1 of 2
1
where are the Buddhists
Posted: 26 March 2007 10:24 PM   [ Ignore ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  9
Joined  2007-03-26

Im surprised that I havent seen any buddhism topics yet?

And I would include it on the science side and not the religious

The core of Buddhism is self enquiry and belief and faith are not encouraged at all if they are blind in any way.

The aim of buddhists is not to be a buddhist, it is rather to be more and more awake and alive to clear thinking and feeling in order to be part of creating more happiness and less suffereing for myself and all others.

I personally only believe in and trust and have faith in what can withstand my personal vigorous enquiry and investigation.

And the good news is that there is a whole universe full of real and wholsome things that dont depend on twisted logic and afflictive emotions for their existence. The whole natural world on this earth is available for us to expereience clearly just as it is. And we are all so naturally inclined to be kind and humorous and playful with other human beings in a way that makes us glad to be alive and aware and human.

I am grateful for each breath. And so grateful for people like yourselves who have the courage to think for yoursleves.

Good onya

 Signature 

Clear thinking and loving kindness inform and nourish each other

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 March 2007 10:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  9
Joined  2007-03-26

where are the Buddhists

Im surprised that I havent seen any buddhism topics yet?

And I would include it on the science side and not the religious

The core of Buddhism is self enquiry and belief and faith are not encouraged at all if they are blind in any way.

The aim of buddhists is not to be a buddhist, it is rather to be more and more awake and alive to clear thinking and feeling in order to be part of creating more happiness and less suffereing for myself and all others.

I personally only believe in and trust and have faith in what can withstand my personal vigorous enquiry and investigation.

And the good news is that there is a whole universe full of real and wholsome things that dont depend on twisted logic and afflictive emotions for their existence. The whole natural world on this earth is available for us to expereience clearly just as it is. And we are all so naturally inclined to be kind and humorous and playful with other human beings in a way that makes us glad to be alive and aware and human.

I am grateful for each breath. And so grateful for people like yourselves who have the courage to think for yoursleves.

Good onya

 Signature 

Clear thinking and loving kindness inform and nourish each other

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 March 2007 05:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  241
Joined  2006-07-17

Buddhism is not at all scientific, indeed it is extremely anti-scientific.

Also, what Dictionary.com said is like what Dictionary.com says about Christianity, and both are wrong, they are just popular views.

The reality is that “Buddha” is a legend, there never was any real Gautama. that’s all just myth.

I think that Buddhism is a horrible and oppressive religious cult.

 Signature 

http://www.rationalrevolution.net

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 March 2007 08:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4097
Joined  2006-11-28

I find a lot of useful stuff in Buddhism myself, though I’m strictly a materialist myself and I don’t pay much attention to the overarching metaphysics. I think Buddhism as it translates in the West is also very different from person-in-the-street Buddhism in Asia. More emphasis on contemplation and meditation for lay people, less on traditional daily rituals and renunciation of the ordinary world. I wouldn’t call myself a Buddhist, but the outlook of such teachers as Tich Nhat Hanh has a lot of practical wisdom for daily living, and meditation has proven useful, though I wouldn’t say “mind altering” for me at times.

There has been at least one thread discussing meditation recently, that might be of interest. As a scientist, I would not say Buddhism itself is scientific. But many Buddhists seem much less dogmatic than members of the Abrahamic religions, and The Dalai Lama and others have welcomed truly scientific investigations into the phenomena of meditation, though the work that has so far been done is pretty rudimentary.

 Signature 

The SkeptVet Blog
You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place. 
Johnathan Swift

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 March 2007 09:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  241
Joined  2006-07-17

I agree with this. Buddhists tend to be less hostile to science, especially in the West, though I’m not so sure about the real Buddhists in the East.

As far as I’m concerned, Western Buddhism is like talking a version of Christianity where you don’t have to believe in God, don’t have to believe in heaven or hell, you don’t believe in a soul, and you don’t believe that Jesus was resurrected or the son of God.

Umm… okay, I guess that you can fabricate such a thing and call it “Christianity” if you want to, but its really not, nor is what Western people call Buddhism really Buddhism.

Also, yes, the Dalai Lama is somewhat open to scientific inquiry, but he left Tibet as a child or young man and has grown up in the lap of luxury in the West.  His views do not really reflect those of traditional Tibetan Buddhism. He has been “enlightened” by Western secularism and science, not the other way around. His view are radically different from what they would have been had he stayed in Tibet and the Chinese never taken over.

Tibetan Buddhism is perhaps one of the worst and least reasonable forms, he’s lucky for himself that the Chinese invaded, it’s the best things that could have ever happened to him or to Tibet, which was in a state of horrible slavery and oppression under the Tibetan Lamas.

 Signature 

http://www.rationalrevolution.net

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 March 2007 10:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

My daughter is a Buddhist (where did I go wrong? :shock: ), and her views are thoroughly Humanistic and scientific.  I see most religions as having some, from a few to many, strong anti-humanistic views.  From disucssions with my daughter, Buddhism appears to me to be a religion that has dispensed with those anti-humanistic parts (at least as far as I’ve been able to discern).

However, errollarken, I believe this forum is more for discussing the various aspects of humanism, no matter what theology each of us subscribes to, not so much discussing the religions and theologies that may subsume them. 

As such, I’d be quite interested in reading your take on the subjects discussed here.

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 March 2007 10:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  241
Joined  2006-07-17

[quote author=“Occam”]My daughter is a Buddhist (where did I go wrong? :shock: ), and her views are thoroughly Humanistic and scientific.  I see most religions as having some, from a few to many, strong anti-humanistic views.  From disucssions with my daughter, Buddhism appears to me to be a religion that has dispensed with those anti-humanistic parts (at least as far as I’ve been able to discern).

However, errollarken, I believe this forum is more for discussing the various aspects of humanism, no matter what theology each of us subscribes to, not so much discussing the religions and theologies that may subsume them. 

As such, I’d be quite interested in reading your take on the subjects discussed here.

Occam

Right, well this gets int problems of defining religions.

There are Christian humanists too. There are plenty of liberal Christians who are very humanistic and accept science, etc. Look at the Christian Unitarians, that’s practically about the same as Buddhists in the general sense as far as humanism and accepting science, etc., goes.

These belief systems and worldview are definitely less hostile, or not hostile at all, and have plenty of redeeming values, the problem is, in what way can we say that Unitarianism is Christianity?

These types of systems are basically religious systems that ave been heavily reformed by secularism and modern thought.

The same is the case with Western Buddhism.

Yeah, various forms of Western Buddhism are benign enough. The issue is, they are benign because they have been toned down by secularism.

What you daughter calls Buddhism and practices, am I sure, has almost nothing in common with traditional Buddhism, other than some symbols some lofty phrases, some incense, and some meditation postures.

 Signature 

http://www.rationalrevolution.net

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 March 2007 11:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4097
Joined  2006-11-28

Rationalrevolution,

So how do we define religion? Seems every religion of any size breaks into sects and splinter groups so fast, any strict definition is obsolete before it’s written down. You seem to view the “real” Christianity or Buddhism as the version that is supernaturalist or anti-humanist. I for one am all for secularism watering down religion because I don’t think all about religion is bad. And people are drawn to religion for psychological, possibly evolutionarily-determined reasons, and we’re not likley to change that. If I could have a world of Unitarians or western-style Buddhists instead of what we have now, that would be good enough for me, and probably a lot closer (though still not very close) to achievable than a world of atheists/agnostics.

Terminology is important, but I’m amazed how many discussions on these boards fall apart because people decide they mean different things by words like religion, God, humanism, etc. If we get too strict about what these words have to mean, we define ourselves out of any room to discuss. I’m willing enough to call Western-style BUddhism Buddhism for the purposes of discussing it and only focus on the differences among forms of Buddhism when the specifics are relevant to a particular topic. I do think Western Buddhism is not as radically removed from it’s Eastern origins as you suppose, since most of the prominent teachers have come from Japan and Tibet, but if it is a cultural adaptation to Western values, so much the better.

 Signature 

The SkeptVet Blog
You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place. 
Johnathan Swift

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 March 2007 11:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  241
Joined  2006-07-17

Well, is Taco Bell Mexican food?

If we are going to discuss food, and someone says that the prefer Mexican food to American food then that has some kind of meaning.

If I then ask them, what type of Mexican food do you like, and they say Taco Bell beef burritos, then I have to wonder, do they really like Mexican food?

So I inquire some more, and I ask them why they say they prefer Mexican food to American food and they say that they prefer Taco Bell to McDonald’s, and that they like the Mexican Hot Pockets you get in the grocery store.

Does this person really prefer Mexican food to American food?

So I take this person to Mexico and we order some local favorites, and the guy spits the food out and throws up and says its disgusting.

What is Mexican food, what is American food?

In reality, the guy like American food, because Taco Bell and Hot Pockets are American food.

They are “Mexican style” American foods, crafted by marketing people in American food corporations to appeal to American tastes.

That’s essentially what Western “Buddhism” is.

I’m not saying that it’s wrong, or bad, or anything about it, I’m just say that that’s what it is.

I like Taco Bell. I like Tex-Mex. I understand that these are really American foods.

The fact that Taco Bell isn’t authentic Mexican food doesn’t make it bad, it is what it is, and it appeals to Americans.

These same debates go on when we talk about the origin of Western Science and philosophy.

You have Christians that will tell you that Western Science is a product of Christianity. They will defend this by saying that the people who developed the scientific methods and made the early scientific discoveries in the Middle Ages and Renaissances were Christians.

Newton was a Christian. Copernicus was a Christian. Galileo was a Christian. For that matter, Darwin was a Christian at the time he made his discoveries.

But are these discoveries and conclusions and methods products of Christian thought and ideas?

No, they are not.

Most of these discoveries were in direct contradiction to the established and accepted Christian worldview and belief system.

These advances came as people were re-introduced to pre-Christian science and philosophy and ideas when large numbers of “pagan” works were rediscovered in the 1400s and 1500s and then printed on the printing presses and disseminated.

What exactly did the Christian framework bring to the table to advance these ideas? Nothing. Indeed these ideas had to be advanced in spite of the Christian worldview, in contradiction to it.

Yes, these advances were made in a Christian society, by people who were studying pre-Christian ideas and reconsidering them and seeing the value in them and pushing them forward against the Christian grain.

Christianity’s main contribution to science was it’s opposition, which forced materialists and empiricists to develop a robust and irrefutable process that could push back against Christian dogma.

The question with Buddhism is, what does Buddhism bring to the table?

I’ve discussed this with Buddhists many times, and I’m really tired of it so I’m not going to go into the details here that I have in other places before, but what does has Buddhism brought to the table to claim that it is rational, scientific, reasonable, etc.?

Nothing.

The big achievement of Buddhism is in accepting science, but it itself contributes nothing.

Buddhism is an irrational, nonsensical, anti-scientific, and mythology based religion.

Some people who call themselves Buddhists, just like some people who call themselves Christians, have been able to leave some of those trappings behind.

Great, good for them. I’m glad that they have been able to cast of some of the nonsense of Buddhism to accept other more rational beliefs, just as some people who call themselves Christians reject creationism and accept evolution.

Neither Buddhism nor Christianity produces reasonable beliefs. Some people who call themselves Buddhists and Christians are able to adopt reasonable beliefs in site of their religions, and good for them.

Some people have stripped traditional Buddhism of most of it’s beliefs and they have invented something new called “philosophical Buddhism”, which is Buddhism minus most of the nonsense. This is basically like going through the Gospels and taking out only the reasonable sayings attributed to Jesus and inventing “philosophical Christianity”.

That’s fine. But don’t hold up this stripped down version of Christianity and then claim that “Christianity is compatible with science, and is reasonable and holds perfectly rational beliefs”, because it doesn’t.

 Signature 

http://www.rationalrevolution.net

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 March 2007 12:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4097
Joined  2006-11-28

So who gets to decide what Mexican food is? Mexicans. Mexican-Americans? You? Is it only food served in Mexico? Only food that was invented in Mexico as a fusion of indigenous and Spanish colonial cuisines prepared in the manner and with the ingredients used >/= X number of years ago? If a Mexican in Chiapas starts using hamburger instead of shredded beef, or store-bought tortillas instead of homemade, is he no longer eating Mexican food? Or is there some central ingredient combinations that captures the quintessence of Mexican food tghat can be used as shibboleths of a sort? Must have beans (refried not black), rice (white not brown), tortillas, and some sort of chile?

The example, while exaggerated enough to be clearer than attempts to define a religion is still problematic. If an ideology changes with time or with transport to a new culture, when does it cease to be the old ideology? What are the central ingredients that define Buddhism? Hard for me to say since I was raised in a predominantly Christian culture, but I think you could list the Three Noble Truths and maybe the Eightfold Path and still have Buddhism without a lot of the hierarchical (almost Catholic) stuff from the Tibetan form or the daily superstitions of lay Buddhists in Asia. When does Western Buddhism cease to be Buddhism and just secular humanism with some Buddhist trappings?

If we argue that people who claim to follow a religion but who don’t literally accept the most egregiously ridiculous of the tenets that have historically been associated with that religion, then we exclude from the religion most of its adherents, at least in most post-Enlightenment Western societies. This doesn’t seem logical. And if people strip away the nonsense but keep some of what we would call the “reasonable” ideas from their faith traditions, why could these traditions become compatible with science and reason. Or must people from those traditions renounce any claim to them in order to join humanism, secularism, or whatever we here are promoting?

Again, I’m not a Buddhist, I’m technicaly an agnostic (though exactly how I define that is another debate I’ve had too many times, so most people would probably consider my position essentially atheist), but I do think Buddhism brings some useful ideas to the table. They may not be ideas unique to Buddhism, but they are certainly traditionally Buddhist ideas. Focusing on the present moment, the uselessness of anxiety about past and future, the importance of compassion and the behavioral strategies for reducing anger and disatisfaction are traditional Buddhist ideas and techniques, and they work for many secular weesterners because they don’t depend on a supernaturalist metaphysics. They may be useful ideas and techniques, and may have some real foundation in neuroscience that we haven’t yet elucidated (though they may not, sicne that hasn’t been demonstrated with any certainty) despite emerging from a religious tradition with lots of dross as well. This doesn’t make them any less Buddhist, and the thing Buddhism has going for it, as you point out, is that at least many traditional Buddhist teachers (though certainly not all) find exploring these things and leaving aside the rest an acceptable way to at least begin the practice of Buddhism. I think, then, that it is mistaken, and a bit presumptious, for you to declare such things not “really” Buddhist.

Now I certainly agree that Christianity has always been an impediment to science rather than a source of scientific thinking, with some minor exceptions. Still, this doesn’t really form proof of a general rule about religion and science you can then apply to Buddhism. I’d hate to say that Buddhism (or other religions) provide nothing useful to talk about, and that anything that is rational or useful occurs despite religion. That seems to go a bit too far and arbitrarily close of areas of inquiry.

 Signature 

The SkeptVet Blog
You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place. 
Johnathan Swift

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 March 2007 12:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4097
Joined  2006-11-28

:oops:
Re-reading, of course there are 4 “noble truths” not 3. But, as I said I’m no Buddhist, just a Western dilettante.

 Signature 

The SkeptVet Blog
You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place. 
Johnathan Swift

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 March 2007 12:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

A bit of a side-trip from the central discussion (but it may help):  rationalrevolution, your statement “Christian Unitarians” is an oxymoron.  By definition Christ is a part of the Trinity.  The original Unitarians in the fourth century denied that Christ and Mary were part of God, just a great teacher and a great person.  However, by the middle of the 1900’s many if not most Unitarians were agnostic or atheist and adopted strongly humanistic philosophies.  So you can’t point to Unitarianism as being a Christian religion.

It seems to me that the more the religion focuses on an omnipotent god as final authority and enforcer, the less humanistic their philosophies are.

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 March 2007 06:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7593
Joined  2007-03-02

[quote author=“Occam”]My daughter is a Buddhist (where did I go wrong? :shock: ), and her views are thoroughly Humanistic and scientific. 
Occam

We have something in common, Occam.  My older son says he’s a Buddhist too and I find his views strikingly Humanistic. He thinks I should be a Buddhist.  Sorry, I’m happy being a Humanist.  smile  The thing is, I don’t know a damn thing about Buddhism.  :(  I know more about Humanism, Christianity, and strangely enough a little bit about Hinduism, than I do Buddhism.

The problem with Christian Humanism, whoever mentioned that, is that there are those more Humanistic than Christain and vise versa.  Bishop Spong is a good example of Christian Humanism, not to mention Anthony Freeman and the Sea of Faith. They are all non-theists.  Yeah I did some research on this. The thing is, while they are Humanistic, they rely on the Bible too, twisting it in a more natural belief system.  Thus, God is in us and all around us (Tillich’s Ground of All Being), it is like the wind, but there is no heaven or hell, because the kingdom of heaven is on Earth (and is stated in the Bible), which brings in the Humanistic part- this is the only life we get, there is no afterlife, so we must make the best of this life.  After that, anything else concerning the Bible falls apart- like the Virgin Birth is a myth because science has shown there is no such thing, the Resurrection transformed into a spiritual and not literal or bodily resurrection, the stories are myths, etc etc.  So, my question, that I posted to Spong was, why do you bother with the Bible if the theistic God is dead and everything is modernized to what seems more logical and scientific?  That was the only question he did write back about.  He did answer my question when I asked about what he wrote as being Humanism coming from a Bishop.  I was a bit surprised. He gave a good answer too, which I still have around here.

However, like I said, it departs from Christianity before it is over with and becomes more Humanistic as it throws out, twists, or labels almost everything as myth in the Bible.  So, none of it is taken literally or as the word of God, because it was written by humans.  Basically, it is much like Unitarianism. I still say, why bother with the Bible?  Well, except when doing research or something like that.  Then again, Robert Price had some very good points about learning what is in the book on one of the Infidel Guy’s podcasts.

BTW, Robert Price is a Humanist and Atheist, who attends the Episcopal Church.  To be honest, the Liberal Episcopal Church is loaded with non-theist/Humanists (like Spong) and Atheists/Humanists (like Price).  So, it too is much like the Unitarians. Which takes us into all the problems they are currently having with the Conservative Episcopalians.  Whole other story though.

Thing is, I left the Episcopal Church years ago because if I reject the Bible and I’m a Humanist, so why bother?  Seems Robert Price and others disagree.  I still have friends who attend though, so I have a good idea what is happening in the Episcopal Church.  I prefer learning more about Humanism than attending a church service.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 March 2007 12:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  241
Joined  2006-07-17

[quote author=“Occam”]A bit of a side-trip from the central discussion (but it may help):  rationalrevolution, your statement “Christian Unitarians” is an oxymoron.  By definition Christ is a part of the Trinity.  The original Unitarians in the fourth century denied that Christ and Mary were part of God, just a great teacher and a great person.  However, by the middle of the 1900’s many if not most Unitarians were agnostic or atheist and adopted strongly humanistic philosophies.  So you can’t point to Unitarianism as being a Christian religion.

It seems to me that the more the religion focuses on an omnipotent god as final authority and enforcer, the less humanistic their philosophies are.

Occam

True. That’s kind of the point though. Early on especially, and even today, many Unitarians still use the Bible as their primary religious text and still hold a basically Christian/Jewish concept of God, just not the trinity. It’s sort of a mix of Christianity and deism. Unitarianism emerged from Christianity, it is an offshoot of it.

Western Buddhism in some cases is the same way with Buddhism. There are Western Buddhists who acknowledge that Buddha was a myth and that there is no reincarnation, etc., which is basically the same as being a Unitarian in reference to Christianity.

 Signature 

http://www.rationalrevolution.net

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 March 2007 12:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  241
Joined  2006-07-17

Here are some posts I made on the subject on the Richard Dawkins site:

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=99213#99213

Here are some Buddhist texts:

http://www.buddhanet.net/ebooks_g.htm

I’ve read through several of them. Take a look. It’s the most insane nonsense I’ve seen in a long time.

 Signature 

http://www.rationalrevolution.net

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 March 2007 12:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  9
Joined  2007-03-26

What is buddhism

well naturally and predictably everyone has their own take on what buddhism is or is not and how it fits into the science humanist spectrum.
Everyones conlusion is based on their own individual knowledge and experience. Thats the way of it. I understand completely why elements of Buddhist historical and cultural wrapping are rejected by many of you, Me too. I throw away the skin of the fruit too mostly. I take on board what I can use and work with and leave the rest where it is. Thats how it works with everything. No problem for me in that at all. I hold my ground on it being for me in its essence a deep psychology and as rigorous in its dependence on real causes and conditions for its methodology as any and every science. This is my own personal understanding but it is shared by many of the best of its teachers and practitioners. Most scientific endeavour focuses on external phenomena. Buddhist practice focuses on inner subjective mental and emotional events.  Each of our understanding of what buddhism or secular humanism is or is not is based on the depth and detail and length of the investigation made. We all get their on our own steam and in our own way. I do not define myself primarily as a “buddhist” but and am more inclined to define myself as a human being first. And I want to develop my own internal qualities of thinking and feeling in order to become more happy and to suffer less. These I would suggest are the 2 core drives in all human lives.
What is human life without thinking and all the feelings that go along with it. Both of these 2 metal events are non material are they not. Anyone ever nailed down a thought or a feeling. Seen one touched one. I havent. Arent they what make us most human and the source of our deepest joy and sorrow. In the west Psychology is the science that deals with the our thinking abd feeling. Anyone unhappy about Psychology being considered a humanistic science.? Buddhism has 3 Wisdom Tools. Reading and Listening. Reflection and contemplation. And meditation. Traditional phAnd they have been using these tools to work with the subjective direct experience of the mind for 2,5000 years. Just google it and see what you get.
Underneath all the cultural baggage there is a hugely sophisticated pool of direct knowledge on how to use the mind to transform it in order to becoming more sane and less destructive. Has anyone noticed that Christian and Muslims can be highly trained in the traditional sciences and yet still be totally irrational in many ways that are quite strange. Surely this is because they have not learned how to be scientific with their own minds and know their own selves in ways that make more sense. Emotion distorts thinking. Poor thinking distorts emotion. Understanding our own minds is I suggest the most important scientific subject because all else flows on from it and this personal investigation and development of our own minds is the most important thing we can do to become better and happier human beings. And may we all get there as quickly as possible. In some way we are all in this together. One way I heard Buddhism defined recently by one of my teachers was and an ongoing dialogue between more awake human beings with less awake human beings. We are all in that chain somehwere. One hand reaching up and one sideways and the third one down. Those who have seen through the game owe it to pass it on.

 Signature 

Clear thinking and loving kindness inform and nourish each other

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1