tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1449952380128375575.post7468032771074673888..comments2024-03-21T00:30:14.738-07:00Comments on Yoga in the Dragon's Den: Why I am a bad Buddhist (and why I practice yoga)Nobelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00655577410721103577noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1449952380128375575.post-42287987188780087722012-01-01T16:44:30.880-08:002012-01-01T16:44:30.880-08:00Thanks for sharing, Carol. I'm not sure if *we...Thanks for sharing, Carol. I'm not sure if *we* can't know which is closer to the truth; all I know is that I, in my present state, do not know what the truth is. Will I know one day? I don't know... <br /><br />I agree with you that knowing that we don't know keeps us more open than believing that one has the ultimate truth locked down. But the "truth fundamentalist" in me is always curious about whether there might be a fact of the matter about this issue behind the veil, so to speak. And given this curiosity, I can't help but keep thinking and pondering.Nobelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00655577410721103577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1449952380128375575.post-8603348005686777082012-01-01T12:53:13.722-08:002012-01-01T12:53:13.722-08:00I tend to think that being aware of and undecided ...I tend to think that being aware of and undecided between these two different views is actually a good thing. Because 1. really, we can't know which is closer to the truth, and 2. knowing that we don't know keeps us more open then believing that we've got the ultimate truth locked down.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06954595575931726418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1449952380128375575.post-21928350334147578692012-01-01T09:07:09.802-08:002012-01-01T09:07:09.802-08:00Hello Yyogini,
"would you say...Hello Yyogini, <br /> "would you say that the fundamental difference between the beliefs is that there is a greater entity in one case and no greater entity in the second case?"<br /><br />This sounds right, at least in theory. If not having a greater entity (God, Self, whatever) means that things happen without any greater reason whatsoever... in my view, this makes Buddhism less attractive as a worldview. <br /><br />Thanks for not thinking I'm a "bad" Buddhist :-)Nobelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00655577410721103577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1449952380128375575.post-73781422420620100802011-12-31T22:40:42.506-08:002011-12-31T22:40:42.506-08:00Super interesting. I don't know enough about e...Super interesting. I don't know enough about either religion/philosophy, but would you say that the fundamental difference between the beliefs is that there is a greater entity in one case and no greater entity in the second case? Having a greater entity, a "God", means that everything happens for a reason because God created the world for a purpose. In the second case, there is no God and no self; we don't know why the universe is the way it is and we're not meant to find out, so just hang on tight and enjoy the ride (of life). <br /><br />I don't think you're a "bad" buddhist. I think the default mode of the brain is to cling on to the idea of self, to constantly evaluate the current situation and to identify potential threats, even when there are no threats around, and that's the source of anxiety/suffering. The practice of Buddhism is a tool to try to relieve this anxiety/suffering. It's an aid to help us get through life, rather than an ideal for us to attain within this life time. But I could be wrong. I don't really understand the whole re-incarnation idea.Yoginihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09483919150641771008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1449952380128375575.post-57280295391353591892011-12-31T17:05:40.258-08:002011-12-31T17:05:40.258-08:00Interesting, Tom. I'm not sure if this is one ...Interesting, Tom. I'm not sure if this is one of the many cases of over-attachment to words that abound when one tries to verbally describe something that is quite indescribable(I sure hope it is). <br /><br />Not to go deeper down the word-attachment rabbit-hole (even though I'm probably already doing it :-)), but I can't help noticing that very little has been said about exactly what it is that the Buddhist sees when he sees through the veil of illusion. Perhaps, like the vedantin, he too sees that he is also part of a greater entity (Self)? <br /><br />I have no answers here (as always). Just speculating. <br /><br />Thanks for sharing, Juliana. I've never read Tenzin Palmo. I'll do that soon. I really don't know if it matters in the end. But, well, that's why we're here, right? :-)Nobelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00655577410721103577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1449952380128375575.post-86281460425758231772011-12-31T15:57:01.136-08:002011-12-31T15:57:01.136-08:00I find it so fitting how you've posted about B...I find it so fitting how you've posted about Buddhism today. I am currently reading Cave in the Snow, the story of Tenzin Palmo, a Buddhist nun. I am in by no means a philosopher and I am just starting to scratch the surface of the spirituality within my yoga practice but I love this discussion. In the end does it even really matter? As Tom said, there seems to be a similar goal in mind, everything else is just words.Julianahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17142920440772296933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1449952380128375575.post-55158223506545262802011-12-31T12:45:49.595-08:002011-12-31T12:45:49.595-08:00I don't see a conflict. Scholars, religionists...I don't see a conflict. Scholars, religionists, and linguists have muddled things, and there is too much attachment to words. When a buddhist sees through the illusion of self and rests in their buddha nature is the same as when a vedantin "self-realizes". Different words, seemingly contradictory, that say the same thing. I like how LaoZi says that which can be named is not the dao - once you try to name and describe an experience the essence gets lost, but it's essence of the experience that matters.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com