--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 > > <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <no_reply@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yifuxero" <yifuxero@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > ---Why does he have Woody Woodpecter on his hat?: > > > > > http://www.tinyurl.com/5dqnn9 > > > > > > > > Buddhists love to pick on others. It's an inferiorcomplex due > > > > to the inferior nature of their meditative straining. Just > > > > watch Vaj here on FFL - he does this constantly, year after > > > > year. > > > > > > in general, i've met very few ( ok, none... actually) normally > > > adjusted people who are heavily associated with a religion, be > > > it buddhist, hindu, christian, etc., because their heavy > > > involvement with the external group is a symptom of areas in > > > which they are lacking. > > > > > > and the more involved they are, the more unbalanced they become. > > > > While I cannot disagree, I have found that the > > same imbalance and *lack* is seen in those who > > are strongly anti-religion, to a greater degree. > > that makes sense. > > > Do you actually believe that Nabby's obvious > > hatred of things Buddhist (something he is > > repeating as rote from the Shankaracharya trad- > > ition) is *balanced*? > > nabby strikes me as a pretty religous person. > > > The only balance I've seen in the world of religion > > and belief is in those who can take it or leave it, > > and who don't *depend* upon it to define themselves. > > uh-huh, or anything else to define themselves. > > > I've met Catholic priests who would be equally happy > > if the Catholic Church disappeared tomorrow, and all > > they had to define themselves was the lifestyle they > > were already leading. I've met Buddhists and Hindus > > who had the same sense of balance in their lives. > > makes sense. > > > But I've never met a strong True Believer whom I > > could describe using the word "balance." Not one. > > Nor have I ever met a strong "anti-belief" activist > > or whiner whom I could apply that word to. > > > > As Vaj pointed out, the extremism of the points of view > > that *you* have expressed here on FFL reveals a > > great deal more about you than I think you realize. > > no problem. Thanks for the reply B.
And thanks for not overreacting to it. I think you made a very valid point in that it's the over-identification with an external group that is the culprit in defining True Believerism and the sense of imbalance that most of us assoc- iate with it. I've always had an issue with anyone who, when asked to define themselves, comes up with the name of a group as their first response. "I'm a meditator." "I'm a Christian." "I'm a Buddhist." "I'm a Hindu." "I'm a Republican." "I'm a Democrat." "I'm a member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster." (OK, the last one is better, because it displays a sense of humor.) As you may have gathered, I just don't DO groups any more. "I'm a human being, who after 40+ years on the spiritual path, knows nothing for sure and does not ever expect or hope to. I hope that my sense of wonder and appreciation of the essential Mystery of life lasts as long as I do." And that declaration doesn't make me any "better" than anyone who identifies primarily with some group, but I think it does give me more of a "fallback position." If Buddhism vanished from the world tomorrow, it would not affect me in any way. Out of all the spiritual traditions I have examined and studied, Buddhism "floats my boat" more than the others, but I am NOT a Buddhist in the sense that I consider either the practice of Buddhist principles a religion, or consider myself a member of any sangha or formal group. As the wise words Rick has included on the Fairfield Life home page from Robbie Robertson of The Band express, my feeling is that spiritual traditions offer us the opportunity to "Take what you need and leave the rest." In a very real sense, I define my relationship to any of the spiritual traditions I have studied the same way that E.M. Forster defined his relation- ship to his native land, "If I had to choose between betraying my country or my friend, I should hope I have the guts to betray my country." Similarly, if I am ever in the future (as I have been in the past) placed in a position of reject- ing the dogma of Buddhism or any of the other spiritual traditions I have studied or rejecting my own intuitive feelings about something, I should hope that I chuck the spiritual tradition in the shitter and not what I know to be right, right now, for me. I *understand* the importance that identification with a group has for many, if not most, people. It's just that I do not share their desire *for* that level of identification any more. It has served a purpose for me in the past, but now serves only to bind me, IMO. I am by nature a loner, a solitary seeker blazing his own trail through the forest rather than following those blazed by others, and I'm happy with that. And I'll be happy with that even if blazing my own trail leaves me hopelessly lost, because it'll be *my* lost, and not someone else's. There is a short poem that I have quoted here many times that expresses my credo in as few lines as I think it's possible to be expressed. It's by the 17th century Haiku poet Basho, and cannot in my opinion be topped by any other verse in any other spiritual text or "scripture." I do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; I seek what they sought.
