Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Going back to a "touch'.
Or, smell, or hearing, or seeing, or tasting.
For starters, any prohibitions in that aspect are childish. I, somehow, even doubt that Sukyamuni introduced them. As they make no sense.
Reason being, there is no such thing as touch/smell/sight/hearing.
We never do any of that.
Let's take sight as example. As 80% or so of mind information comes through organs of sight.
A stimulus comes from the outside, lands on the eye sensitive cells, certain chemical processes stimulate optical nerve ending, nerve translates that signal to visual cortex and only THEN mind interprets that signal as "this". Say, red color. On average, there is approximately 0.2 second delay for the entire process.
Hence, we never really see reality, as it truly is.
- we only have interpretation of reality
- we only have interpretation of PAST reality
- some of reality we never see, due to our limitations of the sense of sight
- "reality" as WE perceive it, is then OUR reality. As interpreted by OUR mind.
In this manner, we can only speak of imaginary reality, as shaped by mind interpretations.
Same goes for the other senses.
The entire world we exist in, is imaginary interpretation, mana.
This poses peculiar idea. "a monk can not touch a woman". Thing is, monk never does that, even if his hands are laying on her skin.
He simply has an idea of touching a woman. As, in reality, not matter how hard he will try, there will never even be direct physical contact between his hand cells and that woman skin cells. Van Der Vaals forces will prevent that.
So we can only "speak" of a concept of touch, but not touch itself.
Now, we are operating strictly in the realm of mind itself. As simple physiology clearly shows that whatever concept of whatever else we have, based on our senses, is mind construct.
And that is THE MIND that determines, if one touched, say, a woman, or did not. Mind will, also, determine, how of importance that concept is. Does mind cling to it, or disposes of it? Or, even accepts it at all.
And this, in my opinion, is the basic concept of Buddhism. Do not get your MIND touched. The concept of non attachment. But that requires one step to accomplish - to separate Self from its mind. So that, in its turn, mind is not influencing Self.
this is why, previously, I mentioned that it is childish to impose any restrictions on touching or seeing or else. As non of that is happening and results are not real.
Only interpretations are. And one who is free from interpretations - he becomes a buddha.
Thing is, mind, the body-mind, was the one what attached us to the physical to start with.
What was a servant to run an immortal body for the Conscious Self, became a master. And it did nothing wrong intended. It simply did what it does - was a liaison between the body and Self in the body. As it should.
But it kept offering sensual experiences - and some of the Selves started attaching to them. More and more. Until they simply forgot that they are not their minds.
And here we are.
Now, we have to unwind the process and it is un attaching our Selves from our minds - and their offerings.
Thing is, mind, the body-mind, was the one what attached us to the physical to start with.
What was a servant to run an immortal body for the Conscious Self, became a master. And it did nothing wrong intended. It simply did what it does - was a liaison between the body and Self in the body. As it should.
But it kept offering sensual experiences - and some of the Selves started attaching to them. More and more. Until they simply forgot that they are not their minds.
And here we are.
Now, we have to unwind the process and it is un attaching our Selves from our minds - and their offerings.
What has this got to do with Western atheists being attracted to Buddhism?
Thank you for your understanding.
And those are not my points.
OSHO, actually, does not have in mind a better off layer in a given country. He had in mind entire country, as compared to say, really poor one. In Sukyamuni times region, majority of population was very poor. Counties, as a whole, were poor. Rationally speaking, it was much easier to pray to any object around, in quick manner, maybe bring some gifts, than to go through vague, mind challenging concepts of Buddha. On the other hand, there was a very rich, very well educated layer of the few, that took from every spoil of that world possible - yet, the hearts stayed asking for more in manner spiritual. High class, high cast intellectualists - to them, Buddha appealed. How should I put it - it was "on their level".
You, in a manner, confirmed this.
Part of it depends on how a person approaches Buddhism.
Some approach it merely as a religion, and get into ceremonies and rituals, some of which don't even understand.
Others approach it as a more intellectual practice where they actually contemplate the teachings.
Ok, so there goes not being sexist. But why would a woman, or man, touch a monk anyway?
Hey...don't blame me. I didn't make the rule.
There have been cases where monks were seduced. They are human. That's the basis. But you have to remember that there are something like 225 rules for monks! Frankly, I find many of them silly. To be honest, one thing that was difficult for me to get used to when I began going to the temple in Colorado Springs was getting big hugs from the monks. I had NEVER seen anything remotely like that.
One aspect that's attractive and appealing to Buddhism is that it's less about labels and fixations like 'religion', and atheism vs. theism. It's sort of beyond all of that; more philosophical, more cerebral, and more come-as-you-are.
It's dumb and counterproductive to start throwing those typical man-based identifications and archetypes in the path of Buddhism, such as "Oh, this person or that is a atheist", or, "So and so is monotheist and enjoys Buddhism". It's a pettiness that doesn't elevate Buddhism in any way, and on contrary, tries to just make it mimic all the other belief systems with their walls and identifications and divisions.
Most threads started here lately in the name of Buddhism - regardless of how intentioned - are more about corrupting it and confusing it, than promoting it or maintaining it in a pure sense. It's more a spreading of misrepresentations than anything else.
Last edited by Thoreau424; 10-24-2019 at 08:30 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
