Hello, anyone interested in Buddhism ?
I used to be. There are many branches of this - which branch interests you? I was a mahayana buddhist.
Oh I see...you just wanted to post the link to a buddhist forum. Hmmm.
Interested, but not a believer.
I used to be. There are many branches of this - which branch interests you? I was a mahayana buddhist.
Oh I see...you just wanted to post the link to a buddhist forum. Hmmm.
Hmm, perhaps a tad too judgemental. Elen's link is part of her signature, which is perfectly acceptable, and she has been a member for a good while now (though not posted often).
😉
Hello, anyone interested in Buddhism ?
Hi Elen,
I'm interested in the Buddhist teachings though do not ascribe to follow the practice in the sense of calling myself a Buddhist. I find a great similarity between many of the Buddhist teachings and the principles of being in the present moment.
Was there any particular reason for your asking?
Hmm, perhaps a tad too judgemental. Elen's link is part of her signature, which is perfectly acceptable, and she has been a member for a good while now (though not posted often).
😉
Sorry - I didn't realise. 
Well, I did also ask her about it too!
Hi Elen,
I'm interested in the Buddhist teachings though do not ascribe to follow the practice in the sense of calling myself a Buddhist. I find a great similarity between many of the Buddhist teachings and the principles of being in the present moment.
Was there any particular reason for your asking?
You and me both Giles. And of course buddhist principles underpin reiki. Mikao Usui was a lay buddhist monk .
Tashanie and EnergyIz - have either of you practised non attachment? I have but am no longer a buddhist.
I am currently having to defend this aspect of Buddhism on another forum (not the one given as a link here) due to some members there assuming that it is the same as apathy! I regard apathy as indifference/unhealthy not neutral, as non attachment is.
Tashanie and EnergyIz - have either of you practised non attachment? I have but am no longer a buddhist.
I am currently having to defend this aspect of Buddhism on another forum (not the one given as a link here) due to some members there assuming that it is the same as apathy! I regard apathy as indifference/unhealthy not neutral, as non attachment is.
Within shamanism there is 'not being attached to the outcome' - which, I guess, is similar.
Tashanie and EnergyIz - have either of you practised non attachment? I have but am no longer a buddhist.
I am currently having to defend this aspect of Buddhism on another forum (not the one given as a link here) due to some members there assuming that it is the same as apathy! I regard apathy as indifference/unhealthy not neutral, as non attachment is.
Most certainly have practiced non-attachment, and it forms part of being in the present moment.
Some people seem to perceive non attachment as apathy or not caring, which is a complete misconception. Buddhism doesn't teach us not to get angry, or to ignore something that needs our attention, but teaches us that we should deal with those things as they are relevant to us in the present moment. Once the situation does not require it, then there is no point in remaining angry, or whatever, about that event in the past, as that will serve us no purpose, and for that reason we let go of attachment to those things. That doesn't mean we forget it. It doesn't mean we don't care about what happened. It means that we focus on what is required of us in this present moment.
Those who perceive non-attachment as apathy only show that they have not studied or understood the underlying principle of what is actually meant by non-attachment. They are judging based on their own attachment to fear of what it is in their own misconceived minds.
Most certainly have practiced non-attachment, and it forms part of being in the present moment.
Some people seem to perceive non attachment as apathy or not caring, which is a complete misconception. Buddhism doesn't teach us not to get angry, or to ignore something that needs our attention, but teaches us that we should deal with those things as they are relevant to us in the present moment. Once the situation does not require it, then there is no point in remaining angry, or whatever, about that event in the past, as that will serve us no purpose, and for that reason we let go of attachment to those things. That doesn't mean we forget it. It doesn't mean we don't care about what happened. It means that we focus on what is required of us in this present moment.
Those who perceive non-attachment as apathy only show that they have not studied or understood the underlying principle of what is actually meant by non-attachment. They are judging based on their own attachment to fear of what it is in their own misconceived minds.
Yes I agree. The judgement comes from ignorance i.e. criticising without an understanding/knowledge of the subject. Of course pointing this out just inflames the situation!
Yes I agree. The judgement comes from ignorance i.e. criticising without an understanding/knowledge of the subject. Of course pointing this out just inflames the situation!
Oh, indeed, there is little point in pointing out such things to people who are set in their ways of thinking. The most you can do is provide the information about what attachment and non-attachment are, and try to do it in a way to assist their understanding. If they persist without even trying to understand then there's no point in discussing on that forum. There will always be "anti" people about who will argue of the sake of it, because they don't really have an interest in discussing or learning.
Yes I agree. The judgement comes from ignorance i.e. criticising without an understanding/knowledge of the subject. Of course pointing this out just inflames the situation!
That does depend partly on how you point it out 😉
That does depend partly on how you point it out 😉
I try to be tactful but there are far too many sceptics there who are not openminded to anything that can't be proved in a lab! o_O
Tashanie and EnergyIz - have either of you practised non attachment? I have but am no longer a buddhist.
I am currently having to defend this aspect of Buddhism on another forum (not the one given as a link here) due to some members there assuming that it is the same as apathy! I regard apathy as indifference/unhealthy not neutral, as non attachment is.
Its a hard thing to practice in my experience. Thats why mindfulness meditation is often taught by buddhist centres. As a teacher of mindfulness I certainly try . I can see why it could get confused with apathy thought
I think I may have taken non attachment further than it was intended. I became very wary of any desire (since they are said to cause suffering) and so, eventually, reached a strange plateau....although I had, indeed, achieved serenity it was at the expense of feeling alive. I felt like I was watching life play out from the wings. I drew a picture of it (at that time), depicting this; the 'players' (public) being multicoloured and myself, composed but grey in colour. It got so that I questioned myself in wanting to phone a friend, i.e. saw it as a weakness/a desire not to be cultivated.
I needed to learn detachment from my emotions at the time since I was prone to unrequited love, which was very painful. I mastered that skill so have taken something away from it.
The last straw though - that culminated in my no longer being a practising buddhist as such - came when I was told that I would have to incarnate as a man in order to achieve enlightenment! This felt both false and a cultural addon, i.e. not intrinsic to the original teaching. I still practise mindfulness and, generally, have a high regard for Buddhism, especially in its cultivation of compassion.
Indeed, that's an example of one of the reasons that I don't ascribe to all the Buddhist practices of any particular Buddhist style. There's too much nonsense been attached to the original teachings. If you were told you had to "reincarnate as a man" to achieve enlightenment then that is a corruption of the teachings around the samsara circle of life and rebirth. Those teachings refer to enlightenment only being achievable through our human form, and not as an animal, or demi-god or one of the other incarnate types in the teachings. "Human Form" does not equal "man", so I can only suppose that that person or school has corrupted it either through their own misunderstanding, or deliberately to impart a method of power or control over others, which is itself an attachment, so they would therefore not be practicing what they preach.
As a sideline.... Once of the best books I've read in relation to Buddhist teachings, is the "Journey to the West" (the full approx. 2,000 page (and very small text) version - ) which is what the Japanese TV series Monkey Magic was based on. There are other versions available such as the Penguin Classics version (which I also have) but they miss most of the important detail.
As a sideline.... Once of the best books I've read in relation to Buddhist teachings, is the "Journey to the West" (the full approx. 2,000 page (and very small text) version - ) which is what the Japanese TV series Monkey Magic was based on. There are other versions available such as the Penguin Classics version (which I also have) but they miss most of the important detail.
I have this as a Chinese comic book! (I have other versions as well.) Chinese Buddhism is, of course, rather different from other forms - particularly the rather messed-about Western versions. As Buddhism moved eastwards into China, all the bits that didn't fit with the Chinese belief systems got dropped rather. It's more usual to describe it as syncretic than anything else.
Buddhism - Karma
Not in the sky, nor in the midst of the sea,
Nor by hiding in a mountain cave:
No place on earth is to be found
Where one might escape one’s wicked deeds.
Am I wrong to live in hope this will relate to x daughter in law.
Hello, anyone interested in Buddhism ?
Are you still there, Elen?
I have this as a Chinese comic book! (I have other versions as well.) Chinese Buddhism is, of course, rather different from other forms - particularly the rather messed-about Western versions. As Buddhism moved eastwards into China, all the bits that didn't fit with the Chinese belief systems got dropped rather. It's more usual to describe it as syncretic than anything else.
The flavour of Buddhism changes in different cultures to meet the needs of the community. But the essence of Buddhism is generally found in most forms of Buddhism (I say it that way to acknowledge that like any religion/philosophy there will always be weirdo cults and massive distortions of core teachings for perverse activities). The universal natural of the teachings (Dharma) can handle development, as all is impermanent and subject to change!
As for Reiki and Buddhism mentioned in other posts. A recent book on the subject: "The Inner Heart of Reiki" by Frans Steine, considers that Usui Reiki teachings conveyed Buddha Dharma at a time when the Japanese state were forcing people to follow Shintoism. On page 21, Steine says:
It is said that Usui taught these [precepts/principles] to his Buddhist students.
Do not bear anger, for anger is an illusion
Do not be worried, for fear is a distraction
Be true to your way and your being/True Self
Show compassion to yourself and others
Because this is the centre of Buddhahood
This form of the precepts takes the healing of our mind even a step further as it discusses illusion, distraction, and Buddhahood.
But it seems that Usui changed the precepts/principles according to where the student was at, but I do realise that I'm slowly going off topic.
To answer Elan's question. Yes, I have an interest in Chan Buddhism (Chinese Zen as it's often described, but Zen derived from Chan, and could be seen as syncretic).
Are you still there, Elen?
Not likely