Don't forget to say hello to the cloud...

...yea that's right. The cloud. The cloud is in that bottle of water you drank today, it is also in the icecream that I ate yesterday.. the cloud is even in that glass of tea you had a few days ago.


"One cause can never be enough in order to bring about an effect"
The reason why I had icecream yesterday wasn't just because I wanted to have it. The reasons behind why I actually got it are infinite. For example, first my parents had to create me; I needed to develop a liking of icecream; I needed a car to drive to get the icecream; a store needed to exist in order for me to get the icecream; a cow needed to be involved for me to get the icecream. I can go on and on...


To reach Nirvana we need to understand and realize that what we are looking for has been within us this whole time.
When I read this part of the chapter I immediately thought of the Wizard of Oz. When the whole gang is standing there waiting to ask the wizard to grant them their wishes, the little green man behind the curtain is revealed. They then realize that there is no wizard that can help them. What they needed had been inside of them all along.
Once we recognize this, we will be free.


As the reading states, "We are Nirvana".

Are we here or not? Both yes and no.

I got several ideas out of this reading.

The omnipresent idea of non being and being were mentioned, as well as the important point about taking a class on Buddhism on page 21. It states that "To speak about or distribute ideas is not the study or practice of Buddhism." It's similar to the Tao Te Ching saying that "The more we know, the less we understand."

It is only through experience and understanding of those experiences, one make a marked understand of not only their lives, but also within a certain extent, the universe as well.

Also, it mentioned that without certain actions, aspects of our existence/non-existence would fail to manifest.

What I got out of it: There is a constant and steady flow and the world is made up of actions, reasons, and varied consciousnesses within that flow. Once we realize this, all will fall into place.

Dogs & Reincarnation, Mongolian Style

I was doing some research on my Mongol philosophy presentation, and I ran into this bit about dogs. Since we mentioned dogs and reincarnation briefly a couple classes ago, I thought this might be of interest for general background info on culture and tradition.

"Dogs are mentioned very often in famous historical documents and literary epics as "Dogs are the most loyal friends. They will never change poor master for a rich herder, grown by poor nomad it will never follow even a khaan." There was even a poem composed by Sandag, a famous poet of 19th century "Praise to Dog"

Ch. Jugder, well known expert on Medieval Mongolian philosophy, notes that "Mongols deeply respected and revered their dogs and the dogs never betrayed their masters."

Such respect for dogs even found reflection in the legislation. The Codes of Law from 1640 and 1709 (enforced and observed until 1921) both contain provisions prohibiting to kill or beat dogs.

Dogs, similar to horses, were buried on the hills so that people do not walk on their remains. Dog's tail was cut off and placed under the head. A piece of fat was put into their mouth and words of wishes to be born as a human being in the next life were said before burial."

'Mongolian Dog' (breed not 'registered') & child

(from Mongolia Today http://www.mongoliatoday.com/issue/8/dog_intro.html )

Words, windchimes, outer space

Despite the grounding of self-awareness, the people that spin past your periphery will inform how you interpret so much of your experience in the human context. We are an intuitive species, like every other, but that is easy to forget as we move through the evolution of communication. Words have more power than is generally acknowledged these days. How they are used can warp or elevate a message, and how we experience those words can be the foundation of expectation, as well. The word "spirituality" is a prime example. I do not like to inhabit many of the biases that surround words, but even I am subject to a knee-jerk reaction to that one. Spirituality for me triggers connotations of cultural blurring with a presumptive slant. Dreamcatchers and mantras and totems via New Age gift shops steeped in incense. Ethereal music (plucked sitars, echoing flutes, the occasional punctuation of a shimmery windchime). Crowds of retirees in loose Eastern garb doing Tai chi on the well-groomed lawn of some public park.

I've always felt a vague uneasiness toward those implications, and have kept my distance from discussion of "spirituality" because of that discomfort. It is a shame to me that I am subject to that interpretation of a perfectly functional word. "Spirituality" did nothing to deserve my wariness. I'm really not sure why I have a problem with people seeking some measure of peace through practices that have endured through the centuries. Well, I suppose I have some idea- the modern portrayal of these old ways smacks of commercialization, and the only way I keep the dignity of those practices in mind is to engage in them very quietly. Still, I need to make my peace with the people who dive into these ways with exuberance. That sort of energy is nigh impossible to sustain, and I'd like to be glad for them while they inhabit it. I need to remember the quiet that I prefer to dwell in, and let those people wheel above me on their dizzy spirals. I want to be treading the same middle ground when they plunge back down to earth and reassess.

So. The reading. (Bet you thought I'd forgotten. Well, yes, I did). This reading appealed to me in a very settled sense. The material was far-reaching and provocative, but the author's voice struck a very friendly chord in me. His simultaneous respect and skepticism for Huston Smith was a welcome balance, and I appreciated the deliberate honesty with which he approached the material at hand. I was also very drawn to Smith's celebratory stance on religion. I do not subscribe to a particular faith, as I've said here before, but I very much enjoyed the warmth of Smith's embracing perspective. He did not isolate or alienate, though religion has been a consistent excuse to do just that throughout history. I also appreciated his emotional response to science, and complete willingness to examine that emotion. It is very easy to hang onto your reactions and never look at them from another facet of perspective. Lately I've been thinking about the concept of wisdom and its presence in all stages of life (far beyond the wise old elder caricature). Smith's wisdom is a very comfortable sort, for me. Lofty wisdom is another thing I associate with commercialized spirituality (guided retreats to Eastern temples, etc) but I don't think it will ever have the resonance of a bright and humble awareness.

I don't know if I've said this before, but a friend used to send my philosophical ramblings, and eventually I told him that to think about how we are living is intoxicating and can lift us to trembling transcendence...but if you go out on a night when there are few clouds and look up, the stars will shake you down to stillness in their indifferent endurance. When you are dizzy with the cognitive high of pure thought, go out and look up. That is all I feel I need right now. Beyond the boundaries of words and what we do with them, we are still existing. Look at that. Just look at it. Eventually you will go back inside and slip back into a more nearsighted and comfortable state of being, and that is good, too.

Ones Journey & Self Worth

I thought this read was enticing and I think that part of what the writing is meant to do. Hogan's writing was to explain an experience of a path one took to gain enlightenment. The section of this chapter where he explains Smith's experiences and means he took to gain enlightenment.
Smith had experienced what he calls his most important mystical experiences. I agree with him that entheogens do not produce a spiritual path, but they can give one a glimpse and the feel of spirituality for a short-term period.
"spirituality should be the transformations of one's whole life."
I believe that when one takes on the belief that entheogens can create a realm that one can live and produce a spiritual life as a whole is false. this is where people fall into the trap at times when they begin to believe that the state of mind one reaches when on a etheogen could be permanent. It could be a spiritual awaking but fallowing the path of trying to stay in a permanent state from the entheogen is dangerous to the mind body and soul. Smiths says that he found his experience and that he needs not enter that realm again. His answers were answered on a different level and recognized that he need not abuse the drug but be content with what he gained from the experiences.
I like how he sees enlightenment as an "ideal" or "a quality of life". It may just be true that true enlightenment is a realization of becoming one with who, what you are, one with the environment and everything around you. To carry ones self in a holistic manner free from the strains and boundaries of our mind and physical matters.

I also wanted to touch on what he wrote about science. As a child smith truly loved science, it gave people a longer life and discovered things most would not imagine. Its truly a great gift what our minds offer to us. Though i believe that science has taken us to a dark room, a slow destruction. science as he puts it is "an object" it has manifested into a way to deny what is natural to us and has created a mind set of competition, money, power, poverty, and erases the natural connection and flow that we as humans that are part of the earth are responsible for. We live higher that any other beings, we take for granted the earth, we forget that we live on a planet that is unstable. We live without consequence's because we believe that whatever problem arises science can fix it and we will be able to live on as a forever surviving race. We cannot let science answer all of our questions we must take it upon ones self to answer the questions within ourselves. Without this the journey is already made and in a sense ended for them, before that began. Science is out of balance, it has created a failing earth, and self destruction of our environment and ourselves. I don't want to be misconstrued science is a great benefit I think it just needs find its balance.
I guess this was a bit of an unorganized rant.....

Philosophy - A Perennial View ?

I felt that the most interesting portion of this reading was the fact that this term "perennial Philosophy" kept coming up. Perennial can mean lasting a lifetime, or having an extended life, it is amusing to me that the writer would describe a "perennial" Philosophy, which would mean that in his view there is a philosophy that has been lasting throughout a lifetime or several lifetimes. I would have to agree with the "idea" of a generic umbrella like philosophy that has been passed down from generation to generation, a "perennial" philosophy of course I feel could change and alter in its intricacies but maintain its general "focus". I wonder if our Philosophic pursuits are as flawed as the reading points out science can be by taking the analysis of things to the point where they just become objects....like our pursuit of something more is so broken down to its very bare bones essence that it is laid out like an object or goal. Do we ponder and wonder to know or is it to break things down to the point where they cease to be whole and instead become pieces shattered on the solidity of our philosophical pursuits? I don't know.

Therefore I ask not to dissemble the whole, but to make it clear, in making it clear, however am I breaking it down? The Perennial Philosophy of life. "Why am I here?, What Is My Purpose?, Is there a Point? and if so WHY?" The very beginning of the most basic philosophy is questioning everything, like a toddler who has just learned to ask why and persists with it until the parent finally says irritably or resignedly "I dont know" or "It Just Is" . I felt that the reading was correct in pointing out that Science is and isn't the perfect model for truth .

- http://www.curiokitty.com/images/mine/Good_evil_after.jpg

Another point that stuck with me was the acceptance of "evil" or Natural Evil, Basic Evil, Primitive Evil, Evil in essence or however you want to break it down. I have to agree with the idea and points made about evil , however , I feel that it is an inaccurate boxed view of evil. Conceptually, we as humans decide typically that evil is anything that is different from the accepted view of the majority. Evil could be a person who writes with their left hand, Evil could be someone of a different religion or race, Evil could be an animal that we do not understand or looks foreign and alien to us. Evil is a coping device for the "wrongs" in the world. Events occur and the results of said events are not by their very cause evil, it is a concept we put to it. I feel like we diverged from the original idea of complementary elements in the world, male and female for example, instead we very aggressively force separation and conflict between things and say they are opposites, or at war, such as good and evil, such as water and fire. The article points out that evil is quite possibly a part of good. Like shadows are a part of light, and potentially vice versa. I am currently writing a story called "What the Other Sees " and it is in essence my attempt to understand the precepts of good and evil as opposing forces of the same thing. The Main character is portrayed as being "good" however, he has the "curse" of having an alternate personality that is portrayed as Evil. In this storyline I try to assess the perceptual concept that evil is perceived and purely the way we think about it as matter of perception.

I think that there is no good and no evil, in terms of the way things are in the world , I feel like they are just different parts of a singular force, life perhaps? I don't know, but in the event of my own perception of good and evil I can not deny the fact that even with this idea I still hold reservations about things, and my own ideas of things that are good and things that are bad, but I try to understand them from the view point that the events or things that are different are not in and of themselves evil or bad, I, and or Society just don't like them. And to this I can only shrug my shoulders, and continue to move and think, Or can I? Who knows !?

-for fun!

A Trippy Good Time or Spiritual Enlightenment

This was a very interesting read, but I don't know why we are reading this in class. Did we read this in hopes that some of us would feel comfortable sharing our experiences from previous trips or is it in order to put the idea of tripping into our heads? Will reading this article make someone think twice about not doing these entheogenics? Next time one of the students of this class is out at a party and someone is offering shrums, will they be more likely to want to experiences situations like the ones in this read? I think they might be! According to this read the benefits of a trip could last months. Why would they not want to be enlightened or at least a better chance of becoming enlightened.

Interconnections

One of the first things I read was how "The discovery of quantum nonlocality- the ability of particles to exert subtle influences on each other instantaneously across vast distancess- is confirming the ancient mystical teaching that all things are profoundly interconnected." reminded me of Newtons laws of motion.

For instance, how objects remain in motion and in a straight line or standing still unless acted upon by another force, or for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So if that's the case then I would have to agree with that statement because if a particle just moves it will bump into another one and cause that one to move and so forth. Think about the air that is around you. When there is no breeze you don't feel the wind difference and yet particles are bouncing into you all the time, hint "subtle influences". The same goes for telling the difference in change of temperature in the air. You notice it right off the bat if there is a huge influence like the wind and you feel the cold nipping at your skin but you dont't notice it as much if there is no breeze or major movement of air particles across your skin until you get those random goose bumps up your arm or down your back. Those air particles you didn't notice before exerted a subtle influence on your skin to cause your body to react and give you goose bumps. The wind also affects the way water moves or how the plants obtain their CO2 and disperse their offspring. There are many different examples with the sun and water , earth and its cycle. I could go on forever but I thought the wind would be one of the easiest to try and explain. In addition though if you think about, if particles weren't able to exert a subtle influence then we would not have the tides in the oceans and bodies of water from the moon or gravity, or if the influences would be strong and not subtle then life would be a lot harsher than it already is because then you would be noticing all of the particles that were hitting your skin all the time like little pokes that you can't get rid of and I don't know about you but that would drive me crazy. I like to thank the fact that everything can be affected by a subtle influence. From these examples and just the shear fact that if you do something it will have an equal and opposite reaction means that everything, not just because we are made of the same or very similiar particles, is interconnected. No matter what you do you will exert a subtle influence on something that will exert another influence onto something and so forth and who knows maybe that force you exerted even though subtle will some how make its way back to you whether you notice it or not.

Its like Karma or other things if you do something good some good will follow if you do something bad it will come back and haunt you in the future. However, it also goes on a much deeper level than that. Just to smile at someone as you pass them on the street even if you don't know them can make their day. Studies have shown that depressed people even those that are suicidle can change their mind and wind up having a better day/life if someone just shows a small gesture, "subtle influence", of kindness towards them like a smile. You can send a vibe towards people without noticing it like a bad, good, sexual, or nervous vibe, it doesn't really matter and they will pick up on it. Going back to the fact of how the particles have subtle influences and how they can be better than a strong influence they can also be related to this. If you send out a vibe to someone too strong, like in body language, it could be over powering and actually push them away where as if its subtle they will be more willing to approach you and not so over whelmed. Now I am not saying that this will work in everycase or even all the time just that I have noticed this pattern throughout life. But the most important thing is to remeber how even the most subtle influences one exerts on something, may it be emotions, physical etc, it can be some of the most important influences one can make and it can dramitcally influence/change something for better or for worse.

Links for Newton's law and examples from NASA
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/Images/newton1g.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/newton1g.html&usg=__aWZpkpgoaGjgTd7A9ADqcBR--T8=&h=532&w=708&sz=38&hl=en&start=1&itbs=1&tbnid=w3kJlqGOLMJGoM:&tbnh=105&tbnw=140&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dnewton%2527s%2Bfirst%2Blaw%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://wright.nasa.gov/airplane/Images/newton2.gif&imgrefurl=http://wright.nasa.gov/airplane/newton2.html&usg=__AoxBKcATU3-UeQ22bGGjIEP2tRE=&h=466&w=620&sz=41&hl=en&start=28&itbs=1&tbnid=ZjaHc5AgOoVK4M:&tbnh=102&tbnw=136&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dnewton%2527s%2Bfirst%2Blaw%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D18%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26start%3D18

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://wright.nasa.gov/airplane/Images/newton3.gif&imgrefurl=http://wright.nasa.gov/airplane/newton3.html&usg=__sNJFn11bEPrLjjsjOjq9CpZsSlI=&h=465&w=619&sz=42&hl=en&start=15&itbs=1&tbnid=MrhhNvqeDiemNM:&tbnh=102&tbnw=136&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dnewton%2527s%2Bfirst%2Blaw%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den

Science (drugs) and Enlightenment

I chose to talk about the "Good Friday Experiment" because I feel that it is a good example of science, mixed with spirituality. Even though this experiment was mainly about drugs and how they might induce a mystical experience on an individual I feel that it raises a good point because there have been some people who have claimed to come out of a drugged haze and feel enlightened from it. Who in this world is more care-free than the stoners? No, seriously, nothing seems to bother them! They don't worry about their life or where it's going and they stay relaxed without stressing about anything. However, to claim that they are enlightened from this experience does not seem quite right to me because, among other things, the cognitive powers of a stoner can not compare to those of even an average person. They take "Stop Thinking" to a whole new level. They lack the motivation to go anywhere or do anything, other than make simple conversations and sit around.
In the Good Friday Experiment, a man named Aldous Huxley began experimenting with drugs, such as mescaline, "not to escape reality but to see it in all its sublime glory." That was the original intention. At least one person objected to this saying that at best the drugs would give a person more of an appreciation for nature, but it would not create a genuine enlightened experience.
The experiment results were very positive for the psilocybin drug, which all of the participants reported high levels of mystical quality experiments. The group reported beneficial effects, such as a better attitude, and a sharper appreciation for life's wonderfulness. However, despite these "positive" effects, there were also "negative" effects that were more downplayed. These are effects that most people will experience when taking drugs. They are very serious and should be taken into consideration before attempting this method of spiritual heightenness. Some of the subjects believed that they were dying, going crazy. There is also the chance of extreme anxiety and delusions.

I personally would not want to participate in an experiment like this but it does seem enticing. Almost like a short cut to enlightened thinking. However, this method is not foolproof or as safe as they may claim it to be. Though many of those who participated reported a positive experience and aftermath, there were also plenty of negative experiences to balance these. It is interesting to think that these people were able to come up with answers to questions, pose new questions, such as the agae old question of good and evil. If there is a god then why did he create evil? The answer to this lies mainly with the prospect of opposites. We need opposites for balance and without evil there would be no good.

Personal Thoughts and Reflection on an Interesting Oxymoron

This reading sparked a lot of thoughts and questions for me. Almost too many to address here, but I will touch on what I can share and explain the best.

The title of this reading struck me funny because it was titled “Rational Mysticism”. This sounds like a giant oxymoron to me. How can you give rational parameters to something as un-rational as mysticism? The first part of the reading that dealt with physics and mysticism I did mostly enjoy though. How do two particles that are distanced from one another exert subtle influences on each other? It’s a mind bender, and I find the idea fascinating. With the Quantum nonlocality idea being related to interconnectivity, I partially agreed and partially disagreed. I do think things are interconnected, but not because two particles show me this. Among many other reasons, I mostly believe all things to be connected because we are all composed of the same building blocks, atoms. Each person and thing is made up of atoms, and when we die and our atoms will eventually disassociate and go on to assemble other people and things. The atoms that make me up now were once part of another person, a tree, and a variety of other organisms. I like to think that this is the way we are interconnected.

When reading this I thought of a very basic and fundamental question. This also happens to be the first question most children ask , “Why?” This stems from the basic human need to understand. Humans have always tried to understand what and who we are, and the basic purpose as to why we are here. As humans we wonder at our beginnings and need to know we each have a purpose of some sort. Religion tries to answer this question through principles and teachings. Science tries to answer aspects of these questions through research and experiments. Even now, no one truly knows and our questions have mostly gone unanswered. Humans have always tried to understand these basic questions, and have attempted to answer them through science and religion. Whether you accept the answers given or not is personal choice. I personally think that in order to answer these questions we must each embark on a deeply personal journey and that the answers to these questions are at the end. Along the way we will find ideas that partially answer these questions for us but we will always change and question what we have learned. This is a life long pursuit, but it is necessary in order to sift through the fact and fiction and come to our own personal conclusion.

Relating back to science and mysticism, or science and religion this is how I personally approach this idea. Science is/can be absolute and can/does give answers, but for myself, I can not let it answer all my questions. Some questions are deeply personal and I must delve deep within myself to find an answer that I can agree with. Smith was “annoyed” with science because people let it answer all their questions. This I feel could be related to how some people will let religion answer all their questions. No one is better than the other because they are both allowing their free will of opinion and the potential for truly personal understanding to be removed. These people are quitting their personal journey before they even begin it by accepting the ideas given to them and not questioning the validity of it for themselves.

Over all, I enjoyed this reading. I found Smith to be a little too back and forth on some of his ideas though. I liked that he tried to gain understanding from a wide variety of religions and tried for his own mystical experiences. But he seemed to contradict himself at times. I felt that he enjoyed the different religions and their teachings, but the deeply personal enthogenic trips he experienced were how he personally linked to those religions. Because the journey to enlightenment must be very personal his “mystical” experiences make sense. An enthogenic experience is known to be greatly personal on an emotional and mental level, so I see how this made his journey to enlightenment so much stronger. He went inside himself and through those experiences was able to evaluate his personal understandings and relate what he found to his life. I don’t believe this to be a mystical experience, but more of a mental one. He was able to connect with himself and his ideals on a higher plain and relate this to his journey.

Chapter 1, Rational Mysticism

Rational mysticism.
I'm sorry, but I have to laugh a happy laugh at that joke. "Rational Mysticism" implies that regular mysticism is irrational, or that there is a regular, a rational and an irrational. Mysticism is not irrational. It is simply not rational. And yet, the paradox is that being not rational it is entirely rational -- and this is the point the author misses, because the experience is the thing.

Without the experience of the paradox of the not-rational becoming rational yet remaining not-rational, there is no hope of understanding what cannot be expressed.

Rationality depends upon expression. If it cannot be expressed it is not rational. Yet, by its very nature the ineffableness of paradox depends upon its inexpressibility. Herein lies the rub.

The goal of Aristotlian scientism is to define all things. That which cannot be defined does not exist. Therefore paradox does not exist.

Yet paradox most certainly exists.

Paradox is the point where the Specific connects to the All and comes out the Opposite. Sorta like a black hole, if it helps to use an example of something we don't understand to understand something we cannot express . . . and it does, doesn't it?

Again, I have to laugh because this is how it all goes when trying to define the stuff that Aristotle and his followers call "metaphysics". Aristotle didn't know what to do with it, and neither does scientism -- and yet, isn't the ultimate nature of reality exactly what scientism is supposedly attempting to discover? Yet, the paradox here is that in seeking to define the undefinable scientism is, in actuality, making reality seem differently mysterious than the mysteriousness it inherently has.

Mysteriousness, after all, is simply in the mind of the interpreter. Nothing is inherently mysterious, yet everything is mysterious in its very existence.

And so it goes.

Experience is the thing. Let go of scientism. Do not interpret what you experience. Be the experience. Mysterious Understanding is only possible through unthought experience. What is unthought naturally cannot be spoken for there are no words for not-thought.

But it can be experienced.

Now . . . if you 'get it' but you can't explain it, then you are experiencing the not-rational rational paradox.

Go ahead. Speak it if you can. Aren't the thoughts almost formed in your mind? Thoughts that are becoming words but never stop becoming words and so are never words. It is just like pi. Pi never stops going endlessly in its numerical spiral. Yet it is not like pi at all because pi does not exist, and yet this experience certainly does exist.

Yes, pi does not exist. There is no such thing in the universe as a naturally perfect circle. All such circular things are simply truncated spirals. And yet, cannot scientism construct a perfect circle? Has not scientism decreed that by using pi one can create a perfect circle? And yet, how does one use pi, exactly, when it never stops becoming itself. Any formula that uses pi never stops becoming a formula, so never becomes formula, and is not a formula.

And yet, it is a formula.

But pi is the opposite of not-thought, and so is not like not-thought at all.

Yet it is.

Even though science has thought an unthinkable thing in its perfect circle, a thing that does not exist, scientism has not thought not-thought.

Scientism creates what is not, yet claims to only discover what is. Scientism does exactly what it says metaphysics does -- imagine things that don't exist.

Like a perfect circle.

(Go ahead, laugh! It's really a fractal!)

Y'see, it's ALL like this. I love it!

This is fun, and yet I am being completely, philosophically serious!

OK, that is the end of my post, but it is also the beginning of a thought.
The thought continues to become a thought.

What Is, What Is Not . . . and What Is Becoming. The philosophies of Dualism fail us here, as does the tactic of killing the messenger. Horgan attacks the messengers in every case, and finds them human. That they are human means they have foibles. Scientifically, that means each person is an uncontrolled experiment, and that their reports of their personal experiences are unverifiable by any known means.

What else could be expected?

One must experience the experience in order to determine the veracity of the reports. Once the experience is known, the reason for discrepancies are known -- and therefore they are no longer discrepancies, at all . . . and yet, they are. It cannot be explained. It must be experienced. Reality is a deeply personal experience.

Reality is not a shared illusion, and yet, it is the true shared illusion.

Rational? Not rational? Depends on your experience. It is both, and neither. Laugh!

It is.

Horgan's problem is that he wants to be told the answer before he knows the answer. Before he finds out what the nature of reality is, he wants to make sure he can handle it -- that he isn't frightened to death, or worse, driven mad.

Sorry, no promises there except to say that the sanity it bestows is identical to insanity, but it is not insanity. It is welcome and it is fulfilling. It is wonderful and it is mysterious. It is everything and it is nothing.

Nothing.

No thing at all. Zero. Infinite zero.

There are some promises, however, such as they are: once known it can never be forgotten, nor can it be communicated. There's no going back because "back" never was, but always is, yet hasn't become. Have fun there (the Here that is Not-Here, but Is Here), and remember to laugh!

Paradox.

Beautiful!

By the way, Horgan touches fractals when he describes the theory of emanationism, and he wanders oblivious to the fractals in his relating of psychedelic experiences. One of the secrets of reality is fractal. The Mongols knew that secret.

Happy Valentine's Day!

Gaps

This reading explains, and in some cases fills the the gap between religion and science. I never really understood physics, I still don't but this helped me make a bridge to connect science and physics together to help better understand both. I agree with Rebecca, this reading reminded me of Rafiki from the Lion King because of the vague connections and principles. In order to understand it you really do have to look beyond what you see.

What are WORDS?

I disagree! It is a load of crap that words cannot express these concepts of physics. Words are made by humans, Right? Yes they are, so that means that you can make up new words in order to fill in the void between other words. This is like how in English we have one word for snow. If you are a person of Inuit decent you have a huge vocabulary for snow upwards of 150 words. The Inuit saw a different need and they catered their language around it. How is this situation any different? Words have been made before and I do not think that we should limit our self’s to the words we have in present if they do not fit our needs. I think that using riddles in order to explain concepts of science is an incredibly inaccurate way of doing things. When different people read the same thing you have a chance that they all have a different perception of what is being said. A great many factors go into how a person interprets something, such as their upbringing, current state of mind, environmental factors, and much more. Using riddles in order to get a point across does not seem like a worthwhile way to record ideas, just make up new words!

Philososphy or Physics

I thought this reading was very interesting, because of the ability to find parallels between Eastern Philosophy and modern day Physics. I found it interesting how he found relationships between the two, with language deficiencies and paradox's. For the most part though this reading went right over my head because once the word physics is mentioned my head is already spinning.

Look beyond what you seek.

When I first read this post I thought I wasn't going to understand any of it because I had never taken physics but the more I read I began to slowly see the answer. Now it kind of reminds me of what Rafiki said to Simba in The Lion King and to Timon in The Lion King 1/2 "Look beyond what you seek". In other words if you're looking to hard for something or using your brain to much by thinking you're never going to find what you're looking for even if it was right underneath your nose. However, if you just let it come to you naturally by not thinking and clearing your mind the nonsense will make sense and you will find what you are looking for. For instance Simba got his answer to his problem and Timon found his paradise in Hakuna Matata. The trick is to understand Rafiki, the teacher, nature or any of these riddles that are given by them one must leave the world of the language/thoughts, clear his mind and let it come to him. In a way its almost like when someone tells you a joke and when you try to figure it out you can't but as soon as you stop thinking about it, even if it's a couple days later, you finally get the joke. This is also kind of like how people can pick up on what someone is truly thinking/feeling by watching/observing one's body language. This is because when you realize that their body language doesn't match up/agree with something their saying you can normally tell what they truly feeling/thinking or lying for lack of better term at that moment. Same goes for even if they are quite and are just sitting there you can tell roughly what they are feeling/thinking.



This is when Rafiki starts talking in riddles or koans to Simba and he has to clear is head in order to truly understand what the "monkey" or baboon is actually saying.

Quantum Magick

I love quantum physics because it proves magick is real. Acually, I always knew magick was real. I used to have discussions at Quinebaug Valley Community College with the engineers there about them being modern-day wizards -- that the olden-day wizards were engineers and others who knew physics . . . and, they knew quantum physics before it had a name.

And that's the rub: 'before it had a name.' Science scoffs at a lot of things. When science scoffs it ignores the thing it is scoffing. By ignoring it, science is unable to tell us anything about it. But when, for some reason like . . . the magick just doesn't go away . . . science finally looks at it . . . and then "discovers" something new . . . and then Names it. Once science Names something it is no longer magick. At that point it becomes only humdrum science. Boring.

See how that works?

In my lifetime herbal medicines, aromatherapy, acupuncture, chiropractry, and even garlic, for heaven's sake, was scoffed at by science as having no intrinsic benefits, and probably deadly harmful (OK, maybe not garlic). Now we accept all those things as beneficial medicinal things because science finally came along and Named what these things do.

Well . . . science has now named a lot of magick as quantum physics. They admit our Newtonian model of physics just isn't right, that it works well enough . . . but maybe those weird anomalies that happen from time to time could be predicted if we knew more quantum physics. And maybe, just maybe, if we really start to know this stuff, then maybe we can Name all the things metaphysics has been trying to tell us from time immemorial. Maybe there really is something to all that hocus pocus. Maybe that woo-woo-magick crap is what is real, and our man-made society and rules are nothing but hot air, our wasted words.

For my money, science is always a day late and a dollar short. In this instance, metaphysics, science has been late from Day 1 and is now flat broke.

We can learn a lot from people who look where science does not. (i.e. the lunatic fringe)

A Sense of the Senseless

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQCH6LvJQbMryZVB961p1T0prO5vXEhkVcfp4trgbQnnKbtAWUSXDObvgFbCya7O89lUUQ1DkNxveXr3d2XjXQEHpJGwtbT1AgcMrHL4XXS7EtrbDjR8p7dWpikTfU8sSV0Xk_6rt1fLo/s400/Orbs-Ramtha.jpg

The reading we had was interesting in that it compared the ideas of modern physics with the ideas of eastern philosophers. I like the part in the reading where it speaks about how we can't really "experience" the sub atomic world with our macro senses. Which to me sounds like a Koan, because it seems counter intuitive to believe that you cant experience something that is all around you and yet you can pseudo-experience things beyond your sense range. It's almost like saying you can look with your eyes but you wont see, you can listen with your ears but you wont hear, you can touch with your hands but you wont feel, etc.... The idea being that with language we can't express the true nature of reality because with words they donate connotation, meaning, and a preconceived notion of what something is or will be. So theoretically to experience the true nature of the world one could try to experience the experience-less, See the Unseen, etc...

I wonder what it would be like to conceive without attachment and knowledge, without language...what would things be like then?

The Purpose of the video above is to entice questions about an idea that Final Fantasy has incorporated into it.....an idea about something called the "life stream" check it out ^_^

Reality and thought and paradoxes

In this passage the author is trying to get across to the reader, the fact that it is very difficult to explain Taoism in words. Most of what people learn about Taoism comes from non-verbal interactions. Philosophers tend to speak in a form of riddle, which is intended to make the person stop thinking. Because the only way to solve the riddle is to rid your mind of rational thought. This is the only way to truly experience reality. By exposing the paradoxes in their sayings right from the start they show the reality of what they are talking about. By thinking to much about the actual words that are said you completely miss their meaning.
When working with philosophy you can't just use your mind; cognitive thought will only get you so far. You must actually understand it with your whole being. this can be done by removing your brain from the equation. Without that you have no choice but to just absorb it into yourself and then instead of confusing yourself by trying to break it apart and understand it, you just accept it.


And here's a god paradox for you!! :)

"Stop thinking..."

It makes more sense if you do. Since we humans analyze things by thinking, this particular piece was very confusing, but when you stop and DON'T think, it slowly starts to make a modicum of sense. Further non doing would probably help one understand these things better.

A quote from the Stephen Mitchell Tao Te Ching, Tidbit 47 states that "The more you know, the less you understand." I think it describes the chapter from Modern Buddhist Bible quite well.

Using your senses?

I think that if what I understood from this passage is right, then I agree with some of it. It's not fully developed in my brain, so I'm having trouble wording my interpretations... The following may sound confusing, however: The idea that we need to keep our minds open to things that seem illogical, when it comes to existence, makes sense to me. Why? I think that the example of atomic and subatomic matter being discovered and scrutinized was some good evidence that we limit ourselves to absolutes, when we should be allowing for more investigation. We probably do this in more ways than we know.

Does the idea of subatomic particles still seem illogical now that they've been proven to exist? Why were they questioned in the first place? Was there simply no evidence supportive of the idea?

Love is illogical. Isn't it?
I don't think that western philosophies utilize only the logic of sensory findings a as source of verification. How does faith fit into that category? In fact...I would guess that almost every philosophy relies on some form of illogical reasoning or a way of thinking that is hard for us to process at this current time. Faith is based on both logic and illogic. Human actions and reactions are good examples of this. We all do stupid things right? Generally I would think that there is some reason deep down for every action that we take. Would you agree? Let me use Jesus as an example again. The actions of Jesus are illogical. He is perfect and we are not. He accepted our imperfections onto himself so that we would have a chance to be free from them. Why did he do this? And not only that, but how did it work?
If you are a parent, or ever plan to be one, or think that you understand them somewhat, (as I think that I do), then would you agree with me that their actions are often illogical? Some parents would die for their children's sake. Some parents would even do this if their children absolutely despised them. But why? Do you think that it's part of their genetic programming? Perhaps. But it still seems an illogical thing to do, especially as far as the idea of self-preservation flies.
My point is that not only buddhism, but probably all philosophies include some form of illogical thinking and being open to outside possabilities. But I do think that our brain is a tool that we've been given to help us understand our existence, and therefore a combination of logic and illogic is necessary.

One cannot be logical with their emotions...

I found myself getting extremely confused while reading this passage, and the only thing that really stuck was the notion that some things are impossible to explain in words. I agree with this. Words just confuse things, and they are very limiting in their meanings. I like this idea of abandoning ordinary images and language in order to see the truth.

It took me a while, but I finally found a comparison that I could understand and attempt to explain.

Emotions.

Emotions are basically impossible to put into words. Sure, you can say that you're happy, sad, frustrated, disappointed, or intrigued, but those words rarely reveal how you are really feeling. If you assign a single word to what you are feeling, you'll never understand emotions. Emotions are usually a combination, anyways. Only by experiencing emotion, can you truly understand them. You can study happiness forever, but you'll never truly understand it, unless you experience it. (Which is partly the reason why self-help books make me laugh.) You can only see truth if you don't categoize or try to name your emotions. It may look like anger, smell like anger, and taste like anger, but it's really something completely different that we don't have a word for. Anger over losing a sports game is different than the anger of a friend stabbing you in the back. Love for a friend is different than love for your partner or love for your car, yet we find it necessary to assign a single word to these completely different feelings. Language is very limiting. This is where the paradoxes discussed in Fritjof Capra comes into play. Emotions can be extremely contradictory if they are attempted to be explained in words.

One cannot be logical with their emotions.

One cannot be logical with buddhism, either.

Picture from: http://waa.uwalumni.com/onwisconsin/fall01/emotional1.html

Buddhism and physics?

I never thought physics could be related to Buddhism. ..but I guess anything is possible.

here's a video I found explaining the relationship between science & Buddhism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj_i7YqDwJA

I found this chapter to be confusing at first, but after I read a little further I understood what Capra was trying to say.

I think the main concept he is trying to get through is that language can only explain so much. The true meaning and explanation of some things can only be found through reality, not language or logic.

Capra mentions the Tao Te Ching and how it can be extremely difficult and puzzling to read. He also mentions that it is very contradicting. It is just one example of how eastern philosophy makes us think much deeper into things, forgetting about logic & reasoning.

Zen Buddhists teach nonverbally through senseless riddles called koans. These riddles are used to make students aware of the nonverbal understanding of reality. They are not meant to be solved using logic, however they are to be "understood in awareness of reality".

pic: zenartrebel.com

Selfish digression

I feel like I am weaving this Maypole with the same damn ribbon every time...a mangled metaphor, but no matter the pattern I am pretty sure I keep returning to one argument. Maybe the argument is something I should abandon in order to really absorb these principles, but I can't help but feel that the contentment I derive from the way I conduct my life (in a very general sense) does not align with the revered emptiness of the readings. In short, I am always grateful to feel that hollow peace of selflessness- it does absorb me quite frequently, especially in solitude or when walking long distances. But I am also very fond of the immediate heat and color I draw from inhabiting my self without striving to alter that. I am very appreciative of the quiet hovering peace of the Eastern thought we are contemplating, but it is not a state that I choose to seek. When it happens upon me, I am glad to find it again. And when it is gone, I am glad to embrace the mess and noise and struggle of the self. For me, there is comfort in the healing process. And if nothing is harmed, there is nothing to heal, and therefore nothing to seek. The Way can be blatant and brash, as long as you take it for what it is, and have your eyes Open.

Flickering nobility

Merriam-Webster lists several definitions for the word "noble," but the one that always prickled me is "possessing, characterized by, or arising from superiority of mind or character or of ideals or morals." Nobility is an aspect of Eastern philosophy that does not resonate with me, though I believe that I understand the mindset behind it. It is indeed hard to do evil or be driven to indulgent excess if you have no attachment, but to me there is always the feeling that detachment is an easy way out. I am certain that this argument has been addressed by Eastern philosophers and scholars in the past, and I am not trying to advocate for wanton immersion in earthly distraction. But I do believe you cannot have balance without plunging into extremes from time to time. I do not think it negates your self-awareness to live shallowly at times, just as a contemplative state will not bar you from enjoying yourself. Nobility, I feel, need not be a constant condition.
As far as the belief that life is suffering is concerned...I have never felt this to be true. I believe that suffering is intrinsic to the journey all living beings undertake, but I do not believe that it defines our existence. Indeed, there is no need to define existence in such a broad scope. Suffering tempers happiness, joy wears down the jagged edges of hardship. To steep too long in one "truth" is a course that will never interest me...I am too intrigued by the other facets of possibility.

Presentation Schedule

2.11 - Wayne - Feng Sui
2.16 - Garreth - Nature Observation and Zen
2.18 - Alicia - 8-Limbs; 5-Branches of Yoga
2.23 - Lara - Karma
2.25 - Annica - Zen and Music
3.2 - Katie - Zen and Scuba
3.4 - Hannah - I Ching
3.23 - Sonja - Zen Woodworking
3.25 - Becca - Zen Dancing
3.30 - Olivia - Sand Mandalas
4.1 - Ed - Mongul Philosophy and Fractals
4.6 - Jaime - Reiki
4.8 - Gavin - Mythology or Meditation
4.13 - Mike - Landscape Painting or Tai Chi
4.15 - Dan - Chi Kung
4.20 - Sam - Eastern influence on Stone Masonry
4.22 - Matt - Charles Bukowski
4.27 - Bill - Zen Tea

The eightfold path

The eightfold path when I began to read it first reminded me of the stages of grieving in how most people list them in a specific order but they do not necessarily occur in that in order. In fact they usually occur out of order and sometimes even when you've moved on from one stage to another you'll go back again to a previous one. In other words it's like the eightfold path in that they are not "a sequence of single steps, instead they are highly interdependent principles that have to be seen in relationship with each other."
This also caught my intention and my mind began to wonder the more I read. These pieces of the eightfold path are very similiar to other religions. Such as the ten conmandments of some religious aspects. In addition even if one is not religious they tend to have similiar morals in a way that people should be kind etc. Like the saying treat others the way you wish to be treated.
The eightfold path also tied into my economics course in the fact that how people can have perfectly happy lives with out corruption or lots of meterial things as long as they have the basic nessities of life. So my economice teacher would ask us if thats the case then why do economists not take that into consideration why do we always want the economy and etc to keep growing when we don't need it to? Why do we use more of our natural resources than what is truly needed? Why can't we learn from these people how to be happy with just the basics since it is very possible to do so and it would help save our planet?
The more I thought about how we could all be alike in that we could all just live off of needs instead of wants, that we could just go back to the basics made me think if it was possible to do that in an economic stand point then why can't people do that in a religios aspect. Since most of have the same underlying guidelines why can't they all just be civil to one another? I understand that the more you look into religions you'll see they have differences but thats life everyone has differences but despite how much some of us would hate to admit we are all the same as well. Wether we evolved some animal or a higher being made us we all still stand on a common ground with our DNA. It's like the underlying rules in religions. So I say no religion is necessarily better than another as long as you stick to what you believe in and grasp the main points/ideas from it like those mentioned in the eightfold path and other similiar ones from other religions.

Fold Your Own Path

This reading begins by describing itself as a practical guide to end suffering and to discover the "truth of all things". I had a hard time digesting it as such.

On the first read through, these guidelines sounded really good. The idea of a walkway to enlightenment and away from suffering is like el dorado to someone without any plan of achieving salvation (this guy). However, the wording and concepts used reflect the authors belief that there is an objective "right" or even "suffering" that is true to every human. I don't think this is true, salvation and suffering are extremely subjective concepts, what they mean to one person is often very different to another. So, even the concepts of enlightenment and a "truth of all things" seem like things that could be experienced by two seperate people entirely differently, and possibly achieved in two different ways.

Although the eight folds provide the framework for a complex and sophisticated perspective on the world, I think it's impossible for anyone to really put an end to the suffering that is a natural part of being human. People are suffering right now and death is inevitable, not only our own death but that of our friends and our families and our pets and every living thing on this planet. If that doesnt make you anxious then you're in denial. I beleive we have no way of knowing what comes afterwards and that's terrifying too, and I don't think that any amount of self-help can change that.

However, I think there's a real value to realizing the limits of our existence, "to grasp the impermanent and imperfect nature of worldly objects and ideas" and to use that understanding to expand and enjoy our finite lives. Although i think the broad ideas laid out by the Eightfold path overlook some individual circumstances and conditions, the conceptual frame contains valuable advice: not to act cruelly, to develop compassion, to unify our mental faculties in one direction of our expansion. These are practical steps I think we can use to make our lives better and improve those of people around us, but the underlying path to enlightenment is something we must develop from our own experience.

Principles, commandments, and the eightfold path.

This reading reminded me of the basic principles you find in many religions. Be good, do right, etc. These are basic principles people follow in order to lead righteous lives. I would say that I follow similar principles as a compassionate human being, living so that I don't hurt others or things unnecessarily. In society we are expected to live by certain ideals, and these aren't much different. I appreciated the simplicity of the words and ideas presented here, though I found it slightly redundant when thinking of any other religion and the principles dictated to live by. This passage didn't smack of religion like, say, the Ten Commandments in Christianity, but they are ideals, or 'commandments' to live by all the same. I enjoy reading the ideas of other religions and groups of people because it helps me to better understand my own principles and judgement in my own life. Although personally I don't feel the need to accept everything as it is presented because I like to think for myself and choose to live as I see fit. All in all, I enjoyed reading this perspective on the principles necessary to be a conscientious, and caring human being.

picture from:http://z.about.com/d/forestry/1/0/X/h/big_tooth_aspen.jpg

Starts with an idea

I was skeptical about the eight fold truths, but these eight qualities seem very solid. I think that everyone’s life would be much better if they applied these 8 principles to different aspects of their daily life. I think it would be very hard for anyone to up right into this. I think that a way you could implement these in to your life is by making a goal of applying a set amount of qualities of the eightfold truths in to your day. I will try to do this today. I will print the list and use it five times today! I think that if we all tried this, then we could discuss the differences it made in our days. Let’s try it?

Image from: http://brian.hoffert.faculty.noctrl.edu/HST330/13.IndianBuddhism.html

Ethical Conduct?

Something about 3 of the 8 Noble Eightfold Path (rules?) did not in my mind seem to match the rest. As I read the Noble Eightfold Path I noticed that the Ethical Conduct section didnt have the same "voice" or maybe theme as the rest. I felt that the Wisdom and Mental Development were philosopical veiws for achieving an enlightened state but Ehtical Conduct sounded more preachy and authoritive. Wisdim and Intellectual growth is to me what pholisophy is all about, not a guidebook for acheiving a higher state.
"to talk only when necessary" I get that this means to not be a gossip or waste words gabbing, but isnt conversation and discussion, such as debate, an important part of philopsophy?

Right Action was fine with me. No problem here

But Right Livelihood jumped right out at me. Slave trade and Prostitution aside, which to me seems to be covered in point 1 and 2 in Right Action, whats wrong with butchers, package stores and outfitters? I am understanding these rules to mean I should be a unarmed sober vegetarian? No thanks.

My personal veiws aside, I think the Noble Eightfold path is more for someone looking for a philosphy that can tell them what to do. I might be interpretting the message here wrong, or maybe I just can get over my own opinions to see a larger meaning, but Im working on understanding Buddhism. I think I undertood Tao better.

The Eightfold Path: The Ten Commandments of Buddhism?

To me, the eightfold path seems a lot like the ten commandments. They seem to be rules and guidelines to live by.

1. Right View: Be free of prejudice, know truth, and see suffering.
2. Right Intention: Turn minds away from violence and hate, resist evil. Be compassionate.
3. Right Speech: Refrain from harmful talk, use words wisely, and don't lie. Words can hurt as much as sticks and stones. You should speak friendly and only when necessary.
4. Right Action: Don't murder, harm, steal, or rape. Be kind, respectful, honest, and harmless.
5. Right Livelihood: Earn a living in an honest way that will not hurt others. Don't deal weapons, people, alcohol, or drugs. Don't butcher animals.
6. Right Effort: Free your mind from evil (i.e. desires, aggression, and ignorance). Think only of productive and compassionate things, and push away the bad.
7. Right Mindfulness: Be in control of your feelings and thoughts. Have a good mind. Have clear perception.
8. Right Concentration: Concentrate on wholesome thoughts and actions. Meditate.

This list of "commandments" detail how one should/should not act in life. It seems very similar to a lot of other religions because it is pretty much based on having good morals, which will, ultimately, bring you to enlightenment.



I enjoy the above picture (the dharma wheel), and it's relationship with the eightfold path. It looks a lot like a ship's wheel on a pirate ship or something. It is used to stay on course, a lot like the eightfold path is, but storms will come, and the captain might lose control. The wheel, however, is always there to put the ship back on track, after the storm has passed.

I view the eightfold path as a sort of idealistic guidelines for life. Shit is going to happen. The eighfold path can get you back on track, but shit needs to happen if you are going to learn anything in this life.

Picture from: http://www.baronet4tibet.com/symbolism.html

The Eight Fold Path - Disembled

The Eight Fold Path -

1. Right View	Wisdom
2. Right Intention
3. Right Speech	Ethical Conduct
4. Right Action
5. Right Livelihood
6. Right Effort	Mental Development
7. Right Mindfulness
8. Right Concentration

as put by the website we were asked to visit.(http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/eightfoldpath.html)
I apologize in advance to everyone who was all "yea the eightfold path is awesome and we should do it....etc...." I am writing from the side of a few questions that I feel make interesting conversation.

I read through this and found some things interesting to think about. One idea I have been toying with since we started this topic of the Four Noble Truths and the Eight fold Path is the idea that the pursuit of Nirvana in and of itself is in violation of the very ideas that Buddhism stands on. This idea being that desires lead to suffering and suffering leads to a long struggle against the imperfect nature of the human "condition". So based upon this precept the very fact that these people "want", "try", or even "attempt" to achieve Nirvana through a systematic list of steps that essentially say be good to everything living and take no action that could bring harm to others. I wonder if the Monks who follow this way of life so ferverantly ever contemplate the very desire based nature of their pursuit of "a higher state of being" or "Enlightenment". Is such a thing even possible? It seems counter intuitive to say be without desire and the reality of the world will reveal itself to you, when in fact by wanting to know or see that reality is in and of itself a desire. So is it possible to live without desire whether with or without your own intent? Then if it is not is there truly a purpose to seeking the improbable reality that seems to only be revealed when you are doing the "Right" things and without "Desire". What constitutes a desire? if my stomach growls is it not a sign that I could be in need or want of food in order to sate my desire to be comfortable? If my bladder is full is it not my desire to find relief in emptying it? How do you live a life without desire really if we are creatures of need? I suppose an argument could be that the answer to these questions is a desire, maybe it is, but can you invest in something that seems to hinge on something that goes against the very nature of the world of life? There are basic "needs" that could be said to be desires, it seems to be a perspective game. Perhaps in realizing these things and doing the "right" thing while realizing that there is no promise of benefit or even answer that this is the true nature of reality. I don't know, I'm speculating. What do you think?

I feel that the website we went to is also needlessly sub categorizing the Eight Fold Path by limiting their application by giving labels such as "wisdom" , or "ethical conduct" when really all the parts of this path are applicable and interchangeable with each category. again Perspective.

I can agree that the eight fold path lays a nice foundation to lead the world were it to follow to some semblance of harmony, however peace is difficult to maintane because there will always be some exception the the rules or way people think. I Wonder if perhaps the message here is that to see the truth you have to let go of your interest in yourself and your own personal gain and instead attend to the needs of others? but then is it right to be slave to the needs of others when there are those who would not do for themselves if given the option? what is the purpose of struggle without goals or reason? Why should we exist without goal? or is it that we exist because there is no goal? I at this point am rambling to no purpose and a purpose. Thanks!

http://www.dot-design.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/eyes.jpg

The right path

The eight fold path goes hand in hand with the four noble truths in order to help direct people towards the path of Nirvana. It has eight 'Right' ways designed to put people on the 'Right' path :).

Each of the eight fold paths connect with each other and are not so much steps as they are principles that are all intertwined. The first two are wisdom, the next three are ethical conduct, and the last three fall under mental development.
The 'Right's of Wisdom are the ones that really stuck out to me. I believe that it is really important to have the Right Views and Right Intentions. What they said in the eightfold path about the Right View is true; our view of the world is important. Our actions reflect how we see the world just as much as what we see often dictates what we do. Even a blind man has a view of the world, but for him it's more of a mental image. Having the right view has nothing to do with how intelligent you are but more so about how much you see. Do only see what's on the surface or can you see what's underneath. People aren't the only ones who keep things about themselves hidden from the rest of the world. To truly understand things you must take the time to really look at them and not just grant them a passing glance. When you do that you may miss something important. Having the Right View also means that you need to have an understanding of Karma (what you give is what you get returned). In your view of the world you must also notice that what goes around comes around and that Karma does play an active role in the universe. I personally have a strong belief in Karma, sometimes it may seem like time has gone on for too long for justice to be served but I am a firm believer that it will be served in time. That is why i do not feel the need to judge others they will pass judgment eventually.
Having the Right Intention, which is the other Right of Wisdom, goes along with having the right view. This is because our intentions are also ruled by our views, actions, and karma. The right intentions leads us towards self improvement, mentally and ethically. But with the intention to do good, harm can normally be found in its wake. There is a saying that goes along with this that states "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." This is true but it still doesn't change the fact that the intentions were noble, something just went wrong with the execution. The eightfold path wants us to resist anger and desire. Instead following those it wants us to instead lean towards intentions of harmlessness and develop compassion. Intentions must be thought of and executed with great care however, because many things can go wrong.

The Eightfold Path

All of the ideas in this eightfold path are familiar to me. I've seen them worded differently and in different contexts in the Bible.
What stuck out to me the most was the final path, Right Concentration. I've heard about meditation before and know the basic idea is to be able to focus on thoughts and experiences in order to better understand and learn from them. I'm not very good at taking time to try and concentrate on anything. It's hard. But what I really liked about the explanation that was given in this article was the reason for learning to concentrate. "The Buddhist method of choice to develop right concentration is through the practice of meditation. The meditating mind focuses on a selected object. It first directs itself onto it, then sustains concentration, and finally intensifies concentration step by step. Through this practice it becomes natural to apply elevated levels concentration also in everyday situations." If I learn how to concentrate on specific thoughts or experiences in my own head, then perhaps I can bring that ability to concentrate into everyday life.

In the New Testament of the Holy Bible Paul talks about what we should keep our minds focused on in a letter the the Phillipian church. Chapter 4, verse 8: "Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable-if anything is excellent or praiseworthy-think about such things."
These ideas are very similar right?
I want to think about things such as this, but it's very easy to let my mind wander. Maybe I should take the time to learn to meditate.