Funstuff and Inspiration > Enlightening Conversations

Discussion in 'Funstuff and Inspiration' started by Larinda McRaven, Nov 2, 2008.

  1. bordertangoman

    bordertangoman Well-Known Member

    many years back I took these precepts- spontaneeously against my anarchic instincts

    they're a good way to to live and are different to vows as they are aspirations rather than rules. Then i realised I was too worrying about them so i let go of them becuase thats' how I live anyway.

    But this is Buddhist thinking about the dangers of dogma:

    "1. Openness

    Aware of the suffering created by fanaticism and intolerance, I am determined not to be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory or ideology, even Buddhist ones. Buddhist teachings are guiding means to help me learn to look deeply and to develop my understanding and compassion. They are not doctrines to fight, kill or die for."

    2. Non-attachment to Views

    Aware of suffering created by attachment to views and wrong perceptions, I am determined to avoid being narrow-minded and bound to present views. I will learn and practise non-attachment from views in order to be open to others’ insights and experiences. I am aware that the knowledge I presently possess is not changeless, absolute truth. Truth is found in life and I will observe life within and around me in every moment, ready to learn throughout my life.

    3. Freedom of Thought

    Aware of the suffering brought about when I impose my views on others, I am committed not to force others, even my children, by any means whatsoever – such as authority, threat, money, propaganda or indoctrination – to adopt my views. I will respect the right of others to be different and to choose what to believe and how to decide. I will, however, help others renounce fanaticism and narrowness through compassionate dialogue. "
  2. mamboqueen

    mamboqueen Well-Known Member

    Your book recommendations just enlightened me out of around $50! But I'm sure I'll be thanking you in a month or two :)
  3. fascination

    fascination Site Moderator Staff Member

    thank you for sharing this BTM
  4. DL

    DL Well-Known Member

    Borders between theology, philosophy, and science are after all not actually all that firmly defined. Advancement of thought in one historically has often gone hand-in-hand with like progress in the others.

    (As an aside, there's an offshoot of all three, "ethics," which I wish got more formal study, consideration, and attention in popular culture and education than it seems to get.)

    "Spritualism," I'm not quite sure how to think about in this context.

    At any rate, I was simply making the point that I don't think that contemplation of everyday moments -- and finding questions, answers, and learning thereby -- is something unique to Buddhism. There's a class of thought/belief systems that provide tools for this purpose; and there are also more trivial systems that rob such contemplation of its value.
  5. bordertangoman

    bordertangoman Well-Known Member

    i Have a sneaking suspicion that god is teasing scientists. I mean at one time the smallest thing was an atom, now its string theory. Once scientists have "proved" string theory, god will just add another layer.
  6. Larinda McRaven

    Larinda McRaven Site Moderator Staff Member

    I did not say (nor do buddhists) the Buddhism has all the answers. Daily life and interaction has the questions and the answers. Buddhisms is actually very much not about clinging or grasping to any one thing to solve your problems.
  7. nucat78

    nucat78 Active Member

    Excellent book.
  8. fascination

    fascination Site Moderator Staff Member

    and there is a rich history of contemplatives of all sorts of reilgious flavor if you will...old and new
  9. fascination

    fascination Site Moderator Staff Member

    and that, is why they call it a mystery
  10. fascination

    fascination Site Moderator Staff Member

    do you know how dangerous people would be if they were actually certain about things?????
  11. Or, all the layers are already there waiting to be discovered.

    That's one of the most profound questions in physics. Is there an ultimate smallest indivisible layer of "reality" (matter, space, and time), or is it an infinite regress? Current theory and research indicates that stuff on the scale of the Plank constant (~6.6 x 10^-34) is the final frontier. But it is always conceivable that it may be superceded by something else the way Einstein's relativy superceded Newton's mechanics.

    So my point is, ..., I don't know. It's been a long week.
  12. Angel HI

    Angel HI Well-Known Member

    I am certain of it. The Shinn, Walsh, and Williamson writings have made such huge impacts in my life, and in the lives of those whom I have counseled. Happy to objectively/unbiased discuss either of them along your journey...PM, e-, or call anytime. :)

    I am agreeing w/ you all the way. Wasn't making a contention...more an inclusion. Ethics, I believe, is not more formally studied b/c it is popular culture and education based. Spiritualism, esp. in this context, is very is the core of what defines us individually. Our belief/s in something/or not higher than ourselves is crux to all of our peripheral; developments...the books that we read, beliefs that we live by/share/teach, etc.
  13. Angel HI

    Angel HI Well-Known Member

    Enjoyed the link, and the above point, in particular of the 3.
  14. fascination

    fascination Site Moderator Staff Member

    I too cannot say enough good things about Williamson
  15. fascination

    fascination Site Moderator Staff Member

    I would also highly reccommend Anthony De Mello
  16. DL

    DL Well-Known Member

    Argh. I was trying to agree with your original statement in a more general way. I guess I typed sideways to the point I was trying to make.
  17. emeralddancer

    emeralddancer Active Member

  18. samina

    samina Well-Known Member

    Came up with a definition today for my son, who's currently exploring some of my reading material. My intention was to make the deified language he may come across more accessible to him, as we live in a non-religious (although very spiritual) home. I like what came to mind.

    “God” is the Substance of the universe, and the Principles by which it lives and creates.

  19. fascination

    fascination Site Moderator Staff Member

    some have been labelled heretics for that definition ;)
  20. DL

    DL Well-Known Member

Share This Page