The thing with both Buddhism and Hinduism both is that a lot of their studies and practices are more like psychology than actual theology. There are principles that they have and practice and there are ways that historically they have been viewed and practiced and then ways that they are conceived of by modern Hindus living in Urban or Suburban environments with the internet, tv, etc...

Often there is a significant difference.

There are forms of Hinduism which focus not on the statues and don't allow them. They have very different concepts of God, So in that way God is not a controlling overlord, but rather the life that flows through everything.

A lot of Buddhist and Hindu thought aligns very well with science and surely some of it does not. They are vast nuanced religions and many elements are more of a form of psychology or philosophy that is about how to live more in peace with life.

People talk about beliefs of people from other religions when so often there is very little exposure to the religion. The Krishnas for example often practice and believe a lot differently than other Hindus and than Buddhists.

You get Buddhists who are very orthodox and puritanical and then the Tantric teachings which are often about evolving a state of mind. Buddhists will talk about things in life like they are a state of 'illusion' as do Hindus.

Hindus also often times by nature are universalists believing that there are different teachers with different consciousness for different people. The role of a guru is often to provide a sounding board much like a therapist would and often it is much more like deep psychotherapy than something like the Krishnas do which is a sort of chanting and dancing and singing the 'divine name' of Krishna.

The differences in Christianity can be great from people who believe in it in a more metaphorical/transformational way and those who believe in it in a more literal way. You see that in Buddhism and Hinduism as well.

There are plenty of people who like the rituals and who appreciate elements of the tradition involved and the way it calms the mind and opens the heart.

One of the core principles of some forms of Hinduism is the realization that a 'form of God' is not really God and that the universal life transcends that. The 'form' is a sort of psychological gateway into a certain kind of experience.

Hinduism and Buddhism both are often more about the inner experiential quality of life and they both have their own sorts of theology, but like with Mormonism, a lot of people focus more on the community and the connections to others.

Yes, Hinduism has the cast system, but it also has a lot that is just observation of human nature, and nature in general.

Some theology like the creation story can be hysterical and in some ways liberating for those of us from a Mormon background and other more sex negative religions. For example the fact that the world was created by Shiva masturbating which is in one of the scriptures. Few people would take that seriously as a creation story in modern times.

That said, there can be nice components of both religions that are very emotionally balancing. There is a school of Buddhist psychotherapy evolving, and people go to learn the meditation. Yogic studies came from Hinduism and they have some interesting natural health systems that are part of the traditions as well.

I think traditions clearly speak to a lot of people not just religious people. A lot of people are very attached to family traditions or community traditions, and otherwise.

Part of what I personally like about Hinduism is that they have things like 'the festival of lights' or 'festival of colors'. It is a very celebratory religion and what they gather around is different from the Birth of Jesus or the Death of Jesus. There is a lot of art and creativity to the religion and more room in some cases for sexuality to be expressed and explored, especially in some schools of it that have been being incorporated.

A lot of Hinduism is about looking at what one learns in life and how one learns that. For example looking at desires and how one works with desire and what teaches someone, for example in 'tantric studies' one learns through the experiences of life. They learn faster, but it can be harder and more challenging.

Buddhism focuses on things like 'the middle way' which is a nice contrast to the Mormon Good or Evil concept and always trying to be the most pure and the best. Buddhists were not trying to climb there own mountains in Tibet.

Both Hindus and Tibetans have been very interested in the inner world in the ways that the Western cultures have focused heavily on the external world with things like building tall buildings and going to the moon. Buddhists and Hindus were exploring the inner thought processes, emotions, dreams, etc...

Carl Jung who is hugely influential in the realm of screenwriters and other creative people drew on teachings from India. Joseph Campbell who is also hugely influential among writers of all different kinds (influenced the Star Wars trilogy) also explored myths from different cultures.

My personal concern with much of the religious warfares is the loss of valuable traditions and myths from people who see no value of looking into them.

Of course a lot makes it into places through people who explore things and create and adapt new expressions of that in the culture. I guess personal coaches and personal development Gurus are probably drawing a lot from India and continue to and that will further evolve over time. Therapists do in some cases as well.

Jung's work was very much focused on the unconscious forces motivating people and the way they are communicated internally through dreams and symbols and external habits. His work had roots in cultures like India and Tibet and Africa too I think.

The Hindu concepts of God are often more about just the whole universe and how it ebbs, flows and evolves. It is about examination of patterns and cycles and what they offer. There is a lot more and different to the studies than most people realize. Hopefully there can be more and better education about it all in coming years so more intelligent discussions can be had about what is worth saving and what is worth discarding.

Obviously many would say none of it is worth saving or evolving, but those would rarely be people who have studied it in any real way.

Namaste

The Eastern paths have a lot to offer refugees from Mormonism because Mormonism is the corporate material form of what was once a non-materialistic religion (Christianity). However, we all know that all religions must blend harmoniously with the cultures and societies around them. Gradually, Christianity morphed into a religion in which riches are equated with God's favor. This blends nicely with the philosophy of capitalism and the fabled "magic of the market."

There is no promise of enlightenment in Mormonism, no expectation of personal fulfillment other than in service to the corporation. The religion does not deliver what religions have always promised: a connection with the Almighty. It considers such an expectation blasphemous and prefers instead to call its leaders "special witnesses," implying that they have this personal connection with diety, whereas we know that is a lie.

We can see clearly that they would have to believe that in order to keep their services necessary. After all, if the meat that Mormonism promised at some future date actually connected you with God, why would you pay tithing? Why would you need the GAs?

Eastern religion invites you to explore your own inner life, an astounding and rich exploration which is overgrown with weeds. Underneath you will find temples that your subconscious built, feelings that you never expressed, beliefs and values that you yourself have that have nothing to do with Joseph Smith. It is the most exciting adventure possible, one that you can't outlive and one that you do not already know the ending.

There is no boredom on the inner journey, but it does take some tools and some respect before the door will open. What you have inside is the greatest wonder of all-- your connection with god is built into the wall and you never needed a priest in the first place. Those hunches that you have from time to time--they are from YOU, the wisdom inside you, not from a Sacred Ghost.

One thing I have wondered that you can maybe explain--and I know this is not a lofty question or even very spiritual, but I am just curious--

Do you know why Julia Roberts became HIndu instead of Buddhist? Inquiring minds want to know....

LOL

Anagrammy Not So Evolved Tonight

anagrammy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Eastern paths have a lot to offer refugees
> from Mormonism because Mormonism is the corporate
> material form of what was once a non-materialistic
> religion
...

The one caution I'd point out, is that eastern religions
can be a subtle trap for the prior-Mormon who still seeks
eternal progression to godhood.

Some branches of eastern thought essentially boil down
to the precept that there is no difference between the
individual being and Divine Being.

In a crude sort of way, this realization might be phrased
as "You are God."

I doubt that the average Mormon is psychologically prepared
to encounter such a tenet, in a religion shared with others.

The problem is the word "You" -- which is not meant to apply
to the "ego self." The God-that-you-are is not composed of
your body, mind, soul, spirit, consciousness, love or
intelligence.

I doubt that a materialist (like Parley P. Pratt) could even
begin to fathom the meaning of such stuff. A latter day
Pratt would sneer and turn up his nose that the "absurdity
of immaterialism," no doubt.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

UD

wonderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

...
> Obviously many would say none of it is worth
> saving or evolving, but those would rarely be
> people who have studied it in any real way.


Diverse cultures are always worth perserving -- if only as
recordings and artifacts in museums. One of the curses of
the modern age is that we are losing our traditional diversity.

But, as one who has lived among Hindus and Buddhists, I caution
our readers here not to expect too much from those societies.

The average villager in Burma or Bhutan may know less about
the doctrinal and intellectual aspects of his/her religion,
than does the Western anthropologist who comes to study them.

To understand Buddhism, as a cultural phenomenon, I'd
recommend a couple of years' residence in Thailand -- or,
for the adventuresome, perhaps a lengthy visit to Ladakh.

Participating in a Buddhist congregation here in Hawaii
might make for a good start, but would not offer the
same insights as would a few months spent in a Buddhist
village in Burma.

I'd caution against trying to fathom Hinduism by studying
with the Krishna consciousness folks. That would be like
learning about an elephant by feeling its tail.

Just saying...

UD

Ah yes, I remember the Bhagwan shree rajneesh. I happened to be dating one of his followers when he tried to poison the residents of HoodRiver Oregon.

Be careful who you follow. The Bhagwan was no different than the uber Christians who build up a following for money. He had a fleet of Rolls Royces while trying to take over a town of people who had never seen a Rolls until he showed up. He was evil incarnate.

Mia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ah yes, I remember the Bhagwan shree rajneesh.
...

I met him once in an airport in South Asia. When I saw
the scene in Woody Allen's "Annie Hall," where _God_ is shown
going into the men's room, I was reminded of the encounter.

UD

I think about that now, and it's hilarious!

A temple endowed TBM dating a Rajneeshee. Good Lord! What were we thinking?

I'm now an exmormon, and he's a Chiropractor somewhere in california. He was pretty hot though.

We shared a booth at Saturday market In Portland. He sold jewelry and I sold these darling little boxes that people bought to put their jewelry in. We were great business partners.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/12/2012 12:02AM by Mia.

I'm confused about that reincarnation thing. Maybe you can clarify that.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm confused about that reincarnation thing. Maybe
> you can clarify that.


Think of it this way.

Looking back in the past, there have been individuals who
were more like yourself than anybody else. Perhaps some of
those long-dead persons looked like you -- perhaps others
thought like you do now -- or had goals and desires very
similar to your own today.

Out of all the billions of people who have ever lived, at
least a dozen or so are more like you, than all the rest.
Think of them as your "doubles."

Now think of the future. Long after you are dead and gone,
somebody will be born and live, who is more like you now,
than all the rest of humanity in that coming future.

Just because you share these common pecularities with those
several people, does not mean that together you are all the
SAME person -- but, I think you'd have to admit that together
you share SOMETHING in common.

Some branches of Eastern thought teach that all things are
connected -- a unity in time and space -- and that all of
the diversity and individuality we perceive around us is a
sort of illusion -- or, at least not the fullness of reality.

In THAT kind of theologizing, you ARE those several other people, previously mentioned. Your several manifestations
are merely separated by time and space.

You need not believe any of this, of course -- it may sound
like foolishness to your ears. But something along the lines
of what you just read is the "higher explanation" of the
purported phenomenon of reincarnation.

Uncle Dale

YES, I am now Buddhist (a work in progress). There is a lot I don't know yet and I'm sure I'll never know all there is to know, but then that is part of Buddhism. I love it. I am an Exmo.

I personally love the idea of reincarnation, but I certainly don't expect everyone to love that idea. And just because I love the idea doesn't make it true.

I think it is a fun contemplation when one has those odd connections with someone that seems like they transcend logic. For me as I have mentioned in prior threads, imagination is something that has been shown to work in different ways in life. The placebo effect is just one of them.

I have looked at the logic of reincarnation such as how many people are living now and how many of them could have come back given how many there are alive now and how few there have been prior relatively speaking.

There is the whole 'old soul' mentality. There are interesting stories like one from a friend's kid about how his two or three year old was watching some tv show and saw a black guy in New Orleans say something like "I used to live there and I talked like that." Things like that make me wonder 'what if?' That same friend when I asked his thoughts about it said when he heard Tibetan Buddhist chants he felt a certain sense of 'homesick'. I had a similar experience.

For me that doesn't add up to some sort of testimony. It is more of a 'what if?' for me and a somewhat playful what if? When I feel like I am not getting a project done and will never get it done I like to imagine what if I had another lifetime to do it? For some that may encourage them to just be lazy and wait until the next life. For me it lets me keep dreaming some dreams bigger than I can accomplish in this lifetime and imagine that maybe somehow I will finish them in another.

Someone could say that is just child's play, but I embrace my inner child at this point. I have a hard time taking it all hook line and sinker - such as the Dalai Lama has come to earth 14 times, but I like reading about why Tibetans believe it. I like a good story. I like the adventure in the history. I like how they seek out the Dalai Lama and I like the things that seem to add up to their views being what they are - they test the child and there are signs they follow to find him. I find it all very romantic and I am a bit or a lot of a romantic in that way.

People say things about the easter bunny and santa, but I got an easter basket with chocolate in it this year. Just something simple and small from a friend. I liked it. I haven't had the tooth fairy visit in years, but I like the ritual of the fairy for kids sometimes.

For me reincarnation can be like that. I met a guy who thought he was Carl Jung in a past life and had various reasons he believed that. I didn't believe it. It sounded too far fetched to me.

I personally have often felt like my skin should be a different color than it was/is. I don't understand some of my connections to other cultures being what they are. Reincarnation is an idea that sometimes makes me wonder 'what if?' but I don't assume it is 'the answer'. I mostly just like to speculate about it from time to time, relatively rare. It is part of a vast body of teachings and ideas from a culture.

I don't stand up and bear my testimony of the whole religion of Hinduism or Buddhism. I am a buffet explorer of religions. And like I have commented I like the art that is there. I like the art that comes out of the religions even if I don't understand them. And I like so much more from them even if I suspect that some ideas may not be true or real.

For me I am agnostic, so I keep the questions open. Fundamentalist thought whether atheism or agnosticism is still fundamentalism and I am more open and curious and explore pieces here and there.

As far as Past lives too, there are therapists who find it a useful therapeutic tool and don't necessarily know that they believe in it in literal thought, but perhaps as a metaphor for healing it has some merit. I personally had two experiences of 'past life regression' which I found helpful in a personal contemplation way if only a sort of 'waking dream' experience through which to explore my psyche. They felt 'real' on some level, but I don't assume they were real.

As far as Osho/Rajneesh... I don't know all the details of the experience that happened. He clearly was screwed up in some ways and I am well familiar with the history. I also think he had some interesting things to say and I appreciate some of his ideas quite a bit. I have explored him a fair amount.

I heard that he was doing something with salmonella which was not necessarily done by him, but by some folks in his group. I don't know what he personally advocated. He was clearly influential and remains so. I think his voice added some interesting things to a much larger mix.

Also, when speaking Osho, he clearly taught some ideas from eastern cultures, but was very unorthodox by just about any standard. He was one voice of many voices and remains so.

I think his work clearly taught people a lot of things and many of them were what not to do in life. He was a great orator though. I don't tend to see people as 'good people' or 'bad people' in a polarized why like Mormonism seems to advocate. For me the world exists in colors, patterns and textures - not just black and white.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/12/2012 02:48AM by wonderer.

re: Julia Roberts and Hinduism vs. Buddhism - She did the film 'Eat Pray Love' and there was exposed to Hinduism since part of it was filmed in India and part of the story in the book which it was based on was of course set there. So, chances are that is where she got exposed.

Buddhism was not really part of the film, but there was some part in Bali that sounded almost like a Balinese Taoism or something. (I didn't read the whole book, but scanned some and saw the film).

Hinduism, Buddhism and Jungism don't offer anything to a critical thinker. Psychology is psychology and we shouldn't confuse it with any of those three things, despite how popular they may be. However, those still looking for religion and the metaphysical after Mormonism might benefit quite a bit from the teachings.

The one thing that Hinduism specifically can offer a western thinker who is leaving religion is the idea of god as brahmin. To a critical thinker who is leaving Christianity, it is a very difficult and rewarding experience to attempt to identify god without a specific definition. I've spent more time on that than anything else.

snb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hinduism, Buddhism and Jungism don't offer
> anything to a critical thinker.
...

One exercise which might be appropriate in this on-line
community is that of negation. That is, examining each idea,
thing and event we encounter, and then asking ourselves,
"Is this eternal? Is this infinite? Is this my true self?"

The answer will invariably be "no;" but the examination is
still of value, I'd say.

It need not take up all of our time and energy -- it is a
quiet inspection and reflection which can "run in the
background" of our usual consciousness.

Is that critical thinking? Perhaps the Scientist would say
it is a waste of time. But, to the philosopher, it may
begin to differentiate that which is eternal from that
which is transitory.

"I am not my feet -- I am not my hands -- I am not my
brain -- I am not my desires -- I am not my attachments --
I am not my spirit -- I am not defined by any religion..."

etc.

UD

snb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hinduism, Buddhism and Jungism don't offer
> anything to a critical thinker. Psychology is
> psychology and we shouldn't confuse it with any of
> those three things, despite how popular they may
> be. However, those still looking for religion and
> the metaphysical after Mormonism might benefit
> quite a bit from the teachings.

I'm finding that my personal psychology is very much like Buddhist psychology, once I put it into practice. Non-attachment, the middle way, compassion, letting go of desires-I find these Buddhist practices actually work as advertised to end suffering.

>
> The one thing that Hinduism specifically can offer
> a western thinker who is leaving religion is the
> idea of god as brahmin. To a critical thinker who
> is leaving Christianity, it is a very difficult
> and rewarding experience to attempt to identify
> god without a specific definition. I've spent
> more time on that than anything else.

It's very hard to grasp with the mind "the being that is non-being". This is why yoga leads one thru scientific practices to put away all forms and phenomena, to arrive at the experience of nirvikalpa samadhi, the revelation of brahman.

"I'm finding that my personal psychology is very much like Buddhist psychology..."

Personal psychology is not psychology. Buddhist psychology is not psychology either. That doesn't mean you can't find value in Buddhism, but we should not confused value with actual psychology.

"It's very hard to grasp with the mind "the being that is non-being"."

I know, right! It is a great thing to think about. It is still difficult for me to truly grasp this idea.

snb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "I'm finding that my personal psychology is very
> much like Buddhist psychology..."
>
> Personal psychology is not psychology. Buddhist
> psychology is not psychology either. That doesn't
> mean you can't find value in Buddhism, but we
> should not confused value with actual psychology.

Cool, but now I'm confused some. How are you defining "actual psychology"?

snb...

Plenty of people think critically about all sorts of things. To say that they 'don't offer anything' to a critical thinker is to ignore so much that they do offer. I am not saying that everything holds up to some scrutiny. But to speak in absolute terms - all or nothing, is to miss a lot of their inquiries. Even if they only offer 10 percent to someone who is a critical thinker, they offer something.

I am not saying that everyone should explore them. Only, as we have seen, that they offer some things to a lot of people, even 'critically thinking' people.

I guess it depends on how you define that term specifically too though. If you define critical thinking as not thinking about 'feelings' and exploring the inner ideas of symbols and stories across cultures, then maybe Jungian thought offers nothing, but Jungian thought offers all sorts of things.

Here is a video that goes through different quotes from famous thinkers talking about the Vedas... It references Emerson, Thoreau, scientists, philosophers, Einstein said good things about the Gita, etc...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L71FAhl7Yfo

You can find as much value in these things as you want. I'm not at all taking the stance that they are meaningless or irrelevant. In fact, I think it is more healthy to be interested in Buddhism, Hinduism and Jungism than to be interested in Mormonism.

However, they are not logical and nothing there holds up to any but the lightest form of scrutiny. Buddhism and Hinduism have serious logical problems and are not rational, despite the fact that they may have value to people. Jungism is based on poor research and attempts to simplify an issue that can not be simplified.

So, you either believe in these things or you are a rational thinker. Choose one.

snb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
> Buddhism and Hinduism have serious logical
> problems and are not rational, despite the fact
> that they may have value to people.
...

Stuff like the eightfold path -- how we might live a
useful and rewarding life -- are not so much irrational
as is the very precept of higher consciousness.

For most of us, talk of "altered" states of consciousness
will sound like a slippery slope, decending into intoxication,
delusion or madness.

There is also the precept of "higher" states of consciousness;
or of awareness abandoning cognition altogether.

At that point, some manifestations of Buddhism and Hinduism
step outside of rationality totally. The rational empiricist
can only look to the outcomes/effects of such purported
realizations, in order to judge whether they have validity.

UD

Can something like the eightfold path be found outside of Buddhism? Clearly it can, and does. I'm saying that a rational person would find that sort of wisdom in a place that doesn't require belief in magic or in higher powers.

"For most of us, talk of "altered" states of consciousness
will sound like a slippery slope, decending into intoxication,
delusion or madness."

Hey, no fair. I like intoxication, delusion and madness. :)

A lot of people have told me that I should have been a Buddhist, but after suffering through Mormonism for 30 years, I'm not the slightest bit interested in practicing anyone's principles. Never again for me.

Any religion that doesn't provide free beer as part of the package is of no use to me.

Timothy

Also, If I want to be told in a sermon, how I felt, why I felt that way, and how i'm going to feel about it in the future, I'll go to church.

Endless preaching telling me about your beliefs, with an aim to help me recover, is arrogant at best.

This is a recovery board for ex mormons. Not a grandstand for someones spiritual beliefs that they would like others to aspire to. If that all works for you, great. IMO, Flooding the board with sermons is being an arrogant bully.

I think that what is missing here in my communication (my fault) is that I am not trying to convert anyone to either religion. I am not converted to them myself.

I do not have to be a Christian to contemplate the principle of 'Love thy Neighbor as thyself.' or the idea of 'turn the other cheek'.

I do not have to be a Buddhist to meditate or consider sitting and feeling my emotions. The practices of each 'religion' are different from the 'theology.

I personally don't know that I believe in Karma, Reincarnation or many things from Hinduism, but I can practice Yoga which came from Hinduism. I can chant a mantra sometimes or sit in a certain meditative process and find that I like to hold my hands a way that others have in the religious tradition.

Talking about an idea is not an attempt to convert, but I can see how the ways I have headlined things has been an issue for some, especially with this thread and I appreciate having my attention drawn to that.

(I will address some other comments in another post for clarity/brevity of individual posts)

Mia, I am sorry if you feel like I am offering 'sermons'. Well, if that is not what you want I guess. When I post something I offer it for those who may have a specific interest in a thought process. I don't expect anyone to read a thread that they do not want to.

What you are experiencing as a 'platform' for 'sermons', I guess I am experiencing as an 'outlet' to explore some ideas with others who may be interested in exploring those same ideas and seeing where that exploration leads myself and them.

I do not assert that I can necessarily help you recover personally. I am merely offering what has been useful to me in some cases and/or offering my admittedly half baked thought processes in many cases so that I am able to in some cases hear myself think and then explore those ideas with others who may have very clear and legitimate criticisms or concerns and/or to discuss them with like minded folks and see if they can add to them.

That said, I do realize that with how I am posting some of them, it may come across differently than I intend.

As far as recovery, I find that other peoples' postings are helpful for me in my recovery and some have talked about how my postings help them consider something differently. I am clear I don't connect with everyone's ideas nor do they connect with mine, but I connect with some and they connect with me. It seems to me that diverse thoughts and offerings should be able to coexist on a board.

I see atheist 'sermons' a lot on the boards and I take what I want and leave the rest. I am happy for you to take what you want and leave the rest from my own thought processes. And I do appreciate your feedback, it is clarifying and I will see how I may adjust things accordingly. Hopefully at the very least your understanding where I am coming from is useful in your feeling less insulted by some of what I offer here.

Maybe you should consider going to a hindu or buddhist site. It might be that you aren't in the best place to discuss the things you are interested in.

I'm sure the Hindu's and buddhist's would be more helpful with indoctrinating you to their teachings than exmormons are.

OH, yes, and by the way, please stop telling me how I feel.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/12/2012 05:53PM by Mia.

I learned....long ago and far away..... that...

Simply don't respond and before long.....

Poooof... guess what.

but I crave attention, not all operate that way

All religion is religion.

When I first moved to California I became great friends with some buddhists. It fascinated me. They all chanted and I learned to chant.

After a while I said I wanted to chant in English so I knew what I was saying. They said the Universe only understood the chanting in Japanese. Huh?

Then I went to some kind of meeting and they were giving experiences of how Buddhism had changed their lives. It was like fast and testimony meeting.

Someone stood up and said when she and her husband were broke that they chanted heavily before they went to the grocery store and paid for a cartload with a bad check. When they got to the car the check was in the bag and they knew then that they had connected to the Universe. Everyone was so impressed. I was aghast at the thievery.

I know, I know, there is nothing wrong with Buddhism, it was just those people. Wait--where have I heard that before?

It was a long time ago, but that is all I know about Buddhism.

It was when I knew religion is just religion.

I lived in the town that the bhagwan (who was influenced by buddhism) decided take over by poisoning the people in town. He did a little bio terror attack. He was upset because the townspeople weren't doing things the way he liked them.

He was arrested and deported. I saw how lovey dovey the buddhists can be. No thanks.

Mia... I am well aware of that and I am on other sites thanks. If that is what I want ultimately is to 'indoctrinate' someone into Buddhism and Hinduism beliefs then I will go there.

I posted one thread that was specifically about that generally idea. Maybe two. There are other threads on a number of other subjects.

I did not expect the reaction that came, partially because I just somewhat misspoke on a few things, without thinking about how it could/would come across.

I am more clear by what is disturbing to people here and will work to be more sensitive. I do appreciate the feedback though.

mindlight,

Yes people do go away if you don't offer attention, but in a group like this, some people give attention to a subject and some do not, and then people get threatened apparently if not all the boards are consistent with their basic ideas.

We will see where the subjects and conversations lead. Clearly very heated day at the moment, but sometimes that works through things and the dynamics shift and people understand each other better.

I may have taken excessive liberty without realizing the pot I was stirring, although sometimes a stirred pot is more interesting and tastes better ultimately. We will see where it all shakes out.

The reaction you got was fairly light, I would say. I don't think anybody has outright flamed you or attacked you.

Wonderer
You missed the point. YOU, are the one who seems to be interested in their teachings. I only suggested you go where you would be fed with what interests you. I didn't say you were trying to indoctrinate.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/12/2012 06:12PM by Mia.

duh