I thought Buddhism wasn't about threatening people with Hell

Whether you're exploring Buddhism for the first time or you're already on the path, feel free to ask questions of any kind here.

Re: I thought Buddhism wasn't about threatening people with Hell

Postby Ikkyu » Thu Oct 11, 2012 2:58 am

undefineable wrote:Humans, with their big sophisticated brains, invariably get a hell of a lot more out of life they put back into the universe. In other words, just being born human empties the karmic piggy banks.
I couldn't see the vid, as I'm on mobile internet for a bit, but never mind alcohol; what happens to, for example, the obese (which I've just seen a doc about) - In the UK atleast, breaking the 2'nd precept to the n'th degree just to maintain themselves is a course of action that's thrust on them by 'free' healthcare.
I can't *logically* see how it could be any other way, until we save ourselves from an irredeemably problematic reality by gaining enlightenment.

To sum up, 'no hell', even 'no life after death' seems to me to be as much wishful thinking as theism, spiritualism, marxism, or indeed the belief that natural justice can exist or is 'logical'. I'm sorry to be down, but this seems the place to do it(!), & I also wonder if I'm taking my logic too far, so do call me out if I'm 'off'. :thinking:
Having said that, core religious doctrines tend to be *more* peaceful than reality, but only Buddhism seems to sustain this across the board.


I'd say Taoism, at least the philosophical kind of Lao Tzu and Chuangzi, is pretty peaceful. Isn't it kind of an elitist attitude to be claiming that ONLY Buddhism is peaceful across the board?
Last edited by Ikkyu on Thu Oct 11, 2012 3:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ikkyu
 
Posts: 185
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:20 pm

Re: I thought Buddhism wasn't about threatening people with Hell

Postby Ikkyu » Thu Oct 11, 2012 3:11 am

"Sunyata or not, driving nails through someone's hands is pretty specific."

Yes, the text is describing a specific experience. The question is whether it's, ultimately, a real one or not. Again, you insist that Buddhism posits these realms as real, and object to that. I ask you again to describe that reality in Buddhist terms (emptiness is your hint). If you can't, then you're just trolling the board with a strawman argument.

Tell me, how do the experiences of hell realms arise according to any school of Buddhism (your choice)?


Obviously if we take emptiness into account then none of this is really because it lacks a permanent self. Three marks, dependent origination, yada yada. Yeah, I get it. But despite the fact that none of this is real in the Buddhist sense -- not you or I or my house or your car -- we still experience it. Sure, ultimately if a person could let go of the delusion that the self and phenomena are real objectively they may not be as terrified about the acid being poured on their faces in the hell realms, it's still happening in some sense because they are experiencing it. They're experiencing something ridiculous and unwarranted and silly and torturous for no good reason on the level of conventional truth, even if it's all nothing on the level of ultimate reality. The idea is still incredibly ridiculous. For anyone to believe this would take a massive amount of brainwashing -- that you can go to hell for drinking too much and have nails driven through your hands and acid poured on your face... even if it's all just "emptiness" anyway.

In any case, the sutras still insinuate that :cheers: = :stirthepot:
User avatar
Ikkyu
 
Posts: 185
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:20 pm

Re: I thought Buddhism wasn't about threatening people with Hell

Postby tomamundsen » Thu Oct 11, 2012 4:39 am

Ikkyu wrote:In any case, the sutras still insinuate that :cheers: = :stirthepot:

Sorry, I haven't been following this thread, but which sutra insinuates that? I have always been taught that the 5th precept is the only one that is a precept of obedience. Drinking alcohol is not one of the ten unwholesome deeds. Furthermore, I remember Huseng in this thread showing that actually the reason behind the alcohol ban was a pretty minor instance where some monk got really drunk and passed on in an inappropriate position in front of the Buddha and Sangha.
User avatar
tomamundsen
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:50 am
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: I thought Buddhism wasn't about threatening people with Hell

Postby dharmagoat » Thu Oct 11, 2012 5:58 am

Ikkyu wrote:I guess we really DO have to cherry pick with Buddhist texts unless we want to believe in unconscionable irrationality.

There is nothing wrong with cherry-picking if done intelligently and with the right motive. Is there?
May all beings be happy
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 1199
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: I thought Buddhism wasn't about threatening people with Hell

Postby Ikkyu » Thu Oct 11, 2012 6:07 am

tomamundsen wrote:
Ikkyu wrote:In any case, the sutras still insinuate that :cheers: = :stirthepot:

Sorry, I haven't been following this thread, but which sutra insinuates that? I have always been taught that the 5th precept is the only one that is a precept of obedience. Drinking alcohol is not one of the ten unwholesome deeds. Furthermore, I remember Huseng in this thread showing that actually the reason behind the alcohol ban was a pretty minor instance where some monk got really drunk and passed on in an inappropriate position in front of the Buddha and Sangha.


Sorry. I will admit that was sort of an embellishment. The precepts disavow drinking as a sin and Buddha describes vivid depictions of the Narakas. I was connecting the two together in an exaggerated way. I apologize for misspeaking.
User avatar
Ikkyu
 
Posts: 185
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:20 pm

Re: I thought Buddhism wasn't about threatening people with Hell

Postby nilakantha » Thu Oct 11, 2012 6:44 am

To me, it all comes down to a question of pramana (epistemology). As we know, the pramanavadins postulated three types of knowables: pratyaksha (perceptible things), paroksha (things known through inference) and atyantaparoksha (transcendent things). When it comes to transcendent things, the scholastic consensus is that they can only be known through the word of an omniscient being, i.e. Buddhavacana (Buddhist Scripture). The final chapter of Shantarakshita's Tattvasamgraha is a good place to find the argument laid out. Therefore, lacking any evidence from scripture to the contrary, I believe in the literal experience of the heavens and hells as the Lord described them. The location of such realms is only of interest if you postulate the existence of an objective world apart from mind. I don't. Hells and heavens, like our Saha world in general, come into existence due to our karma.
May I be a poet in birth after birth, a devotee of the feet of Lord Avalokiteśvara,
with elevated heart, spontaneously directed towards his Refuge,
wholly occupied with the solemn duty of saving others.

--Lokeshvarashatakam of Vajradatta
nilakantha
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 4:35 am

Re: I thought Buddhism wasn't about threatening people with Hell

Postby catmoon » Thu Oct 11, 2012 8:51 am

Really, Ikkyu, these anti-Buddhists rants don't belong on a Buddhist board. If you find some of the teachings do not accord with your experience of things, why not just set them to one side and continue on your path in peace? There is no rule stating that you have to believe anything the Buddha taught if you don't want to.
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 3006
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: I thought Buddhism wasn't about threatening people with Hell

Postby tomamundsen » Thu Oct 11, 2012 9:42 am

Ikkyu wrote:
tomamundsen wrote:
Ikkyu wrote:In any case, the sutras still insinuate that :cheers: = :stirthepot:

Sorry, I haven't been following this thread, but which sutra insinuates that? I have always been taught that the 5th precept is the only one that is a precept of obedience. Drinking alcohol is not one of the ten unwholesome deeds. Furthermore, I remember Huseng in this thread showing that actually the reason behind the alcohol ban was a pretty minor instance where some monk got really drunk and passed on in an inappropriate position in front of the Buddha and Sangha.


Sorry. I will admit that was sort of an embellishment. The precepts disavow drinking as a sin and Buddha describes vivid depictions of the Narakas. I was connecting the two together in an exaggerated way. I apologize for misspeaking.

Glad to see you have an open mind. I feel like I need to make one more clarification. Ingesting intoxicants is not a "sin." "Sin" isn't a good word to describe any Buddhist concept, actually. There is just a vow that monks and some lay people take agreeing to not ingest intoxicants. Breaking vows in general is bad karma, so there could be negative karmic retribution if you take the 5th precept and get drunk or high. But if you haven't taken a vow, there is no ill consequence. Now, if you do something unwholesome while you're intoxicated, that's a different story!
User avatar
tomamundsen
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:50 am
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: I thought Buddhism wasn't about threatening people with Hell

Postby lobster » Thu Oct 11, 2012 10:43 am

When you learn to love hell, you will be in heaven.


Yes indeed.
Yesterday night I was in a minor hell realm. Half dream state, half very disturbing emotions and visions. Ah well, this is what happens when you plan to hold picnics in hell :popcorn:
One of my dreams for future action as a Mahayanist. What was the cause of this arising? I think that Vajrapani has come to visit as part of my migtsema practice. Better be on my bestest behaviour . . .

It was not pleasant because I had other plans - sleep.
Eventually had to chant away the demons.

Heaven.
User avatar
lobster
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 9:06 pm

Re: I thought Buddhism wasn't about threatening people with Hell

Postby undefineable » Thu Oct 11, 2012 3:12 pm

Ikkyu wrote:Sure, ultimately if a person could let go of the delusion that the self and phenomena are real objectively they may not be as terrified about the acid being poured on their faces in the hell realms, it's still happening in some sense because they are experiencing it.They're experiencing something ridiculous and unwarranted and silly and torturous for no good reason on the level of conventional truth, even if it's all nothing on the level of ultimate reality. The idea is still incredibly ridiculous.


The fave 'ad hominem' of every self-respecting atheist, 'wishful thinking', can be used against those who deny hell just as easily as it an be thrown at those who entertain heaven. If you're just worried about the possibility of hells existing, I understand that. Since when, though, did acid stop getting poured on the faces of real human beings on planet earth?! Suffering is always unjustified unless it's self-inflicted (and even then one has to ask why one inflicted it on oneself); this seems more true ultimately than relatively. Moreover, isn't it mainly 'the good' who suffer? - Those who cause the most suffering generally have the least capacity to experience it for themselves, even though (it's said) their mental models for the torments they cause are typically accurate. Since they have fewer qualms and -partly through practice- more 'nous' than others about how to better themselves through harming those around them, they easily end up developing their own minds in an outward direction better than anyone with a 'conscience' could.

{This is actually my main question about karma - Why should evil not be rewarded and good punished, as Nietzsche and de Sade suggest?}

Ikkyu wrote:I'd say Taoism, at least the philosophical kind of Lao Tzu and Chuangzi, is pretty peaceful. Isn't it kind of an elitist attitude to be claiming that ONLY Buddhism is peaceful across the board?


Isn't Lao Tzu kind of elitist? Not to mention the fact that 'the sage', somewhere in his writings, is someone with complete indifference towards all his fellow beings _

Anyway, I'm with you that Buddhist descriptions of Hell sound a bit silly, but to me it's simply the kind of offences that land one there that sound 'off'.
Last edited by undefineable on Thu Oct 11, 2012 4:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Removing the barrier between this and that is the only solution" {Chogyam Trungpa - "The Lion's Roar"}
undefineable
 
Posts: 496
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:34 am

Re: I thought Buddhism wasn't about threatening people with Hell

Postby undefineable » Thu Oct 11, 2012 3:26 pm

Ikkyu wrote:They should be, lest we betray our own intellect and potential as human beings. To believe something without evidence is pretty much intellectual suicide, and frankly it's self-degradation. We base our understanding of things on our ability to perceive the empirical evidence that suggests a certain thing is true.


What is intellect, if not the plaything of geeks :toilet: ? Seriously, though, our understanding of social situations is based on our ability to intuit (i.e. subconsciously streamline and re-package) the empirical evidence - Read about autism to find out how slow and clunky the social cognition of beings becomes in the absence of such intuition. Already we have an absence of any perception we could be sufficiently conscious of to fully understand, and yet our understanding of the bread-and-butter of the human world is based on the feelings mediated to consciousness by such 'unconscious perception'. This might explain why humans have imagined gaining other understanding through such means for so long.

I'd agree that beliefs -without evidence- in things 'over and above' whatever is rationally demonstrable (or self-evident) about the contents of our senses can easily become socially dangerous in their formative years - Humans are quick to jumped to conclusions, as well as to accuse each other of being undeserving, and so having conjured some 'higher truths' out of their vague intuition of a greater reality (which might just be the whole universe we know and love/hate), we promptly accuse most of our fellow humans of failing to live up to such ideals - Witness 'religion v. homosexuality' or 'New Age' judgements on cancer sufferers. As a beginner in Buddhism and as a thinker, however, I can't honestly rule out possibilities such as God's existence, and am happy to entertain them as such.
Last edited by undefineable on Thu Oct 11, 2012 3:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Removing the barrier between this and that is the only solution" {Chogyam Trungpa - "The Lion's Roar"}
undefineable
 
Posts: 496
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:34 am

Re: I thought Buddhism wasn't about threatening people with Hell

Postby undefineable » Thu Oct 11, 2012 3:41 pm

Ikkyu wrote:How much of these "holy texts" can we really take literally? And how do we know when to dismiss the content of sutras like this as historical, cultural or personal additions/innovations on part of the author? How do we know which parts are allegorical and which parts are literal? I guess we really DO have to cherry pick with Buddhist texts unless we want to believe in unconscionable irrationality.


If the meditation and contemplation described by the same sutras start changing how you perceive the world in the ways they also describe, I see every reason to entertain the possibility that such claims are literally true - atleast in general (if not in all particulars). Again, since there's no redemptive heaven in Buddhism (in the sense that there is in Islam etc.), I don't think anyone will accuse you of wishful thinking on that account.
"Removing the barrier between this and that is the only solution" {Chogyam Trungpa - "The Lion's Roar"}
undefineable
 
Posts: 496
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:34 am

Re: I thought Buddhism wasn't about threatening people with Hell

Postby PorkChop » Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:22 pm

I'd like to start with a question for the people who are much more learned than I am:
Would it be incorrect to think of karma (or rather the fruits of karma) as corrective in nature?
I'll elaborate on "corrective" later on.

In order to tie that back to the original post - the OP was worried that Buddhism would be no different than Catholicism when it came to relative hells.
The Catholic doctrine implies that the hell passed down at initial judgement upon death is near permanent and that the situation would only be reduced to annihilation upon final judgement. I do not remember anything in the doctrine to support the thought of a reversal of fortune upon final judgement).
Buddhist doctrine is different, as others have mentioned, in that no hells or heavens are permanent situations (or situations that ultimately lead to annihilation).
Hells or heavens only last as long as dictated by the karma/action that caused the condition in the first place.
Once the results of that karma/action have been exhausted, then the being is free to move upon its merry way.

When I say "corrective", I mean "guiding towards a certain ideal state", like correcting the path of a ship that has drifted off course.
If we commit a "bad" (unskillful) action, negative results occur until that action is purged, encouraging one not to engage in that type of behavior.
If "good" (skillful) actions are committed, results occur that an improved state is achieved, but only in so long as good actions continue and are ultimately only temporary.
All "good" states, save nirvana, are impermanent; just as all "bad" states are impermanent, each extreme eventually cycling back around to the other, hence "good" and "bad" states all lead to suffering, due to the suffering of change.

The only way to break from the cycle is to understand "skillful" action in navigating the "corrective" forces, this is why ignorance is the requirement for karma/action.
Unfortunately, with each death and rebirth, the knowledge of "skillful" action is often lost. Beings get stuck in the cycle of "good" and "bad" states. This is why rebirth is considered suffering, and why it takes incalculable eons to break free from the cycle.
The good news is that just by the teachings of the Dharma existing, they can act as a filter and a navigator, so by the sheer laws of statistics, each and every being has the potential to achieve a nirvanic state (Buddhahood), especially when they hear and follow the teachings.

It's almost evolutionary if you think about it.
I think it's beautiful; especially when you realize that compassion for fellow beings is a big part of that "skillful" path.
I much prefer the idea of trying to evolve to a higher state rather than live in fear of being judged - being given a chance to learn from my mistakes instead of coming under final judgement.
The idea that by cultivating wisdom and compassion, I can make a difference for myself and others is so much more exciting to me than being subservient out of fear of retribution.
I do agree that the presentation in the video may have been somewhat un-skilled, but the idea was to promote the idea that actions have consequences.

Sorry if this post is rehashing what others have said, but it's been kicking around in my head since I read the original post and I figured if I posted, it might help with some misunderstandings - either the original poster's or my own.
User avatar
PorkChop
 
Posts: 821
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:17 pm

Re: I thought Buddhism wasn't about threatening people with Hell

Postby Red Faced Buddha » Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:34 pm

Ikkyu wrote:Is the deep fear of going to Hell from drinking alcohol, etc. just a Theravada thing?
This video was sort of disturbing and I hope I can get some clarification on this:



Thank you, :smile:


Actually,there are several Buddhist sects that say that if you do not follow them(*cough*Pure Land,Nichiren,Shingon*cough*.)you will go to hell.
A person once asked me why I would want to stop rebirth. "It sounds pretty cool. Being able to come back. Who wouldn't want to be reborn."
I replied. "Wanting to be reborn is like wanting to stay in a jail cell, when you have the chance to go free and experience the whole wide world. Does a convict, on being freed from his shabby, constricting, little cell, suddenly say "I really want to go back to jail and be put in a cell. It sounds pretty cool. Being able to come back. Who wouldn't want that?"
Red Faced Buddha
 
Posts: 185
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 4:16 am
Location: The Middle of Nowhere

Re: I thought Buddhism wasn't about threatening people with Hell

Postby catmoon » Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:53 pm

@PorkChop

I think it is a mistake to think of karma as a corrective agency. This makes karma into a conscious entity, with intentions, which I don't think it is. As I understand it, half the point of the karmic view is to eliminate just such conscious agents.

So karma is just the way cause and effect work out. Like gravity, sometimes the effects are pleasant and useful, and sometimes disastrous and painful. A knowledge of how gravity works enables one to avoid the latter results. Same with karma.
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 3006
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: I thought Buddhism wasn't about threatening people with Hell

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sat Oct 13, 2012 3:04 pm

PorkChop wrote:When I say "corrective", I mean "guiding towards a certain ideal state", like correcting the path of a ship that has drifted off course.
If we commit a "bad" (unskillful) action, negative results occur until that action is purged, encouraging one not to engage in that type of behavior.
If "good" (skillful) actions are committed, results occur that an improved state is achieved, but only in so long as good actions continue and are ultimately only temporary.
No my dear PC, karma and its outcomes do not work like that. Unwholesome actions produce unwholesome outcomes, but many times it is not clear that this action leads to that outcome. We may act in a wholesome manner and yet have negative results because of your activity in previous lifetimes. If we do not overcome ignorance the original unwholesome behaviour will be reinforced by setting us up with causes and conditions that may even assist unwholesome behaviours to develop. Plus, it is not necessarily the case that unwholesome behaviour in this lifetime will mature in this lifetime. One may actually experience short term gain from unwholesome behaviour. But even this gain may be based on past positive actions. Some thieves get away with it and some get caught and go to jail.

So, for example: Stealing may lead to us being born poor. Being born poor may put us in a situation where we "need" to steal again or are incapable of material generosity. This further reinforces the unwholesome behaviour to the point where we may then be reborn as preta. A preta canot accumulate merit and thus is trapped for a few lifetimes in this state until the causes that lead to this rebirth fade into insignificance. Being reborn again in human form (due to past accumulations of merit) one may display characteristics/habits from their previous Preta state thus setting up the cycle once again.

There is not necessarily any encouragement via the negative outcomes of ones behaviour, if one does not overcome ignorance. How many people do you know that blame everything and everybody (except themselves) for the state/situations they find themselves in?

The outcomes of actions are about as purging as the fact that water poured on an angled surface, will run from the highest to the lowest surface, or a balloon pricked with a pin will explode. Just actions and their outcomes.
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 9272
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: I thought Buddhism wasn't about threatening people with Hell

Postby Greg_the_poet » Sat Oct 13, 2012 4:14 pm

The only thing I can say, being a recovering alcoholic, is that I don't fear hell, I've been there.
Greg_the_poet
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 4:06 pm

Re: I thought Buddhism wasn't about threatening people with Hell

Postby PorkChop » Sat Oct 13, 2012 6:41 pm

catmoon
I'm sorry, I did not mean to assign a consciousness to karma, that was not my intention, I meant more of a "path of least resistance".
You're right about the fact that it's the Dharma that shows us the "path of least resistance" and not the essence of causes & effects of those causes in themselves.
I was looking at karma as more in the sense of Darwin's evolution - certain behaviors lead to death and certain behaviors lead to a propagation of the species; so a species as a whole is therefor encouraged to engage in behaviors that lead to the propagation of the species (assuming they have a drive to live).
A being's overall drive therefore would be to escape suffering, they should be encouraged to engage in behaviors that lead to the ultimate release of suffering.
My mistake i think is assuming that that encouragement was inherent in the cause & effect "system", and not the Dharma.
Like you said, until you understand how to navigate gravity and avoid the negative results of gravity, you're stuck repeating the same behaviors over and over again.
Unfortunately (as gregkavarnos points out) the cause and effect doesn't take place over a single lifetime and therefor understanding how karma works (ie the Dharma) has to be re-learned at each new birth, otherwise beings can get caught in a cyclic existence.

gregkavarnos
Again, I should probably be more careful with my wording.
I tried to touch on the effects of actions not coming to fruition in a single lifetime; I did not mean to imply that they could be observed within a single lifetime.
You do bring up a point I hadn't considered - the inability of lower realms to accumulate merit and the inability of other realms to learn the Dharma in order to properly navigate.
We can't get an idea of the "big picture" unless we're a human, and therefor a human existence should be cherished.
It's the Dharma that is corrective in nature not causes and effects themselves.


Thanks for helping me guys. I hope I'm understanding my misunderstandings a little better now. :namaste:
User avatar
PorkChop
 
Posts: 821
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:17 pm

Re: I thought Buddhism wasn't about threatening people with Hell

Postby catmoon » Sat Oct 13, 2012 7:50 pm

Side point:

Animals can easily pick up a little merit here and there. Sometimes they even pick up enough to ensure a better rebirth, though I think this usually happens by interactions with kindly humans, and it may take quite a few lifetimes for the karma to ripen. This is illustrated in various Buddhist stories and in the practices of modern lamas.

Preta realm, it's getting really hard to find or create merit. Very few kindly humans have any interaction with them, resources are extremely scarce and they are all starving. It's like trying to be a saint in the middle of a Biafran famine. So not only are things bad for them they are very likely to get worse rapidly resulting in....

Hell realms are practically merit-free. Exit from these realms is almost completely the result of exhausting the lousy karma that got them there.


Anyhow that's the kind of thinking I'm operating on these days.
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 3006
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: I thought Buddhism wasn't about threatening people with Hell

Postby PorkChop » Sat Oct 13, 2012 9:09 pm

catmoon wrote:Hell realms are practically merit-free. Exit from these realms is almost completely the result of exhausting the lousy karma that got them there.

Anyhow that's the kind of thinking I'm operating on these days.


Yeah I'm a bit nervous about hell realms - not that it's my major motivation for following precepts or for trying to be a good person.
The idea of hell realms seem to be common to a lot of different folks all over the world.
As I said in my intro; I've tried to accept the possibility that if my folks (Catholics) are right and I really am the heretical son going off to study something else, then at least I may be able to develop the equanimity to bear the situation. Worrying about their approval has kept me a bit of a "frequent shopper" when it comes to spirituality, but I feel like I've finally found a world view in the Dharma that really feels right, even if I don't quite understand it all yet. It's taken me almost 20 years (since 94) of studying & bouncing around to get to this point, but I really don't see myself shopping around anymore, in fact I don't see myself being able to live without it.
So if I do end up in hell and don't have the faculties or presence of mind to understand the situation, well let's just say it's gonna be a bumpy ride. :)
User avatar
PorkChop
 
Posts: 821
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:17 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Exploring Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests

>