innerspace_cadet

Wow, I didn't know old Buddhist monks were that flammable. But in all seriousness, I think the historical context was that the monk was protesting the Diem regime's persecution of Buddhists (it was a Roman Catholic regime). This is the same photo that the rock band "Rage Against the Machine" put on one of their album covers. He must have been in pretty deep samadhi during the immolation.

I graduated from college, which was a stepping stone for getting my master's degree in library science, itself a stepping stone to acquiring a job as a librarian. And I love being a librarian. So don't ever give up on your college degree. It opens doors. Of course, you don't need a college degree to be successful, but it helps.

Three things that have helped me: 1. Taking cold showers. It invigorates me, and it lowers my blood pressure. 2. Remembering what the Stoic philosophers always said about events: they can't harm or bother you, because it is only your reaction to what happens that bothers you. 3. Meditation. Because letting go of what people think of you, and what you think of yourself is the ultimate freedom. I've only had brief tastes of my ego slipping away, but when it happened it was sheer bliss. I like to think of meditation as like a colony of carpenter ants that slowly gnaws away at the foundations of your attachment to a false self image.

What do I think happens when I die? I have no idea either. So, what do you think happens when you live? By this I mean living life to its very fullest. By "living life to its very fullest" I mean living consciously, not wasting a single moment of your existence, being present for every moment. Thinking for yourself. If I lived my life to the outer bounds of what is possible for me, then I don't have to worry about what happens after I die. If you can experience heaven on earth, heaven in your own mind, why wait for the afterlife? Trust me, I haven't mastered living a full life either, but I focus on that more than speculating what happens after I expire. Who really cares about consensus anyway? The consensus used to be that the earth was flat, and that the earth was the center of the universe. I asked this same question on this same forum about the "Taoist" take on the afterlife, but I think even asking the question was a waste of time. I don't need someone to spoon feed me an "answer" because I need to find my own answers.

I do meditate, but not often or deeply enough to have realizations about karma or past lives.

The word karma means "deed" and obviously it does have something to do with right and wrong. Of course I don't know, but there is a strong possibility that death is the end of all experience. I have to keep that possibility in the back of my mind, and live my life accordingly--to the fullest. If I am wrong, and there is an afterlife, then at least having lived a virtuous life, I won't have much to worry about. Dharmic religions that teach reincarnation/rebirth are positing a problem that may not exist, and they present themselves as the solution to that problem. That's the problem with religion in general; they sell you a bunch of goods to solve a problem that may not even be there. It's like those "male enhancement" infomercials that sell you pills to make your dick bigger, when all along all you really needed to do was make your insecurities smaller. On my deathbed, I will probably feel the same way--completely agnostic.

The doctrines of karma and rebirth are bullshit, because they assume that the universe has a moral dimension to it, and it doesn't. I used to work at a special education school, and I saw students who were still crapping in their diapers...at the age of 14. I thought to myself, what could a person possibly do that was so evil to deserve being born mentally retarded and consigned to an entire lifetime of mental feebleness, to an entire lifeteime of misery? And the thinking part of me replied that these people did NOTHING to deserve such a fate, no one does. The universe cares nothing for our actions. In my opinion, the only moral imperative is to live in harmony with the universe, in this life. Virtue is its own reward. It baffles me, all of these Westerners who believe in reincarnation without thinking of the implications of such a belief. The ancient Indians looked upon reincarnation with horror, and they did everything in their power to transcend, to escape the cycle, because reincarnation isn't fun. I personally don't want to be reincarnated after I die, because one life is difficult enough, and why would I want to relive the same old miseries again? Do I know what will happen to "me" after I physically die? Of course not. But as one philosopher said, I don't worry about what happened before I was born, so why would I worry about life after death? The afterlife is a distraction from this life, just as much as tomorrow is a distraction from today.

I have been a member of e-sangha for at least four years, and during that time, I noticed some irritating changes in the forum that I don't like. -Posts that question or point out the likely flaws in Buddhist thought are either moved or blocked. I have seen this several times. -In the meditation forum, you can now only talk about Buddhist forms of meditation, nothing else. -In the comparative religion forum, you can no longer discuss non-Buddhist religions by themselves. In each and every post you have to compare non-Buddhist religions to Buddhism. And there are the fundamentalists who insist that Buddhism is the only path to enlightenment and engage in endless (and pointless) arguments about the literal truth of rebirth, among other things. The sheer amount of groupthink in that forum is starting to perturb me, to say the least. There are too many members on that forum who simply regurgitate Buddhist doctrines ad nauseum like robots. Needless to say, I mostly hang out in this forum, because it is much more open ended and easy going. I don't have to worry about a Moderator getting on someone's case for "slandering the Dharma" (a.k.a questioning Buddhism) or some other trivial act.

You're right. Christianity does claim a copyright on truth, my bad. But that does make his analogy suspect, because comparing going to a Christian Church and logging on to e-sangha as equivalent is like comparing apples to oranges.

No, that's not what my problem with e-sangha is. I don't expect to go to a christian church and hear the priest talk about other religions. I'd just like him not to vilify them, or to claim that Christianity has an exclusive copyright on truth. But that's what has been happening on e-sangha, and it isn't in the spirit of Buddhism. There is a lot of b.s. on e-sangha, like the claim that the Kalama Sutta wasn't intended for Buddhists, only for the Kalamas, as if the Buddha would say one thing to a Buddhist, and another to a non-Buddhist. Or the statement on the front page of their web site that Buddhism has a completely spotless history "un-marred by any political or religious fervours which so many other traditions have suffered from in the past." I think the families of the people killed in the decades long civil war in Sri Lanka would beg to differ with that assertion. E-sangha isn't completely bad. There are a lot of members who have such a depth of knowledge of Buddhism that would prove priceless to sincere seekers. And it provides a virtual community for solitary practitioners who live 50 miles from the nearest Buddhist center. But I think the administrators and moderators are becoming overly protective of what they think is "authentic" Dharma, which is just another attachment. There are too many "Barnes and Noble" Buddhists who think that Buddhism is whatever it means to you. Some of these misguided Buddhists have gone onto e-sangha to claim that the Buddha taught rebirth as a metaphor, when he clearly did not. But I think in their zeal to stamp out this problem, e-sangha has gone too far. You should be able to question the Buddha's teachings, even criticize them. If the Buddha had truly let go of his ego, you could say to his face that you think rebirth is hooey, and he would not be offended in the slightest. There is a difference between making false claims about what the Buddha taught, and questioning what the Buddha actually taught.

Glossolalia is the supposed ability to speak in tongues, but more often than not it is simply babbling in gibberish. Obviously, if people could reliably speak in languages they didn't know, the State Department wouldn't have a shortage of Arabic and Farsi speakers.

For a while I was involved with Buddhism...but there was always a deep skepticism about its core doctrines, namely rebirth and karma. I expressed these doubts repeatedly on a Buddhist forum called e-sangha, and one of the things they told me was to "put aside" my doubts for a while and just practice. But I'm finding that those doubts will always be with me. And now I am starting to question whether or not I need religion of any sort whatsoever. The lead singer of System of a Down said something about religion that really resonated with me recently. An interviewer asked him if he had a religion, and he pointed to a tree outside and asked the interviewer if the tree had a religion. And the obvious answer is: of course not. A tree knows nothing but its own nature. So I'm beginning to think that religion can sometimes sidetrack people from the real problem, which is how live a carefree, untroubled existence. I always got so befuddled by the Buddhists on e-sangha, especially when they got into these long drawn out debates over rebirth. (Some of these threads about rebirth would span over 26 pages long.) That tree outside that Serj Tankian pointed to does not have beliefs, does not argue or intellectualize. When it dies, it dies. To the extent that a religion encourages us to believe in a paradise after death, a wonderful neverland that is far removed from this life, even this moment, it devolves into a death cult. Some of what Taoism teaches resonates deeply with me. But I am not a "Buddhist" or a "Taoist". I feel that the need to identify with a religion is just a form of spiritual materialism, just junk food for the ego. Lao Tzu, in my opinion, did not follow "Taoism" but rather followed the Tao. And that is the important thing. What do you guys think?

Thanks for posting the article, I found it very interesting. I'd have to agree with DaoChild; genetics and even innate intelligence have to figure into the equation to some degree. Yes, to become adept at anything, you will have to put in thousands of hours of practice. But I would argue that people toward the "gifted" range of intelligence tend to have more focus and drive to begin with, which gives them a built-in advantage. I am speaking from observation and experience, because I used to work at a special education school. Many of the mentally retarded students were simply so unmotivated that they needed constant guidance just to finish their assignments, whereas the higher IQ students needed much less supervision. But keep in mind, this is just a generalization. However, this article gives me hope that I can become skilled at almost anything if I devote enough time to it. The problem is deciding what to become adept at. Qigong? Kung Fu? Meditation? Yoga? Poetry? Art? There are only so many hours in the day.

One of the goals I have in life is to reach a state of mind where I can approach every situation, no matter how difficult, with equanimity. So if something really "bad" happens to me, I will be able to react with mental ripples, not mental tidal waves. Another goal I have is to regard life and death as equals, so I am not afraid of either. My problem is that I tend to jump from one spiritual practice to another. I have struggled mightily against this tendency. So far I have stuck with Silent Illumination meditation of the Zen tradition. But is it okay to practice more than one form of meditation? Or is it better to become adept at just one?

That's good to know, thanks for posting the info. I would add that green tea is also beneficial for your teeth.

I would say Thich Nhat Hanh. He seems to have a mind that is at peace. But I would also say that enlightened masters do not always make themselves known. And not everyone who "claims" to be enlightened actually is.

I was raised Irish Catholic, and went to Catholic school for 10 years. I eventually went on to getting a bachelor's degree in English from the University of Pennsylvania, an Ivy League school, and then got a master's degree in library science from Drexel University. I no longer consider myself much of a Catholic; I don't believe in the Church's doctrines. I practice both Buddhist and Taoist meditation, but I don't consider myself very religious, probably because I am skeptical by nature. I tend to challenge everything that seems like bunk to me.

On religious forums, I often hear people say that "without a belief in rebirth" there is no point to practicing a spiritual path. I heard this recently said on e-sangha. I find this argument suspect. Even if there is no rebirth, no reincarnation, no afterlife whatsoever, I still believe that practicing a spiritual path is still worth it, because you will have made your life--this life--meaningful. In other words, you will still reap the benefits of a spiritual life, in this life. If you have promiscous sex, do a lot of drugs and alcohol, you will have a very short, miserable life, chasing after evanescent pleasures that offer no lasting satisfaction. That's my position on the spiritual life. I am a complete agnostic on the afterlife, because having beliefs is no substitute for knowing, but the afterlife is not something you can have knowledge about. Anyway, I think that if I reach a certain level of spiritual attainment, I will have gained a perspective on life and death that will render this "need" to believe in an afterlife moot. But what do I know?

What I do is I follow the method of "no-method" a.k.a. silent illumination. This is a Chinese Zen practice of focusing on the body, nothing else. It is basically a Buddhist method of practicising both shamata and vipassana at the same time. The "silent" part of it refers to the mind not being bothered by anything. The "illumination" aspect of it refers to the mind perceiving reality as it truly is.

"Happiness is the absence of striving for happiness." -- Chuang Tzu

Spirit Ape, I thought it was a thought-provoking video. I never believed in petitionary prayer anyway, because it is all based on coincidence and you are just treating God like a spiritual vending machine when you do it anyway.

Perhaps something you can offer.

I work for a career college in Colorado Springs, and we just added a new massage therapy program. One of the courses for this program is "Eastern Theory and Practice" and I was invited to give a short lecture on Taoism, since I am considered to be the resident nerd on Eastern religions at my campus. I was thinking of explaining the Tao, wu wei, the three treasures, etc. and I am going to cite a passage from the Tao Teh Ching to illustrate each concept. I might also discuss some of the alchemical practices of Taoists, and tie that in with immortality. Does anyone have suggestions for other things I could discuss? The teacher wants me to explain some of the "axioms" of Taoism, namely, that everything in the universe is governed by natural laws, that humanity should seek harmony with the universe, that everything is interdependent, etc. I am fairly confident about explaining these ideas, but some resources could help. Thanks.

The presentation went well. I gave every student a packet about Taoism. The packet gave a general introduction into Taoism's influence on Chinese culture, impacting everything from Chinese poetry to landscape art. I also discussed the number of adherents Taoism has, though I explained that since "Taoism" is a very amorphous religious category, it is difficult to estimate the number of "Taoists" in the world, since Taoism overlaps with Chinese Buddhism, Chinese folk religion, etc. The discussion then delved into the beliefs that Taoists have in common, such as the nature of the Tao, wu wei, P'u, the three treasures, the microcosm and macrocosm, etc. I finally discussed Taoist practices such as divination, talismanic magic, meditation and internal alchemy. During the presentation, I read directly from both the Tao Te Ching and the writings of Chuang Tzu to illustrate the points I was making. I also delved into the Taoists' varied approaches toward death and immortality. All in all, it was a positive experience.

What can be done to have more luck with money? I'm interested.