Gaia: Attaining Buddhahood in This Lifetime

Re: My garden

http://shadowmonkx.gaia.com — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:55:31 GMT

Hi, Lizzy,
Sorry for the ridiculously late response to your post!
I just wanted to write to say... very awesome that you are seeing these connections.. you'll probably notice more and more that things are interdependent, subject to suffering, impermanent and not-self as you advance on the path (or advancing without advancing, to crack a Zen-ish joke, lol).
Yes, when you see that everyone and everything is connected, you tend to be more compassionate.. Metta Bhavana (Loving-Kindness/Friendliness Meditation) is particularly good for this.
Keep up the insights! :)

My garden

http://LizzyL.gaia.com — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:50:05 GMT

I planted a small garden for the first time this year and I am seeing how things just connect. Caring for these plants(tomatos, sweet peppers, eggplant and cucumbers) has brought out depths of compassion and caring in my life that I never accessed before. I find myself more aware of my connection to earth and others. It has enhanced my meditation practice.
I am less self-centered and more willing to deicate my energies to the good of others.

Re: Attachment

http://shadowmonkx.gaia.com — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 07:39:43 GMT

Excellent post, Mary!

Basho... while I agree in spirit, everyone would do that all the time -- and would never suffer -- if only it were so easy! :) I think that most of us don't truly appreciate what it is we really need vs. what we want; they're interchangeable for many people. We trick ourselves into seeing something we desire as a "need," justify it to death with rationalizations, and then finally suffer when we don't get what we "need".. and just as much so when we do get it (we worry about losing it, or it loses its novelty when something better presents itself as an option ... be it a new car or a new job, etc.)

That is to say, our own desire and aversion owing to ignorance causes our suffering. Removing the blinders is a difficult, but gradual and rewarding process.

jaBuddha: Hey, Buddha Bear.. long time no talk, lol.. how are you? I'm curious, are you referring to Buddha Land as a place in time or space, or is it a synonym or euphemism for Nibbana/Nirvana.. or...?

I think that you're referring to a state of existence or mind, but in any case, just to clarify, I don't believe that any of us are incapable of attaining Arhantship (but not actual Buddhahood -- there was only one Siddhatta Gotama) in this lifetime, if we persevere and truly want it. On the other hand, I disagree in the view that everything would magically come together and life would be perfect in some kind of heaven.. because it's just that kind of view that keeps us from truly getting to the crux of suffering in this lifetime, in the present moment.. because there is obviously no other time more important than right now! ;)

The rest of what was said.. that we are entering a path or orbit.. definitely rings true.. Buddhahood is something consciously attained, and consciously maintained.. but oddly, not in a concentrative way.. but instead with detached mindfulness that is akin to watching characters in movie.. we're aware of what's going on, but not "buying into" things as if they are anything but a film reel.

I hope that our posts help those who are on the path, or whom may be interested in the path. :)

All the best to you all.. Namaste!

-Rob

Re: Attachment

http://gakkaiguy.gaia.com — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 03:57:41 GMT

What we should ultimately aspire to, afterall, is the Buddha land. All our desires will be transformed into enlightenment. Attachments, I have come to understand, are there as a function of our lesser self. Break the shell of the lesser self, and all earthly desires - which represent suffering - become the seeds for our enlightenment. We practice Buddhism to attain a powerful inner state of being so we can revolutionize our very thoughts.

Daily Encouragement by Daisaku Ikeda
Sunday, July 5, 2009

What does attaining Buddhahood mean for us? It does not mean that one day we suddenly turn into a Buddha or become magically enlightened. In a sense, attaining Buddhahood means that we have securely entered the path, or orbit, of Buddhahood inherent in the cosmos. Rather than a final static destination at which we arrive and remain, achieving enlightenment means firmly establishing the faith needed to keep advancing along the path of absolute happiness limitlessly, without end.

Re: Attachment

http://gardenplanetproject.gaia.com — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:48:36 GMT

it behooves us to allow whatever arises to arise
and to fully experience it as divine will
whether this is desire or revulsion or some other shade of fear -
it is in the allowing it to arise without resistance
without clinging nor rejection of that which emerges --
this is the path to freedom...

also, Lizzy
if you eliminate time
thought has nowhere to maneuver
nothing to grasp onto
which leaves you free in this infinite space of NOW
just look around you
connect with what IS
and allow that which is to become to become --
or suffer the consequences!

it is most difficult, in this absurd way
to let go of that which we do not have anyway
we can't control the future
not even one millisecond!
it is too tumultuously complexly diversifying
and it does not belong to us

so the Buddha would have us see the truth of things
that nothing we think can possibly be true
and nothing that occurs can possibly undo
that which is unborn and undying

so if you get the money, wow, nice! enjoy --
but don't think it will make you happy
and know that all the alternatives are as pregnant with potential
as anything our paltry selves can conjure
to represent what we think we need....

sorry about the stacked thoughts -- don't worry! it's NOT poetry!
just helps me organize the dream
as it spools through the mind...

Re: Attachment

http://bashoslogx2.gaia.com — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:05:41 GMT

'Then choose between what you want, and what you need.'

...because once you 'understand' the difference between the 2 the whole thing begins to unravel without having to work at it. ;)

Re: Attachment

http://Domus-ulixes.gaia.com — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 21:51:11 GMT

oew, I have a new attachement approach, let me look it up.
Pitty, don't remember.

my advice?
look at the money you need, (survival)
and the portion that isn't.
Then choose between what you want, and what you need.

Re: Attachment

http://shadowmonkx.gaia.com — Thu, 21 May 2009 17:15:18 GMT

Dear Lizzy,

You asked a really good question that stumbles beginners and advanced Buddhists alike! :)

The thing is, attachment is a heady foe. It’s a really tricky thing to learn from and over time, eliminate.. but the surest way of NOT going about it would be to tell yourself that “it doesn’t really matter if I get the money or not.”

However, it IS good to be mindful of your mind states constantly.
Instead of trying – unsuccessfully – to convince yourself that everything is ok, try using the Four Noble Truths… whenever this desire for the money, etc. pops into your head, whether during regular waking hours or during meditation:

-This is the arising of suffering. Ask yourself, how do you feel about this money issue? Positive, negative, neutral? Where do you feel this suffering?

-This is the cause of suffering. Your suffering is being caused by your craving, your attachment. But why do you have this craving, this attachment? This is really important to ponder. Buddha denoted two other causes of suffering, and you may note how they lead to craving: aversion and anger, and also ignorance or delusion.

Your desire to have this money is not in itself a bad thing; we Buddhists aren’t supposed to be emotion-less or stoic! Quite the inverse; we’re supposed to be full of bliss and consummate compassion! It’s your attachment to having things a certain way.. that is, having more money.. and your aversion (note that, aversion) to, your fear of, being in a situation where you don’t have more money.

..but where does that desire/attachment, aversion and anger.. your fear.. come from? It seems incomplete somehow.. Aha! The ignorance or delusion! What did Buddha mean by that? He meant that we live our lives in a way that is ignorant of the truth of reality.

And what is this truth of reality? That life is subject to suffering, component things are impermanent, subject to decay.. and not-self.

What did he mean by impermanent? Well, look at a seed.. if it were permanent, it would stick around forever without change, and we would never have a tree.. but the seed instead is impermanent, it transmutes (converts) into what we call a tree. Note that the seed never dies – nothing truly does – what was never born can not die! The same is true of our bodies; they’re impermanent.. if not, a young girl would never blossom into a beautiful, mature woman who one day has a child, and who in turn, etc.. it’s even a law of physics: energy cannot come from nowhere, and it also can’t just cease. It transmutes.

Obviously, this applies to all existence.. including your mind and the desire itself. It comes and goes, right? Why are you clinging to that unfortunate mind state?! ;)

There’s more. If I have a bowl full of water, it’s full, right? Wrong. It’s full of… what? Water. Things cannot exist independently, alone. They rely on other things to exist. Now, if we dump the water out, the bowl is empty, correct? Wrong.. it’s empty of water. Just like a building can be called “tall” only in comparison to other buildings that are shorter, so too are all concepts relative.

But if you really look deeply at that bowl, it would not, could not, exist without the hands that made it, the food that fed that person.. the clay used to make it, the water used to soften the clay, the kiln used to fire the bowl, the fire itself, the kindling.. even the clouds, the rain, the sun, the earth, the sky, you, me.. there’s definitely still water in that bowl. ;) In fact, the entire cosmos is in that bowl, in you, me, everything.

This is called interdependence, and also why you’re not-self.

But still.. we can say our minds are at least the same, they make us who we are, right? If that’s true, you would be able to tell your mind not to suffer, not to get angry, to never change viewpoints. But it does. We’re made up of the five aggregates (khandas):

Form
Feeling
Perception of form
Mental objects/intentional action
and resultant consciousness

Of course, none of these exist alone, nor can be said to truly precede or secede the other. They’re interdependent, and are best appreciated as working in “feedback loops.”

If there is nothing that can honestly be said to be your own, why would you want to haphazardly identify with it, whether it be a mind state, an object, what we conceptually call a self or person, etc.?

It would be helpful to see these patterns when meditating (and in life), whether it’s the impermanence of your breath, the body, your desire, or whatever crops up.

-The third noble truth states that there is and end of suffering, a way out. What is the way out? Nibbana, or Nirvana. This is like the prescription or antidote to suffering.. anyone that thinks Buddhism is pessimistic because is mentions suffering just hasn’t gotten this far yet! :)

-The Fourth Noble Truth, the path to the end of suffering, is the Noble Eightfold Path... and is what leads to Nibbana/Nirvana:

-Skillful Understanding (understanding the Four Noble Truths, impermanence, suffering, not-self and karma)

-Skillful View (seeing things in accordance with and learning from the Four Noble Truths, impermanence, suffering, not-self and karma)

-Skillful Action (not harming, stealing, etc.)

-Skillful Speech (speaking skillfully, not slandering, not telling lies, not speaking divisively, etc.)

-Skillful Livelihood (not partaking in a profession that would violate any of the precepts or act counter to the Noble Eightfold Path)

-Skillful Effort (arousing effort to do skillful things, maintaining that effort; arousing effort to not do unskillful things, maintaining that effort)

-Skillful Mindfulness (being mindful of the body, posture, mind states, lack of mind states, etc.. basically, the Four Foundations of Mindfulness / The Four Frames of Reference)

-Skillful Concentration (essentially, vipassana-samatha bhavana.. meditation wherein the Jhanas are attained and used for learning all the above, particularly the source and elimination of suffering)

There’s a lot more to the basics – and I’m sure that you know many of them, if not even the above. Even so, I hope that explaining how you can.. transmute, ha.. unskillful thinking patterns into skillful lines of questioning and concentrated introspection.. and over time, into skillful thinking patterns.. is helpful to you. :)

Does it all make sense? Do you have any questions? :)

All the best,

-Rob AKA shadowmonkx

Attachment

http://LizzyL.gaia.com — Wed, 20 May 2009 15:24:03 GMT

I am currently working through the concept of attachment in my life.
It seems that I have become "attached " to a certin sum of money that I expected to get. I am working it through in my meditation practice, but still, I hate to be up in the air about it.
I wish I knew if I was going to get it or not.
I know that attachment to the wrong thing can be bad and I keep telling myself that it does not matter if I get this or not.
Still, I can't seem to really get detached from the disire to have this. It would make some things easier if it does come through--but if it does not I have a back up plan--it's all very confusing.
any advice?

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

http://shadowmonkx.gaia.com — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 05:02:31 GMT

Thanks, Domus.

Thanks, Mary... I agree with your points. :)

Take care!

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

http://Domus-ulixes.gaia.com — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 15:34:53 GMT

Thank you, I think that in general that does answer what I sought.

And to all people, if you ever want Quantum mechanics explained, just post a question in the Quantum group

It happens often that people mess up different aspects of QM that aren't reconcidable.

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

http://gardenplanetproject.gaia.com — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 11:56:45 GMT

yes, Rob, nice Domus! Thank you for civilization!

i would only add, Rob, is that even in the event of alternate universes, multiple dimensions, etc., that there is only one thing happening right NOW. If it is expressing through the above, or wherever, that is where IT is. The leading edge of creation is big-banging away, fractalizing to infinity, within and without. It takes any form it wants to! But only one, inclusive of all aspects, all alternates, all dimensions, whatever they happen to be.... NOW.

just because we can't see something doesn't make it nonexistent. Mind is not entirely comfortable with that, preferring speculation to the Vast Unknown.

having stumbled onto this path via study of physics, I have never been indoctrinated in a church or religion, other than my parents' atheism, which reeked of faulty premise to me, even as a child. I was just aware enough to see clearly you can't know what you don't know. What lurks just beyond the edges of the Known. The perimeter of which has been shrinking my whole life, from the grandiosity of the child, so certain she could conquer all the unknowns of the universe, to now, when the mystery fits my mind like a glove...

and from there, only magic!

I am seeing that Mind exhibits perfect correlates to the physical universe. Fascinating! The paradoxical core (the barrier/portal between mind and truth) resembles the singularity of the black hole. Synchronicity resembles neural synapse, in that thought creates potential, like a vacuum, for Nature to fill.... Gravity resembles love, in that it pulls us to center and never reduces to zero, no matter how little mass nor how much intervening space. It appears these two planes: mind and form, obey the same laws, with perhaps a difference in phasing along a spectrum of expanding complexity...

anyway - that's just me, noodling up a good sci-fi ;-) Nothing any actual expert is talking about, i don't think! Nothing to prove - just food for thought...

but you heard it here first!

I can even prove we can't possibly exist! But it is more a comedy routine, with a good point. Even though i firmly suspect it is true, i am no mathematician ;-) But others are left scratching their heads, unable to find a way to disprove it! So it is good enough for FUN!

be well!

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

http://shadowmonkx.gaia.com — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 09:33:00 GMT

Hi, Domus,

Yes, I too find it frustrating when people try to convert you or convince you that their god is the best and that you need their salvation, without evidence.

Your premise of looking AT the window is flawed.. it's what you're seeing THROUGH the window that is reality. You're looking through one window -- which is fogged, and let's say that the one I'm looking out of is clear and clean. We're seeing the same single reality, but different interpretations or perception of it.

In any case, you bringing up quantum mechanics raises an interesting point.. Buddha was apparently the first person to appreciate and teach what amounts to modern science -- much of chaos theory, quantum mechanics, etc. Check out Buddhist Abhidhamma or Abhidharma... phenomenology/psychology.. it'll give you a headache.

Thanks for the apology, and np.

Same with my family.

To answer your question.. ONE objective reality (unless we're talking about parallel universes, multiple dimensions, etc.. in which case, scientists have some insight -- such as that we theoretically have a twin in a parallel universe a certain mathematical distance from here -- but no one really knows for sure)... and MANY, if not an infinitude, of subjective realities. The reason I believe this is because it makes sense intellectually, scientifically, and spiritually. Even if we're all plugged into some kind of thing like The Matrix and each of us has a different version if it we're stuck in -- there's still a common reality that we're all plugging in from (that we just need to remove the plug to see).

You are the One.

But, to each person, their reality is "the only one." And they sit around theorizing about other realities like we do.. lol.

Hope this helps,

-Rob

Re: The power of meditation

http://LizzyL.gaia.com — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:54:09 GMT

I don't know if this belongs in here or not, but here goes.
I recently started to practice mindfulness meditation.
It has been getting better and I find that it does enhance my yoga practice.
I have one question that is really bothering me.
I started in a chair and have recently "graduated" to the floor with only one pillow and rolled blanket for the support of my legs and shins.
The main trouble is that I experence a great deal of discomfort --and even pain--in my hip, knee and groin area and have to straighten my legs for a few moments to ease it. I do a series of hip openers before I take my seat.
When I do straighten my legs, I try to keep my focus on my breath. After a few moments I fold my legs again and put my focus back to my breath.
The time that I have to straighten my legs is getting shorter and my legs are getting more comfortable in a deeper fold.
The question is, am I hurting my practice by straightening my legs?
Should I just try to ride out the pain?
Liz

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

http://Domus-ulixes.gaia.com — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:45:21 GMT

I will of course find a contradiction to it, and the reason for it you will find at the very last paragraph of this piece.

" If everything you see now is like
looking through a foggy window – and I'm looking through the same
window, but it's not foggy for me – our reality is the same. "
You could see 'foggy' as an attribute of the window. In which case your perception (foggy = false) is different from mine (foggy = true) If this is indeed the same, it doesn't even have to imply that there is a transverse route between your perception and mine. Since we both observe. It could very well be, that our perceptions are irreconcilable and that we are can doubt the terminology of ' having seen the same window'. This is a fundemental propery of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. (CIQM)

I see no flaw in what you say, not in any way does it contradict what I think. (Your darkness light argumentation)
Simply even in CIQM this is evident, particles simply exist in contradictive properties at the same time! (and no this isn't contradictory to the above paragraph)

I find it amusing that when I say that I am real, you empathise the I. In the other cases where I might be real, or am not real. I can only wonder, would I be able to use this forum? In case of the unexistence of this writer. I'd say no. In the case that maybe the writer is existing, it means that somewhere somehow he is not. And until that is found I am neither. In my opinion it is safe to assume (for myself) that I am real. In the sense of an object of reality. Not in the sense of an I or ego. I see myself as a sub-group of the parent-group 'reality'.

I am sorry I over judged buddhist by stating they want to change people, I know better. Please accept my apologies.

I am not religious, nor my parents or any part of my life. Personally I simply do not see the use of anything alike a god. And create my own world daily. So. Why a god really?
Though I understand your frustration (for I share it regularly) about people assuming that god is existant and omnipotent etc. etc. etc. Very, very frustrating.

The last paragraph:

Okay I make this specially for you shadowmonkx because it is you who have so much trouble with what I say, but are also patient enough to reply.

My reasoning goes as follows. (in intuistionistic logic)

prime statement: 1. I can prove my reality is real.
1 --> false --> I cannot prove my reality is real 2.
1 --> Maybe --> I might be able to prove my reality but don't know how 3.
1 --> True --> please show it to us! because you would win the nobel prize.

in cases 2 and 3. I am not yet able to prove my reality is real or not. Hence I make assumptions upon it. in case 3. Naturally this is the buddhist super position. (remember the term)
Either way, It would require and argument of solipsism to say that other have in the end the same assumptions.
If you do, there is no use talking to you, because you are blind for arguments.
If you don't (which most normal people do)
You find yourself in the position where you can only say there are multiple assumptions for realities! Disregarding what the content of that reality might be. (thereby avoiding claims of existence)

My only question on this forum would be.
Are the number of those assumptions discrete, or continues (infinite)?

Love to hear your input.

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

http://shadowmonkx.gaia.com — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:52:46 GMT

Domus,

I agree with Mary and mum's the word.. and I've been feeling what she's said for a while. It does seem as though you're baiting this forum by asking the same question over and over and over again.. you're just rewording it each time. And I keep rephrasing my answer (which is and will remain the same) for you. Then, when you seem to get stuck doing that, you throw a new stick in the wheel that gets it going all over again -- like when you attempt to argue whether there's one or many gods.

Anyway, here's my response:

You said: "As you say it yourself Buddhism is a 'new level of experience, of reality'. So, it is just another reality."

..no, it's not just another reality. If everything you see now is like looking through a foggy window -- and I'm looking through the same window, but it's not foggy for me -- our reality is the same. But as I alluded to before, our PERCEPTION of it and the way we react to it (wisdom) is different. With different perception and wisdom comes a more... well, realistic.. way of living.

Your reality right now -- and that of most people -- is dualistic. Me, mine, they, theirs, good, bad, rich, poor, enlightened, unenlightened, one reality, several realities.

As I said before... dualism is the way that most people see life.. but it's a foggy window they're seeing life through. It's not the clearest, sharpest image they can find. Everything looks distorted, and honestly, a little dream-like to most people. If, as you say, you understand non-duality and your "reality" is trying to get away from that, as well, then all this talk about one reality or many is ridiculous. You're arguing about a dualistic concept. For example, you can't have light without darkness. Darkness and light are NOT opposites -- but they're not the same, either. They're also not both at the same time. They're not "neither" at the same time. Light and dark just are. Light doesn't exist alone, it only exists because there's darkness. Darkness is only dark compared with something... in this case, how much light there "is not."

Buddhists try to appreciate this concept viscerally... experientially.. not intellectually. Intellectual understanding comes first, but then we actually have to get to the "bones" of it and do the work in making it part of our daily life. When one sees that there are no longer opposites.. one tends to be more happy in the present moment, not regaling in the past or seeking the future. Because, to re-word the old saying, "the grass is greener not on the other side, but right here." (and neither, ha..)

You also said: "Disregarding the plain fact that I myself am real, and thus subject to my own reality."

You're real? Tell me.. which part of you is permanent, not subject to suffering and can be said to be "the self?" Your brain? Your mind? Would either work without your body? Oh, so you need a body? But your body ages, it decays, it changes constantly.. and so does your mental impressions of your body, how it looks, feels.. and how your perceptions of things are. So, what part of you, is "you?" There's is just a flux of form, feeling, perception, mental objects and resultant consciousness. This is the teaching of anicca, "not-self'."

And no, Buddhists are not trying to make anyone change their reality. We're not known to proselyetize. However, if we are asked, or someone seeks us out (as you are), we are happy to share our knowledge and experience of things with them.

You stated, "Why do I do this? Well, by understanding a world, that doesn't even have a notion like belief, or notions of any concepts or even a dependence of viewpoint."

...well, see, I don't have any assumptions about nirvana, that's the entire reason for my defining it as "another reality" -- it's really the same reality, with just a much, much cleaner window to look through. For most people, ANY change in perception -- from being one of those "glass half empty" to "glass half full" types of people -- is a "different" reality.

For a wise Buddhist, we appreciate, in the gut, that the glass is half empty, half full, both and neither -- all at the same time!

Your reality is whatever you think it is. Mine is whatever I think it is. But just because something is "your reality" doesn't mean that you're not suffering, not causing others to suffer, or hurting the world in general. Buddhists strive to avoid harming themselves, others or the world. We try to have a reality that is consistent with the world around it -- and which promotes peace, happiness and understanding.

So... if you insist that your version of reality is right... why are you trying so hard to argue it, to make us agree with or see it? No matter what, you essentially made your own case for "multiple realities" if "our" reality is different from yours.. yes? ;)

Oh, and as for how many gods there are.. I don't know, and I'm not really overly concerned about it. I have never met a god, and a god has not played -- that I know of -- a direct part in my path.

I will say this, though: if you were a god and had unlimited power, would creating humans and the earth impress you? Or would you be bored having an ant farm after a while... especially if "one human year" is a single day for you? Would it be fair for humans to live only once, and for the short time they're here, enjoy either eternal bliss or eternal damnation? Think about it; god is supposed to be immortal.. so human life is short by comparison.

Morever, consider this: if creation is the domain of a god, who created god? Was god always just there? I mean, did god just wake up one day and go, 'holy crap, I just created myself and almost missed my first Birthday, I better have a cup of coffee so I can deal with this!" Why would that be any more farfetched than the big bang, where energy and matter was "just there?"

I think, if there were a god.. or gods... that the most interesting thing you could do would be to make yourself lose ALL knowledge of the fact that you're a god, spread yourself out.. and "find yourself" again. Like, you know, maybe being a bunch of humans seeking enlightenment and when one human, one part of yourself reaches enlightenment... realizing: "I have Buddha/God/Allah/Vishnu/etc. nature already! I AM god nature!" =)

For what it's worth, strict (Theravada) Buddhism -- per the Pali Canon (Tripitaka) -- doesn't believe in a creator god, or at least, it is not addressed. What was addressed that even deities are subject to the three marks of existence: that they are impermanent (not immortal), subject to suffering (jealousy, rage, unhappiness, etc.) and like us, cannot be said to have a self (anicca). The sects of Buddhism that DO deify or archetype Buddha or the famous masters (Mahayana, Vajrayana, etc.) are mostly due to cultural trappings that stuck with those forms of Buddhism over time.

I hope that this has fully answered your questions, as I am pretty sure that I've done so many times already. Should you have any... ah.. more genuine questions or concerns, I can't speak for anyone else but I would be happy to answer them. However, I can only explain/debate the nature of reality so much before it gets irksome... and I don't think that I'm eager to do it all over again.

All the best in your quest,

-Rob AKA shadowmonkx

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

http://Domus-ulixes.gaia.com — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 08:22:05 GMT

It could very well be that, given the concepts of gods, that why not? Why should there be only one god, if gods could exist?
I hope you are doing well. ;)

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

http://mumsthoughts.gaia.com — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:39:24 GMT

To my knowledge, there is only one reality but certainly has many different ways on how to perceive such a matter of confidence, and is but another step into ones growth and capacity towards it's infinite wisdom.

If there is more of a structured reality in the heavens, would that not mean that there is more than one god?

To be a part of this infinite structure, is a classic case of finding ones self through this mass media of destruction, (earthly measures) that we are now dealing with.

Buddha is, and can be a complexive derogatory means to a measure, and is also a means to an end...if you get my drift. It aids in many ways of letting go; opens a channel of insightful means; crisps ones many mistakes of channels that were/are put into ones souls, and refines/renews a better way to understanding ones livelihood...enlightenment, in other-wards.

My doctrine also comes in many fashions. I move with enlightenment of other ways as well, in order to achieve my goals. Buddha, is but one of them, which I find is one of the big ones, and high on my list of others as well, such as, the Gnostic, and the Occult ways of religion. And please do not let the word "Occult" fool you....it is but a theosophical science of a structure to another means of insightful balance which I aid myself to, and not of an evil cult, by any means.

Thank you for listening, and may God Bless,
Rita

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

http://Domus-ulixes.gaia.com — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:00:18 GMT

And how do you exactly know that there is only one reality?
What are your arguments for that?

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

http://gardenplanetproject.gaia.com — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:39:14 GMT

Domus

Thank you for jumping back in ;-) I hate spending hours on a thread when the questor is setting people up to be wrong, then bat them down with their hidden agenda. It is a time-honored teacher's trick, but a waste of time in the adult world. We are not here to play party games!

Language can certainly a barrier to understanding!

Once it is seen there is really only one reality, then the words become very difficult, as language depends on distinction, carving things from the whole to compare and construct into ideology.

Which is why the intellect can't get to the One. It creates many relative "realities," which are actually hallucinatory, but unfortunately remain the state of human affairs, so heavily conditioned are we to believe whatever tripe the Mind cooks up.

But truly, only One thing is Happening right NOW.

catch it if you can!