I have to read all the messages here in order to know more about you, dear Ryokan, and also Dancing David.
And will you reciprocate, or will this discussion be another one way street?
Also, are you admitting that you don't read our posts? That would explain a lot.
The way I seem to remember or know very broadly is that you two are what I call Western Buddhists who go for the philosophy but not the religion, religion as in asking favors from the powers that be above human limitations, deficiencies, and say mortality.
My religion is Buddhism, I've never denied that. But I've also tried to make the point that Buddhism might not fit into the form we usually call Buddhism. My Buddhism does not differ much from Theravada Buddhism, one of the biggest denominations and the one that is closest to the original teachings of Siddharta Gautama a.k.a. the Buddha.
So far I've not disagreed with any of Dancing David's interpretations of Buddhism, either. Ditto with username.
My point is, Buddhism is classified as a religion (and sometimes it is, like in Tibetan Buddhism), but its core is philospohy and psychology.
But my impression is that you both notwithstanding your philosophic protestations, are into religion more than philosophy.
I'd like to see evidence for that. Or do you read our minds? Maybe you should go for the million!
Give me your definition of religion, and I'll tell you why I disagree with your statement.
Here is my simple, and please forgive me for being simple, but I am one who believe in simplicity, as much as possible in everything, as I said time and again, just the big picture and the short statement, my simple reason why you Ryokan and Dancing David are into religion, namely, because you are into the lot of man beyond the grave and before birth.
No no no no no no no
no!
Quite the opposite! I'm into the lot of man after birth and before the grave. What would the point of being into the opposite? There is no sufering before you're born, obviously, and there is no suffering in death (as far as I know, I've never experienced it).
Buddhism deals with the
here and now, not some mythical afterlife.
One time a man asked the Buddha how the world was created, but the Buddha instead put a question to him: 'If you were shot by a poison arrow, and a doctor was summoned to extract it, what would you do? Would you ask such questions as who shot the arrow, from which tribe did he come, who made the arrow, who made the poison, etc., or would you have the doctor immediately pull out the arrow?'
'Of course,' replied the man, 'I would have the arrow pulled out as quickly as possible.' The Buddha concluded, 'That is wise, for the task before us is the solving of life's problems; until the problems are solved, these questions are of secondary importance.'
Life does not depend on the knowing how we got here or what will happen after we are gone. Whether we hold these views about these things or not, there is still suffering, sorrow, old age, sickness, and death.
So there are two kinds of religion for me, the first is favors oriented, favors of the this earth type but also the adherents are concerned with their lot in the next world or post tomb and even pre conception; the second type is that which has for its almost exclusive at least pretended focus the concern with the post tomb and pre conception aspects of human existence, and also very important participation in them, for example, in your case Ryokan rebirths and Nirvana, I think the same with Dancing David even though he denies it -- people into this kind of religion think it above their dignity to supplicate deities or superior powers for favors of the earthly kind, like a job or some healing of body and heart.
Huh?
First off, Buddhist rebirth is not a rebirth of self, Yrreg, Ryokan and Dancing David will cease to exist when they die. Nirvana is not a mythical afterlife of some sort, but an experience that is supposed to be attained in
this life!
But this has been explained to you a million times already!
But I have to read your messages and all of them one of these days, carefully, to genuinely know about you two and others here and in the thread on Skeptical criticism on Buddhist beliefs and observances.
Again admitting that you don't really read our posts. As I said, it explains a lot.
About myself, it's always curiosity which I think is very available and legitimate in today's world where everything is game for the curious; and we are all lucky, now specially with the internet we can access so much information and a lot from people about themselves, not excluding present company.
Yes, you should try it sometimes.
But wasn't this topic supposed to be about the Dalai Lama?
Now, about the Dalai Lama, in regard to his two or more personas, I am curious how he knows himself introspectively and honestly, as distinct from what he regards himself to be officially and publicly.
Ahhhh...
I am curious as well.
In genuine honest self-introspection he is no different from you and me and any human with the call of hunger and bowel urgency plaguing us regularly, and I think the Dalai knows himself in this wise, not excluding the less indispensable urge of sex.
I don't think the Dalai Lama will deny any of that. I've seen him admit to most of that before. No one has claimed that the Dalai Lama is some kind of superman, certainly not himself.
Then he is also a ruler of a country, but in exile, which status he is trying his best to arrive at some compromise for with China, for himself and for his people; he might end up like whoever will run Iraq for the USA when the US soldiery finally exits, and but leaving several military bases on very active duty and naval installations like in South Korea and in Japan and also in Germany.
Maybe. Only time will tell.
Now, the most curious persona he is playing is his role as the reincarnation of the original or first Dalai Lama, hierocratic ruler of Tibet, meaning in charge of Tibetan bodies and souls -- even though he might not like you two, Ryokan and Dancing David, believe in theoretical guise the existence of a soul or even a self.
Didn't you read the Wikipeda article I supplied you with?
One of the things that distinguishes Tibetan Buddhism is that they believe in reincarnation. That would also mean that they believe in either a soul or some other form of permanent self.
So, let's sit back and wait for reactions if any from the Dalai Lama. And I am quite optimistic that he will answer either directly himself or by his correspondence secretaries my inquiry -- because he is not really that busy as to not attend to every email addressed to him personally; there's really not much to do as an exile leader of a country that is otherwise running smoothly even if without political autonomy; I mean the Chinese are certainly going to make of Tibet a showcase of their political and humanistic altruism, good for recruitment to their hegemony.
Yrreg
Yes, I'm sure the Dalai Lama is just sitting in an office waiting for e-mails from random people across the world. That's how he got his Nobel Peace Prize.
