What I do see is that these images that are formed in my thought structure compel me to chase after some things and reject others.
Here's another logical error based upon an unwarranted generalisation from one's own experience. These images might compel you to chase after things and reject others, but they don't compel me. Or, by extension, anyone else. The compulsion is subjective.
Is there any difference in the images that we chase after and the other images? They are all images, are they not? Images are said to be impermanent, unsatsifying, and have no inherent self structure.
Your continuation of the "chasing" metaphor seems to lead you further astray here. Where does the Buddha advocate the chasing of images? Certain actions of body, speech, and mind, but not the pursuit of imagery.
How can nibbana be anything other than an image for you or me? This is what we chase, do we not? This is grasping, is it not?
Again, you extrapolate from the "I" to "we". You might have chased nibbana, and you may have grasped onto the image of it. I don't, and I don't see it as grasping. I can't recall any practitioners who would see it that way, unless we are talking about a different type of grasping, as per MN 22. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Of course you are not going to see it the way that I do, but that doesn't mean that our thought structure doesn't work in the same way as each other's structure works. Grasping and attachment are also present in your structure, is it not? If it isn't, then you have achieved your goal, as you mentioned that nibbana is the goal of Theravada. The grasping of images is what is in everyone's case. The image may change but not the grasping. Don't get hung up on the words. Logic goes only so far and cleverness goes nowhere.

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Drawing parallels with nature to rationalize Buddhism

Post by Saengnapha » Mon Jul 02, 2018 9:40 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 8:52 am
Bundokji wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:55 pm
As far as i know, UG never spoke about attentiveness and observation as necessary elements. JK spoke about "choiceless awareness" though.
Ajahn Sumedho has also talked about "choiceless awareness".
So what. Are we going to introduce another teacher into our equation?

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Drawing parallels with nature to rationalize Buddhism

Post by Saengnapha » Mon Jul 02, 2018 9:42 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 8:54 am
Bundokji wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 7:38 am
This is why i find UG to be quite useless,...My personal conclusion is that those who follow UG are more fixated about enlightenment than those who follow the Buddha's teachings because he indirectly claims to be the last step in people's search for it. This whole fixation about enlightenment is neurotic in my opinion, a mere fantasy.
:thumbsup:
And what are you fixated on, Dinsdale? Anything other than your own thought structure?

User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 1755
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Drawing parallels with nature to rationalize Buddhism

Post by Bundokji » Mon Jul 02, 2018 10:13 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 9:34 am
In a real sense, these are all stories. We pick and choose those that appeal to our prior views or use an image of what we think we should be and strive for that. One just tries things, over and over. Why do you want to live a good life? I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't. It is a prior image that you have in your mind that you strive for and think it will help you in some way to a goal that you hold. This works in the same way for everyone. Can you deny this?
You seem to be describing what you are doing. You are projecting your mind into others, parroting endlessly what UG said, and when people point this out to you, you claim that this is what they are doing to you, a vicious circle really.
Concluding anything about UG or his followers is part of the conditioned thought structure. The thought structure can only compare notes that it already holds within it. If you noticed, UG always dismisses what he says, usually with a smile. He is the first to agree with you that he is useless. There is an honesty there that is hard to accept. UG was not fixated on enlightenment. Sure, many of the people who came to see him, were fixated. I left when the Rajneesh folks started to show up.
Concluding anything about the Buddha and his followers is a part of your conditioned thought structure. Someone who claims that he is useless and still bark like a dog (using his own words) cannot be honest. And let me guess, you would say that i am projecting my mind and images on UG and his followers through my conditioned mind, magically excluding yourself in the process. Can't you see the absurdity of that?
But what is UG supposed to be useful for? I found him very useful for showing me the illusions that I held regarding everything. And this was not done using any kind of model or map or system of regarding myself or the world and walking a path towards an imaginary goal that lived somewhere in the future or even the present. I think it would be very hard for you to say what a real path is, but I can understand why you want to do so.
If you admit that UG is not useful, then parroting his teachings would be equally unuseful. The illusory image of an honest preacher is in itself, dishonest and delusional. And let me guess, you would say that i am projecting my mind and images on UG and his followers through my conditioned mind, magically excluding yourself in the process. Can't you see the absurdity of that?
What I might have hoped for here on this board is more of a dialogue about what takes place in each of us and not talking about UG or anyone else's view. Your view against my view is kind of a useless conversation to me. Same with Buddha vs UG or UG vs JK. These are all images we hold. At least come to this agreement that everything you think you know is not the point.
You give yourself the right to talk about the Buddha's path, dismissing it as useless, but when people do the same thing exposing the absurdity of UGs teachings (if they can be described as such), you find this to be useless conversation. Needless to say that what you think of the Buddha's path is an image in your mind. You are simply repeating what you have been told by society (UG and JK), nothing else.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4487
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Drawing parallels with nature to rationalize Buddhism

Post by Sam Vara » Mon Jul 02, 2018 10:32 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 9:39 am
Of course you are not going to see it the way that I do, but that doesn't mean that our thought structure doesn't work in the same way as each other's structure works.
I'm not talking about how a thought structure works. People's thought structures might work the same way, or differently. I'm talking about you having misunderstood how the Buddha recommends we relate to his teaching. You claim that this relating is inevitably a form of grasping or clinging: upādāna. That's not what the Buddha taught.
Grasping and attachment are also present in your structure, is it not? If it isn't, then you have achieved your goal, as you mentioned that nibbana is the goal of Theravada.
Yes, grasping/attachment is present, but that's not what is at issue here. The question is whether this grasping is universal, an ineradicable aspect or component of every thought. Your argument is, apparently that it is. The Buddha doesn't say this, so I am pointing out that error.
Don't get hung up on the words. Logic goes only so far and cleverness goes nowhere.

What is being "hung up on words", and who is guilty of it? My aim is to show that your position of denying the efficacy of the Eightfold Path for the attainment of nibbana is illogical and ill-informed, at least as far as you have presented it. Words, logic, and cleverness are all useful in that respect. To wit:

1) You claim that the Eightfold Path (or Graduated Training, etc., ) is ineffective. I am claiming that all you have is your evidence that it is ineffective for you, and that attempts to extrapolate that failure to others or to present it as inevitable are an error in logic.

2) The factors which you adduce as evidence of the inefficacy as per (1) also apply to any understanding of UG, etc.

3) Your point is based on a confusion of upādāna and chanda, or terms such as gaṇhāti in MN 22.

Presumably, you think that words and logic and cleverness are properly used when you make periodic and repeated claims that what many people here understand as the Buddha-Dhamma is wrong or ineffective, but not when those claims are challenged.

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Drawing parallels with nature to rationalize Buddhism

Post by Saengnapha » Mon Jul 02, 2018 10:56 am

Bundokji wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 10:13 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 9:34 am
In a real sense, these are all stories. We pick and choose those that appeal to our prior views or use an image of what we think we should be and strive for that. One just tries things, over and over. Why do you want to live a good life? I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't. It is a prior image that you have in your mind that you strive for and think it will help you in some way to a goal that you hold. This works in the same way for everyone. Can you deny this?
You seem to be describing what you are doing. You are projecting your mind into others, parroting endlessly what UG said, and when people point this out to you, you claim that this is what they are doing to you, a vicious circle really.
Concluding anything about UG or his followers is part of the conditioned thought structure. The thought structure can only compare notes that it already holds within it. If you noticed, UG always dismisses what he says, usually with a smile. He is the first to agree with you that he is useless. There is an honesty there that is hard to accept. UG was not fixated on enlightenment. Sure, many of the people who came to see him, were fixated. I left when the Rajneesh folks started to show up.
Concluding anything about the Buddha and his followers is a part of your conditioned thought structure. Someone who claims that he is useless and still bark like a dog (using his own words) cannot be honest. And let me guess, you would say that i am projecting my mind and images on UG and his followers through my conditioned mind, magically excluding yourself in the process. Can't you see the absurdity of that?
But what is UG supposed to be useful for? I found him very useful for showing me the illusions that I held regarding everything. And this was not done using any kind of model or map or system of regarding myself or the world and walking a path towards an imaginary goal that lived somewhere in the future or even the present. I think it would be very hard for you to say what a real path is, but I can understand why you want to do so.
If you admit that UG is not useful, then parroting his teachings would be equally unuseful. The illusory image of an honest preacher is in itself, dishonest and delusional. And let me guess, you would say that i am projecting my mind and images on UG and his followers through my conditioned mind, magically excluding yourself in the process. Can't you see the absurdity of that?
What I might have hoped for here on this board is more of a dialogue about what takes place in each of us and not talking about UG or anyone else's view. Your view against my view is kind of a useless conversation to me. Same with Buddha vs UG or UG vs JK. These are all images we hold. At least come to this agreement that everything you think you know is not the point.
You give yourself the right to talk about the Buddha's path, dismissing it as useless, but when people do the same thing exposing the absurdity of UGs teachings (if they can be described as such), you find this to be useless conversation. Needless to say that what you think of the Buddha's path is an image in your mind. You are simply repeating what you have been told by society (UG and JK), nothing else.
Perhaps you missed my point about listening over the years to UG and how many of the things I used to grasp at have stopped. Is it because UG influenced me or because I saw something for myself? Other than that, I am still on my own and weigh both what the Buddha said and what UG said as stories, images, thought structure. I don't place one higher than the other because I see both as a kind of obstruction, a conditioning of my view. I don't have a need to be a Buddhist or a UGist. I don't know why you do. I see no need to follow a script. Why do you want to put me in a box? Why do you change my words to suit your meaning of something? I agree that all paths are useless when we talk about things like nibbana, Brahman, the Ultimate. If you want to be a better human being, you certainly don't need a religion to do that. You have your own intelligence. But many things about religions do help one to be a better person, not just Buddhism. I never said don't practice Buddhism. I merely questioned certain aspects that don't add up in my book.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 86 guests