buddhism and reality critic Options

[PANCHO]

Hi.

First post.

I just finished reading a book about Buddhism and I have crossed feelings. The book is called "Awakening the Buddha within.' It does make good points but when the author keeps repeating over and over that Buddhism is the Truth it puts me off. It is as if he thinks he "knows" and nobody else knows anything and is lost. They repeat this so many times that I had put the book 2/3s of the way through. He does no leave room for doubts and he does not question his conclusions. Either you accept or you don't know. This is being done in a smooth (slick) way, mixing good points, and then later jumping to pie in the sky conclusions that are kind of romantic idealizations to create a meaningful story.

Opinions?

[Joesus]

Hi.

First post.

I just finished reading a book about Buddhism and I have crossed feelings. The book is called "Awakening the Buddha within.' It does make good points but when the author keeps repeating over and over that Buddhism is the Truth it puts me off. It is as if he thinks he "knows" and nobody else knows anything and is lost. They repeat this so many times that I had put the book 2/3s of the way through. He does no leave room for doubts and he does not question his conclusions. Either you accept or you don't know. This is being done in a smooth (slick) way, mixing good points, and then later jumping to pie in the sky conclusions that are kind of romantic idealizations to create a meaningful story.

Opinions?

This would reveal that you have an opinion, and possibly a thing about absolute opinions.

[Flex]

Hi.

First post.

I just finished reading a book about Buddhism and I have crossed feelings. The book is called "Awakening the Buddha within.' It does make good points but when the author keeps repeating over and over that Buddhism is the Truth it puts me off. It is as if he thinks he "knows" and nobody else knows anything and is lost. They repeat this so many times that I had put the book 2/3s of the way through. He does no leave room for doubts and he does not question his conclusions. Either you accept or you don't know. This is being done in a smooth (slick) way, mixing good points, and then later jumping to pie in the sky conclusions that are kind of romantic idealizations to create a meaningful story.

Opinions?

My opinion is that the author does not understand Buddhism (at least how I understand it). Anyone that says they are a Buddhist is not a Buddhist IMO. To me Buddhism is all about finding your own path, and thus anyone who declares they are a Buddhist are not following the tenants You will find many Buddhists are self-righteous assholes (aren't we all?), but that does not mean there is anything wrong with the ideas themselves.

Pick up a copy of the Bhagavad Gita--I think you will enjoy it much more. I like Sir Edwin Arnold's translation.

[PANCHO]

The author sounds like a nice person (Asshole would not apply). I think he is really trying to do good but it sounds a little like the Jehovah witness. But my problem is that they repeat that their views are the real reality, and everybody else is dreaming. They call everybody else _ignorant_ and they just don't apply their own medicine to themselves. Who is the ignorant? To me, it sounds like a centrism, where they think that their ideas are the center of an idealized universe and the only way to salvation.

I got many other things to say but the thing about reality is the strongest one and the one that made me put the book away. I agree and I learned many other things reading the book so everything was not lost and I thank the author.

I don't want to bombard the forum with other critics other than reality, but if anybody ask I could.

In my opinion, there are many realities. From every point of view comes out a reality. But I don't go telling everybody they are ignorant claiming to save the planet or the souls. I admit that I can change my idea of reality if I found a better one. To me it is not written in stone and will not save anybody as there is nothing to be saved.

[Flex]

Sounds like you follow a pretty Buddhist path to me. It is all about moderation and modesty (which I myself do not poses lol). If someone claims to know an absolute truth, they probably missed the point

[PANCHO]

Sounds like you follow a pretty Buddhist path to me.

Why do you say that? Aren't you jumping to conclusions from one single post? Do you see me in the same level or do you maybe see me lost, and therefore someone that needs buddisht help?

I don't identify myself with Buddhism. Something you saw made you think I do. There are a few nuggets that I agree with, but for the most part, we are light years away. For example, if I see a spider in my couch, I would probably kill it, and I would not feel bad about the spider or about me. Too much good is bad. I don't look for justifications and I don't believe in karma and many other things.

[Flex]

Sounds like a true Buddhist to me. From what I can tell of the beliefs, one who follows their own path is a Buddhist, therefore if you follow the tenants of Buddhism you are not a Buddhist. So long as you are on a path of self discovery and seek greater wisdom, IMO you are a Buddhist.

[Joesus]

If someone claims to know an absolute truth, they probably missed the point

I don't agree. The absolute is tangible, and as the Truth beyond the relative, all relative truths emerge and return to the absolute.
There are many who cling to a personal experience or belief but it does not mean that they have missed the point but rather are still observing themselves and the point in determination of who or what will be the eternal point of reference and which will be temporary.

There are varying degrees of conscious awareness relative to an eternal point of reference and then there is the point of reference which stems from relative comparisons.
The world of the waking state individual is mostly anchored in a constantly changing comparative idealism, and uses that comparison to begin self evaluation. From there, in the discovery of the absolute unchanging point of reference which exists in all things, one can begin to unite themselves with all things and all life as a reflection of the absolute rather than the absolute as a reflection of the temporary personality.

[PANCHO]

I don't agree. The absolute is tangible, and as the Truth beyond the relative, all relative truths emerge and return to the absolute.

In my opinion, to capture-view reality is to make-create sense from a point of view. In the physical word, things can be static and tangible. But inside the mind, that is not the case. The human mind is different from the objects outside the mind. It is not fixed or static. So, reality is not something static, single or tangible. There is knowledge like math and science but they don't talk about the action of making sense (creating reality) from a living being.

[PANCHO]

Sounds like a true Buddhist to me. From what I can tell of the beliefs, one who follows their own path is a Buddhist

Then, from you definition, you see me as a Buddhist. That's OK with me.

[Joesus]

In my opinion, to capture-view reality is to make-create sense from a point of view. In the physical word, things can be static and tangible. But inside the mind, that is not the case. The human mind is different from the objects outside the mind. It is not fixed or static. So, reality is not something static, single or tangible. There is knowledge like math and science but they don't talk about the action of making sense (creating reality) from a living being.

To capture a reality is an illusion, because reality is reflection of creativity and it cannot be captured but acknowledged and integrated or pushed away. To make sense is relative since where the mind is at in the subjective and objective sense is going to be a lens one sees through; however when one lives with the awareness of the underlying nature of reality then what makes sense is that life is unfolding as awareness moves with desire/thought in reflection of desire/thought from the un-manifest absolute. The human nervous system is infinitely flexible and able to perceive the underlying nature of reality while experiencing the manifest reality as the experience of thought/desire.

[PANCHO]

But isn't what you just said an opinion about reality? Isn't 'reflection of creativity' a thought from your point of view?.

[Joesus]

But isn't what you just said an opinion about reality? Isn't 'reflection of creativity' a thought from your point of view?.

The universe is a reflection of consciousness. Each human individual a reflection of that same consciousness. Either you are aware of it or not.

[Flex]

Or you maybe be forced to be made aware of it in school (i.e. physics classes). You learn about the Laws of the Universe. Then 10 years latter, the Universe decides to make amendments to the constitution, and you have to learn a whole new set of "truths"

[Joesus]

Or you maybe be forced to be made aware of it in school (i.e. physics classes). You learn about the Laws of the Universe. Then 10 years latter, the Universe decides to make amendments to the constitution, and you have to learn a whole new set of "truths"

Relative truths are constantly changing.
Universal laws of creation are only changing in the new discoveries of changing beliefs.
What has always been still remains the same and the reality of that is tangible to human consciousness and always has been.
Some are taught of it, but it does not become the experience until human consciousness becomes expanded enough to include something other than the individual egoic perspective of separation from universal laws.

[PANCHO]

But isn't what you just said an opinion about reality? Isn't 'reflection of creativity' a thought from your point of view?.

The universe is a reflection of consciousness. Each human individual a reflection of that same consciousness. Either you are aware of it or not.

And what happens if people don't agree? Why would not agree be equal to not knowing? Isn't it room for tomorrow for a newer and better 'idea'?

[Flex]

I personally don't believe the Universe has its own truths figured out I also think Joesus might have it backwards. I believe the Universe is not a reflection of consciousness, but rather that consciousness is a reflection of the Universe. Consciousness defines the Universe we experience, but that does not necessarily mean consciousness alters the fundamental truth.

[Joesus]

But isn't what you just said an opinion about reality? Isn't 'reflection of creativity' a thought from your point of view?.

The universe is a reflection of consciousness. Each human individual a reflection of that same consciousness. Either you are aware of it or not.

And what happens if people don't agree?

You mean like when the people thought the world was flat? Could that have altered the shape of our sphere?

Why would not agree be equal to not knowing? Isn't it room for tomorrow for a newer and better 'idea'?

Better than what is real? Usually the only problem is misunderstanding and lack of experience. Then the mind wanders into its own ideals based on inexperience and ignorance.

[Joesus]

I personally don't believe the Universe has its own truths figured out I also think Joesus might have it backwards. I believe the Universe is not a reflection of consciousness, but rather that consciousness is a reflection of the Universe. Consciousness defines the Universe we experience, but that does not necessarily mean consciousness alters the fundamental truth.

You're thinking in terms of consciousness being defined by the limited space and time that exists in the life of a human brain.

[Flex]

Actually I was thinking of consciousness in terms of existence itself. Things exist and become aware of one another (such as the attractive force of "gravity" acting on masses). Gravity only exists because something is there. If something were not there for it to act on, it would not exist. Gravity defines the positions of the planets, but that does not mean it brought the mass into existence.

[PANCHO]

Better than what is real? Usually the only problem is misunderstanding and lack of experience. Then the mind wanders into its own ideals based on inexperience and ignorance.

Mental constructs are 'real' but in this case the references point to self made concepts (not even objects). So it is kind of arguing about the animal appearance of clouds. Your horse is real and so is the cow another person sees.

[Joesus]

Better than what is real? Usually the only problem is misunderstanding and lack of experience. Then the mind wanders into its own ideals based on inexperience and ignorance.

Mental constructs are 'real' but in this case the references point to self made concepts (not even objects). So it is kind of arguing about the animal appearance of clouds. Your horse is real and so is the cow another person sees.

Relatively speaking the mental constructs are real, however when one observes consciousness itself, within all mental constructs, what one witnesses is multidimensional levels of consciousness in action/activity, with the underlying absolute as still. They are all seen as one. This is what Vedic sciences speak of as consciousness and what western spirituality describes as the at-one-ment.

[PANCHO]

Relatively speaking the mental constructs are real, however when one observes consciousness itself, within all mental constructs, what one witnesses is multidimensional levels of consciousness in action/activity, with the underlying absolute as still. They are all seen as one. This is what Vedic sciences speak of as consciousness and what western spirituality describes as the at-one-ment.

You may be looking inside yourself for things you want. And in that search, you may be creating them. How do you know that what you witness is not something you seek? Isn't the absolute and still a desire originated when confronted with things that move? Doesn't seeking a special thing made you blind to other things?

[Dianah]

Hi.

First post.

I just finished reading a book about Buddhism and I have crossed feelings. The book is called "Awakening the Buddha within.' It does make good points but when the author keeps repeating over and over that Buddhism is the Truth it puts me off. It is as if he thinks he "knows" and nobody else knows anything and is lost. They repeat this so many times that I had put the book 2/3s of the way through. He does no leave room for doubts and he does not question his conclusions. Either you accept or you don't know. This is being done in a smooth (slick) way, mixing good points, and then later jumping to pie in the sky conclusions that are kind of romantic idealizations to create a meaningful story.

Opinions?

Poncho,

In your reading of Buddhism, you mentioned having mixed emotions regarding its philosophy. I’m sure it encompassed the premise of ‘the middle way’. What is your opinion on that concept?

I do like how you brought forth the necessity for discerning an authors (or anyone’s) intent and delivery. Truth can be found in all things, yet no ‘one thing’ holds absolute truth. Coz…in my book (which is in the constant state of being written and rewritten)…there is no such thing as absolute truth…an absolute… possibly…but no absolute truth…well…that is just my opinion.

[PANCHO]

Poncho,

In your reading of Buddhism, you mentioned having mixed emotions regarding its philosophy. I’m sure it encompassed the premise of ‘the middle way’. What is your opinion on that concept?

I do like how you brought forth the necessity for discerning an authors (or anyone’s) intent and delivery. Truth can be found in all things, yet no ‘one thing’ holds absolute truth. Coz…in my book (which is in the constant state of being written and rewritten)…there is no such thing as absolute truth…an absolute… possibly…but no absolute truth…well…that is just my opinion.

Sorry, I meant true emotions. I felt sorry about the critic (negative) and glad I learned new things (positive).

On the 'middle way' I assume you mean finding balance. In my opinion, the best view to take/assume depends on the circumstances. Sometimes it is better to act one way or another and always acting the same way can be bad. So always acting on the middle way could be bad depending on the circumstances. The ability to change/rotate your view according to the circumstances (context) would be the best. But usually that is not as clear as black and white, so you would have to decide what is most important to you, and then chose the best view to get the best outcome, probably making a compromise and losing something along the way but gaining something.

[Dianah]

Poncho,

In your reading of Buddhism, you mentioned having mixed emotions regarding its philosophy. I’m sure it encompassed the premise of ‘the middle way’. What is your opinion on that concept?

I do like how you brought forth the necessity for discerning an authors (or anyone’s) intent and delivery. Truth can be found in all things, yet no ‘one thing’ holds absolute truth. Coz…in my book (which is in the constant state of being written and rewritten)…there is no such thing as absolute truth…an absolute… possibly…but no absolute truth…well…that is just my opinion.

Sorry, I meant true emotions. I felt sorry about the critic (negative) and glad I learned new things (positive).

On the 'middle way' I assume you mean finding balance. In my opinion, the best view to take/assume depends on the circumstances. Sometimes it is better to act one way or another and always acting the same way can be bad. So always acting on the middle way could be bad depending on the circumstances. The ability to change/rotate your view according to the circumstances (context) would be the best. But usually that is not as clear as black and white, so you would have to decide what is most important to you, and then chose the best view to get the best outcome, probably making a compromise and losing something along the way but gaining something.

Poncho,

Thank you for your answer, I found it helpful.

If I am understanding you correctly, to implement balance is to be aware of the circumstances and act accordingly to those circumstances which will bring forth the best result. To fully implement this understanding one must realize that they are functioning in a dual world, and the pluses and minuses or negative and positives (if this law is understood) will bring forth ‘balance’. So, according to any given situation a negative response may bring about a desired outcome and vice versa. Thus something will be lost and something will be gained, creating balance. And this is done through a conscious manner, using critical thinking. Is this the essence of what you where saying?

I have a deeper question; if one is reacting through a subconscious pattern or belief system, they will usually respond in the same manner to a situation…how does one implement ‘balance’ within the psyche? Or, how does one over come a subconscious pattern, allowing for greater choice of responses?

[PANCHO]

If I am understanding you correctly, to implement balance is to be aware of the circumstances and act accordingly to those circumstances which will bring forth the best result. To fully implement this understanding one must realize that they are functioning in a dual world, and the pluses and minuses or negative and positives (if this law is understood) will bring forth ‘balance’. So, according to any given situation a negative response may bring about a desired outcome and vice versa. Thus something will be lost and something will be gained, creating balance. And this is done through a conscious manner, using critical thinking. Is this the essence of what you where saying?

I have a deeper question; if one is reacting through a subconscious pattern or belief system, they will usually respond in the same manner to a situation…how does one implement ‘balance’ within the psyche? Or, how does one over come a subconscious pattern, allowing for greater choice of responses?

What I was saying was that sometimes you may be better off not seeking balance. What you seek may depend more on the external circumstances than on yourself and internal balance may not matter that much. It depends.

There are two types of thoughts based on the role they play in the life of a person, ideas and believes. Believes is what reality is made of. Ideas are always conscious but believes don't have to. For example, someone can convince you by reasoning and you agree, but you don't really accept it because it conflicts with a believe. Believes sometimes cannot be verbalized. They come from culture or emerge from a mixed of other thoughts. Most of the time, they are not formed from the outcome of intellectual activity like reasoning. So to replace a believe by another believe (to replace a reality) is not easy. Sometimes indirect small details on something will trigger the change. Maybe even a perfume from someone passing by will make you see something different. So for a greater choice of responses, my guess is to try different things.

[Joesus]

You may be looking inside yourself for things you want. And in that search, you may be creating them. How do you know that what you witness is not something you seek? Isn't the absolute and still a desire originated when confronted with things that move? Doesn't seeking a special thing made you blind to other things?

Looking inside of ones self often reveals a myriad of things that are always changing, as well as something that is unchanging. When one ponders the mind that is constantly changing with beliefs and desires, one begins to wonder what one really wants when nothing temporary creates fulfillment but rather temporary satisfying moments and experiences that do not last.
In the search for Fulfillment that will outlast the temporary, one begins to gravitate toward the potential within ones Self that is the absolute, the unbounded, the stillness or the underlying nature of all things that are only temporary, like fruit on a tree moves toward ripening.
This relationship then begins to enhance all experiences revealing the more permanent nature of the Self which is creating the temporary experiences. Even the temporary experience of ones self as a mortal being with an average lifespan of a few short decades.
When one begins to witness ones Self as immortal and temporary at the same time, blindness is cured and one begins to really see.

In the words of Mother Meera, "When one becomes aware of ones divine nature, one begins to truly appreciate what it can mean to be human."

[PANCHO]

I can see and understand the appeal of looking for things that make one immortal. I respect that.

In the words of Mother Meera, "When one becomes aware of ones divine nature, one begins to truly appreciate what it can mean to be human."

Indeed, we all need meaning to live better. That is part of being human.

[Dianah]

If I am understanding you correctly, to implement balance is to be aware of the circumstances and act accordingly to those circumstances which will bring forth the best result. To fully implement this understanding one must realize that they are functioning in a dual world, and the pluses and minuses or negative and positives (if this law is understood) will bring forth ‘balance’. So, according to any given situation a negative response may bring about a desired outcome and vice versa. Thus something will be lost and something will be gained, creating balance. And this is done through a conscious manner, using critical thinking. Is this the essence of what you where saying?

I have a deeper question; if one is reacting through a subconscious pattern or belief system, they will usually respond in the same manner to a situation…how does one implement ‘balance’ within the psyche? Or, how does one over come a subconscious pattern, allowing for greater choice of responses?

What I was saying was that sometimes you may be better off not seeking balance. What you seek may depend more on the external circumstances than on yourself and internal balance may not matter that much. It depends.

There are two types of thoughts based on the role they play in the life of a person, ideas and believes. Believes is what reality is made of. Ideas are always conscious but believes don't have to. For example, someone can convince you by reasoning and you agree, but you don't really accept it because it conflicts with a believe. Believes sometimes cannot be verbalized. They come from culture or emerge from a mixed of other thoughts. Most of the time, they are not formed from the outcome of intellectual activity like reasoning. So to replace a believe by another believe (to replace a reality) is not easy. Sometimes indirect small details on something will trigger the change. Maybe even a perfume from someone passing by will make you see something different. So for a greater choice of responses, my guess is to try different things.

I agree, and I think that I understand…to some degree what you are sharing.

Beliefs are subconscious undercurrents and usually not known on a conscious level…but they are generally felt on a subtle level. If one can come into awareness of a belief…it can then be registered consciously… if… one aligns it to a ‘feeling/sensing’ that they have always had, but paid little or no attention to it, and pherhaps greater choice can then occur.

I agree it takes ‘great work’ to replace a belief with another one…it is not easy.

If I understand you correctly…beliefs are created through a sensing, and this sensing then runs through ones psyche as a subtle or underlying current that the mind then reasons with.

Interesting that beliefs are not conscious ‘things’…or ‘created’ through reasoning…what’s more interesting is that most think that they are.

People seem to be afraid of trying different things. I know I have encountered that. How does one try different things is they bump into a subconscious or conscious fear/belief?