morality within evolution

[alexa]

Namaste Vaj,

I don't know many things about buddhism, except reincarnation which is notorious. Can you tell me which are the main principles of its moral ?

You know, in the Christian religion we have the 10 commandements :

1. You shall have no other God before me;
2. You shall not make for yourself an idol;
3. You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God;
4. Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy;
5. Honor your father and your mother;
6. You shall not murder;
7. You shall not commit adultery;
8. You shall not steal;
9. You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor;
10. You shall not covent anything that belongs to your neighbour

Are similar principles in buddism ?

Juantoo3 gave us for discussion the morality within evolution. He is inquiring the nature as source of morality. As it seems we ask more questions than finding answers, I would like to know where are the differences between the world religions.

I do not try to prove that a religion is better than the other. There is no point of use. The variety between people is as larger as between animal and vegetal species.

You said you need multiple of lifetimes to get the same result as Budda. Why ? How many succeed to reach the same level as Budda, even after several lifetimes ? Why is so difficult to find illumination ? What can we do to find it ? What can we do to improve the human being ?

As you can see, there are a lot of questions and I would like to know your opinion on it.

Regards,

alexa

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Alexa and Vajradhara!

Thank you both for your posts!

Originally Posted by alexa

I think you have found something. There are indeed to many moral codes and religions and each of them seemed to work perfectely only for his founder. Does this mean the followers of a religion cannot understand the moral code as it was expected to ? Why we cannot get the same result as Jesus or Budda or the other founders ?

It's like we have the potential, but we have not enough strenght to use it.

I like this observation.

I would like to propose you something. What do you say if we try to find the moral code of each religion (the base only) and see what they have in common and what makes them appart.

Let's take the world religions, as Brian gave us to the left.

I know it's a long shot, but once we have a global picture of what is moral and what is imoral, I hope we should be able to see the evolution of human being and the role of nature in a moral code.

What do you think ?

I think it is a wonderful idea, but a challenge. Some people spend lifetimes doing just this. Joseph Campbell comes to mind.

Of course, I would think we would do well to consider the similarities, not so much the differences. I realize the similarities may be expressed in different ways.

maybe other members will be interested to help us a little.

I am all for the assistance and input from others, especially because I know my understanding is limited and cursory.

that is the entire point of Buddhist praxis... to get the same result as the historical Buddha Shakyamuni

realize that for the Buddhist, this can take a multiple of lifetimes... just as it was with the historical Buddha.

I believe I understand this, in general terms, from previous discussions. But what, in the most simple and general terms, is the basis and foundation of the Buddhist belief? Ah, words fail me here. What is the drive and motivation? Why Buddhism, and not another path? Not trying to convert, trying to understand.

I don't know many things about buddhism... Can you tell me which are the main principles of its moral ?

Perhaps this is a good way of asking the question.

You know, in the Christian religion we have the 10 commandements :

I have long thought Jesus gave us two more commandments, that encompass the 10. "Love your Heavenly Father with all of your heart, mind, soul and strength...Love your neighbor as yourself." In these are fulfilled the law and the prophets...

Are similar principles in buddism ?

I understand Buddhism does not recognize a "Father" figure in terms of "God". Yet it seems I recall mention of a source from which all come. I also recall a quote by a gentleman, (Tillich?), that seemed to correspond to this.

Does Buddhism teach "love your neighbor as yourself," or something like the "golden rule?"

Juantoo3 gave us for discussion the morality within evolution. He is inquiring the nature as source of morality. As it seems we ask more questions than finding answers, I would like to know where are the differences between the world religions.

Indeed. Likewise, I am questioning the validity of nature as a viable source for human morality. I have concerns about where the discussion may lead, and I wish in no way whatsoever to offend anybody, but I do wonder about the subject. Again, I am not sure the differences between religions would be a productive search, more rather the similarities with (probable) different expressions.

I do not try to prove that a religion is better than the other. There is no point of use. The variety between people is as larger as between animal and vegetal species.

You said you need multiple of lifetimes to get the same result as Budda. Why ? How many succeed to reach the same level as Budda, even after several lifetimes ? Why is so difficult to find illumination ? What can we do to find it ? What can we do to improve the human being ?

As you can see, there are a lot of questions and I would like to know your opinion on it.

These are viable and valid questions I had not even considered.

I am not going to pretend I am knowledgeable about various religions. I have studied a little, and I have learned a great deal here. A common factor I see is "love."
Love of course is an ambiguous term, it means many different things to different people, and even to animals. Love, by itself, is not morality.

I was taught long ago the three types of love from the greek: eros (physical love), philio ("brotherly" love), and agape (love of God).

In the most general terms, Christianity by my understanding is not concerned directly with eros. Unless one counts what I have seen here concerning Gnosis, which would seem to me a form of esoteric Christianity. Some other religious traditions, by my understanding, including nature based pagan and neo-pagan traditions, Tantra, and esoteric Judaism, do have components that derive from eros. I want to believe the other forms of love, philio and agape, are also present in one form or another.

Even animals seem to love, if interactions I have seen between mothers and babies are not my wishful anthropomorphizing. If even natural enemies, such as cats and dogs, can get along in an unnatural setting as pets, some component of love must seem to be at work.

But love by itself is not morality. Love is a passion, as hate is a passion. I don't think we need to go very far to see humans are fully capable of hate. Hate is anti-moral, but it is natural passion. So the trouble in my view of using nature as a guide to morality.

I will pause here for input. Thank you both for participating!

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Alexa,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by alexa

Namaste Vaj,

I don't know many things about buddhism, except reincarnation which is notorious.

actually, this is a Hindu notion which Buddhism rejects. Of course, this is also found in the Jewish tradition.. nevertheless, the Buddhist term is "rebirth" not "reincarnation". essentially, the difference is one of meaning... reincarnation implies that there is an unchanging mover that moves from incarnation to incarnation as essentially the same. Buddhist rebirth isn't this. what is reborn is an aspect of the consciousness.

Can you tell me which are the main principles of its moral ?

this rather varies between the monastic and the laiety. the monastics have between 226-240 some odd rules that they must comply with. the laiety on the other hand, have the 5 Precepts, which are:

1. I will not kill

2. I will not steal

3. I will not engage in sexual misconduct

4. I will not lie

5. I will not take intoxicating beverages or drugs

You know, in the Christian religion we have the 10 commandements :

1. You shall have no other God before me;
2. You shall not make for yourself an idol;
3. You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God;
4. Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy;
5. Honor your father and your mother;
6. You shall not murder;
7. You shall not commit adultery;
8. You shall not steal;
9. You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor;
10. You shall not covent anything that belongs to your neighbour

Are similar principles in buddism ?

to a certain extent, yes, they are similar.. however, as you'd expect, there is nothing related to a specific god.

You said you need multiple of lifetimes to get the same result as Budda. Why ?

like any skill, it takes time to become proficient. the skill in this case is meditation... in particular, certain techniques. now.. i should say that there are three views on the length of time it takes to awaken in the same manner as the Buddha and these are, generally, called Hinyana, Mahayana and Vajrayana.

the Theravedan school, which is the only extant school of the Hinyana view, maintains that it takes 3 Mahakalpas, essentially eons, to awaken like the Buddha. the Mahayana, essentially, shares this view. though they expand on it somewhat with the more prominent teaching of the Bodhisattva. the Bodhisattva is a being that deliberately choses to return to the cyclic existence to be a guide, teacher et al to the rest of us sentient beings that are still trapped. the Vajrayana, by contrast, is called the Diamond Thunderbolt vehicle and it says that one can awaken in the full sense as the historical Buddha in one lifetime.

i should say, however, that each these views requires a proper understanding of the preceeding school. so.. in a practicle sense that means that since i'm a Vajrayana practioner in this life, i've practiced the Buddhadharma in the past. we can go into more depth about Buddism, if you'd like, however, that should probably be on the Buddhism area of the site

How many succeed to reach the same level as Budda, even after several lifetimes ?

the point, if you will, of Buddhism is for every single sentient being in the multiverse to awaken. so, the facile answer is that all beings will succeed.. hence, the Bodhisattva the guide to help us find the other shore.

Why is so difficult to find illumination ?

it's not difficult, per se, though it does require time and effort to remove the mental defilements which are one of the primary causes of the inability to recognize our fundamental nature. this is an important bit... it's not that you "gain" awakening.. it's not something outside your fundamental nature. it's really a matter of uncovering this fundamental nature and recognizing it for ourselves.

What can we do to find it ?

it's not something outside your fundamental nature, it is already present, complete and full. it's simply unrecognized.. or, i could say, unactualized. an old zen saying may help to illustrate this: "the only zen you find on the mountain is the zen you brought with you."

What can we do to improve the human being ?

do you mean improve the physical form? or improve the spiritual aspect of humanity as a whole?

i'll presume you mean the latter and answer appropriately. the first step, in my view, is the generate Bodhichitta. Bodhichitta is the heart of compassion towards all sentient beings which desires their wellbeing and happiness more than it's own.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste juan,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I believe I understand this, in general terms, from previous discussions. But what, in the most simple and general terms, is the basis and foundation of the Buddhist belief? Ah, words fail me here. What is the drive and motivation? Why Buddhism, and not another path? Not trying to convert, trying to understand.

i understand this is the CR forum

what is the basis for our belief? well.. that's a good question. the simple answer is found in the Kalamaa Sutta and it goes something like this:

"Do not believe in anything because you have heard it.

Do not believe in tradition because they have been have been handed down.

Do not believe in anything because it is spoken and rumoured by many.

Do not believe in anything because it is found written in religious books.

Do not believe in anything merely on the account of your teachers and elders.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of all, then accept it and live up to it."

now.. as for why Buddhism and not another path... the best answer that i can give is that it works for me why it works for me is a different question, though i suppose that we can take that up, if you'd like.

I understand Buddhism does not recognize a "Father" figure in terms of "God". Yet it seems I recall mention of a source from which all come. I also recall a quote by a gentleman, (Tillich?), that seemed to correspond to this.

the Tillich conception of God is the Ground of Being. this is a concept that most Buddhists wouldn't have much argument with for this is not a "personal" God. it's the underlying, fundamental nature of reality, as is, without conception. we happen to call this Dharmadhatu.

Does Buddhism teach "love your neighbor as yourself," or something like the "golden rule?"

sure thing the point of Buddhism, though, isn't to love them as yourself.. it's to actually realize that you are them.. what happens to another happens to you. in a very real sense, the feeling towards other beings that we try to cultivate can be compared to the motherly aspect of compassion. for example, when the child is ill the mother will often wish to have the illness herself rather than the child. this is called Bodhichitta.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!

Thank you most sincerely for your posts! You have placed a great deal into a context that is beginning to make sense to me now.

I did see something though that continues to puzzle me, at least in the context of this thread. You mention "fundamental nature," which it would seem implies directly what it is I am attempting to discuss. Does Buddhism look to nature as a source and influence for its moral code? If so, how does Buddhism account for the (to be nice) uglier side of nature?

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!

Thank you most sincerely for your posts! You have placed a great deal into a context that is beginning to make sense to me now.

I did see something though that continues to puzzle me, at least in the context of this thread. You mention "fundamental nature," which it would seem implies directly what it is I am attempting to discuss. Does Buddhism look to nature as a source and influence for its moral code? If so, how does Buddhism account for the (to be nice) uglier side of nature?

Namaste juan,

in this case, "nature" is a reference to our essence. perhaps, the best western word would be "spirit". our fundamental essence, if you will, is already awakened, we simply need to learn how to recognize and actualize this fact.

now.. as for the question.. no Buddhism does not look to nature for it's moral code, as far as i've been able to discern. the moral foundations for the Buddhist path are emminently sentient-being centric being as they exist for the purpose of helping sentient beings begin the walk to the awakened state. it's fair enough to say that Buddhists in general consider these things to be temporary rafts that we use to cross to the other shore. once we are there, we don't carry the raft with us.

our view of that sort of thing is more dependent on the cultural idoms that the person holds rather than being a Buddhist thing, per se. generally speaking, there isn't an "ugly" side to nature.. that's an imputation by the mind.. nature simply is, devoide of conceptual frameworks and ideations.

[alexa]

Bodhichitta is the heart of compassion towards all sentient beings which desires their wellbeing and happiness more than it's own.

Namaste Vajradhara,

I like the concept of Bodhichitta.

For the rest of my questions, I consider myself satisfied.

Thank you very much !

Regards,

alexa

[alexa]

Hi juantoo3,

I agree to find the similarities. This should give us a good ideea about the morality in the world. At least for those who belive in something.

As Vajradhara has kindly helped to understand the base in Buddhism, we can hope to get some replies from the other members of the forum, too.

I like the challenge.

Regards,


alexa

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Alexa!

Originally Posted by alexa

As Vajradhara has kindly helped to understand the base in Buddhism, we can hope to get some replies from the other members of the forum, too.

I like the challenge.

Then a challenge it is! I do hope others will add their insights, but for now it is a matter of pursuing this ourselves. I'm afraid I haven't the time to explore deeply into the religious writings of the many faiths right now, so I am going to look for summaries.

I looked here last night a bit, and I found a little, but not a great deal on moral codes or structures. I think I will have to look elsewhere and see what else I can come up with.

From memory, I seem to recall the Wiccan rede goes something like, "and it harm none, do as you will." I am sure there is an esoteric meaning to it, but on a surface level it seems in accord with the golden rule. I'm afraid pagan religions are not my strong point. They often distance themselves from Christians, perhaps rightly so. If they truly are tuned to spirit, then they should understand a spirit that means them no harm, only trying to understand. Otherwise, I suppose we'll have to "wing it."

Perhaps Vaj would help us as well with Taoism? Is that not a nature based "science/philosophy?" Although, in fairness, using those terms to describe "the way" makes it seem rather cold and distant, and I have never thought of Taoism in that manner...

Well, I'll look around a bit, as time allows, and see what I can come up with. Looking forward to see what you find, Alexa. Until then, kind regards!

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Alexa!

this is what I have come up with so far:

Comparative religious moral codes
Hinduism:
the Ten Rules of the ethical and moral plan (Yama and Niyama in the Hindu tradition)
two categories within these "Ten Commandments": the first five commandments make up the Moral Plan (in Hindu terminology Yama) and the other five - the Ethical Plan (Niyama).
The Moral Code (in Hindu - YAMA) implies five rules of behavior in order to reach a state of profound equilibrium with the other beings.
These five rules refer to the control of certain negative tendencies, frequently met in human beings. These rules are mentioned in the secret oriental/eastern treaties as follows: non-violence, truth, non-theft, sexual purity, non-possession.
The Personal Code (in the Hindu tradition - NIYAMA) is based on the idea that external rules are sufficient for a truly deep transformation/change, and that the personality has to be restructured through a personal code involving other five rules. They refer to the perfect structure of our inner attitudes, emotions, and feelings. Consequently, they are rules of individual discipline and allow to the person who observes them to reach a state of equilibrium with one's own person and purpose in life.
The secret treaties mention them as follows: austerity, individual study, contentment, physical and mental purity, complete devotion towards God.
According to Hinduism all gods are the various representation of one true God. Hinduism states that there is only one God and the Vedas call him Brahman. The vibratory aspect of Brahman is called AUM or OM. From AUM came the 3 godheads -
Brahma [creator], Vishnu [preservor], Shiva [destroyer]. These gods when take a human form are called Avatars.
The three main Goddesses are- Saraswati [Wife of Lord Brahma; Goddess of Knowledge], Lakshmi [Wife of Lord Vishnu; Goddess of Wealth], Parvati [Wife of Lord Shiva; Goddess of Power].
Hindus believe in Powers of Nature and have gods of nature like Varuna [water], Agni [fire], Vayu [air] etc. (emphasis mine,- jt3)
- http://mailerindia.com/hindu/veda/index.php?sanadhan
-------------
Confucianism:
According to the Confucian Analects, Confucius (552-479 B.C.) transformed the societal rules of his time by integrating them into a richer and more profound system.
At the core of Confucianism is Ren, which means benevolence and can be transformed into a moral, ethical norm that people could adopt.
In the Confucian moral code, Ren (benevolence) is a basic command and all of the other codes are reflections of Ren. The Chinese character (Ren) has several definitions including benevolence, kindness, kindheartedness, humanity and virtue. In my opinion, the basic meaning of Ren is love. When one of Confucius’ disciples asked the Master to define Ren, Confucius replied, “To love all men.” So Ren is a natural instinct based on a benevolent and kind heart.
- http://www.lhup.edu/library/Internat...w/chuanshu.htm
----------------
Shinto:
Shinto in itself has no defining morality of its own. Essentially, in the Shinto worldview, the world is good, people are good, and there is harmony - which is ever threatened by evil spirits, who must be dispelled and kept at bay. The social ethic of the Japanese people therefore comes from a close mixing of both Confuscian and Buddhist principles, with strong emphasis on honour, duty, and filial piety. -CR
Shinto seems to borrow from the moral code of Confucianism. -jt3
---------------
General info:
Comparing religion to spirituality
Many Westerners prefer to use the term spirituality rather than religion to describe their form of belief. This may reflect a large-scale disillusionment with organized religion that is occurring in much of the Western world (see Religion in Modernity). However, proponents of some forms of spirituality may represent a movement towards a more "modern"—more tolerant, less counter-factual, and more intuitive—form of religion. This is evidenced by apparently greater religious pluralism and movements such as the ecumenical movement within and transcending Christian denominations. There are corresponding moderating movements within Islam and other religious traditions.
In the East, however, spirituality is viewed as inseparable from religion. The Indic religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and Jainism) have always had incorporated into their very framework primary focuses on spirituality. Yoga, for example, is a section of Hindu philosophy and informed the spiritual traditions of both Hindu and Buddhist tantra. It is an extremely detailed, rational, and scientific approach to developing control of mind and body for the purpose of realizing spiritual truths such as uniting with the Divine. It built into the structure of scriptural injunctions and various cultural frameworks a universal understanding of the divinity of man. Thus, we see that spirituality has, in many Eastern religions, no separate existence.
Spirituality, in its Western comprehension, is religion cut loose from some of its bureaucratic trappings. The concept is neutral with regard to tolerance, etc. The same disillusionment often leads in the opposite direction, toward intolerance and violence. Many extreme sects lay claim to a higher spiritual basis. Some of those professing to have attained a higher spiritual plane are actually manipulative and intolerant. (emphasis mine, -jt3. This raises many questions in my mind.)
- http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Religion

Modern adherence to religion
Religious believers are often sad to see that people disagree with the churches' perspectives on spiritual, 'eternal' beliefs by concerns they consider to be based on limited and transitory features (given the potential for an afterlife). Additional reasons for continuing adherence to mainstream religion include the following:

Moderation: Many religions have approaches that produce practices that place limitations on the behaviour of their adherents. This is seen by many as a positive influence, potentially protecting adherents from the destructive or even fatal excesses to which they might otherwise be susceptible. Many people from many faiths contend that their faith brings them fulfillment, peace, and joy, apart from worldly interests.

Authority: Most religions are authoritarian in nature, and thus provide their adherents with spiritual and moral role models, who they believe can bring highly positive influences both to adherents and society in general.

Morality: Most religions see early childhood education in religion and spirituality as essential moral and spiritual formation, whereby individuals are given a proper grounding in ethics: instilling and internalizing moral discipline.

Cultural factors: Some 'religious' individuals may have substantially secular viewpoint, but retain adherence to religious customs and viewpoints for cultural reasons, such as continuation of traditions and family unity. Judaism, for example, has a particularly strong tradition of 'secular' adherents.

Supernatural connection: Religions postulate a reality which verges on the metaphysical. Most adherents of religion consider this to be of critical importance, since it permits belief in a connection with unseen and otherwise potentially unknowable aspects of life, providing hope of eternal life.

Majesty and tradition: People can form positive views of religion based on the visible manifestations of religion, e.g., ceremonies which appear majestic and reassuringly constant, and ornate cloth.

Community: Organized religions promote a sense of community. The combination of moral and cultural common ground often results in a variety of social and support networks.

Fulfillment: Most traditional religions require sacrifice of their followers, but, in turn, the followers may gain much from their membership therein. Thus, they come away from experiences with these religions with the feeling that their needs have been filled.

Experience or emotion: For many, the practice of a religion causes an emotional high that gives pleasure to them. Such emotional highs can come from the singing of traditional hymns to the trance-like states found in the practices of the Whirling Dervishes and Yoga, among others. People continue to associate with those practices that give pleasure and, in so far as it is connected with religion, join in religious organizations that provide those practices.

Rationality: For some of those who profess a religion, their adherence is based on intellectual evaluation that has led them to feel that the teachings of that religion most closely describe reality.

- http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Religion

[juantoo3]

Sorry to respond to myself, but I finally found the Hindu Yama and Niyama, for comparison with the ten commandments, etc.

Panca Yama Brata, five things concerned with moral life:
1. Ahimsa, non violence.
2. Brahmacari, self control on passion.
3. Satya, faithful or sincerity.
4. Awyawaharika, act based on peace and sincerity.
5. Asteya, non stealing and non cheating.

Panca Niyama Brata, five things concerned with moral life:
1. Akrodha, not controlled by anger.
2. Guru susrusa, loyal to implement the teacher's teaching.
3. Sauca, purity of body and mind.
4. Aharalagawa, eat as much as needed.
5. Aparamada, sincerity in learning and practicing holy teaching.

Dasa Yama Brata, ten things concerned with moral life:
1. Anresangsya or Arimbawa, not egoistic.
2. Ksama, forgiving.
3. Satya, faithful or sincere.
4. Ahimsa, non violence.
5. Dama, able to advice one own self.
6. Arjawa, honest in defending the truth.
7. Ijya, loving all creature.
8. Prasada, purity of heart and never thinking about reward.
9. Madurya, polite and have good manner.
10. Mardawa, humility.

Dasa Niyama Brata, ten things concerned with moral life:
1. Dana, giving charity.
2. Ijya, devotion to the absolute and ancestors.
3. Tapa, self exercise for self endurance.
4. Dhyana, focus to the absolute.
5. Swadhyaya, learn and understand the holy teaching.
6. Upasthanigraha, controlling sexual desire.
7. Brata, faithful to one own oath.
8. Upawasa, fasting.
9. Mona, controlling speech.
10. Snana, purifying the body-and-mind, and praying.

http://www.balilife.com/spirituality/hindudharma.htm

Some of the sources I looked at also relate the name "Yama" with the Hindu god of death. Or maybe this is more accurately described: god manifested as death.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,


to continue the ongoing topic..

now.. the Buddhist Precepts for Laypeople are what we'd consider to be the negative commandments, as it were. these are things not to do.

by contrast there are what are known as the 6 Paramitas or Perfections that all Buddhists strive to perfect. they are:

1. Perfection in Generosity, Giving (Liberality)
2. Perfection in Morality (Conduct)
3. Perfection in Patience (Forebearance)

4. Perfection in Diligence
5. Perfection in Meditation (Absorbtion)

6. Perfection in Wisdom

these Paramitas are more fully expounded than i'm doing here... so, i'll cut and poste some relevant bits about each one to provide the full flavor, so to speak.

as i'm sure you know, the Buddhist path of praxis is explained in the Noble 8 Fold Path, what you may not know is that this path is divided into three broad areas of teaching, namely sila (morality), samadhi (meditation), and prajna (wisdom).

Sila means virtue, ethics, morality, self-discipline, impeccability...

Samadhi means collectedness, concentration, reflectiveness, inquiry, mindfulness, meditation, focus.

Prajna means wisdom, gnosis, enlightened awareness, transcendental wisdom, true self-knowledge.

the first one is dana paramita, generosity: It is wise, isn't it, to let go? Why is that? Because resistance is suffering (this is explicit in the Second Noble Truth). Craving, attachment and resistance is suffering. So it is wise to let go. Externally, dana paramita implies being more generous, open, giving, serving, and donating our time and energy. Internally, it is being more generous with our emotions and generous with others, open-hearted. Not suppressing our emotions, not being miserly with our emotions; rather, allowing them and appreciating them. And innately, being generous, spontaneous, total unbounded energy. Why squelch that limitless, innate energy like a miser, as if saving your energy for "the real thing"? Here is the problem of commitment, which many people suffer from: holding back and fearing intimate engagement or total involvement. You miss your whole life that way.

Secondly, we talk about morality: it is wise to not harm. That is the essence of virtue. Externally, taking the five basic lay vows or precepts: "I shall refrain from killing and stealing and lying and sexual misconduct (exploiting others) and intoxicating myself." Internally, isn't it just as wise not to deceive ourselves and to have integrity and develop our own character? Innately, of course, we all have that purity of heart and basic goodness, and feel love naturally. Let's not lose touch with that. Let's exploit that innate, natural resource, rather than exploiting others for what we think we need and want. Let's exploit our own natural resource within, our own true spiritual inheritance. That is something we can never really lose; no one and nothing can take it away from us.

The third paramita is patience, shanti paramita. Sometimes it is mistranslated as peace. but it really means patience, forbearance, tolerance. So externally, it means, say, counting to at least ten before we kick back. Having some balance and sense of restraint. Being patient instead of being totally irritable and reactive. It means persevering through whatever twists and turns the path requires, to the goal of our aspirations. Internally, it means being patient with ourselves and having some acceptance and tolerance for ourselves, with all of theirs as well as our foibles, hang-ups, and neuroses. It is good to be cracked. It lets the light through! Recently, I read a poem that I really liked by Wendell Berry: "It is the impeded stream that sings." So let's not try to be too perfect and dull. It will just frustrate us anyway. Having a few rocks in the stream makes it sing. Even stumbling blocks can become steppingstones

Fourth is virya paramita: energy, diligence. It is often translated as effort. But that sounds so one-sided. What about effortless effort? What about the great passion of our true vocation, which we do day and night out of love? Not just the effort to get through our forty-hour week and forget about it at Friday at 5:00. How about effortless effort? Externally, it seems like effort, but internally it can be effortless effort and passion for our true spiritual life. Aren't we all interested in well-being? Does that take an effort to pursue? Are we not pursuing it? That's virya paramita: courage, fearlessness to pursue continuously our highest good.

Fifth is dhyana paramita: meditation or absorption, presence. Externally, it shows up as presence of mind or collectedness, meditation, contemplation. Internally isn't it wise to be focused and centered and aware and see what is going on, rather than being heedless, mindless, absent-minded and distracted? Not just be lost in fabrication, but to really see what is going on, right here and now. We can do that, with a little attention and focus.

And sixth, prajna paramita: the highly touted transcendental wisdom, said to be indescribable. there are descriptions, of course, which are found in the Prajna Paramita Sutra which are related as part of a teaching. it goes something along these lines:

Vimalakirti, the enlightened layman of Visali in India. He lived in the time of the Buddha. The Mahayana sutra called Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra tells his story. He was a layman with a family. He was an impeccable member of the community, an enlightened businessman. He was the sagest person in the city of Visali. All the Bodhisattvas and enlightened monks and nuns came to him and had a discussion. They all came to his bedroom, which was very small, about 6 feet by 6 feet, and somehow all the enlightened ones fit in there through the magic of interpenetration and emptiness. This august sangha gathering also included all the Bodhisattvas, including Manjusri, Avalokiteshvara, Vajrapani, and Tara. Maybe they all made themselves as small as those angels that reportedly dance on the head of a pin. The sutra says they were all there, arhats and Bodhisattvas alike, with their seats, thrones, and mounts, all in Vimalakirti's tiny chamber.
Each member of this Dharma assembly gave their views on what is transcendental wisdom. That was the subject of the discussion that day. Each one gave a description of the indescribable; this is why we love the Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra. It is marvelous. With each progressive description, you think, "Ah, now we have really got it." Yet, the truth expounded seems to get better each time. Each expounder outdoes the previous, not in the sense of competitiveness, but the Dharma teaching just goes deeper and deeper. They finally get to Manjusri, the God of Wisdom. He gives his spiel. It is so marvelous. It is the ultimate spiel on nondual truth, transcendental wisdom. Then everybody bows to reverently to him -- including us the reader. What else can be said? we wonder.

Finally they all turn to Vimalakirti, and ask him to pronounce the final word on transcendental wisdom. (All this is part of the Prajna Paramita Sutra, which has dozens of thousands of Sanskrit verses.) So Vimalakirti answers. And the sutra says -- I am always overcome with emotion here, at this point -- that "his silence resounded like thunder." That was the last word on what is wisdom, what is enlightenment. It is truly ineffable, inconceivable, beyond the mind; and yet, it is so palpable, experienceable, demonstrable. Vimalakirti lived it; he embodied it. That's the principle of enlightened living: embodiment, enactment, not just merely knowing about something. That's self-realization: enacting it; embodying truth; wisdom in action as love, compassion, and impeccability.

the interested reader is directed here for more on this teaching:
http://www.dzogchen.org/teachings/ta...k-95feb20.html

[alexa]

WOW !

Juan, I belive you have spent hours to write all this !

I'm afraid, I didn't have the time to do my reserche part, but I'll catch you up don't worry.

As we have to check every religion, I'll take care about the pagan one. I don't think I'll find something on the net, so I have to see what I can find at the library.

Regards,

Alexa

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Alexa!

Originally Posted by alexa

WOW !
Juan, I belive you have spent hours to write all this !

I did spend about two hours looking things up, but "cut and paste" is a wonderful tool! That is why I included the sources so there would be no plagiarism, and proper credit would go to the actual source.

I'm afraid, I didn't have the time to do my reserche part, but I'll catch you up don't worry.

As we have to check every religion, I'll take care about the pagan one. I don't think I'll find something on the net, so I have to see what I can find at the library.

That's OK. But you might find more than you think at places like wikipedia. I used google to find the stuff I did.

Good luck!

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!

Thank you sincerely for your post!

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Vimalakirti, the enlightened layman of Visali in India. He lived in the time of the Buddha. The Mahayana sutra called Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra tells his story. He was a layman with a family. He was an impeccable member of the community, an enlightened businessman. He was the sagest person in the city of Visali. All the Bodhisattvas and enlightened monks and nuns came to him and had a discussion. They all came to his bedroom, which was very small, about 6 feet by 6 feet, and somehow all the enlightened ones fit in there through the magic of interpenetration and emptiness. This august sangha gathering also included all the Bodhisattvas, including Manjusri, Avalokiteshvara, Vajrapani, and Tara. Maybe they all made themselves as small as those angels that reportedly dance on the head of a pin. The sutra says they were all there, arhats and Bodhisattvas alike, with their seats, thrones, and mounts, all in Vimalakirti's tiny chamber.

It is a pleasure to see that Buddhism too, has its bits that are difficult to view rationally!

Finally they all turn to Vimalakirti, and ask him to pronounce the final word on transcendental wisdom. (All this is part of the Prajna Paramita Sutra, which has dozens of thousands of Sanskrit verses.) So Vimalakirti answers. And the sutra says -- I am always overcome with emotion here, at this point -- that "his silence resounded like thunder." That was the last word on what is wisdom, what is enlightenment. It is truly ineffable, inconceivable, beyond the mind; and yet, it is so palpable, experienceable, demonstrable. Vimalakirti lived it; he embodied it. That's the principle of enlightened living: embodiment, enactment, not just merely knowing about something. That's self-realization: enacting it; embodying truth; wisdom in action as love, compassion, and impeccability.

Thank you for this reminder. That is the part of wisdom I have the greatest problem implementing, my personal weakness, knowing when to keep my mouth shut.