|
Dr.Caligari posted:Since his recent announcement, I think this question is relevant, It's undesirable because it's not as easy to attain enlightenment or practice Dharma as an animal. For an enlightened being, this is not as much of a problem. For a high lama, taking such a rebirth would be an opportunity to practice in another form, with strong karmic connections ensuring that they would still be able to benefit sentient beings and practice Dharma in that life or another.
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 22:50 |
|
|
Tautologicus posted:More like I recognize what it's saying if it's saying anything at all. It's not a puzzle to be solved exactly. It says everything completely upfront. The Heart Sutra is emptiness, and the words in it are relative and empty as well. If you stop at "well it says there's no ear to hear I guess I am deaf" then you are being equally ignorant as if you start going "but what does it really mean surely this is metaphor!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:The Heart Sutra is emptiness, and the words in it are relative and empty as well. If you stop at "well it says there's no ear to hear I guess I am deaf" then you are being equally ignorant as if you start going "but what does it really mean surely this is metaphor!" Ya I think people make the word "emptiness" do too much work but otherwise I agree.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
Tautologicus posted:Ya I think people make the word "emptiness" do too much work but otherwise I agree. Personally I like "Void" "Voidness" and "Void nature" but this is not typical usage I think, and regardless it's all just  The critical point here to avoid a huge error with the Heart Sutra and the term "emptiness" and all those "there are no _____" lines is avoiding nihilism. Gampopa said, "believing in essentialism is stupid like cattle, but believing in nihilism is even more stupid." This is because there is an easy antidote for essentialism in the demonstration of emptiness, but it is impossible to reason someone back from a position of nihilism. So it is important to be very careful with taking this literally. Again, the "face value" interpretation of "there is no this, there is no that" is still a dualistic trap. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Sep 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
Keep in mind that the expansion of all-as-emptiness doesn't hold to all traditions, and the way you're presenting it is horrendously misguided in my opinion. Handwaving the entire Heart Sutra's content to be about emptiness then just going around saying "everything is empty" to the point of Nihilism including the dismissal of teachings. I think Paramemetic is being overly generous in assuming you're not a crazy person but at the very least I might kindly ask you not to present your interpretation as prime when it only covers a few schools of Buddhism and when you seem to be presenting yourself as having some degree of knowledge that surpasses even that of monks.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Personally I like "Void" "Voidness" and "Void nature" but this is not typical usage I think, and regardless it's all just I prefer negating specific ideas and thoughts. Because even to negate generally is its own kind of construction. "There is no reality" for example. It begs the question. And sets one up to have to explain much more than one is able to, due to being a limited human being of limited ability and sensory perception and so on. Personally, when I wrote "there is no enlightenment in the present moment either" here before, it was very helpful to me to look back on it later. My mind races towards "but there must be some construction that's solid" and that kind of thing stops it. Paramemetic posted:The critical point here to avoid a huge error with the Heart Sutra and the term "emptiness" and all those "there are no _____" lines is avoiding nihilism. Gampopa said, "believing in essentialism is stupid like cattle, but believing in nihilism is even more stupid." Are you telling me or are you telling yourself. Nihilism is essentially "nothing exists" and I never said that. I am saying specific things don't exist. Things in their totality could never exist in the first place. A person extrapolates all the individual things and assumes they lead up to some big thing (Reality). Nihilism is saying "nothing exists but it ought to". I'm not even touching Reality as existent or not. I am talking about individual ideas and things. Nihilism is the bummer of thinking Reality ought to exist but logically deciding that it doesn't. I am saying it doesn't exist and doesn't need to, but it isn't even relevant to talk about it. What is relevant is the specific things in front of our faces. Some people think they've seen Reality (all these non-dual people). Who is anyone to tell them otherwise. the worst thing is fucked around with this message at 04:10 on Sep 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
The issue of negating things is that it is straight up refuted by there being a thing. You can say "there is no wall" all you want but when you bonk your nose into it it sure seems real. If, at the same time, you say there absolutely is a wall, then you are equally misguided, look at how relative that wall is, lacking any essential wall-nature. I think I posted a video of Holiness the Gyalwang Drukpa a few pages back, he talks about this exact point for quite a while. Check it out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:The issue of negating things is that it is straight up refuted by there being a thing. You can say "there is no wall" all you want but when you bonk your nose into it it sure seems real. If, at the same time, you say there absolutely is a wall, then you are equally misguided, look at how relative that wall is, lacking any essential wall-nature. The world you create for yourself, the world of ideas and thoughts about the world, creates the idea of the wall for you and me and everyone else who is still lost in confusion. Looking at a wall and you think you know what it is, and depending on your background that you might know a thing or two about walls. To say "there is no wall" is to negate these ideas we have about it and to admit we don't know a drat thing about it (except when we have to), and that there is no one to know anything about it. But when the time comes, like the time that we have to not bump our nose on it, that knowledge appears.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
Tautologicus posted:Are you telling me or are you telling yourself. I'm telling it generally because the logical conclusion people draw when they are told a thing does not exist is to assume a thing does not exist. Saying "this doesn't exist" "that doesn't exist" "ears don't exist" "eyes don't exist" and so on, so on, leads one to conclude things don't exist. This is erroneous in the relative sense. It is, ultimately, absolutely true, because it is not possessed of any essential, intrinsic nature. But it's wrong to say that computers don't exist and I don't exist when it's very clear that in a relative sense, I am typing on a computer. It may only relatively exist, but it does exist relatively. I am not trying to tell you or tell myself, though. I am generally clarifying because there is some consternation on the point, and I am putting my feeble understanding out there. If someone benefits from it, good, and I hope I do not mislead anyone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:I'm telling it generally because the logical conclusion people draw when they are told a thing does not exist is to assume a thing does not exist. Saying "this doesn't exist" "that doesn't exist" "ears don't exist" "eyes don't exist" and so on, so on, leads one to conclude things don't exist. This is erroneous in the relative sense. It is, ultimately, absolutely true, because it is not possessed of any essential, intrinsic nature. But it's wrong to say that computers don't exist and I don't exist when it's very clear that in a relative sense, I am typing on a computer. It may only relatively exist, but it does exist relatively. Alright I think that's a pretty low common denominator if you are worried about people freaking out about not existing. We all have some idea of our own existence and we are all trying to find out what that means and what to do with it and why this is all happening, or at least to pursue what is in front of us, or what we realize we like to do and so on. It would be difficult to tell someone that their lived experience does not exist, because it obviously does (it is all we experience). The world does exist, but it's our thoughts and feelings about it that may not be as solid. And mistaking our thoughts and feelings for the world is the suffering I think. I would venture to say that that is what the Heart Sutra is about, but I am open to other ways of putting it. I have personally been surprised at how much of my personal experience has turned out to be thought and feeling.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
Tautologicus posted:Alright I think that's a pretty low common denominator if you are worried about people freaking out about not existing. I'm not worried about people "freaking out" about not existing, I'm worried about people thinking "not existing" is a correct viewpoint. It is not, "not existing" is a dualistic illusion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:I'm not worried about people "freaking out" about not existing, I'm worried about people thinking "not existing" is a correct viewpoint. It is not, "not existing" is a dualistic illusion. Slight de-rail: What would a Buddhist hypothetically say to someone who was freaking out about not existing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
Frykte posted:Slight de-rail: What would a Buddhist hypothetically say to someone who was freaking out about not existing? "Breathe." ? I mean that's what I would say?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
Tautologicus posted:Nothing about the Heart Sutra is tongue in cheek. You can imagine many Buddhist teachers reciting it with kind of a knowing self-satisfaction, because they think they know what it means. They have no idea. No one has any idea. "Having an idea" in this context is suffering itself. The Heart Sutra is completely literal. The Bhagavan Sakyamuni posted:“Listen well, O companions, for bodhisattva mahāsattvas who are beginners one must explain the six perfections with a reference point, with the notion that suchness is expressible. That is to say, they must understand the nature of the great elements to be arising and perishing. Only then should they familiarize themselves with the idea that all phenomena are in essence inexpressible, non-arising, non-ceasing, not perceptible, and not in the slightest way existing." You will be very hard pressed to find a learned teacher in mahayana that assumes the heart sutra is anything short of literal: but there is still meaning in it, meaning that must be dissected, that must be understood. It is likewise the word and truth of the dharma, the very essence and heart of dharma, that there are concepts which require understanding. The essence of Dharma is incapable of being expressed in words clearly and perfectly. "Law" is fairly close, don't misunderstand me. However, so important are a host of sutras that the faith could begin and end with any of them. Teachers are hugely requisite, as is a sort of coming to terms or understanding the sutra. It is also difficult to know it very well in english, I would recommend looking at a closer derivation linguistically- at least to the sanskrit source. "Na duhkhasamudayanirodhamarga. Na jnanam, Na praptir Na-apraptih" is far more adept and accurate than it is to say it's all a profound emptiness. I cannot understate how very important it is to approach it understanding that a teacher, that traditions that have undergone centuries of inquiry and trial and composition of philosophy probably have a more apt understanding than novitiates on the internet, yourself included. I would worry that there is a fair bit of dismissal here of exactly those traditions or understandings because of personal assumptions and attachments. Keep well in mind that our own thoughts are neither trustworthy nor verifiable sources of insight without outside input. These thoughts are afflicted by all the kleshas that can mitigate personal understandings, having a sangha or a teacher is fantastically important. Even if that teacher is part of a religion. One that has mystic attachments :v
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
I agree that a translation closer to the original textual intent is probably very valuable. About the rest, yes I suppose that is good advice anyone reading this thread trying to learn about Buddhism. For me personally, I already had a teacher, a well known one in fact, whom I have talked about earlier in this thread. In the end he had nothing to tell me, and recently I have come to the conclusion that anything I thought I learned directly from him I was actually learning from myself, I just thought I couldn't by myself. Modern Buddhists in the West and even around the world probably, presuppose that there is this objective world to be learning about that will have something to do with you when it is figured out. But all you can ever do is learn about yourself, through yourself. It all happens within you. Where else could it happen? All of your sensory perceptions have to do with this body and this mind. Basically, all a teacher can ever do is tell you about yourself. If you think he can tell you about yourself better than you can, great. If you think you can tell yourself about yourself better, fine. Anyway I like these posts, better than the usual gossip. I personally am not a big fan of gossip, even if it has spiritual twinges.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 07:35
|
|
|
Tautologicus, you don't really know anything about Buddhism and while it's cool if you want to participate it'd be pretty neat if you took your personal spiritual journey away from Buddhism to be either more of a "this is my own whackjob opinion" or maybe make a general spirituality thread because some of what you're posting is actively detrimental to people who are interested in Buddhism if they listen to you thinking you're an authority of any kind at all.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 07:48
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Tautologicus, you don't really know anything about Buddhism and while it's cool if you want to participate it'd be pretty neat if you took your personal spiritual journey away from Buddhism to be either more of a "this is my own whackjob opinion" or maybe make a general spirituality thread because some of what you're posting is actively detrimental to people who are interested in Buddhism if they listen to you thinking you're an authority of any kind at all. I think the same thing about your posting lol so maybe we can agree to disagree. You think Buddhism is a follow the leader personality cult? Or maybe you need that kinda thing, I dunno. Should I rehash my Buddhist creds or what. All your forum policing mentality does is contribute to this thread dying for weeks and almost months at a time because the discussion gets stifled to circlejerking about who's on first or niggling little updates about webcasts here and there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 07:54
|
|
|
As in, what are you doing when the thread has been dead for 3 weeks? Are you thinking about something informative and helpful to post to bump the thread or are you just waiting in the wings to police other people from your own largely unspoken sense of authority on Buddhist matters? Your posting style is flippant as hell, I think you treat Buddhism like a weekend knitting circle or something. To me it was always much more serious than that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 08:02
|
|
|
I'm not even saying "go away" as much as I think it'd be super awesome if you didn't pretend to have major tradition-defining sutras figured out more than monks and how you don't need a teacher because it's ~all in you~ and you abandoned your Buddhist training once you realized you had it all figured out from the start.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 08:12
|
|
|
Well that's all an almost complete misunderstanding of everything I said but OK. Yes a teacher can be important, no I don't have sutras "figured out", and no I'm not telling anyone to do the same thing as I did, whatever it was that I did (and I am just a person on the internet). I'll step back in line, I guess that's what's important here. You know it takes a few days to a few months to become a monk (depending on location/tradition) right? They aren't de facto an authority on everything Buddhist right? Even many Buddhist teachers "fake it till they make it". My teacher told students/retreat participants to do that, I realized recently he was talking about himself when he said that. That's how teachings work. You can only teach what you know, really. Not a reason to disrespect them, but you don't have to place every last ounce of your faith in them because they got a fancy title from some other guy. Besides, I was responding to Ugrok's post. Everything I said was in relation to what he said in his. It just took a lot of posts to respond the way I wanted to. I match his enthusiasm for analytical thinking and what you would call practice. the worst thing is fucked around with this message at 08:34 on Sep 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 08:19
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Tautologicus, you don't really know anything about Buddhism and while it's cool if you want to participate it'd be pretty neat if you took your personal spiritual journey away from Buddhism to be either more of a "this is my own whackjob opinion" or maybe make a general spirituality thread because some of what you're posting is actively detrimental to people who are interested in Buddhism if they listen to you thinking you're an authority of any kind at all. WAFFLEHOUND posted:I'm not even saying "go away" as much as I think it'd be super awesome if you didn't pretend to have major tradition-defining sutras figured out more than monks and how you don't need a teacher because it's ~all in you~ and you abandoned your Buddhist training once you realized you had it all figured out from the start. Edit: The second time I read what I wrote here, it sounded a bit hostile, which was not my intention. Maybe I am reading too much into your posts as well? Let's all be kind and gentle in our speech to each other, because that's the way of Buddhism 
Rhymenoceros fucked around with this message at 14:16 on Sep 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 09:16
|
|
|
Hello guys ! Sorry, i did not mean to create a fight out of this. Thank you all for your answers, which have been very helpful. The linguistic approach, i feel, as paramemetic said, is really important and i did not see that at first. Maybe this is why Nagarjuna is especially cautious when talking about this stuff, using formulas like "not the same, not different, not both same and different", etc. Maybe it's a bit like in zen koan : there is a logically unsolvable stuff here, and this somehow "stops" the mind ; maybe what is left in that state of mind is a taste of emptiness. But there is also what i feel is a problem in all his : how can compassion come from this realization ? Is compassion the will to act for the benefit of all the beings living in this relative world, but knowing, at the same time, that none of this is ultimately "real" ? Or is it that there is no "real" or "unreal", so what we get to work with is just this, this life we experience all the time, and that we just have to learn to know it very well and trust our feelings about it to do right action ? But i thought it was "not knowable" ! Aww dammit, i need some paracetamol again
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 12:48
|
|
|
Ugrok posted:Hello guys ! You are right about Nagarjuna being especially cautious actually, I think we could all learn something from his example. I personally feel hamhanded sometimes when I try to describe what I want to say, even though I do try to cover the bases so speak. I agree about the koan comparison, I think the heart sutra is an all or nothing proposition. It is meant to shock, not so much to be studied and understood, I think. It is not trying to build upon any understandings, only to shatter understanding. It's a weapon, not a tool. We have lots of defenses. quote:
I think compassion is the will, or the interest in acting for the benefit of the beings in front of you, not necessarily "all beings". That might not jibe with Mahayana thought, but I see a bodhisattva as more of an aspirational idea than anything. It's an ideal. All you can ever actually see is someone acting in the benefit of someone who is in their life, you can never see it in the abstract, you can only talk about that. I also think compassionate action is what's left after a person is rendered incapable of doing harm, when their need to "get something for themself" has disappeared. It's something you see in hindsight, and I don't think that kind of person says "now I am going to perform a compassionate action" or anything close to that. You can look back and say that was the best thing they could have done at the time, but there was no choice of whether they were going to perform a good or bad action before the fact, if I am getting across here. Everything they do is untainted. That doesn't mean they are necessarily always at the service of others 100%, they don't believe they have that kind of power over others. They believe others can walk on their own two feet. I believe that's also part of compassion. To remind people of that. Just wanted to get out what I thought. I don't mean to participate so heavily in this thread right now, it's not going to continue forever, just a phase. the worst thing is fucked around with this message at 13:10 on Sep 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 12:59
|
|
|
Yup, you're right on about the defenses... It's funny because all those questions came at a time when, in my practice, i felt at ease, beginning to be able to just stay with what's there without questioning it and without the need to know... At least that's what i thought, guess it was just a trick i played on myself ! It's useful to see that we are never what we think we are, and i will try not to forget that lesson. Being at ease or thinking you are at ease is not something to cling to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 13:06
|
|
|
Ugrok posted:Yup, you're right on about the defenses... It's funny because all those questions came at a time when, in my practice, i felt at ease, beginning to be able to just stay with what's there without questioning it and without the need to know... At least that's what i thought, guess it was just a trick i played on myself ! It's useful to see that we are never what we think we are, and i will try not to forget that lesson. Being at ease or thinking you are at ease is not something to cling to. I agree, and I have had a similar experience, in so many words. Whenever I feel at ease, I have no choice but to tell myself "this can't be right", because it's always felt ever so slightly shaky. In fact, "this can't be right" has been a good way to sum up whatever it is that keeps me going, and not getting complacent or despondent. So I sometimes wonder about people who don't seem to be thinking the same thing. Anything else I could say about this would just be stories that I was telling myself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 13:31
|
|
|
Tautologicus posted:There is also no emptiness. First there is a mountain Then there is no mountain Then there is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
Mouths are flapping.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Emptiness is flapping.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
Rhymenoceros posted:WAFFLEHOUND, I think your speech here is unkind and a type of speech which is at odds with any school of Buddhism. Wafflehound tends to be a bit strict in how he interprets Buddhism. Obamacareshugsquad (dude got a name change to tautologicus) tends to be a bit manic seeming, particularly since he bursts into the thread every few months with everything all figured out and then tends to take people disagreeing with him as a big personal attack. Then he completely disappears again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
Ugrok posted:
This was my first (and current) impression also. It reads like something that is so contradicting that it is meant to tire the mind. However I'm new to Buddhism and this particular sutra, so I might be completely off. super late edit; Paramemetic posted:I think I posted a video of Holiness the Gyalwang Drukpa a few pages back, he talks about this exact point for quite a while. Check it out. Dr.Caligari fucked around with this message at 00:27 on Sep 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 22:37
|
|
The-Mole posted:Wafflehound tends to be a bit strict in how he interprets Buddhism. Obamacareshugsquad (dude got a name change to tautologicus) tends to be a bit manic seeming, particularly since he bursts into the thread every few months with everything all figured out and then tends to take people disagreeing with him as a big personal attack. Then he completely disappears again. I actually didn't realize it was OCHS. For anyone reading in, he's a guy who claims to be above teachers, literally an enlightened being, and that Buddhism's prohibition of intoxicants prevents him from taking his anti-crazy meds who wouldn't stop trying to get in touch with me in real life. I'm not strict in how I interpret Buddhism, I just don't think "Buddhism" is a catch-all term for any vaguely Indian philosophy which involves meditation. WAFFLEHOUND fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Sep 11, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
Man you're creating drama where there currently is none. And I never said any of that anyway. Read more closely. Also you're the one who self medicates heavily with marijuana, who are you to talk. I don't even drink or anything. I don't have to drug my mind to get through the day. Sorry
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
You only post to try to kick people back in line, the line that starts with your own perceived mediocrity. "If I can't have it, no one can", that's what you think. And all I'm saying is there's nothing to get. I just want to post in peace. And I regret blowing up at [redacted, irrelevant] last year. I was just trying to be honest and not "above it all". I was under a lot of internal stress, my father had cancer, I never mentioned that, and school was wearing me thin. It was, I suppose, a bad time to post, but I was making a logical point about something unrelated to any absent minded personal claims. Claims that have turned to dust as time went on, and they were modest to start with. the worst thing is fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Sep 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 00:33
|
|
Tautologicus posted:Man you're creating drama where there currently is none. And I never said any of that anyway. Read more closely. Also you're the one who self medicates heavily with marijuana, who are you to talk. I don't even drink or anything. I don't have to drug my mind to get through the day. Sorry The funniest part of this is I don't smoke anything. Tautologicus posted:It was, I suppose, a bad time to post, but I was making a logical point about something unrelated to any absent minded personal claims. Claims that have turned to dust as time went on, and they were modest to start with. You claimed to be enlightened. A couple of pages back you claimed to have special insight on the Heart Sutra that would render monks gardeners. WAFFLEHOUND fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Sep 12, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:The funniest part of this is I don't smoke anything. Someone I talked to in PM who read your posts in other places told me you talked about it alot. It made sense. Do you vape then? You do post like a stoner who's mellow is being harshed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
I don't smoke jack poo poo, I just think weed jokes are funny and post in byob. I've been one of the more vocal posters in here about intoxicants as they relate to Buddhism.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
If your concern is that the Dharma is being misrepresented, or that people will have wrong ideas from posts in this thread, you're neither of you doing it any favors by posting intolerantly and bickering and using harsh words. It's really sad to me that every discussion in this thread seemingly has to be a contest with a clear winner and loser and right and wrong and this one is a fascist and that one is a lunatic and so on so on. Edit: I see we've dropped even the pretense of this being about anything other than personalities now. Lovely. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 00:57 on Sep 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
Tautologicus posted:Someone I talked to in PM who read your posts in other places told me you talked about it alot. It made sense. Do you vape then? You do post like a stoner who's mellow is being harshed. I would have no problem with you coming in here and talking about whatever the hell you want if you didn't end up spewing a bunch of condescending stuff each time people disagree with you. Also, I'm probably the degenerate marijuana user you have in mind.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:
And you misinterpreted the gardeners thing. Was referring to teachers creating a dependent relationship with their students, believing without them their students are lost. If they really knew what the heart sutra said they would drop that act immediately. I personally wonder why my teacher keeps doing what hes doing, looking back he was on a slight power trip without ever having to admit it because of the humility that comes with being a lama. Take being a student or a teacher lightly I suppose. No one needs anything from anyone, I learned. Other people can help, yes. Dependency is something else. The-Mole posted:I would have no problem with you coming in here and talking about whatever the hell you want if you didn't end up spewing a bunch of condescending stuff each time people disagree with you. Ok. I don't really know how to interact with wafflehound I will be honest. Hard to ignore him. Anyway I am done talking about this. Yes the war of personalities is tiring for all involved. the worst thing is fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Sep 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 22:50 |
|
|
It all comes down to the individual. I have no doubt some practice Buddhism without a teacher (isn't that Zen?), and do so without any worries. However, as with almost any subject, a good teacher works to steer the student and aide them on there journey. I'm sure I could thoroughly learn chemistry if I had enough resources and time, but I would learn much quicker if I had a person that I could ask questions and 'personalize' the education to my strengths and weaknesses. On top of that it should be considered that Buddhism isn't a solid science that can't all be explained in words and graphs, so a mentor is even more valuable. I also think people, individually, tend to form ideas and thoughts that they assume to be right which aren't. When you don't have anyone to correct you, these incorrect methods become routine, which is then hard to break when you realize it had been wrong the whole time. Dr.Caligari fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Sep 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 01:15
|
|