Originally posted by BroInChrist:The concept of no-self or non-attachment is not hard to grasp, though I would argue that it is rather irrational. As a buddhist it would seem to me that you have understood this, then why aren't you considered enlightened? I mean, if Buddha sat under the Bo tree to understand something that has eluded man, and assuming he has communicated it correctly, then followers should also be able to be enlightened just like him. Isn't it pretty much a knowledge issue? The solution is "no-self", right?
AEN had answered well. to add and to give an example: understanding the theory of swiming only doesn't mean one can swim immediately when u jump into the water. u need to start practicing in the water and take some baby steps.
why? because pain/suffering is not something, u can immediately get over at once, when u only know the concept of not-self.. our concept of self had been with us for a long long time, like an habit, and habit dies hard. suddenly want you to forget it, it takes time. unless u are really very good, like Master Huineng.
for example if someone insult u or hit you on one side of the face, can you give them the other side to slap as well? ;)
u know what Buddha, when practicing the bodhisattva path did in the past when he was mistaken for harassing the king's wifes, when it was the other way around, he was only doing meditation. the king cut off his hands and legs! but however, the Bodhisattva/Buddha never get angry with the king, but vowed that he will help him first, in the next life. indeed, in the next life, the king became his first disciple of Buddha. there are also story on the bodhisattva feeding hungry cubs with his own body!
not so simple, need more see through, more let go çœ‹ç ´ 放下. can even like jesus, walks on water, or walk pass wall. as everything is illusion/empty to them. hah, no lah, u no need this kind of spiritual powers.
/\
Originally posted by sinweiy:hah, its Embodiment of Bliss, Sambhogakaya , not just "blissful".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trikaya
another way of looking at Sambhogakaya :-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Lots of people have intellectual understandings but not an experiential realisation of the nature of mind.
I've intellectually understood no-self since maybe 2005 or 2006 but an experiential realisation only arose in recent years (late 2010). Some people took longer.
Realisation of no-self has a profound impact in my life but I cannot say I have achieved the end goal yet. There are four stages of enlightenment in Buddha's teachings.
Buddha had hundreds and thousands of students at each of these stages. He had thousands of students attain the stage of full liberation or Arahantship in his lifetime.
In Buddhism, the issue and solution is about awakening, not concepts or intellectual knowledge.
So what exactly is this true nature of the mind?
And what does realisation of no-self involves? You speak about a cognitive realisation of no-self (or is it not-self?) and also an experiential realisation of no-self. I am puzzle on how you can realise there is no you, since there must be a you before you can realise anything about you being not you. It's like using English to deny there is such a thing as English.
Originally posted by sinweiy:
AEN had answered well. to add and to give an example: understanding the theory of swiming only doesn't mean one can swim immediately when u jump into the water. u need to start practicing in the water and take some baby steps.why? because pain/suffering is not something, u can immediately get over at once, when u only know the concept of not-self.. our concept of self had been with us for a long long time, like an habit, and habit dies hard. suddenly want you to forget it, it takes time. unless u are really very good, like Master Huineng.
for example if someone insult u or hit you on one side of the face, can you give them the other side to slap as well? ;)
u know what Buddha, when practicing the bodhisattva path did in the past when he was mistaken for harassing the king's wifes, when it was the other way around, he was only doing meditation. the king cut off his hands and legs! but however, the Bodhisattva/Buddha never get angry with the king, but vowed that he will help him first, in the next life. indeed, in the next life, the king became his first disciple of Buddha. there are also story on the bodhisattva feeding hungry cubs with his own body!
not so simple, need more see through, more let go çœ‹ç ´ 放下. can even like jesus, walks on water, or walk pass wall. as everything is illusion/empty to them. hah, no lah, u no need this kind of spiritual powers.
/\
I think the swimming analogy is not appropriate at all. Swimming is a skill, not a cognitive thing. Moreover, we are talking about truth. The ability to swim is not truth issue. Truth is about knowing primarily, though there is aspects of truths that can be experienced. I would submit to you that the notion of no-self is so counter-intuitive to what we know that it is no wonder that you would find it difficult to realise it.
Re giving the other cheek to slap. The human nature reaction is no, I will not turn the other cheek. But as a Christian I should do so, by God's help, to be able to turn the other cheek.
Jesus was able to walk on water has nothing to do with see more or let go, but that He was God.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:So what exactly is this true nature of the mind?
And what does realisation of no-self involves? You speak about a cognitive realisation of no-self (or is it not-self?) and also an experiential realisation of no-self. I am puzzle on how you can realise there is no you, since there must be a you before you can realise anything about you being not you. It's like using English to deny there is such a thing as English.
No-self does not deny sentience, awareness, cognizance. It however does mean that it would be inaccurate to assert and reify awareness into a self or cognizer, it is pure cognition without self. In realization, there is simply a moment of realization and recognition of what the nature of mind is, this does not require a seer/cognizer and there never was one.
The nature of mind is an inseparability of luminous clarity and emptiness. Because of its luminosity, which is pure Knowingness without which no experience can be seen or illuminated, the mind is able to perceive, see, hear, taste, smell... in fact this description is not right - there is no mind that 'sees' (as that would impute a seer and a seen) - rather, mind is just a label for that pure seeing, tasting, hearing, sensing, even as a mental sense of presence (as a thought) without a seer/hearer/be-er. Pure aliveness and clarity and knowingness and intelligence that is manifesting moment to moment in all experiences.
The luminous factor of the nature of mind is only one part, the other part is the empty aspect of our mind. As luminous and clear and vivid as mind is, manifesting as everything whatsoever, nonetheless no entity or selfhood can be pinned down in this luminous mind or experience. There is no soul, agent, perceiver, Self, apart from moment to moment experience - impermanent, dependently originated and self-less. Everything is empty of true graspable existence or self.
As a Lama, Tsultrim said:
"Mind has often been likened to a mirror, but the analogy goes only so far, because mirrors exist and mind doesn't, well let's say that one can touch mirrors. What existence means, particularly at these levels, would be a fruitful topic, but one that I will not cover. Also, mind doesn't really reflect phenomena, it is the phenomena themselves. This is covered further down in these 4 prajnas, but for clarity I thought I should mention that."
"Thusness' or "suchness" is what one feels with the experience of emptiness. It is a solid sense of being (yes, emptiness has a solid or one could say rich feeling). The luminescence of mind can be compared the the surface of a mirror. If the mirror is dirty it doesn't have a bright surface, and if mind is filled with obscuration its awareness is dimmed. With the experience of emptiness, phenomena become more vivid. It is said in the post that this confirms one's entrance into Zen. In the Vajrayana, this vividness of mind is called "osel" in Tibetan, and it is a sign that one has entered the Vajrayana."
Originally posted by BroInChrist:I think the swimming analogy is not appropriate at all. Swimming is a skill, not a cognitive thing. Moreover, we are talking about truth. The ability to swim is not truth issue. Truth is about knowing primarily, though there is aspects of truths that can be experienced. I would submit to you that the notion of no-self is so counter-intuitive to what we know that it is no wonder that you would find it difficult to realise it.
Re giving the other cheek to slap. The human nature reaction is no, I will not turn the other cheek. But as a Christian I should do so, by God's help, to be able to turn the other cheek.
Jesus was able to walk on water has nothing to do with see more or let go, but that He was God.
truth issue? we are taking of the realisation of Anatta/sunyata. other than swiming, i also use one's habit die hard as another analogy. all and all, theory and practical is not the same. even driving have theory and practical lessons. it's until one passed the practical lessons, then one can start driving. same as the realisation of Anatta/sunyata. ur not appropriate is funny.
turn the other cheek also need god's help is funny too.
the depth of illusion of phenomena depend on one's seeing through and letting go in Buddhism.
i find that ur anwsers never came out from yourself to be in a meaningful/logical/wisdom sense, u only know how to refer to what the book/god say, and u take it to be true. . i don't know how to say, but there's no wisdom, no meaning, like childlike learning(or not many daily examples). then u will say, no wisdom, does not mean it's not true. speechless.
Two monks were arguing about the temple flag waving in the wind. One said, "The flag moves." The other said, "The wind moves." They argued back and forth but could not agree.
what do u think? is it the flag that moves or the wind that moves?
/\
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:No-self does not deny sentience, awareness, cognizance. It however does mean that it would be inaccurate to assert and reify awareness into a self or cognizer, it is pure cognition without self. In realization, there is simply a moment of realization and recognition of what the nature of mind is, this does not require a seer/cognizer and there never was one.
The nature of mind is an inseparability of luminous clarity and emptiness. Because of its luminosity, which is pure Knowingness without which no experience can be seen or illuminated, the mind is able to perceive, see, hear, taste, smell... in fact this description is not right - there is no mind that 'sees' (as that would impute a seer and a seen) - rather, mind is just a label for that pure seeing, tasting, hearing, sensing, even as a mental sense of presence (as a thought) without a seer/hearer/be-er. Pure aliveness and clarity and knowingness and intelligence that is manifesting moment to moment in all experiences.
The luminous factor of the nature of mind is only one part, the other part is the empty aspect of our mind. As luminous and clear and vivid as mind is, manifesting as everything whatsoever, nonetheless no entity or selfhood can be pinned down in this luminous mind or experience. There is no soul, agent, perceiver, Self, apart from moment to moment experience - impermanent, dependently originated and self-less. Everything is empty of true graspable existence or self.
As a Lama, Tsultrim said:
"Mind has often been likened to a mirror, but the analogy goes only so far, because mirrors exist and mind doesn't, well let's say that one can touch mirrors. What existence means, particularly at these levels, would be a fruitful topic, but one that I will not cover. Also, mind doesn't really reflect phenomena, it is the phenomena themselves. This is covered further down in these 4 prajnas, but for clarity I thought I should mention that."
"Thusness' or "suchness" is what one feels with the experience of emptiness. It is a solid sense of being (yes, emptiness has a solid or one could say rich feeling). The luminescence of mind can be compared the the surface of a mirror. If the mirror is dirty it doesn't have a bright surface, and if mind is filled with obscuration its awareness is dimmed. With the experience of emptiness, phenomena become more vivid. It is said in the post that this confirms one's entrance into Zen. In the Vajrayana, this vividness of mind is called "osel" in Tibetan, and it is a sign that one has entered the Vajrayana."
We have been through this before, and as such I would only point out again that it is incoherent to speak of things like realisation or cognizance or awareness while denying a self or calling it an illusion of self, be it a contingent being like man or a necessary being like God. The human experience is that the self exists. Again I would point out that the self would have to exist for any denial of self to take place. Even to speak of an illusion of self would require that some self is having that illusion. Of course the reply would be that such are mere conventions or parlance, not ultimate truths. But I would then say that words communicate truths. The same language system is used to communicate both kinds of "truths".
Originally posted by 2009novice:Hi Spnw07,
just writing to add up on Point 3... about this afterlife thingy..
i think there is afterlife... only if the mind still have attachment to the previous life... the very last thought propells to the craving for another rebirth... and then followed by suffering... in a cycle.
but I'm sure Buddha doesn't want to talk whether he existed after death, where is he etc... I searched Accesstoinsight and there are plenty of suttas that stated clearly... e.g. Anuradha Sutta ?
since all beings are formed by 5 aggregates... dependent originated... there shouldn't have any speculation about whether there is any existence or non-existence after death... is like eternalistic or nihilistic views...?
This Christian website is heading awry, hopefully it does not move into the direction of cult. Ought to be wise in explaining, otherwise, the Christian faith may be unwisely drawn into Theravada tradition :p Theravada basically only acknowledges Buddha Sakyamuni, no other buddha in Theravada sutta, similar to Christian only acknowledge God. In Mahayana, there are plentiful of buddhas because human alone are alot and there are other world system as well to accomodate science. These many other buddha worlds is in view of vow before their buddha fruition. Sakyamuni compassionate vow is established for samsara world to liberate suffering beings. In samsara, the suffering are alot more than other worlds as the beings in samsara lack clear understanding on the 5 aggregates of form and non forms, self, no self and emptiness :D
Originally posted by Nyorai:This Christian website is heading awry, hopefully it does not move into the direction of cult. Ought to be wise in explaining, otherwise, the Christian faith may be unwisely drawn into Theravada tradition :p Theravada basically only acknowledges Buddha Sakyamuni, no other buddha in Theravada sutta, similar to Christian only acknowledge God. In Mahayana, there are plentiful of buddhas because human alone are alot and there are other world system as well to accomodate science. These many other buddha worlds is in view of vow before their buddha fruition. Sakyamuni compassionate vow is established for samsara world to liberate suffering beings. In samsara, the suffering are alot more than other worlds as the beings in samsara lack clear understanding on the 5 aggregates of form and non forms, self, no self and emptiness :D
Sorry but I don't get what you were trying to sa? What Christian website s heading awry and moving in cultic direction? How is the Christian faith drawn to Theravada tradition?
ä¸–å°Šï¼Œä¹ æ�¶ä¼—ç”Ÿï¼Œä»Žçº¤æ¯«é—´ï¼Œä¾¿è‡³æ— é‡�。是诸众生有如æ¤ä¹ ，临命终时，父æ¯�眷属，宜为设ç¦�，以资å‰�路。或悬旛盖å�Šç‡ƒæ²¹ç�¯ã€‚或转读尊ç»�ã€�或供养佛åƒ�å�Šè¯¸åœ£åƒ�，乃至念佛è�©è�¨ï¼Œå�Šè¾Ÿæ”¯ä½›å��å—，一å��一å�·ï¼ŒåŽ†ä¸´ç»ˆäººè€³æ ¹ï¼Œæˆ–é—»åœ¨æœ¬è¯†ã€‚æ˜¯è¯¸ä¼—ç”Ÿæ‰€é€ æ�¶ä¸šï¼Œè®¡å…¶æ„Ÿæžœï¼Œå¿…å •æ�¶è¶£ï¼Œç¼˜æ˜¯çœ·å±žä¸ºä¸´ç»ˆäººä¿®æ¤åœ£å› ，如是众罪，悉皆消ç�。
Sutra of the Past Vows of Earth Store Bodhisattva
Originally posted by sinweiy:
truth issue? we are taking of the realisation of Anatta/sunyata. other than swiming, i also use one's habit die hard as another analogy. all and all, theory and practical is not the same. even driving have theory and practical lessons. it's until one passed the practical lessons, then one can start driving. same as the realisation of Anatta/sunyata. ur not appropriate is funny.
turn the other cheek also need god's help is funny too.
the depth of illusion of phenomena depend on one's seeing through and letting go in Buddhism.
i find that ur anwsers never came out from yourself to be in a meaningful/logical/wisdom sense, u only know how to refer to what the book/god say, and u take it to be true. . i don't know how to say, but there's no wisdom, no meaning, like childlike learning(or not many daily examples). then u will say, no wisdom, does not mean it's not true. speechless.
Two monks were arguing about the temple flag waving in the wind. One said, "The flag moves." The other said, "The wind moves." They argued back and forth but could not agree.
what do u think? is it the flag that moves or the wind that moves?
/\
There is orthodoxy and orthopraxy. I am referring to the former. One can make truth claims or statements about reality. e.g. life is an illusion or the universe is not real. The issue is whether this claim is true or whether there are good reasons to conclude it is true. While theory and practice is distinct, practice should flow from theory or at least confim or be consistent with the theory. For example, if the theory is that stepping on brake will stop the car, the practical aspect should reflect that.
Re turning the other cheek with God's help. What is so funny about that? Are you thinking that we need God to physically turn our cheek the other way? If so, that would be laughing at your own strawman. What we mean is that our human nature is to return a slap for a slap. The Christian is asking for God's help to mold our character continuously to refrain from retaliation.
Re the depth of illusion. The question that needs to be answered is this, is there an illusion in the first place?
Frankly I take it as a compliment that you noted that my answers seems to come from the Bible and not of myself. The problem in churches today is that most believers do not have a Biblical worldview. As such they lack the certainty of the answers. You say my Biblical answers lack wisdom, but what wisdom are you talking about? Human wisdom? The Bible says that the wisdom of God is foolishness to man. How true! The ways of God are indeed higher than man. Man thinks that the strong prevails, but God uses the weak things to demonstrate strength.
Re the flag and the wind. This is the fallacy of false dilemma. It is not either/or, but both! Both the flag and the wind moves.
Originally posted by Nyorai:ä¸–å°Šï¼Œä¹ æ�¶ä¼—ç”Ÿï¼Œä»Žçº¤æ¯«é—´ï¼Œä¾¿è‡³æ— é‡�。是诸众生有如æ¤ä¹ ，临命终时，父æ¯�眷属，宜为设ç¦�，以资å‰�路。或悬旛盖å�Šç‡ƒæ²¹ç�¯ã€‚或转读尊ç»�ã€�或供养佛åƒ�å�Šè¯¸åœ£åƒ�，乃至念佛è�©è�¨ï¼Œå�Šè¾Ÿæ”¯ä½›å��å—，一å��一å�·ï¼ŒåŽ†ä¸´ç»ˆäººè€³æ ¹ï¼Œæˆ–é—»åœ¨æœ¬è¯†ã€‚æ˜¯è¯¸ä¼—ç”Ÿæ‰€é€ æ�¶ä¸šï¼Œè®¡å…¶æ„Ÿæžœï¼Œå¿…å •æ�¶è¶£ï¼Œç¼˜æ˜¯çœ·å±žä¸ºä¸´ç»ˆäººä¿®æ¤åœ£å› ，如是众罪，悉皆消ç�。
Sutra of the Past Vows of Earth Store Bodhisattva
English please?
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Frankly I take it as a compliment that you noted that my answers seems to come from the Bible and not of myself. The problem in churches today is that most believers do not have a Biblical worldview. As such they lack the certainty of the answers. You say my Biblical answers lack wisdom, but what wisdom are you talking about? Human wisdom? The Bible says that the wisdom of God is foolishness to man. How true! The ways of God are indeed higher than man. Man thinks that the strong prevails, but God uses the weak things to demonstrate strength.
Re the flag and the wind. This is the fallacy of false dilemma. It is not either/or, but both! Both the flag and the wind moves.
"Both the flag and the wind moves?" hah, ok, that already explain the wisdom u have learn from your god. u can search the web, what really move, by Hui Neng. i no need to say. to us, Buddha is indeed the teacher of gods.
/\
Originally posted by sinweiy:
"Both the flag and the wind moves?" hah, ok, that already explain the wisdom u have learn from your god. u can search the web, what really move, by Hui Neng. i no need to say. to us, Buddha is indeed the teacher of gods.
/\
I beg to differ. Let me ask you then. Did the flag move? Did the wind move? Are you going to say no to both?
Buddha may be the teacher of "gods", but I think he needs to learn about the true God.
日里看山西��，�起一年须弥山。点之�化，�如何看�我们�予的�扫帚？
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:日里看山西��，�起一年须弥山。点之�化，�如何看�我们�予的�扫帚？
Translate to English please.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:English please?
buddhism started from india and went into china... the earliest of its teaching is in sanscrit and chinese. So, english pls? if you wanna go into the true understand of it, read the chinese one, or go further to the sanscrit
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Translate to English please.
the essence is in the language itself, which truely conveys the message of what's in that sentence. translating it to english loses part of the message.
Or mayb i shld say, learn to read chinese.
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
the essence is in the language itself, which truely conveys the message of what's in that sentence. translating it to english loses part of the message.Or mayb i shld say, learn to read chinese.
Thanks, that wasn't a helpful answer at all. It was a dodgeful one for sure though.
I can read Chinese though not very well, which is why I asked you to translate. Does Buddhism requires all to learn Chinese before one can understand the essence of it? And can you understand Sanskrit? If not, what hope do most of us have? And if you cannot translate the essense of it, is it because you yourself does not understand it too?
Consider the Bible, written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. It is translated into many languages around the world. In fact it is the most translated book in the world. Why? To communicate God's Word to people in their own language without requiring them to learn the languages in which it was written.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Thanks, that wasn't a helpful answer at all. It was a dodgeful one for sure though.
I can read Chinese though not very well, which is why I asked you to translate. Does Buddhism requires all to learn Chinese before one can understand the essence of it? And can you understand Sanskrit? If not, what hope do most of us have? And if you cannot translate the essense of it, is it because you yourself does not understand it too?
Consider the Bible, written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. It is translated into many languages around the world. In fact it is the most translated book in the world. Why? To communicate God's Word to people in their own language without requiring them to learn the languages in which it was written.
nope it aint dodgeful at all, it is just telling you that the best way to understand that doesn't come from a translated version. If all you want is a half true understanding of anything, then go and read the translations then. Precisely cause i haven't read the sanskrit version, thats why i dont claim other religions wrong and buddhism the one true only and go around preaching pressing answers.
It is translated because ppl cant read the hebrews aramaic and greek. But it doesn't mean reading a translated version made them much nearer than being further.
if i tell you "impress"=�象, how accurate is that? but assuming you dont understand english, you are going to take it that "impress"=�象 while we know that it aint the same. So, how accurate can translation get? while it helps, it may not in certain circumstance. From personal experience,reading whatever that is taught in buddhism in chinese is way too different in english.
Anyway that post aint quite meant for u... so yeap you probably dont have to know it.
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:nope it aint dodgeful at all, it is just telling you that the best way to understand that doesn't come from a translated version. If all you want is a half true understanding of anything, then go and read the translations then. Precisely cause i haven't read the sanskrit version, thats why i dont claim other religions wrong and buddhism the one true only and go around preaching pressing answers.
It is translated because ppl cant read the hebrews aramaic and greek. But it doesn't mean reading a translated version made them much nearer than being further.
You mean unless one can read original languages otherwise cannot claim that Buddhism is the true way to go?
The purpose of translation is not to make you closer to God. Translations do not do such a thing at all. You have misconstrued the purpose and use of translation. Translation is merely to communicate one thing in the language of another. If one must know original languages to know the essence of the religion, then I submit to you that perhaps more tha 90% of religious people do not know the essence of their religion. I don't think you would agree to that.
Are the Mods of this forum proficient in Sanskrit?
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:nope it aint dodgeful at all, it is just telling you that the best way to understand that doesn't come from a translated version. If all you want is a half true understanding of anything, then go and read the translations then. Precisely cause i haven't read the sanskrit version, thats why i dont claim other religions wrong and buddhism the one true only and go around preaching pressing answers.
It is translated because ppl cant read the hebrews aramaic and greek. But it doesn't mean reading a translated version made them much nearer than being further.
if i tell you "impress"=�象, how accurate is that? but assuming you dont understand english, you are going to take it that "impress"=�象 while we know that it aint the same. So, how accurate can translation get? while it helps, it may not in certain circumstance. From personal experience,reading whatever that is taught in buddhism in chinese is way too different in english.
Anyway that post aint quite meant for u... so yeap you probably dont have to know it.
When translating between two languages it is imperative that one is proficient in both, otherwise the result can be disastrous!
Anyway, since the post wasn't meant for me, I shall not be too "duo xin" and can indulge in some apathetic ignorance. ; p
Originally posted by BroInChrist:You mean unless one can read original languages otherwise cannot claim that Buddhism is the true way to go?
The purpose of translation is not to make you closer to God. Translations do not do such a thing at all. You have misconstrued the purpose and use of translation. Translation is merely to communicate one thing in the language of another. If one must know original languages to know the essence of the religion, then I submit to you that perhaps more tha 90% of religious people do not know the essence of their religion. I don't think you would agree to that.
Are the Mods of this forum proficient in Sanskrit?
Please do not change what I've said. I mentioned about understanding... Not of Buddhism being the true religion. Do not simply change what others have said to suit your own needs.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:I beg to differ. Let me ask you then. Did the flag move? Did the wind move? Are you going to say no to both?
Buddha may be the teacher of "gods", but I think he needs to learn about the true God.
Hah, no is also not the answer. hint: people tend to only see the retrospect, but Neglect the Introspect. true god/mind IS about the Introspect. people tend to blame the outside world, but neglect the inner world.
for example, when ur thing fell into a hole, and u cannot reached it, people tend to blame the hole is too deep, but never say why my hand is too short. some time the answer is inside us. finger pointing at the moon, don't just see the finger.
Frankly I take it as a compliment that you noted that my answers seems to come from the Bible and not of myself. The problem in churches today is that most believers do not have a Biblical worldview. As such they lack the certainty of the answers. You say my Biblical answers lack wisdom, but what wisdom are you talking about? Human wisdom? The Bible says that the wisdom of God is foolishness to man. How true! The ways of God are indeed higher than man. Man thinks that the strong prevails, but God uses the weak things to demonstrate strength.
btw , in Buddhism, if a buddhist is like u, so clinging or obsessed with the dharma and start to discriminate or become bias in an extreme way, something like extremists, we can also call them a "hinayana", small vehicle, buddhism. they are too attached to the apparent buddhism but not the inner meaning of buddhism. they are like following next to Buddha, but in fact are far from Buddha. they do not see the real Buddha.
/\
Originally posted by sinweiy:
Hah, no is also not the answer. hint: people tend to only see the retrospect, but Neglect the Introspect. true god/mind IS about the Introspect. people tend to blame the outside world, but neglect the inner world.for example, when ur thing fell into a hole, and u cannot reached it, people tend to blame the hole is too deep, but never say why my hand is too short. some time the answer is inside us. finger pointing at the moon, don't just see the finger.
btw , in Buddhism, if a buddhist is like u, so clinging or obsessed with the dharma and start to discriminate or become bias in an extreme way, something like extremists, we can also call them a "hinayana", small vehicle, buddhism. they are too attached to the apparent buddhism but not the inner meaning of buddhism. they are like following next to Buddha, but in fact are far from Buddha. they do not see the real Buddha.
/\
hoho, i like your last paragraph :) but how many truely realises it?