--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <no_re...@...> wrote: > > If you had to be a true believer, which one would you be? > > Take a pick and justify it. > > Advaitan? Buddhist? TMer? Christian? Jewish? Hindu? > Taoist? > > Or? > > What I'm trying to get at with this question is the > identifying of which ism comes closest to one's "best > fit" -- emotionally, intellectually, socially. > > I don't find it to be a trivial question for me.
Sorry, but I find it a trivial question. I personally believe that identifying with ANY group to the point that you are talking about is contrary to the spiritual process. I'm not trying to sell this belief to you or to anyone else, but that IS what I believe. I am definitely NOT a Buddhist. I am NOT a Taoist. I am NOT a shamanistic occultist. I enjoy and appreciate and honor aspects of all three studies, but I do not "box myself in" by identifying with them. Hell, Edg, I reject the first of Buddha's Four Noble Truths, "Life is suffering." Can I do that and still "identify" with being called a "Buddhist?" For other people, if they swing that way, I have no problem with them identifying with some "-ism" to the point of considering them- selves an "-ist" of that ilk. Me, it just doesn't float my boat. I reserve the right to "float like a butterfly, sting like a bee" spiritually. So about the most I can say in reply to your question that preserves the spirit of it is to second the thoughts of my man Bruce Cockburn (himself a strong Christian): "If there is an '-ism' on this planet that we should all oppose, it is fundamentalism." Even "identifying" with any of the above "-ism's" is too fundamentalist for me. I also hope NEVER to aspire to being a True Believer, in ANYTHING. The essence of belief, to me, is being able to change it at any moment, based on the latest information and my latest perceptions. Look at the FFL Home Page. Bertrand Russell said it best: "What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite."
