buddhism

[vango]

first, i want to say that i belive in no religions. however, i am interested in the deep thoughts of them, like buddhism.

some people say that it is kinda mean religion, and people who believe it have nothing to do except chant. they misunderstand it.

first, only monks have to eat no meat, have no sex and of course do nothing evil. general belivers can eat meat, marry and do some other things that monks cannot do (but not evil)

about monks, i think every occupation has its regulations. for example, athletes have to do a lot of exercise, and therefore their muscles are even distorted by those exercise. but if you want to be a great man, you have to bear those sufferings. if a monk wants to be a master, he has to eat no meat, have no sex and chant every day. that's the rule

[seeker]

so what are you trying to say about it? i would be very interseted in this religion, but, living in judeo/christian America i cant really get a first person view on this as you may be able to in China.

so keep that in mind please, and tell us what this is about!

thanks man.

peace
seeker

[amuse]

in china? try your local health food store. :) they probably have info. and may mention meetings, retreats, all sorts of stuff. there are many different sects, after all. my childhood hairdresser was (is?) buddhist.
my brother is buddhist.
and america has much more to offer than judeo/christian churches and viewpoints, if you're interested; sometimes new age bookshops offer writings on every many different religions - as garland of letters here in philly does.

[crisaor]

Buddhism is not a religion, it's a philosophy. Buddha's teachings had nothing to do with the other world. They neither denied it nor accepted it, but instead chose to focus on this one, on how to overcome life's problems, to get rid of the miseries and impediments that prevent inner peace, to leave human desires behind, to achieve illumination and a permanent state of grace in life.
This doctrine was later on adopted by several regions, merging it with their local religions, but at its purest form, Buddhism remains a philosophy.

[amuse]

be that as it may, it's still categorized in bookstores under religion, and my brother does refer to his "religion" as buddhism.

maybe it's just simpler that way for the many of us who don't know any better. ;)

[seeker]

hmmm, thnx!

[Taliesin]

Buddhism is not a religion, it's a philosophy. Buddha's teachings had nothing to do with the other world. They neither denied it nor accepted it, but instead chose to focus on this one, on how to overcome life's problems, to get rid of the miseries and impediments that prevent inner peace, to leave human desires behind, to achieve illumination and a permanent state of grace in life.
This doctrine was later on adopted by several regions, merging it with their local religions, but at its purest form, Buddhism remains a philosophy.

Religion, philosophy - where does the border line go? Are those two things so completely separated that you can say for example: That's not cold, it's hot/ That's not a religion, that's philosophy.
I have heard that in buddhism, no gods are worshipped, but are gods the thing what makes a religion into a religion?

[vango]

buddhism thinks that suffering is an inseperable part of life, and it is caused by the self and worldly desire. if we want to get rid of all the sufferings, we have to get rid of dualism. let me put it in this way, we general people always think that something is good and something is bad, beautiful or ugly, big or small, etc. this kind of dualism causes our desire, for we then always want good things (not bad ones)

i hope i can say more. but it takes me quite a lot of time to write the above, for i dont know how to put my mind into english. it is bad that god made people from different places speak different languages.

and i don't know if i say it clearly. if not, please tell me, and i will try another time. thanks.



so what are you trying to say about it? i would be very interseted in this religion, but, living in judeo/christian America i cant really get a first person view on this as you may be able to in China.

so keep that in mind please, and tell us what this is about!

thanks man.

peace
seeker

[amuse]

it is bad that god made people from different places speak different languages.
i think you're doing fine! :) and who wants everyone the same anyway. differences are beautiful, and other languages are so pretty. although english is a beastly one to learn - you should hear the way some people here in the u.s. speak it! :nod:

[crisaor]

be that as it may, it's still categorized in bookstores under religion, and my brother does refer to his "religion" as buddhism.
maybe it's just simpler that way for the many of us who don't know any better. ;)
Could be. I have no real quarrel with that. Just stating my opinion, that's all. :)

Religion, philosophy - where does the border line go? Are those two things so completely separated that you can say for example: That's not cold, it's hot/ That's not a religion, that's philosophy.
If you ask for my opinion, then my answer is yes, there is a discernible line between them, although that doesn't mean they're incompatible. Philosophy deals with a variety of subjects in a much broader variety of ways. Religion has a set portfolio of subjects, and usually the way of dealing with them is pretty lineal. Besides, they do emphasize on different things. Philosophy is mainly about earthly concepts, on the other hand, religion mostly deals with those only with regards to the other world.

I have heard that in buddhism, no gods are worshipped, but are gods the thing what makes a religion into a religion?
Definitely. Are they the only thing? Not at all. Are they the most important part of it? Sometimes yes and sometimes no, it depends on the particular religion, although I perceive that the first case is more likely than the second one.

[vango]

thanks for your advice, amuse. i will try. but -i'm sorry i bother you -but how?

you should hear the way some people here in the u.s. speak it! :nod:

[amuse]

well...a lot of people use double negatives. "i ain't got no" is classic. they make me cringe! not as much as when i was a teenager, but still...

i guess really that's my main complaint. i know parents and family must talk like that, to raise someone to speak that way, and it makes me wonder, honestly, about their chances in the work force. for example, when interviewing, people generally look for those who express themselves properly. and it's not always easy to find people who can do so. regional things like "yous" - "how are yous?" used to bother me, but it's such a taste of home now to hear it, having been in california for three years (where i would say "like" is used far too often - as it is elsewhere - but it's not grammatically incorrect (someone tell me if i'm wrong here). still...for a year or two i thought "ewes" - we aren't sheep!

[vango]

thanks. you say that a lot of people double negatives. like "i ain't got no", does it mean "i havn't got"? but what about "it's not grammatically incorrect"? it has also double negatives, but it must mean it's correct.

i'm a little confused. is it the difference that the latter uses a prefix, while the other does not?


well...a lot of people use double negatives. "i ain't got no" is classic. they make me cringe! not as much as when i was a teenager, but still...

i guess really that's my main complaint. i know parents and family must talk like that, to raise someone to speak that way, and it makes me wonder, honestly, about their chances in the work force. for example, when interviewing, people generally look for those who express themselves properly. and it's not always easy to find people who can do so. regional things like "yous" - "how are yous?" used to bother me, but it's such a taste of home now to hear it, having been in california for three years (where i would say "like" is used far too often - as it is elsewhere - but it's not grammatically incorrect (someone tell me if i'm wrong here). still...for a year or two i thought "ewes" - we aren't sheep!

[amuse]

mmm...good point. i guess "it's not grammatically incorrect" is a stodgy, uptight way of saying something. i never thought of it like that. you'll see that in stories by writers who might be a tad pretentious. :eek: oops!

"i ain't got no", does it mean "i havn't got"?
it means exactly that. though technically it would mean "i do have some" much like the example above. :) which is why it's such an earsore.

[seeker]

i hope i can say more. but it takes me quite a lot of time to write the above, for i dont know how to put my mind into english. it is bad that god made people from different places speak different languages.

hey you are doing a fantastic job, i know i could not write anything is chinese or mandarin so you are doing far better than i would!

um, so lets get back to buddhism here. vango, what are the basic principles of buddhism? something about an eightfold path? do you practice only buddhism or do you combine what you know of world religions to better yourself? and how long have you been applying buddhist principles to your life?

peace
seeker

[vango]

yes, seeker, the eightfold path is part of the basic principles of buddhism. more precisely, the central foundation is the four noble truths: 1. life is unsatisfactory. 2. the course of this unsatisfactiness is within us (that we always think about ourselves), which is showed by our desire or thirst and ignorance. 3. we can get rid of sufferings in life by nirvana. 4. we have to overcome desire and ignorance before we can reach the state of nirvana, and the way is self-cultivation, which include 8 parts (the eightfold path): Right understanding, Right attitude , Right speech, Right action, Right livelihood, Right effort, Right concentration, Right awareness

as i have mentioned before, i belong no religions. so i don't practise buddhism. but i admire those principles in it. so i read books about it. and yes, i try to combine those prenciples with my life to better myself, although very difficult in the world.

i have learned buddhism for 2 years, that is i began when i entered university. ma parents believe it, so i have some vague idea about it since i was very young.

[rocksea]

some people say that it is kinda mean religion, and people who believe it have nothing to do except chant. they misunderstand it.

first, only monks have to eat no meat, have no sex and of course do nothing evil. general belivers can eat meat, marry and do some other things that monks cannot do (but not evil)

about monks, i think every occupation has its regulations. for example, athletes have to do a lot of exercise, and therefore their muscles are even distorted by those exercise. but if you want to be a great man, you have to bear those sufferings. if a monk wants to be a master, he has to eat no meat, have no sex and chant every day. that's the rule

just day before yesterday i met a buddhist monk. he ate meat with me, he had liquor as well. he is married and has 2 children. yet he is compassionate and soft and smiling at heart. even dalai lama takes meat sometimes. those things aren't the top evils of buddhism. Buddhism's principal tenets is more into compassion and nonviolence, cruelty to animals--and to all forms of life--is discouraged. vegetarianism, a common practice among many Buddhists, makes good sense; it is a way to practice nonviolence and kindness as well as gain health benefits.

buddhism is one kind of lifestyle i admire!!


http://in.geocities.com/roxymathew

[rocksea]

vango, am very much interested in learning about chinese outlook on buddhism and how different it is from tibetan buddhism. does the government has any restrictions on practising buddhism in china? in applications and other forms, do u have a coloumn where u have to speficfy ur religion? it wud be great if you share such aspects as much of them are unknown to people outside.


http://in.geocities.com/roxymathew

[vango]

vango, am very much interested in learning about chinese outlook on buddhism and how different it is from tibetan buddhism. does the government has any restrictions on practising buddhism in china? in applications and other forms, do u have a coloumn where u have to speficfy ur religion? it wud be great if you share such aspects as much of them are unknown to people outside.
http://in.geocities.com/roxymathew

rocksea, chinese government neither encourage nor forbid people to believe buddhism. but in our textbook do not concern people who believe it, that is to say, it sometimes say that religion is oppisite of science and it is not right for us young people to believe any religion. restrictions? it is forbidden to preach buddhism in pulic.

i hope that some day i can estabish a column or something like that to introduce chinese religion and culture and also my understanding of culture of other countries. for now, i will, as some one in general literature forum says, leave my mark in those forums. and if you have any questions, please write them down here or send me a message or an email. i will be glad to answer them.

btw, are you japanese? i am now studying japanese.

[seeker]

yes, seeker, the eightfold path is part of the basic principles of buddhism. more precisely, the central foundation is the four noble truths: 1. life is unsatisfactory.
2. the course of this unsatisfactiness is within us (that we always think about ourselves), which is showed by our desire or thirst and ignorance.
3. we can get rid of sufferings in life by nirvana.
4. we have to overcome desire and ignorance before we can reach the state of nirvana, and the way is self-cultivation,
which include 8 parts (the eightfold path):
Right understanding,
Right attitude ,
Right speech,
Right action,
Right livelihood,
Right effort,
Right concentration,
Right awareness...


i have learned buddhism for 2 years, that is i began when i entered university. ma parents believe it, so i have some vague idea about it since i was very young.

Do you now of the Insights? I believe this may only have to do with Tibetan Budhism, but i have to ask. And if so, is the eightfold path the first 8 Insights?

one last thing. Where can i find teachings that go into greater depth on the meaning of the eightfold path? Thank you again!


peace

[rocksea]

btw, are you japanese? i am now studying japanese.

no, am an indian now in japan.. yep, enjoy the japanese lessons!! is it part of ur studies or u r studying it for ur own satisfaction? the speaking part is easy. there are lotsa scripts but which make reading/writing a bit difficult.

[byquist]

Vango, Interesting to hear first-hand how Buddhism is allowed and dis-allowed in your country. Here (USA in my case) we are allowed basically any stream of thought that catches our fancy, as long as it does not become a danger to others. We also have interesting folks, like Alan Watts, personal life aside, who started with a combination of Christianity and Eastern religions, and wrote quite a few books. Also for instance, C.S. Lewis, Christian-based, knew plenty about Eastern thought. Another name comes to mind who wrote two books at least, Charlotte Joko Beck, out of San Diego. And, have you seen the film, "Seven Years in Tibet"? Can you see such a film in China?

[Sitaram]

One of the best lines in that movie, "Seven Years in Tibet," is when the Tibetan woman says to the mountain climber, "You westerners strive to conquer mountains, but we strive to conquer the self." (paraphrasing from memory)

[Turtlemother]

As I understand it, there are 3 basic schools of Buddhism,; Hiniyana, Mahayana, and Vajrayana......the Vajrayana being supposedly the most advanced practice.The Vajrayana was/is practiced mostly in Tibet, and Mongolia, parts of Russia, and now after the annexing of Tibet by China , the whole world. There are many Varjrayana teachers here in the United States, especially the East Coast, and California, Oregon and Arizona,Washington State. It has a large following now in Europe, The style of Vajrayana as practiced in Tibet, as far as I am concerned, is based on the older religion of Bon, which is also making its presence known in the United States.and elsewhere. You can find out a great deal of information online ( try Google) re Buddhism, its origins, also about Bon, which I have recently discovered .....the practice of Buddism is beautifully stated in given in one practice book called The Buddha Path..check it out,,,
here is something of the quality of Vajrayana Buddhsim ( Nyingma)
"When I am troubled, I am happy to practice fearless peace,
When I am sick, I am happy to purify negative thinking,
When I am healthy, I am happy to accumulate merit.

When I am dying, I am happy to pray for Enlightenment,
When I am living, I am happy to serve sentient beings.

When I am rich, I am happy to offer generously,
When I am poor, I am happy to be content.
When I am old, I am happy to rest in joy.

When I am sleeping, I am luminosity.
When I am awake, I am awareness
When I am practicing, I am composed.
When I am composed, I am peaceful.

When I am peaceful, I am joyful.
When I am joyful, I am Buddhist.

When the Vajra Master is in my mind,
I am a dharma practioner.
When I realize Dzogchen Rigpa,
I am Dzogchen practioner
OM PADMO USHINKA BIMALA HUNG P'HET "
The Buddha Path

"

[Turtlemother]

oh, Sitatram... for movies about Tibet, try "Kundun".....wonderful...

[vango]

Vango, Interesting to hear first-hand how Buddhism is allowed and dis-allowed in your country. Here (USA in my case) we are allowed basically any stream of thought that catches our fancy, as long as it does not become a danger to others. We also have interesting folks, like Alan Watts, personal life aside, who started with a combination of Christianity and Eastern religions, and wrote quite a few books. Also for instance, C.S. Lewis, Christian-based, knew plenty about Eastern thought. Another name comes to mind who wrote two books at least, Charlotte Joko Beck, out of San Diego. And, have you seen the film, "Seven Years in Tibet"? Can you see such a film in China?

In China we are also allowed any religion like Christianity, Islam, Buddhism etc. But it is not allowed to preach them in public. We can preach them at home or temples but not in streets, schools, or such public places.

I haven't seen or even heard that film. Chinenes goverment controls the whole media. It keeps anything zipped that goes against it. What is it about?

[vango]

I searched the film "Seven Years in Tibet" at google, and read the plot of it. It seems good. Does anyone know where I can read its script (I know I have no way to see the film)?

[IWilKikU]

www.script-o-rama.com has scripts and transcripts of every movie I've ever had to look up, and it has links to others.

[baddad]

*realizes Vango's lack of true freedom.....mourns its absence*

[subterranean]

Say, aren't you afraid that the officials might come to your house and questioned you? Cause the govt also controls the internet ;)..Who knows, they might trace your IP address and taking you in for writing something subversive about China Govt..

Didn't they also ban the movie Red Corner?


I haven't seen or even heard that film. Chinenes goverment controls the whole media. It keeps anything zipped that goes against it. What is it about?

[vango]

Not that terrible, hehe. Goverment don't interfere in personal affairs.
Say, aren't you afraid that the officials might come to your house and questioned you? Cause the govt also controls the internet ;)..Who knows, they might trace your IP address and taking you in for writing something subversive about China Govt..

Didn't they also ban the movie Red Corner?

[subterranean]

Well isn't movie also about personal affair?

My friend wrote a thesis about China's internet policy, about how the govt controls public internet access..So...who knows ;)

[vango]

Yes it is. but we just cannot buy some movies in China's mainland. If I buy it in other place, I can watch it in my home.

[iain]

Buddhism is not a religion, it's a philosophy. Buddha's teachings had nothing to do with the other world. They neither denied it nor accepted it, but instead chose to focus on this one, on how to overcome life's problems, to get rid of the miseries and impediments that prevent inner peace, to leave human desires behind, to achieve illumination and a permanent state of grace in life.
This doctrine was later on adopted by several regions, merging it with their local religions, but at its purest form, Buddhism remains a philosophy.

I'm pretty sure buddhism refers to an afterlife. (nirvana)

[crisaor]

I'm pretty sure buddhism refers to an afterlife. (nirvana)
No. Nirvana is a state in which peace of mind is attained, where one detachs himself from the burdens of life, but there's nothing otherwordly about it, Buddha sought to achieve it in life.

[Miss Darcy]

Cris is right about Nirvana...though I suppose you could view reincarnation as a kind of "afterlife"...and if you attain Nirvana after a number of reincarnations....maybe...hmmm...

(Sorry if that was rather disorganised - I'm far too excited/sleepy/hungry to think properly :D)

[Avalive]

[QUOTE=crisaor]Buddhism is not a religion, it's a philosophy. QUOTE]


Nod...

[Bongitybongbong]

ahhh...Buddhism...my favorite philosophy. Even if your family is Catholic or whatever you are still allowed to go unlike most religions. (if i'm wrong i'm sorry)

[wrapped_zeal]

I think a lot of views here are personal opinions or misunderstanding of what Buddhism really is. Firstly the Buddhist faith calls itself by many names depending on which faction one is studying. The only reason all these schools or sects are generalized as "Buddhism" is because obviously Buddha plays a central role with respect to endoctrinating these texts via his recorded teachings.

Buddhism is not extremely rational nor is it the peaceful religion many see it to be. I suggest if any individual claims to know or practice Buddhism they look at the fundamental texts of Mahayana for violence, Vajrayana for incest and Hinayana for misogynism. I have read the sanskrit texts as many who have been educated in the ancient language. My understanding is that the deeper more esoteric practices are dark in nature and the whole concept or propaganda that stemmed to Zen, Chinese Buddhism and Nepali Buddhism are just a mixture of personal beliefs, the overt propaganda and also local philosophy.

The fact of the matter is that the fundamental, the most basic and the oldest scriptures of Buddhism are very disturbing and the whole picture individuals like the Dalai Lama place may also be in contradiction to these scriptures however may not be false as it is coming from the public spokesperson (not leader) of a sect (not the most well known) of Mahayana Buddhism. The leader of this is the Karmapalama Lama the actual preceptor to what I call the "Dark Knowledge"

Please refer to Maha Kala Samhita, Hevajra Tantra, Vajrayogini Samhita and Shambhala Uddharnava.

[~K~]

Japan maybe,
Perhaps go to a local Buddish Temple or speak with someone who has completed their language classes and working toward and living the path.
Look online there are many wonderful sites in which it will give you the basic tenants.
It is more of a way and devotion than a restricting religion .
The chants have meaning and represent prayers, the action and disciplines are a way of finding joy. Buddha knew what it was to be wealthy and have status, it was not until he came upon an old suffering person did he choose the Spiritual path,
before that he was unaware of the suffering.

[Zippy]

I have a very deep respect and fondness for both Buddhism and Taoism. During my younger years I read a great deal about both religions (if I can use that term) and they provided comfort to me during some hard times. I never went down the ‘formal’ route – Scotland isn’t known for its Buddhist or Taoist temples – but did participate in guided mediation and practiced Tai-chi Chuan for many years.

Strangely, what offered most comfort was the notion that the ‘self’ doesn’t really exist. The person you think you are (insert name here), is a fabrication, cobbled together from external influences, memories, emotions and a million other things – there is no fixed, unfaltering you. ‘You’ don’t really exist. When you die that’s it. The end.

I have no doubt that ‘enlightenment’ exists as I’ve experienced satori while meditating on the koan ‘What was your face before you were born?’ But the dedication and force of will it takes to achieve it is staggering, and far beyond anything I could ever achieve. The truly great thing about Buddhism is that it is the only religion that offers a way out (away from suffering) through one’s own efforts – not at the whim of a deity or some other supernatural force.

[Sitaram]

I have a very deep respect and fondness for both Buddhism and Taoism. During my younger years I read a great deal about both religions (if I can use that term) and they provided comfort to me during some hard times. ...

Strangely, what offered most comfort was the notion that the ‘self’ doesn’t really exist. The person you think you are (insert name here), is a fabrication, cobbled together from external influences, memories, emotions and a million other things – there is no fixed, unfaltering you. ‘You’ don’t really exist. When you die that’s it. The end.


Reading this reminded me of an attempt I once made to explain my understanding of karma and the illusion of self in terms of billiard balls:

(excerpt)

Happiness is a conscious choice.

It is not clear that absence of sorrow is equivalent to happiness (or joy)

I don't think that everyone who is unhappy is depressed in the medical sense of the word, (in fact I see that as another brand of popular rhetoric.)

I don't think that it is "natural" to be happy, and unnatural or an illness to be unhappy.

Buddhism teaches that everything is impermanent, temporary, subject to decay.

But is Nirvana itself permanent? Does a being that has attained Nirvana remain in Nirvana indefinitely?

If so, what makes Nirvana the one permanent state in an ever changing universe. If not, if Nirvana does not last, what is the point of attaining it?

If everything is "nothingness", then why does morality exist? If notions such as "life" and "death" are expressions of delusion, why should it then be "bad" to kill a living creature?

If my feeling of being an "I" is an illusion - does this mean I'm not utterly responsible for my actions? In other words, if I is an illusion, the no-self of anatman, then what is it which suffers or enjoys the fruits of karma, karmic consequences.

The best explanation of the relationship between karma, an-atman (no soul) and rebirth which I have ever seen is via the analogy to billiard balls. We see upon a pool table a group of balls racked up to form a triangle. It is natural for us to speak of "the triangle", even though we know that there is really no actual triangle, but only the illusion of a gestalt of separate objects which forms the "constellation" of a triangular shape. Remember that the illusion which we call "self" is actually a gestalt or bundle of "skandas". We may also, if we choose, liken the collection of billiard balls to a collection of "pixels" in a magazine or computer image. We see a "person" depicted in the image, possibly even the image of a beautiful model which might have a sexually arousing effect on the beholder. And yet, under a magnifying glass, we see that the arousing photo is merely a collection of dots or "pixels" of the primary colors (so that even shades of secondary colors is an "illusion").

Now, returning to the pool table analogy, let us say that someone takes their pool cue and strikes a billiard ball, sending it hurling towards the racked "triangle" with a certain spin, velocity and direction (and we may liken this event to the karmic consequences of an act, or we may liken the on-coming billiard ball to an individual whose "spin", "velocity" and "direction" is the karmic tone which they have established by their life-choices, their "personality" if you will). Now, the on-coming billiard ball strikes the triangular, racked gestalt of billiard balls, and send them flying in various directions with their own varying spins and velocities. Having struck the "triangle", the cue-ball eventually comes to rest. If we think of the individual cue-ball (white ball) as an individual "person" and the coming to rest as the death of that individual, we see that the karmic consequences of that individual have "set into motion" other "individuals" who bear the karmic nature wrought by the "deceased" individual, expressed as various spins, directions and velocities of the other billiard balls. In reality, there is no individual soul or atman which passes on in reincarnation. Yet, a similar gestalt of an individual (albeit illusory individual) and come into being, to repeat the karmic process.

Now, let us examine our billiard-ball-pool-table analogy with regard to the question of absolute vs relative morality as well as with regard to the question of the permanence or impermanence of Nirvana. In order to do this, I would like to refer to something which Sitaram has posted at various times with regard to the notion (expressed by Steven Hawking and others) of black holes in the universe as containing within (beyond the event horizon) other universes (Riemannian time-space continuums expanding from an initial "big bang" and subject to the laws of thermodynamics). These are difficult concepts (and Sitaram is barely equipped to comprehend and explain them, not being a mathematical physicist).

If we examine the black hole from our vantage point (and to my knowledge, no one has yet experimentally identified an actual black hole), it seems like an a finite thermodynamic endpoint, possibly the size of our moon, or possibly much smaller).

We know that the laws of thermodynamics predict a final state of maximum entropy (disorder) which is like a cold death of a universe (no more potential energy is left for events to happen). And yet, from a totally DIFFERENT perspective, BEYOND the event horizon of this black hole (inside it if you will), another big bang is taking place, and the history of the dead universe is repeating itself, with gaseous clouds condensing to stars, stars throwing off orbiting planets, and planets evolving life and consciousness and self- consciousness.

The "pool table" and the rules of the game are "conditional and transient" and yet are binding upon the billiard balls as their action plays itself out to its final conclusion. The "rules" and the design of the "table" are analogues to moral and ethical constraints and laws in our lives which may seem "absolute" (and perhaps in some sense are absolute in the context of our particular lifetime) and yet are relative and conditional and transient in the grand scheme of things.

It would also be helpful if the reader had some foundation in the writings of Hegel (in particular, "The Phenomenolgy of Spirit", which ends with the moving verse from Shiller "The chalice of this realm of spirits foams forth to God His own infinitude). I especially have in mind Hegel's concept of the "flower of philosophies" unfolding, which he describes as "a coming to be and a passing away which ITSELF does NOT come to be and pass away).

I invite the reader to try to see how the concept of Nirvana might be permanent from one aspect, and transitory from another. From the "outside" the black hole is an extinguished "nothing", and yet on the inside, it is teaming with the "samsara" of a new universe. In a similar fashion, the "rules of the game" of billiards are in one sense relative, conditional and transient, but in another sense absolute.

Traditional Buddhism (in all its forms, and especially in its original, or classical, formulation) is based upon an analysis of conditional existence. And that analysis is associated with two key propositions. The first of these two key propositions is that the fundamental characteristic of conditional existence (or conditional being) is (inherently, and necessarily) that of suffering. And the second of these two key propositions is that suffering (and, therefore, conditional existence, or conditional being, itself) can be made to cease (or to become uncaused).

Conditional existence is always only conditionally existing (or existing only as a caused effect), no form or state of conditional existence is permanent (or eternally existing), and no conditionally existing thing or conditionally existing being substantively exists independently, or separately, or separably, or absolutely (as if it were not a caused and temporary and utterly dependently arising effect).

Traditional Buddhist Dharma is (in any of its forms) a philosophically proposed method for the elimination (or the uncausing) of desire.

It is the West's failure to understand duality, which leads to the folly of trying to eliminate evil, and have only good, eliminate poverty and have only wealth, or convert all people to one true faith, in one lifetime.

[PistisSophia]

Zen Buddhism is cool. It really helps to learn to be here now, not to put too much faith in "things" and clear out your head.

[pea]

I have a very deep respect and fondness for both Buddhism and Taoism. During my younger years I read a great deal about both religions (if I can use that term) and they provided comfort to me during some hard times. I never went down the ‘formal’ route – Scotland isn’t known for its Buddhist or Taoist temples – but did participate in guided mediation and practiced Tai-chi Chuan for many years.....

how amazing! you practiced Tai-chi Chuan!
i really appreciate your way of using the "Religion".
i myself read some about Buddism but few about Taoism. my grandma and mom are buddhists, or so they believe themselves to be. but i find their beliefs quite different from what i learned from the books. they kinda mix Buddhism, Taoism and a lot of local legends together, and that confused me.
the funnist thing is that once in a temple, i saw Mao shrined.

[Karuna]

– Scotland isn’t known for its Buddhist or Taoist temples –

What about Samye Ling, the HQ of the Karma Kagyu school in Britain. There are ' least two other local groups (in Edinburgh & Dundee I think) which a good Buddy of mine in Dumfermline used before he went to samye ling where he ordained earlier this year!
:thumbs_up