Questions about Buddhism

[Aradia]

why not? it does strike me as strange for a being to identify with a particular tradition and then not accept the teachings of said tradition.

Well, I identify as theravadin, and I don't believe in rebirth. =)

 

[JGL53]

Well, I identify as theravadin, and I don't believe in rebirth. =)

Well, there you go. There are literally thousands of variations - denominations, sects, cults - of christians - also Vedantists. There are probably hundreds, at least, of such in Buddhism and Taoism.

So, we all believe what we need to believe and we all believe what we want to believe and we all believe what we'd like to be true, and we all claim that objective reason and heartfelt intuition have led us to feeling quite confidant that we have got it right - as opposed to all those billions who have got it wrong. OK then. Let the mud fight begin. OR we can all just agree to disagree and, hopefully, at least agree on the Golden Rule.

We all just need to keep in mind that in any assumed idealistic metaphysics nothing can ever be 'proven' true - religion only can offer assertions or claims or anecdotal stories, etc. Actual proof is only possible in the naturalistic metaphysics of science, and then only in a "beyond all reasonable doubt" way.

As I see it, if you don't have some monkey on your back and you don't feel like a stranger in a strange land but feel, if not at one, then at least at home in the universe, then you are ahead of the game.

As to rebirth/kamma I see that as just an expression of a desire to have fairness and justice in the world/reality.

Desire ≠ fact - or not necessarily, in any case - it sometimes does happen, but not necessarily. There's no law of nature that requires you to lie down and die of depression because reality just isn't what you really wanted. Hell, if wishing it so made it so, I would have gotten that pony for christmas back when I was eight.

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste JGL,

thank you for the post.

As I previously said, like Alan Watts, I am a westernized or secular type of 'Zen Buddhist/Taoist', in which we do not view rebirth/kamma in any literal sense.

hmm... you are aware that Tao and Zen are not the same, yes?

You are a Tibetan Buddhist.

actually, i am a Vajrayana Buddhist but that is a bit of a technical distinction.

My point to Nahienga was to suggest that he read some Alan Watts writings, in the odd event that they could speak to him in the way they did to me.

indeed, perhaps this is so.

If it turns out that they don't and at some future time he joins your group, then fine.

she doesn't have to join any group at all, let alone follow the same path that i am

No one goes to hell for believing in incorrect ideas so what the hey?

oh?

I certainly understand that you disagree with me.

though i may disagree with you, i've yet to form a view about it since i'm inquiring about the process that you went through to make these determinations.

I understand that you are really into rebirth/kamma.

i am not "into" it in the least. it is, however, part and parcel of the teachings and i have yet to invalidate these aspects of the Dharma.

which is, generally, what i'm asking you about.

I understand that you think I am all wrong here and you are all right and that a thorough debate between us on the subject will demonstrate that fact to one and all.

then your understanding is incorrect. my view is not that one being is "all right" and the other "all wrong". those sorts of absolutists terms are not condusive to dialog or communication of ideas.

i am inquiring about the process of analysis and so forth that you used to determine which teachings were valid and which are not.

I doubt it, since there are no scientific proofs of either reincarnation orkamma.

i suggest that you take a look at physics where you will clearly see that actions have reactions, i.e. karma. whilst it is true enough that karma is meant to be indicative of human actions and not physical phenomena, it seems well demonstrated in the Suttas.

Buddhism doesn't teach reincarnation so i'm not concerned with that all that much.

They are superstitious religious beliefs, just like spirits, souls, curses, black magic, astrology, and so forth.

which is a fine view to hold though. it seems a bit strange that Buddha Shakyamuni continually extolled beings to avoid superstitions and so forth yet also taught kamma and rebirth. of course, he further taught that these aspects of the teachings could only be experientially confirmed once a being has entered the First Jhana.

I have no need for religious beliefs, i.e. the metaphysics of idealism.

have you had a chance to read the Abidharma section of the Tipitaka? this is the section of the teachings wherein the philosophical underpins of the Buddha Dharma are explained.

I accept the metaphysics of modern science. You don't.

i fully support Popperian methology for science, i'm not sure why you would think that i do not.

Ok. We're at perpetual loggerheads.

i'm very unclear on the a priori assumptions which seem to be showing through in our conversation. what does "loggerheads" mean? does it mean that we are unable to agree on aspects of the teachings?

Does that about cover all bases, or is there something else you need to say?

i may have more to say depending on your answers to my questions.

as i mentioned, if you have no interest in discussing your views, please indicate it as such and i shall cease asking you about them.

metta,

~v

 

[vajradhara]

Well, I identify as theravadin, and I don't believe in rebirth. =)

Namaste Aradia,

thank you for the post.

how do you reconcile the teachings where Buddha Shakyamuni explains the past arisings when he was a Bodhisattva?

metta,

~v

 

[JGL53]

…you are aware that Tao and Zen are not the same, yes?...

Yes. As I am aware that Vedanta is another philosophy. My interest in these is to look for commonalities and to look for that which seems logically deductively correct and/or useful.

…I actually, i am a Vajrayana Buddhist but that is a bit of a technical distinction…

.

In any event I don’t care – I suspect no one else reading this thread does either. Except for those into groovy titles and self-labels.

…she doesn't have to join any group at all, let alone follow the same path that i am…

Saying the same things using different words. Of course we are all individuals, in the final analysis – but, nevertheless, you seem part of a particular sect. Call if a “path” if that is your preference.

…i am not "into" it in the least. it is, however, part and parcel of the teachings and i have yet to invalidate these aspects of the Dharma…

Same idea, different words. You don’t appreciate my use of the ‘70s era useage of the word “into”. Fair enough.

… then your understanding is incorrect. my view is not that one being is "all right" and the other "all wrong". those sorts of absolutists terms are not condusive to dialog or communication of ideas…

As a disinterested reader could easily ascertain I was referring specifically to my conviction that rebirth is a unfounded superstitious and your conviction that it is not. Think either of us will change our respective views on this specific question – ever? I personally doubt it. You have your own unique take on this, I’m sure, but spare us.

…I am inquiring about the process of analysis and so forth that you used to determine which teachings were valid and which are not. …

So you are Curious George, eh? I think I’ll leave you in the dark on this issue. I would hate to bore you – you probably have bigger fish to fry somewhere.

… i suggest that you take a look at physics where you will clearly see that actions have reactions, i.e. karma. whilst it is true enough that karma is meant to be indicative of human actions and not physical phenomena, it seems well demonstrated in the Suttas. …

This makes no sense. But thanks for playing our game.

… Buddhism doesn't teach reincarnation so i'm not concerned with that all that much. …

But it teaches rebirth – is that your tact? You’re a tricky one, aren’t you?

… which is a fine view to hold though. it seems a bit strange that Buddha Shakyamuni continually extolled beings to avoid superstitions and so forth yet also taught kamma and rebirth. of course, he further taught that these aspects of the teachings could only be experientially confirmed once a being has entered the First Jhana…

This also makes no sense to me.

… have you had a chance to read the Abidharma section of the Tipitaka? this is the section of the teachings wherein the philosophical underpins of the Buddha Dharma are explained. …

No. There’s a lot of stuff I have never read. I’ve probably missed a lot of good stuff. I depend on folks like you to read this kinda stuff for me. And you seem to be doing a good job. Thanks.

… i'm very unclear on the a priori assumptions which seem to be showing through in our conversation. what does "loggerheads" mean? does it mean that we are unable to agree on aspects of the teachings? …

Uh huh.

… as i mentioned, if you have no interest in discussing your views, please indicate it as such and i shall cease asking you about them…

Bingo. We have a winner.

 

[Theowne]

Why is that vajradhara is responding politely and her opposing debater is peppering the talk with insults? Kind of makes you want to choose a side.

In any event I don’t care – I suspect no one else reading this thread does either. Except for those into groovy titles and self-labels.

I may not have the history of this thread in mind but you are speaking unnecessarily harshly to someone who is just clarifying their belief system.



......human society -1

 

[Zen_Woof]

Hello JGL53.

Just so you know, Vajradhara is a serious dharma practitioner who is interested in accurately depicting Buddhism on this Forum. Too often, people completely misinterpret what Buddhism is about, which leads to all sorts of wrong conclusions.

It is my view that she is asking you these questions out of curiosity, not malice. Vajra is a long-time participant on these Forums who is not interested in tricking you or showing off her knowledge (which is quite prodigious). You might not know this because I see by your post count that you have not been around long.

Metta,
ZW

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste JGL,

thank you for the post.

Yes. As I am aware that Vedanta is another philosophy. My interest in these is to look for commonalities and to look for that which seems logically deductively correct and/or useful.

it would seem from this statement that you are under the misconception that Buddhism has a single, monolithic, philosophical view. this is not correct. Buddha Dharma has four distinct philosophical views to be found, with one of those having two specific sub-schools.

the particular Buddhist philosophical school which i adherent to is Madyamika, for what it is worth.

In any event I don’t care – I suspect no one else reading this thread does either. Except for those into groovy titles and self-labels.

if you are unconcerned that your characterization of me is incorrect, then there is, indeed, no reason for you to care about being corrected. if, however, you are a being of integrity, having accurate information seems to be a pre-requisit.

perhaps you are not aware of the divisions within the Buddha Dharma and the Vehicles and Paths unto which it is segmented, i really cannot say.

Saying the same things using different words. Of course we are all individuals, in the final analysis – but, nevertheless, you seem part of a particular sect. Call if a “path” if that is your preference.

it is not "my" preference, it is how the teachings are presented. the Vajrayana is a Vehicle and the Path is the Nyingma.

Same idea, different words. You don’t appreciate my use of the ‘70s era useage of the word “into”. Fair enough.

that colloqualism tends to imply that it is due to personal preference that this is my view whereas my personal preference has little, if anything, to do with it.

i would prefer if parts of the Dharma were not correct, that does not make it so. moreover, since i tend to hold the Dharma in high esteem, i also engage in the path of practice which Buddha Shakyamuni explained to put the teachings to a test. it is through this process that i have come to hold the views that i do.

As a disinterested reader could easily ascertain I was referring specifically to my conviction that rebirth is a unfounded superstitious and your conviction that it is not. Think either of us will change our respective views on this specific question – ever? I personally doubt it.

i don't know what sort of evidence you would find compelling, so i really can't make any statments regarding what you would choose to accept or not nor what sort of time frame would be involved.

You have your own unique take on this, I’m sure, but spare us.

actually, i do not. i have an understanding of what Buddha Shakyamuni taught about it and i could explain it using my words, but it is not a view which is unique to this skandha.

So you are Curious George, eh? I think I’ll leave you in the dark on this issue. I would hate to bore you – you probably have bigger fish to fry somewhere.

why would you think i would be bored since this is specifically what i'm asking about? that does not make much sense to me.... if was not interested, i would not ask.

This makes no sense. But thanks for playing our game.

what game are you referring to?

perhaps you've heard of Issac Newton? one of his theories, which has thus far been born out, is that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. i.e. every action has it's consequence in the phyiscal realm. karma is the same sort of theory in regards to morality.

morally skillful actions produce results that are skillful. morally unskillful actions produce results which are unskillful.

But it teaches rebirth – is that your tact? You’re a tricky one, aren’t you?

many things i am, tricky, i couldn't say.

it does teach rebirth yet not reincarnation of course, those are English terms which have been transliterated from Pali and Sanskrit which have their own connotations already associated with them.

given the nature of our discourse thus far, i have the feeling that you would not be very receptive to any information which i could provide, in a linguistic sense, to explain this any better.

This also makes no sense to me.

which part?

No. There’s a lot of stuff I have never read.

fair enough.

this area of the Tipitaka is where the philosophy and cosmology and other things are covered.

I’ve probably missed a lot of good stuff. I depend on folks like you to read this kinda stuff for me. And you seem to be doing a good job. Thanks.

however, my understanding isn't something which you can have... it is your own understanding that you are working with. as a consequence, it would behoove you to read the teachings for yourself rather than relying upon the understanding of others.

Uh huh.

that should not be a worry for us since we both know what the Buddha taught regarding the different Dharma Doors. nevertheless, i can easily see how it could make our conversation a bit difficult at points.

Bingo. We have a winner.

all evidence to the contrary, it would seem.

my question was actually very straight forward and posed without guile or hostile intent. why you have chosen to respond in such an aggressive fashion, i really cannot say.

if you really aren't interested in explaining how you've come to determine which aspects of the teachings are valid and which ones are not, then you can simply not respond.

nothing like not responding to evidence your unwillingness to respond.

metta,

~v

 

[Aradia]

how do you reconcile the teachings where Buddha Shakyamuni explains the past arisings when he was a Bodhisattva?

No need for reconciliation. His experience of acquiring knowledge of his past arisings will not lead me any closer to enlightenment. His explanations of his past arisings are not the dhamma.

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste Aradia,

thank you for the post.

No need for reconciliation.

umm...

so what do you do with those teachings that deal with rebirth? what is your understanding regarding their purpose?

His experience of acquiring knowledge of his past arisings will not lead me any closer to enlightenment.

well... yes and no. it is true that Buddhas cannot give us their understandings. they can, however, show us the methods which they have used and, when used, will lead us to the same state that they have attained.

His explanations of his past arisings are not the dhamma.

of course not no words are, even teachings that are not dealing with previous or next arisings.. the Dharma is the Dharma and words are merely guideposts along the path, which is fairly well explained in the Sutrayana, in my view.

leaving aside considerations of previous or next full arisings, would you agree that a moment of consciousness arises conditioned by the preceeding moment of consciousness?

metta,

~v

 

[Aradia]

so what do you do with those teachings that deal with rebirth?

I read them, and attempt to learn from them. =)

what is your understanding regarding their purpose?

What is the purpose of any teaching? To teach.

well... yes and no. it is true that Buddhas cannot give us their understandings. they can, however, show us the methods which they have used and, when used, will lead us to the same state that they have attained.

Exactly!

of course not no words are, even teachings that are not dealing with previous or next arisings.. the Dharma is the Dharma and words are merely guideposts along the path, which is fairly well explained in the Sutrayana, in my view.

Indeed....

leaving aside considerations of previous or next full arisings, would you agree that a moment of consciousness arises conditioned by the preceeding moment of consciousness?

Of course. Our beliefs, yours and mine, aren't that different, all things considered. =)

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste Aradia,

thank you for the post.

I read them, and attempt to learn from them. =)

good answer i suppose that i would ask what you are trying to learn from them if you do not agree with what is being taught... however, i can learn from things which i do not agree with, so i would have to extend this to you as well... i am, however, a curious sort of being...

What is the purpose of any teaching? To teach.

i would have said "to help others learn" but i see your meaning here...

Of course. Our beliefs, yours and mine, aren't that different, all things considered. =)

indeed, they are not. it is, however, something that is better to ask about rather than simply assume, in my experience.

what i've just described to you and which you agree with, is rebirth. we can leave aside the questions of after this skandha ceases and so forth and simply focus on the consciousness. it is this ceasing and conditioned arising that is rebirth. of course, the Abidharma tends to go into this in much greater detail and depth than would be appropos for use on this forum.

of course, the particular Vehicles that we practice tend to view this the same, the real difference is during the ceasing of the skandha, in my view, regarding how long this is and so forth.

just to clarify... one is not required to accept any teaching of Buddha without verifying it as true, as is explained in the Kalama Sutta. by the same token, there are aspects of the teachings which we cannot verify yet and, if we are able to complete the requirements in the Kalama Sutta, we accept on faith due to our process of testing.

thank you for the discussion

metta,

~v

 

[Aradia]

good answer i suppose that i would ask what you are trying to learn from them if you do not agree with what is being taught... however, i can learn from things which i do not agree with, so i would have to extend this to you as well... i am, however, a curious sort of being...

I suppose, then, my answer would be that I've given up trying to learn a "thing" from them, and let the process of learning be a discovery of what is learnt. That is, there is no "what" that I try to learn.

i would have said "to help others learn" but i see your meaning here...

Heh. I'd considered that answer briefly, but rejected it on the basis of semantic differences. I think we both understand each other, though.

what i've just described to you and which you agree with, is rebirth. we can leave aside the questions of after this skandha ceases and so forth and simply focus on the consciousness. it is this ceasing and conditioned arising that is rebirth. of course, the Abidharma tends to go into this in much greater detail and depth than would be appropos for use on this forum.

Indeed, and we do both agree on this. The question now becomes: Do you understand why I said that I don't believe in rebirth?

of course, the particular Vehicles that we practice tend to view this the same, the real difference is during the ceasing of the skandha, in my view, regarding how long this is and so forth.

I assume you're referring to the concept of bardo, et cetera, yes? This is something I've been rather curious about; ie, the differences in the specific belief concerning this as viewed by our different vehicles. I've read both sides, and could probably reconcile them if I put my mind to it, but it hasn't seemed terribly important thus far. =)

thank you for the discussion

A pleasure, as usual!

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste Aradia,

thank you for the post.

I suppose, then, my answer would be that I've given up trying to learn a "thing" from them, and let the process of learning be a discovery of what is learnt. That is, there is no "what" that I try to learn.

ah.. so.. if i understand properly... you are not seeking to learn specific things that were taught, per se, just seeking to learn, in general?

Indeed, and we do both agree on this. The question now becomes: Do you understand why I said that I don't believe in rebirth?

perhaps. does it have to do with the term "i"? if so, then yes... if not.. then perhaps not

I assume you're referring to the concept of bardo, et cetera, yes?

well... to some extent, yes. Bardo is a Tibetan word which really just means "pause" or "gap", thus, there is a Bardo between the cessation of consciousness and the next arising moment of consciousness. with regards to physical skandhas, it is meant as both the gap, itself, and the process by which we can use these gaps in our practice.

This is something I've been rather curious about; ie, the differences in the specific belief concerning this as viewed by our different vehicles. I've read both sides, and could probably reconcile them if I put my mind to it, but it hasn't seemed terribly important thus far. =)

generally speaking, all Three Vehicles agree on the basics, as our Christian friends like to say "the devil is in the details"

as a quick overview, the main, but not only difference, between the Vehicles and the concept of rebirth is the length of time it takes for this process to happen. generally speaking the Fundamental Vehicle tends to view this process as, for all intents and purposes, seamless, i.e. there is no gap between the ceasing and next arising. the Mahayana tends to view that there could be a gap, but most beings have no chance of recognizing it and simply flow along. the Vajrayana says that there is a gap and we can use this gap to Awaken to the true nature of being. of course, as i say, this is a very quick overview of, in my view, the main difference between the Vehicles in this particular area.

naturally, if we so choose, we can find plenty of areas of disagreement and dispute... by the same token, we can find plenty of areas of agreement and accord, far more of the latter than the former, i would say.

i'm off till tomorrow

metta,

~v

 

[Aradia]

ah.. so.. if i understand properly... you are not seeking to learn specific things that were taught, per se, just seeking to learn, in general?

Yes and no. I'm not making any assumptions about what is being taught by a particular teaching. That is, I don't want to read a teaching with the preconceived notion that "this is a teaching about rebirth", or "this is a teaching about mindfulness", or "this is a teaching about samadhi". If I'm expecting to be taught a particular thing, that colours my own ability to learn from the teaching.

On more than one occasion, I've sat down with the suttas in an attempt to learn about a thing. I'll jump from one sutta to another, all touching on that thing about which I want to learn. In the end, however, I realise I've learned something completely different that I hadn't anticipated, but which is just as important as that which I'd originally wanted to learn. =)

perhaps. does it have to do with the term "i"? if so, then yes... if not.. then perhaps not

Actually, it has to do with with JGL53's post (#12), and your subsequent reply (#16). And it has not so much to do with the term "i" as with the term "rebirth", if you get my drift. =)

(I assume you know why I'm being vague; it sort of defeats the purpose if I come right out and explain myself )

generally speaking, all Three Vehicles agree on the basics, as our Christian friends like to say "the devil is in the details"

Hehehehe. Too true! I'm obviously familiar with the theravadin view, and I was fairly well aware of the vajrayanin view. I wasn't aware of the "middle-ground", so to speak, of the mahayanist schools. Interesting.

naturally, if we so choose, we can find plenty of areas of disagreement and dispute... by the same token, we can find plenty of areas of agreement and accord, far more of the latter than the former, i would say.

i'm off till tomorrow

I'd have to concur, but there's certainly something to be said for an occasional disagreement now and then. Keeps the mind strong! Have a great evening!

 

[JGL53]

Why is that vajradhara is responding politely and her opposing debater is peppering the talk with insults? Kind of makes you want to choose a side...you are speaking unnecessarily harshly to someone who is just clarifying their belief system...

That is your personal take on this and I respectfully disagree. I view Vajradhara as a fundamentalist Buddhist. She is certainly entitled to her opinion but I’m not particularly interested in it. I view all adherents to Vedanta, Buddhism and Taoism (ALL schools of each) as basically harmless. I wish them well. But I am not interested in having them quote or refer venerated scripture to me. That is a waste of their time and mine.

I am more interested in debating our christian friends, since I DO think there are harmful ideas in their ideology.

The only use I see in eastern thought has been delineated by the western philosopher Alan Watts. Have I not make this clear by now? I have read books by D.T. Suzuki and several biographical books on what Buddhism means to a variety of people, but I have no use for any “orthodox” beliefs involving boring references to venerated Buddhist scripture. Alan Watts, in my opinion, has discerned whatever there is of interest in eastern thought and has written over two dozen books on the subject. That is the basis of my viewpoint – and long debates with “true believers” in the overbeliefs of reincarnation/rebirth/kamma is just not something I think will be useful.

My purpose in this thread was to refer another person to Alan Watts. That is all. If that person, or I, or any other man Jack or woman Jill in the world wish to learn more about Buddhism from an actual Buddhist, I suspect the place to go would be to books on the subject written by Buddhists, or meeting/talking with practicing Buddhists of as many schools as possible, and certainly not debating one particular fundamentalist on line.

Hello JGL53.

Just so you know, Vajradhara is a serious dharma practitioner who is interested in accurately depicting Buddhism on this Forum. Too often, people completely misinterpret what Buddhism is about, which leads to all sorts of wrong conclusions.…

My conclusions of what Buddhism has to offer me are correct, strictly as they concern me. My whole point to the person who started this thread was that the approach to eastern thought that Alan Watts has written about was also my view of the subject. Thus, I referred the person to Watts’ books. Whether Watts proves to be his cup of tea also, assuming he actually reads Watts’s books, or whether he goes on to become a mendicant monk – well, what’s that to me - as long as he doesn’t become a supporter of some theocracy, who should care?

…It is my view that she is asking you these questions out of curiosity, not malice. Vajra is a long-time participant on these Forums who is not interested in tricking you or showing off her knowledge (which is quite prodigious). You might not know this because I see by your post count that you have not been around long…

No, she thought she could get a hand up on me by playing word games because she thought I was unfamiliar with the difference in the reincarnation/rebirth ideas. Turns out she was wrong, so we got a nice smiley from her as a reply. It all makes me wonder what other word games she is playing here.

I am perfectly interested in discussions of eastern thought philosophies with non-fundamentalists Buddhists or Vedantists or whatever. But I am bored with the pronunciations of Buddhist or Vedantist fundamentalists. I have tried before to debate a couple of these types over at Internet Infidels forums and it just gets nowhere – they just come back to quote venerated scripture. If all that helps them to be better people, then great – but I find it boring.

I have put Vajradhara on my ignore list, so problem solved in any case. I am basically only interested in discussing eastern thought with those who have read Alan Watts and can understand and therefore discuss or critique his viewpoint. It is a radically non-fundamentalist approach. That’s why it’s the only approach I find useful and thoroughly sensible.

If everyone else here is ignorant of Watts and is happy about remaining so, then I won’t be debating much in this forum, except to make the occasional irritating side comment. – or, more importantly, to refer “seekers” to Watts’s books.

 

[indianx]

So your knowledge of Eastern religions is based on Watts' opinions or have you formed your own view from reading, analyzing, etc. Eastern scriptures? Just wondering, you may be well-versed in Eastern scriptures, but this is the first time I've seen you in the forum, so just curious.

 

[JGL53]

So your knowledge of Eastern religions is based on Watts' opinions or have you formed your own view from reading, analyzing, etc. Eastern scriptures? Just wondering, you may be well-versed in Eastern scriptures, but this is the first time I've seen you in the forum, so just curious.

My understanding of Eastern philosophies is mainly based on reading Watts. As mentioned, I have read two books by D.T. Suzuki (he was a Zen Buddhist) and, checking my bookshelf, I see I've read "The Teaching of Buddha" by Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai, "The Tao of Inner Peace" by Dian Dreher, "The Zen of Living and Dying" by Philip Kapleau and "Why Buddhism?" by Vicki Mackenzie – this last book being a collection of statements by 15 (mainly western) Buddhists of what being a practicing Buddhist means to each as an individual. One could review these books on Amazon to see what value, if any, they might have.

I might also mention that over the years I've done a great deal of additional reading on line at various Buddhist sites - also Vedantists and Taoist sites. I have also visited the Zen Buddhist school, library and the Green Gulch area in San Francisco. And I have been to a couple of talks by Buddhists and one Vedantist at various times at my local Unitarian-Univeralist group.

Now none of this makes me an "expert" on anything, please know that I understand that. The only religion I am an expert regarding is the southern baptist convention church - and I wish I wasn't - it was an accident of birth - apparently god hates me - (just kidding).

Anyway, I am about as deep into Eastern philosophy as I'll probably ever get. I will probably never become a practicing adherent of any Eastern philosophy or religion – e.g., join a monastery, get a personal teacher, etc. I just enjoy reading and discussing certain aspects of Eastern philosophy - especially the concept which I would identify as agnostic panmonism - Nirvana, Brahman, that sort of idea.

As I've redundantly stated now, perhaps to the point of nausea, Watts seems to have provided me with all the basic enlightenment I can stand. But who knows - in the middle of my next meditation (I do it in a chair, I am not that flexible) maybe a brilliant light will explode in my noggin, or my third eye will implode or whatever, and it will suddenly become an intuitive realization that I need to join my local Tibetan Buddhist monastery, ASAP.

But I doubt it.

 

[Zen_Woof]

I have put Vajradhara on my ignore list, so problem solved in any case. I am basically only interested in discussing eastern thought with those who have read Alan Watts and can understand and therefore discuss or critique his viewpoint. It is a radically non-fundamentalist approach. That’s why it’s the only approach I find useful and thoroughly sensible.

If everyone else here is ignorant of Watts and is forum, except to make the occasional irritating side comment. – or, happy about remaining so, then I won’t be debating much in thismore importantly, to refer “seekers” to Watts’s books.

Hello again.

Fair enough. I hope you'll excuse my ham-handed attempt at peacekeeping/clarification.

If you're interested in a less fundamentalist approach to Buddhism, you might find Stephen Batchelor's book "Buddhism Without Belief" interesting too.

I haven't read Alan Watts but I will have to check him out.

Metta,
ZW

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste Aradia,

thank you for the post.

Yes and no. I'm not making any assumptions about what is being taught by a particular teaching. That is, I don't want to read a teaching with the preconceived notion that "this is a teaching about rebirth", or "this is a teaching about mindfulness", or "this is a teaching about samadhi". If I'm expecting to be taught a particular thing, that colours my own ability to learn from the teaching.

ah, yes, i think that i understand.

On more than one occasion, I've sat down with the suttas in an attempt to learn about a thing. I'll jump from one sutta to another, all touching on that thing about which I want to learn. In the end, however, I realise I've learned something completely different that I hadn't anticipated, but which is just as important as that which I'd originally wanted to learn. =)

i suppose that i've gone about it in a slightly different manner, i tend to be a serial reader which often means that i am flipping back to things that i've read to line them up with what i am reading currently. it seems to work out ok for me, but it also tends to increase the amount of time and material it takes for me to get through a lesson

Actually, it has to do with with JGL53's post (#12), and your subsequent reply (#16). And it has not so much to do with the term "i" as with the term "rebirth", if you get my drift. =)

i'll read those again and see if i can discern what you are on about...

i looked at them but i suppose i'm not seeing it. in my response post i was asking about kamma and by which process he had undertaken to determine the accuraccy of the teaching.

Hehehehe. Too true! I'm obviously familiar with the theravadin view, and I was fairly well aware of the vajrayanin view. I wasn't aware of the "middle-ground", so to speak, of the mahayanist schools. Interesting.

have you heard of what Tibetans call Lam-Rim?

I'd have to concur, but there's certainly something to be said for an occasional disagreement now and then. Keeps the mind strong! Have a great evening!

oh, without doubt. i am especially appreciative of beings which are able to express their disagreement in a constructive fashion rather than a denigrating fashion.

i find the tradition of debate within the Buddha Dharma to be a welcome change to religious discussion and discourse, provided that the beings are able to remain mindful and compassionate towards their debate adversary.

beings are, of course, very different and vary in their capacities so we would expect that there would be disagreements in the way in which we understand something, especially something as driven by personal experience as the Buddha Dharma.

metta,

~v