Seraphim

So do I. It's very important for a teacher to be an example of what they teach. Otherwise they're wasting their time.

However, anybody who is trying to achieve perfection will never do so.

My reply : Not exactly, They (those who trying to achieve perfection) could mind their own business and others could follow their actions as examples.
In this case, it is the action NOT the sermon or preaching or other stuffs which is the example.

andy_d

How is that different from what I said?

Seraphim

How is it different? The approach I guess.

I believe when you said people who seeks perfection (through Buddhism aka Nirwana) will be too busy dealing with their SELF and their own problems that they have no time to help others with their problems. Help of cource could mean by means of talking, preaching, conducting sermons and praying. Is my opinion correct about your assumption?

Your assumption is true in some condition, but not in all conditions.

My approach is by doing what been preached in Buddhism and let others make their own assumption based on their action and link it with their own problem. In this case, the person who seeks perfection will seek it by doing what is proper, which is then set as examples (unpreached) by others who needs help. In this case, the person who seeks perfection helps others by doing nothing except being what he should be.


In both cases, it is the approach (mine being indirect - requires less attention, yours being direct - required more attention and in some cases, direct involvement by person who seeks perfection with matters of the world) that is different.

Supergirl

Hi

I am an atheist pagan and think that it is possible to get inspiration for your own referance framework from religion.

Celebrating what religion gives you culturally does not neccesitate that you worship or acknowledge the deity/ supernatural premise involved.

andy_d

No, what I said was that anyone who tries to reach enlightenment by focussing on attainment won't reach it.

Attatching yourself to a dualistic concept like attainment will limit the ammount you can achieve. It's enough to simply be diligent in your practice. After all, any changes that come about through your practice won't be the result of anything being added to your mind, they'll just be the result of losing some of your limitations.

Seraphim

No, what I said was that anyone who tries to reach enlightenment by focussing on attainment won't reach it.

My reply : I think I understand what you meant, but I will wait for you to explain in details. What do you mean those who wish to reach enlightnment by focussing on it will not reach it? Mind tell me how else they supposed to reach it?

Attatching yourself to a dualistic concept like attainment will limit the ammount you can achieve. It's enough to simply be diligent in your practice. After all, any changes that come about through your practice won't be the result of anything being added to your mind, they'll just be the result of losing some of your limitations.

My reply (or rather question) : Isn't the focus of Buddhism is to lose ones' limitations since such is the result of the Self? Allow me to make it clear.

A person is more concern of wealthy is limit himself to pursuing that wealthy. Same goes for those who seeks power, lust etc. Isn't the practise of Buddhism is to devoid oneself of attachment of life thus preventing oneself from accumulating limitations of the Mind and Body?

andy_d

Aha, my friend! You've answered your own question!

If the practice of Buddhism is a process of stripping away one's false and ego-based ideas, then what are you attaining? You're not adding anything, you're simply expressing your true self. Anyone who thinks they will become something that they aren't already through practising Buddhism has a wrong understanding of Buddha-nature.

Of course, Buddhists should be dilligent and apply a good effort to their practice, but if you embrace the idea that we are all, at heart, Buddhas, then there isn't any other way to live.

Seraphim

Aha, my friend! You've answered your own question!

If the practice of Buddhism is a process of stripping away one's false and ego-based ideas, then what are you attaining? You're not adding anything, you're simply expressing your true self. Anyone who thinks they will become something that they aren't already through practising Buddhism has a wrong understanding of Buddha-nature.

Of course, Buddhists should be dilligent and apply a good effort to their practice, but if you embrace the idea that we are all, at heart, Buddhas, then there isn't any other way to live.

My reply : And you just answered one of the main reasons why Western Society will never reach the level of spiritualism which the Easterners had obtained (no offence attended).

1. You speak as if you know what is a person (or in this case, human's) true nature. Do we know what is our true nature is? Even Buddha never said what being Enlightened is.

2. You speak of Buddha's nature (it is about ... maybe fourth time I have heard such remark). What IS exactly is Buddha's nature?

Compassion? We can sit and talk about compassion and how it too can lead one's astray.
Love? That is too broad of a concept which even you won't want to touch. Whatelse is there?

3. You speak of way of living is Buddha's way since we all Buddhas in the heart (which is true). This however can mislead you as well. Obtaining Buddhahood is not about living, it is about dying and release oneself from death and rebirth.
While Easterners accepted life, death and rebirth as a cycle and Enlightnment is a way to break free of that cycle, Westerners continue to hold onto their desire to live.
In that context, you are seeking Buddha's way of life to LIVE, I see it (assuming I'm a Buddhist) to DIE.

andy_d

Maybe there will be a time when I will be able to describe exactly what Buddha-nature is, but like you say, none of us can know right now. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't recognise that such a thing exists.

I've heard a lot of words to describe it's qualities, such as space, bliss, wisdom, etc, etc, etc. But everybody recognises these are approximations that cannot possibly provide an exact idea of the concept.

To my mind, you cannot follow the Buddhist path without recognising the fact of the Buddha-nature at the heart of all people.

More to the point, [i]why[/] would you follow it if you didn't?

Seraphim

Maybe there will be a time when I will be able to describe exactly what Buddha-nature is, but like you say, none of us can know right now. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't recognise that such a thing exists.

My reply : Funny ... I could hear the same argument from a Theist about God. Just because God is hard to explain, it doesn't mean He doesn't exist.

I've heard a lot of words to describe it's qualities, such as space, bliss, wisdom, etc, etc, etc. But everybody recognises these are approximations that cannot possibly provide an exact idea of the concept.

To my mind, you cannot follow the Buddhist path without recognising the fact of the Buddha-nature at the heart of all people.

My reply : A word of advice ...
Don't let your SELF make limitations for you.
Don't let yourself get binded down by your own expectation of something which you may not have full understanding.

More to the point, [i]why[/] would you follow it if you didn't?

My reply : The answer is - Because it is worth chasing something which you know it is there but eludes you.

To me, it is the journey that is important, NOT the destination.
In my opinion, it is the journey which made Gautama (the man) into Buddha (the Enlightnment One), NOT the destination.