Maddie

On the other hand to balance that out and to be fair one of the primary reasons that I left Christianity was because I did not feel that it lined up with the science. the primary reason was because of textual inconsistencies but nevertheless the lack of scientific evidence or the contradiction with science was a factor.

Stephen batchelor seems to love everything that the Buddha says and thinks he's a genius until it sounds superstitious and then he claims that it was just a cultural thing that the Buddha didn't really know any better about.

I also noticed on a personal experience a level that the more I spent time at the Theravada monastery and learn from them that I began to feel about as happy as a Puritan as well. I feel like there's a lot of the same attitude that while this might be tough and it might not be fun but it's worth it in the end if we're saved. 😑

I continue to be struck by how often when I read the Pali Canon how different it is then what I'm told about Theravada. Clearly large parts of it are the same or similar to what I've been taught of Theravada, but other parts are very different than what I was told.

Duly noted. I will adjust the dial on my time machine to make sure that the proper executions take place. 🤭

I think I have heard that before as well. That would very much line up with the Protestant view that the original teachings of the church were corrupted by the Catholics and they were going back to the original purity. Since I had become acquainted with Taoism before Buddhism when I initially heard about the new practices introduced in Mahayana I thought of it as a positive thing like innovation and progress and not as a negative thing like a loss of purity.

Yeah they almost seemed to me to be what Puritans were to Christianity. I think because of my encounter with them I went through several years of misery Buddhism. They told me that the things that had been working for me weren't legitimate so I stopped them and they seemed most interested in talking about being a monk and insisting that I now to them frequently. The things that they did tell me to do only seemed to make me miserable but they told me to persist because in the big picture it was beneficial.

I think there's this tendency in religion in general. For my undergrad I was a history major and I have often thought that if you were to teleport a modern Western Evangelical back into the early Christian medieval period they probably be burned at the stake.

This is exactly what I ran into when I did meditation retreats at Theravada monastery in the United States that had Western monks. The Western monks did not believe in anything metaphysical or supernatural at all. They pretty much saw all of it as a type of psychology and mind science. When I would ask about supernatural phenomenon they usually look kind of put off or annoyed. When I would ask about mantras or other Mahayana practices they would dismiss them as not what the Buddha taught and therefore not legitimate. I also noticed as they taught me more about "correct original" Buddhism the less fun Buddhism became and it turned into more of a drudgery.

This is a very fair question and I realize this could vary a lot from individual to individual so I will specify how it applies my case. Theravada practice I was doing a lot of concentration and mindfulness meditation. For whatever reason this did not tend to make me happy you're in more peaceful but rather the opposite. As far as Mahayana practices go the mean ones I do are its mantras various varieties. These do seem to be quite beneficial to my peace of mind and happiness

I can't necessarily agree nor disagree with that view because it's more complicated than that. There's plenty of magic Theravada because they have something called parita chanting which is done by the monks to ward off disaster and bring prosperity to the village. but you are correct the idea of Theravada is that they stick to the original teachings of the Buddha, at least that is the idea. The primary original teaching of the Buddha that they emphasize is the arahat ideal which is becoming a monk to achieve enlightenment and not be reborn. This contrasts with the bodhisattva ideal of Mahayana what are one postpones final Nirvana in order to help other beings become enlightened. This is a concept not found in the Pali Canon of the Theravada scriptures. You are also correct by saying that Mahayana Incorporated a lot of teachings later on not originally taught by Gautama Buddha. You are also correct in saying that Mahayana is more inclusive of lay people. In Theravada it's mostly thought that the only way to become enlightened is to become a monk. In Mahayana it's more coming to believe that lay people can become enlightened as well.

The point you make cosmologically and mythologically is a very good one and I agree you are correct Theravada has all the same aspects as Mahayana. I guess I should have been a little more specific but the primary aspect I'm talking about is in results from practice so experientially. The Theravada viewpoint of mindfulness in concentration leading to insight into the mind leading to wisdom leading to liberation logically makes a lot of sense. Practically however this was not working for me and basically just turned it into self torture sessions. The main Mahayana practice that I am personally referring to that seems to work for me is mantra practice. Logically and rationally I do not understand how this is supposed to work but on an experiential level it does work for me. The other aspect of Mahayana contradiction is that their scriptures seems either be of a later date and or contradict the arihant ideal of Theravada Buddhism. For example textual analysis has shown the lotus sutra to be written by more than one author at a much later date than the time of the Buddha yet chanting it's title as a mantra practice seems to get me results that Theravada practice never did. So it works for me which it's good and I have no complaints about but from a rational point of view I don't understand why it works for me and Theravada practice does not. Another reason that thing's making logical sense to me is important because as I stated in my original post the primary reason that I left Christianity is because it did not make sense nor did it work for me while on an experiential level either.

Do you have experience with it?

I think it's interesting that a lot of traditions believe that the act of reading or reciting the text in and of itself is meritorious beyond simply understanding the content. I wonder if there's anything to this?

Somehow I don't think I was even aware that this was an issue. Also interested in what you said about calligraphy.

I noticed doing this one makes a nice warm fuzzy feeling in my chest and puts me in a pretty good mood 😌

With the quarantine as I've been scrolling through YouTube on Sunday mornings I noticed there are a lot of church services live so being the curious person I am I clicked on a few to try to see if I could make any sense of it, but try as I may I come away with the impression basically no matter which service I listen to that God is a very angry being and his son is trying desperately to calm him down, and that God's followers kind of have a collective Stockholm syndrome or even though they're threatened with hell if they don't do what he wants or believe in him they praise him anyway. Now my apologies in advance to any Christians who I would say that I'm not understanding this correctly and all I would have to say is if I'm not then please correct me where I'm wrong but I have tried very hard to understand this for an extended. Of time and tried to approach it with an open mind but this is still what I consistently come away with.

It's definitely a problem when the monkey is suffering. 🐒😥

I didn't have a question. It was more of a statement. The point I was trying to make is that a lot of people who attempt meditation think something is wrong with them because they have thoughts in their mind. We don't meditate to get rid of thought. We meditate because we have thought.

Difference in form does not necessarily equate difference in function. One can use beans and computers to count. Different form, same function.

No

That's a very interesting description. I think I would describe my personal experiences with both of these mantras as being very similar to what you described.

Does anyone have a decent amount of experience with the Manjushri mantra?

With all the free time I've had, I've had a lot of time to do a comparative study of many various practices and I think hands down Nam myoho renge kyo does it for me like no other.

The heart beats The lungs breathe The stomach digests The mind thinks Why is only one of these considered an abnormal problem?