I respect that and wish you well with that. And having said this it should not be read as being condescending. I truly respect anyone who has taken the time to dedicate a portion of their life to the study and perfection of any discipline, no matter what that discipline might be. Every individual learns about the truth in their own way, by walking their own path. That's how one learns about what works for them and what doesn't.


I was that way, too, at one time. After being introduced to Buddhism in college, I started out by studying Zen because it seemed at that time to be the most accessible (as there were many books on it being published during the 1960s and 1970s) form to study of what the Buddha taught, and, at about that same time, Taoism because it presented, to my mind, a kind of less politicized, less dogmatic, less judgmental, yet synthesized philosophy and therefore a more universal form of something that was in some ways similar to the Christian view that was held by the society in which I was raised. At the time, I liked the Taoist approach because it seemed quite deep, intuitive, and a positive alternative view to adopt, even though I sometimes struggled to gain insight into its inscrutable ways.

It wasn't until I began to read and to contemplate the discourses of Gotama that I gained an even greater appreciation of what this man had to teach. Because little of this knowledge had been evident in the Zen literature I had read about, or had been turned on it head, so to speak, in order to justify Bodhidharma's (the Indian progenitor of Zen) unique Zen perspective. Because Gotama taught one to look at and examine "causes" (or first causes) of events, both physical and mental, in order to be able to see and to determine their reality. And this was something that I, too, had had a bit of insight into. So it struck a chord of recognition. This helped to change the way I viewed other "religious" teaching, much of which focused on identifying one with some kind of idealized picture of what one should aspire to be (as in "becoming," with all that that implies) without providing a realistic pathway to its realizable achievement. And what Gotama seemed to be saying was: "Stop identifying with any kind of 'self-mode' and just observe what is simply occurring in front of you (without any ideas about "self" or "self-nature" — including so-called "Buddha nature") if you want to see into the reality of what actually is."

Obviously, I am speaking here of impressions that I have had at one time or another. I realize that such impressions can vary from individual to individual along with their varying experiences. As well, I realize that individual's can grow out of earlier impressions they may have held in order to evolve to a higher (or more exacting) perspective that is equivalent to what Gotama realized. The answer to achieving this lies not in more and more complexity of view, but in simplifying everything down to its least common denominator and in being able to view the truth for what it is at the level of "cause," which then becomes indisputable for those who see and realize this.


That's good and I concur. If you have studied the "history of religion" in the world and how and what religious institutions have contributed to the development of societies and civilizations, one of the things you should have stumbled upon and learned is the degree to which religious organizations have contributed to and been used by evolving political forces to influence mass thinking, and thus contribute to the social conditioning that we all need to recognize exists and which we must fight to overcome if we ever wish to attain to the kind of freedom and liberation spoken about in the discourses (e.g. the four noble truths, dependent co-arising, liberation from samsara etc.).


Yes. Been there, done that at the foot of many personalities in the past. People can tend to become mind-numbed caricatures of those whom they follow. This is not, however, what Gotama teaches in the discourses. I have since corrected my views from their previous condition of delusion (although there is no way for you — or anyone else reading this — to understand this without having met and conversed with me).


Yes. You are free to choose to view it in that manner if you please.

But have you considered that it could also be the result of "the school of hard knocks," of direct and personal experience with what works as opposed to what does not work at relieving suffering in the world and within one's life. Such confidence is born from positively KNOWING what is true as opposed to what one may have at one time been deluded into THINKING was true.

A good book to read about this subject is Bhikku Nanananda's Concept and Reality in Early Buddhist Thought. A very good explanation about what Gotama was getting at with regard to the proliferation of thought of which an undisciplined mind is capable.


Yes, and he described it better than most others were able to, in my humble opinion. Not that there doesn't exist many valuable parallels between the various teachings of each pathway. All teachings that aspire to be judged as being universal need to agree on essential points common in all humanity no matter what their cultural origin. Even so, one still needs to be able to separate what is universally true from what is merely superstition. And in this latter endeavor, Gotama was at a level wherein it is difficult for me to find an equal. Certainly not Yeshua or even Lao Tzu (although of the two I prefer Lao Tzu).

Yet, here, we are veering off into a matter dependent upon the degree of accuracy and agreement of the perception one has, which, in view of the medium chosen for communication, can be fraught with inaccuracies and misunderstandings. Perhaps a good place to leave it at an end. . . .