What the Buddha didn't Teach

[emptyness]

Once one of the Buddha's followers, a monk named Malunkyaputta, came to him and asked four questions that had been troubling him:

1. Is the world eternal or not eternal?
2. Is the world infinite of finite?
3. Is the soul the same as the body or are they different?
4. Does the Buddha exist after death or does he not exist?

The Buddha responded to these questions through an analogy with the purpose of showing Malunkyaputta that such speculative questions were ultimately unprofitable.

Poisoned Arrow

He asked Malunkyaputta to imagine a man who had been wounded by a poisoned arrow. His friends and relatives send for a surgeon but when the surgeon arrives, the wounded man says: 'I will not let the surgeon pull out this arrow until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble or a brahmin (priest), or a merchant or a worker...tall, short, or middle height...brown or golden-skinned...whether he lives in such a village or town or city...whether the bow that wounded me was a long bow or a cross bow...' and so on. The Buddha then explains that before all the wounded man's questions would have been answered he would have died.
The Buddha's point is that whilst we speculate on questions such as those above we are missing the main point of his teachings. These are encapsulated in the four noble truths: 'This is suffering', 'this is the origin of suffering', 'this is the cessation of suffering' and 'this is the way that leads to the cessation of suffering'.
He declares that to speculate on such questions is a distraction from what is essential to lead a good life - it does not lead 'to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana'.

The Surgeon

Elsewhere in Buddhist scriptures the same image of a poisoned arrow is used again and its significance explained. The arrow is craving and the poison is ignorance, which manifests itself through selfish desire, lust and ill-will. The surgeon is the Buddha, the surgeon's knife is wisdom and the 'probe' by which the wound is examined is mindfulness. The body itself can also be seen as an open wound that should be treated and cared for. This is why the Buddha advised his followers to avoid extremities and to look after their health. But the Buddha's important message was to work on our minds and to remove the 'poisons' (greed, hatred, delusion) therein.
The answer to such questions posed by Malunkyaputta are natural ones. But the Buddha advises us to put them to one side - at least for the time being - and devote ourselves to the main business. This is to acknowledge the suffering we experience, to see where it comes from and to work at freeing ourselves from it.

buddhism.about.com

"Solitude is happiness for one who is content, who has heard the Dhamma and clearly sees."

 

[zenzero]

Friend emptyness,
Great post.
Appreciated.
Do keep posting such anecdotes from buddha's life.
Love & rgds

 

[Abracadabra]

This is to acknowledge the suffering we experience, to see where it comes from and to work at freeing ourselves from it.

I'm familiar with the story of Malunkyaputta and to be quite honest about it, I'm not happy with the Buddha's answer.

I personally feel that it's a poor parable. Because it assumes that eveyone agrees there exists a posion arrow. From my point of view Malunkyaputta is trying to determine whether the poision arrow actually exists before bothering to try to remove it.

I personally feel that's a valid question. Now I realize that Malunkyaputta is probably a fictional character made up by Buddhists for this parable. But if I were Malunkyaputta I would want the Buddha to give me some evidence that this imaginary arrow exists.

I mean let's face it. Buddhism is based on the unquestioned premise of reincarnation. But what if the Buddhists are wrong about that?

Buddhists claim that all is suffering. But aren't they just whining that life isn't perfect?

In fact, I recently took a course in Buddhism and the lecturer said that Buddhists feel that even when you're on top of the world and feeling great and everything is going your way life still equates to suffering simply because that state of affairs is transient and can't last forever.

But to me, this just seems like all the Buddhists are saying is basically, "Well life isn't great all the time so let's condemn the whole experience to suffering".

I just don't see the premise that all is suffering. Life has its ups and downs. It's not all suffering. So I don't see the premise (i.e. I don't see the poision on the arrow).

Maybe if I was having a truly miserable life I'd feel more incline to believe that way. But I have no problems in this life. And don't take that to mean that I'm well-off or successful in a material sense. I'm not. In fact, in the country I live in my income is below the 'poverty level'. I also don't live in that great of a hut. None the less I'm still quite happy with what life has to offer me and I'm also quite at peace. In fact, I've never feared the idea of death and to be quite honest I never understood the fear of death. All humans die. What's to be afriad of? It's a perfectly common and natural part of existence.

I mean, I agree with a lot of Buddha practices such as meditation to calm the mind and things of this nature. But when it comes to Malunkyaputta questions I think their relavent. Also it seems that Malunkyaputta was interested in what he's going to get in return for becoming a Buddhist. Isn't that a fair question?

If Buddhism has nothing to offer him save for a bunch of beliefs based on unproven ideas of reincarnation why devote your life to it on pure faith? Maybe it would actually be less suffering to just go about enjoying life without spirituality. From what I've heard living like a Buddist monk is itself a form of suffering. What if reincarnation is wrong then the Buddhists are just giving up enjoying the simple pleasures in life in favor of sitting around chanting OM.

Just my sincere thoughts not meant to attack the belief system. But the Malunkyaputta parable just doesn't satistfy the questions it raises IMHO.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The craving for answers from metaphyscial reasoning leads to more suffering. :yes:

"Whether the world is finite or infinite, limited or unlimited, the problem of your liberation remains the same." -Buddha-

 

[Smoke]

I'm familiar with the story of Malunkyaputta and to be quite honest about it, I'm not happy with the Buddha's answer. [...]

Just my sincere thoughts not meant to attack the belief system. But the Malunkyaputta parable just doesn't satistfy the questions it raises IMHO.

It's not meant to. The point is that neither the questions nor any prospective answer to such questions is conduces to enlightenment.

The story is from the Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta. My favorite part of the Buddha's answer is not given in the account above. It is:

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]Malunkyaputta, anyone who should say, 'I will not lead the religious life under the Blessed One until the Blessed One shall explain to me either that the world is eternal, or that the world is not eternal, that the world is finite, or that the world is infinite, that the soul and the body are identical, or that the soul is one thing and the body another, that the saint exists after death, or that the saint does not exist after death, that the saint both exists and does not exist after death, or that the saint neither exists nor does not exist after death'; -- that person would die, Malunkyaputta, before the Tathagata had ever explained this to him. ... And why, Malunkyaputta, have I not explained this? Because, Malunkyaputta, this profits not, nor has to do with the fundamentals of religion, nor tends to aversion, absence of passion, cessation, quiescence, the supernatural faculties, supreme wisdom, and Nirvana; therefore have I not explained it.[/FONT]​

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'm familiar with the story of Malunkyaputta and to be quite honest about it, I'm not happy with the Buddha's answer.

I personally feel that it's a poor parable. Because it assumes that eveyone agrees there exists a posion arrow. From my point of view Malunkyaputta is trying to determine whether the poision arrow actually exists before bothering to try to remove it.

I personally feel that's a valid question. Now I realize that Malunkyaputta is probably a fictional character made up by Buddhists for this parable. But if I were Malunkyaputta I would want the Buddha to give me some evidence that this imaginary arrow exists.

Try viewing this experientially rather than through intellectualization. In other words, change the perspective on how you are approaching this. -NM-

I mean let's face it. Buddhism is based on the unquestioned premise of reincarnation. But what if the Buddhists are wrong about that?

Not reincarnation such as via an atman or soul.(Like that found in Hinduism.) Rather anattna no-self. Hence re-birth. That said, Buddha never reified affirmatively or denial of such because such ontological musings can bind one to suffering if the attachment is strong enough. -NM-

Buddhists claim that all is suffering. But aren't they just whining that life isn't perfect?

Is it still suffering once you realise "what suffering is"? -NM-

In fact, I recently took a course in Buddhism and the lecturer said that Buddhists feel that even when you're on top of the world and feeling great and everything is going your way life still equates to suffering simply because that state of affairs is transient and can't last forever.
But to me, this just seems like all the Buddhists are saying is basically, "Well life isn't great all the time so let's condemn the whole experience to suffering".

A bit misleading. It's not constant change that causes suffering, but the attachments formed when things change. -NM-

I just don't see the premise that all is suffering. Life has its ups and downs. It's not all suffering. So I don't see the premise (i.e. I don't see the poision on the arrow).

Maybe if I was having a truly miserable life I'd feel more incline to believe that way. But I have no problems in this life. And don't take that to mean that I'm well-off or successful in a material sense. I'm not. In fact, in the country I live in my income is below the 'poverty level'. I also don't live in that great of a hut. None the less I'm still quite happy with what life has to offer me and I'm also quite at peace. In fact, I've never feared the idea of death and to be quite honest I never understood the fear of death. All humans die. What's to be afriad of? It's a perfectly common and natural part of existence.

:grill: Nice isn't it? -NM-

I mean, I agree with a lot of Buddha practices such as meditation to calm the mind and things of this nature. But when it comes to Malunkyaputta questions I think their relavent. Also it seems that Malunkyaputta was interested in what he's going to get in return for becoming a Buddhist. Isn't that a fair question?

If Buddhism has nothing to offer him save for a bunch of beliefs based on unproven ideas of reincarnation why devote your life to it on pure faith? Maybe it would actually be less suffering to just go about enjoying life without spirituality. From what I've heard living like a Buddist monk is itself a form of suffering. What if reincarnation is wrong then the Buddhists are just giving up enjoying the simple pleasures in life in favor of sitting around chanting OM.

Just my sincere thoughts not meant to attack the belief system. But the Malunkyaputta parable just doesn't satistfy the questions it raises IMHO.

Are you sure some of your views here in regards to Buddhism actually came from a Buddhist source????

Take Care of yourself,

-NM-

 

[Smoke]

If Buddhism has nothing to offer him save for a bunch of beliefs based on unproven ideas of reincarnation why devote your life to it on pure faith?

That's not all Buddhism has to offer. Regardless of what Buddhism has to offer, though, I would not recommend that you devote yourself to Buddhism or to anything else on pure faith.

 

[Twilight Hue]

That's not all Buddhism has to offer. Regardless of what Buddhism has to offer, though, I would not recommend that you devote yourself to Buddhism or to anything else on pure faith.

Good advice.

 

[Abracadabra]

Maybe a different way to put it would be to ask, "Did Malunkyaputta really need to be enlightened?"

I sometimes feel like I was born 'enlightented'. Seriously. I mean, I've never feared death. Sure, I've always had a survival instinct, but that's not due to a fear of death. Just because a person doesn't fear death is no reason to step out in front of a bus.

I was listening to Deepak Chopra videos, and he was describing all the causes of suffering. I think there were seven of them with one being 'redundant' because it was just the suffering of not realizing the other six. (ha ha)

And then went something like, suffering because we can't let go fo the past, or becasue we are always worrying for feeling guilt or sorrow about things we did or didn't do in the past. I can certainly identify with that because there were times in my life when I worried about those kinds of things. But now I just accept that what's done is done and considering it in any manner isn't going to change it so there's no point in that.

Other thing that is the cause of suffering is constantly worrying about the future. Well again, I don't worry about the future. Whatever will be will be. My friends have always told me that I'm the most carefree person in the world I never worry about the future. I cross bridges when I get to them. I've already learned in life that worrying about crossing bridges is futile because far too often you end up taking a different path altogether and never get to cross the bridge you were worried about anyway.

Another thing he states is the cause of suffering is non-acceptance of the 'now'. You're just not happy with the present moment and wanting it to be over with, or wishing you were somewhere else or doing something else. Again, this is never my problem, I've been very fortunate and I'm never pushed into situations that I don't like to be anyway. So I'm usually quite comfortable with the now.

And the last thing he mentioned was the anxiety about death, which was something that has never bothered me.

So after listening to his video I can only conclude that I must already be enlightened. (ha ha)

And so I guess that's my real question. All these people who continually study Buddhism, how do they know when they are 'enlightened' and do then they quite practicing Buddhism after they realize that they have come to this realization?

Actually the Siddhartha Guatama did become 'enlightened'. He had the "Ah HA!" moment sitting under some tree somewhere. And then he went around teaching his experience to others.

But they say that all people don't have an "Ah Ha!" moment. Many people just gradually realize the folly of worring about anything outside of the 'now'.

Is that all there is to Buddhism. Or is there a spiritual element too?

To me that's what Malunkyaputta was basically asking.

Is this just a realization that all that matters is the now? Or is there something spiritual to it, and if so, then what is the nature of that spiritual element.

In other words, is there something more to it than just removing sufferering?

I guess that's the real question I'm trying to get at. And this is also what came to my mind when I heard the parable of Malunkyaputta.

Recently I've been looking into shamanism to see if I can make contact with a spirit world. Well, that's a totally differnet concept altogether than trying to remove suffering from my life.

So this is what came into my mind with the Malunkyaputta parable. Are we just attempting to get the arrow out? Or is there something beyond that? Is there some spiritual experience that can be known after the arrow of suffering has been removed?

And the reason I ask, is because from my point of view Malunkyaputta is basically saying, "Look, if the only thing that Buddhism has to offer is to pull the arrow out, then it isn't worth it because I can pull the arrow out myself."

Do you see what I'm trying to get at?

 

[Abracadabra]

That's not all Buddhism has to offer. Regardless of what Buddhism has to offer, though, I would not recommend that you devote yourself to Buddhism or to anything else on pure faith.

But isn't that the whole point of the Malunkyaputta parable. Don't ask questions, just do it.

I felt like Malunkyaputta was genuinely asking, "Is there more to it than just the removing of suffering"

If not, then why bother? Maybe Malunkyaputta didn't feel like he was suffering.

That's my point.

These are the questions that came into my mind when I first heard this parable. That's why I found this thread interesting and a nice opportunity to ask them.

 

[koan]

Some things must be realised and maynot be explained. Like telling someone who has never had coffee what it tastes like! The point of Buddhism is the practice. If one continues arguing about the pros and cons of philosophy without the practice, then it's like being shot with a poison arrow. How would one ever know the "Truth", unless they find it for themselves. Buddhism gives one the tools to find the "Truth." What if the Buddha didn't know who fired the arrow? Does that alter the fact that one has a poisoned arrow protruding from them. The practice of a doctor, is to remove the poisoned arrow, he/she does not concern themselves with, who fired it. His/her practice, is to remove the suffering caused by the arrow.

 

[Smoke]

Not all Buddhists would agree, but to my way of thinking, beliefs about reincarnation and such are entirely optional. They're part of the culture that gave birth to Buddhism, but they're not the important part of Buddhism. At least, I don't think so. Buddhism invites you to try it and see if it works for you. If it doesn't, no hard feelings.

And the reason I ask, is because from my point of view Malunkyaputta is basically saying, "Look, if the only thing that Buddhism has to offer is to pull the arrow out, then it isn't worth it because I can pull the arrow out myself."

I don't think that's what Malunkyaputta is saying at all. Malunkyaputta is asking questions that really don't have anything to do with Buddhism. He wants cosmic answers that Buddhism doesn't offer -- or at least, the Tathagata didn't offer them.

However, if that's what you're saying -- that you can pull the arrow out yourself -- I'm not the one to tell you you're wrong. You may well be right. Many people find Buddhism helpful. If you're not one of them, that's okay.

 

[zenzero]

Friends,
Buddha was a master and not a Teacher.
He never taught anything to anyone.
He just showed a way, a path.
Those who felt like following him to understand the path, fine. Those who didn't, its fine.
Love & rgds

 

[Abracadabra]

I don't think that's what Malunkyaputta is saying at all. Malunkyaputta is asking questions that really don't have anything to do with Buddhism. He wants cosmic answers that Buddhism doesn't offer -- or at least, the Tathagata didn't offer them.

Well, I guess you're right that the Tathagata didn't offer them.

But is it truly fair to say that "Buddhism" in general doesn't offer answers to these questions?

Clearly Tibetian Buddhism (which is a combination of at least Mahayana Buddhism and Tantra Buddhism if not other forms) holds a belief in reincarnation. The very Dalai Lama himself is believed to be a reincarnation of the previoius lama.

So they would be able to answer Mulunkyaputta's questions. They would have to confess that they believe in reincarnation at the very least. Not only do they believe in reincarnation but it also seems to be a foundational element of their Buddhist tradition.

I would dare say that Deepak Chopra (also a Buddhist), often speaks in terms of a universal consciousness that he indirectly refers to as 'God' or the 'mind of God'. He also speaks in terms of immortality stating clearly that essence of our true being was never truly born, and never dies.

Deepak also speaks in terms of healing via mediatation where consciousness is focused on the parts of the body that need healing. This isn't all that far removed from witchcraft IMHO. And I don't mean to belittle it by saying that because I'm a believer in witchcraft. But I'm just pointing out that there are forms of Buddhism that do embrace spirituality quite deeply and would have answered Mulunkyaputta's questions quite differently.

So perhaps the parable of Mulunkyaputta simply isn't representative of "Buddhism" in general, but rather it merely reflects certain forms and traditions within Buddhism.

I guess what I'm thinking is that Mulunkyaputta was asking whether or not that particular form of Buddhism offered spirituality. If not, then perhaps he would rather go visit some other type of Buddhist tradition.

It appears to me that there are forms of spiritual Buddhism, and forms of non-spiritual Buddhism. So I guess when I hear the word Buddhism anymore, I really can't have a very good idea of what a person means by that untill they elaborate on just what it is that Buddhism means to them.

From my point of view, some forms of Buddhism have become nothing more than atheistic psychology. I question their validity as a 'religion' or spirituality. Is an atheistic philosophy truly a 'religion' in the sense of being spiritual?

If not, then why should it present itself as such?

I guess that's how I viewed the Mulunkyaputta parable. I see Mulunkyaputta asking, "Is this atheism, or spirituality?".

And the Buddha refuses to answer.

I take that to mean that it's atheism, because if it's more than atheism then why not say so?

I mean if the main monk doesn't even know then who does?

 

[Abracadabra]

Friends,
Buddha was a master and not a Teacher.
He never taught anything to anyone.
He just showed a way, a path.
Those who felt like following him to understand the path, fine. Those who didn't, its fine.
Love & rgds

I wonder which version of Buddhism Siddhartha would endorse today?

There are so many drastically different concepts of Buddhism that many of them don't even appear to have anything at all to do with Siddhartha's original experience.

From what I've been taught, Siddhartha believed in reincarnation and also believed that he needed to stop the cycle of death and rebirth. What happens after that is unclear. Even Siddhartha probably had no clue while he was still alive. Also who knows what happened to him after he died. Maybe he was just reincarnated again and it didn't work like he thought. Maybe he was sent right back to the drawing board.

You say that he taught a path. But Mulunkyaputta is simply asking, "Where does this path lead Master?"

That's my question. Where does the path lead? Does anyone know? Did Siddhartha even know?

Some people have suggested that Siddhartha was a manic depressive and after a while, possibly from his radical changes in diet, he eventually cured himself.

So the 'path' would only be useful then for people who are manic depressive. It has nothing to do with spirituality.

I mean, the way I see it Mulunkyaputta is basically asking, "Is this a spirituality, or are you just curing manic depressives?"

That's a valid question, I think.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Abracadabra,

You say that he taught a path. But Mulunkyaputta is simply asking, "Where does this path lead Master?"

Sorry He did NOT teach.
He should a way like *Pointing a finger to the Moon*.
It leads to nirvana and that is the understanding.
What is nirvana?
The state where no more thoughts arises in the MIND.
Love & rgds

 

[Abracadabra]

The state where no more thoughts arises in the MIND.

Sounds like death to me.

I don't mean to be picking on Buddhism. I was just taking off from my impressions of the Mulunkyaputta parable.

I confess that although I had studied Buddhism and Yoga back in the 70's that was more of an actual practice than an intellectual or historical study. More recently I've been studying Buddhism from a historical perspective. I'm truly amazed at the diversity of Buddhist traditions. I never realised that there were so many different aspects to Buddhism.

However, I also confess, that my true interest is in spirituality (not just quieting the mind). I can already do that. I find many of the 'supernatural' things that Deepak Chopra implies as well as the concept of reincarnation that the Dalai Lama and Tibetian Buddhism seems to support spiritual concepts that I find to be of great interest.

I also confess that I've recently become interested in the study of witchcraft and shamanism. Witchcraft in the sense of physically healing the body through the use of magick ritual. This is something that Deepak Chopra seems to support in his version of Buddhism, although I'm quite sure that he would never actually use the word "magick", but the principles and techniques that he refers to are the same.

So I guess my only interest in Buddhism today are those forms of Buddhism that support these 'supernatural' or 'spiritual' ideas. Quieting of the mind in and of itself could be a totally atheistic psychology that holds no interest for me as I feel that I've already been there and done that.

So I'm learning that there are many forms of Buddhism and the word can be quite confusing if it doesn't also carry with it another label, such as say, "Zen Buddhism".

Zen Buddhism almost a form of atheism as far as I can see.

I don't think there are very many Zen Buddhists who don't have thoughts. So if its all about reaching a state where no more thoughts arise in the mind, then there probably aren't too many Zen Buddhists who have actually achieved Nirvana.

I guess from now on I'll have to be more specific about my interest in certain aspects of the more spiritual forms of Buddhism such as Tantric Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism as practiced in Tibet by the Dalai Lama.

These are probably far removed from anything like the more modern forms of Buddhism like Zen Buddhism. I truly feel that Zen Buddhism is almost an atheistic form of Buddhism.

 

[Smoke]

Well, I guess you're right that the Tathagata didn't offer them.

But is it truly fair to say that "Buddhism" in general doesn't offer answers to these questions?

That's why I qualified my statement. There are some expressions of Buddhism that do. I think that's a mistake.

Clearly Tibetian Buddhism (which is a combination of at least Mahayana Buddhism and Tantra Buddhism if not other forms) holds a belief in reincarnation. The very Dalai Lama himself is believed to be a reincarnation of the previoius lama.

I dare say the Tathagata himself believed in reincarnation, or at the very least saw no need to repudiate the belief. So what? My point is that belief and dogma are not what's important about Buddhism.

I would dare say that Deepak Chopra (also a Buddhist), often speaks in terms of a universal consciousness that he indirectly refers to as 'God' or the 'mind of God'. He also speaks in terms of immortality stating clearly that essence of our true being was never truly born, and never dies.

Deepak also speaks in terms of healing via mediatation where consciousness is focused on the parts of the body that need healing. This isn't all that far removed from witchcraft IMHO. And I don't mean to belittle it by saying that because I'm a believer in witchcraft. But I'm just pointing out that there are forms of Buddhism that do embrace spirituality quite deeply and would have answered Mulunkyaputta's questions quite differently.

Deepak Chopra doesn't impress me much, and I wasn't aware he considered himself a Buddhist. If so, it just goes to show you that Buddhism is, like Christianity, very diverse.

But I'm not sure what you mean by spirituality. If you mean claiming to know the answers to questions nobody knows the answers to, or believing you can manipulate reality by the use of magic, I don't really see much value in it.

It appears to me that there are forms of spiritual Buddhism, and forms of non-spiritual Buddhism. So I guess when I hear the word Buddhism anymore, I really can't have a very good idea of what a person means by that untill they elaborate on just what it is that Buddhism means to them.

People mean many things by Buddhism, as they mean many things by Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Taoism or Hinduism. Most of the major religions are more like families of religions than one coherent system of belief and practice.

From my point of view, some forms of Buddhism have become nothing more than atheistic psychology. I question their validity as a 'religion' or spirituality. Is an atheistic philosophy truly a 'religion' in the sense of being spiritual?

If not, then why should it present itself as such?

I guess that's how I viewed the Mulunkyaputta parable. I see Mulunkyaputta asking, "Is this atheism, or spirituality?".

Again, I'm clear on what you think spirituality is. If you must have gods to be spiritual, then Buddhism is not spiritual. Many Buddhists believe in gods, but gods are not central to Buddhism. Do you have some reason for objecting to atheism? To psychology? To philosophy? I don't think any of those things are bad in themselves. I'm an atheist. Lots of Buddhists believe in gods. Lots of Buddhists are agnostic or atheist. It's just not that important. You can understand Buddhism in psychological terms or philosophical terms, if it pleases you to do so, but what you are understanding -- if that's even possible -- is not psychology or philosophy but a transformative experience. Everything else is extraneous.

And the Buddha refuses to answer.

I take that to mean that it's atheism, because if it's more than atheism then why not say so?

I mean if the main monk doesn't even know then who does?

Why do you think theism is "more" than atheism?

Sakyamuni didn't say he didn't know. He said it is not important to know. That's the point. The questions are not important. The answers are not important. All of that is just a distraction. There's nothing to be gained from such questions and answers.

 

[Smoke]

However, I also confess, that my true interest is in spirituality (not just quieting the mind). I can already do that. I find many of the 'supernatural' things that Deepak Chopra implies as well as the concept of reincarnation that the Dalai Lama and Tibetian Buddhism seems to support spiritual concepts that I find to be of great interest.

I also confess that I've recently become interested in the study of witchcraft and shamanism. Witchcraft in the sense of physically healing the body through the use of magick ritual. This is something that Deepak Chopra seems to support in his version of Buddhism, although I'm quite sure that he would never actually use the word "magick", but the principles and techniques that he refers to are the same.

So I guess my only interest in Buddhism today are those forms of Buddhism that support these 'supernatural' or 'spiritual' ideas. Quieting of the mind in and of itself could be a totally atheistic psychology that holds no interest for me as I feel that I've already been there and done that.

If you have quieted the mind, why are you still a religious seeker?

 

[zenzero]

Friend Abracadabra,

I don't think there are very many Zen Buddhists who don't have thoughts. So if its all about reaching a state where no more thoughts arise in the mind, then there probably aren't too many Zen Buddhists who have actually achieved Nirvana.

The real journey starts when one reaches the state of no-thoughts even for a split second. This is called a satori in zen.
Thereafter thoughts still remain in abundance but that very moment the person is said to be actually born as a being as he starts to feel one with the whole and his practice of watchfulness starts till the state of nirvana when the mind is totally free of all thoughts. Such a man has no-mind.
Buddhas are therefore rare.
Love & rgds