PARABLE
LINDA'S CORNER
Searching for Answers in the Holy Book
told by Ven. K. Sri Dhammananda in How to Live without Fear & Worry
told by Ven. K. Sri Dhammananda in How to Live without Fear & Worry
Do not become slaves to any holy book. There was once a man who formed a religious cult and people regarded him as a very learned person. He had a few followers who recorded his instructions in a book. Over the years the book became voluminous with all sorts of instructions recorded therein. The followers were advised not to do anything without first consulting the holy book. Whenever the followers went and whatever they did, they would consult the book which served as the manual in guiding their lives. One day when the leader was crossing a timber bridge, he fell into the river. The followers were with him but none of them knew what to do under the circumstances. So they consulted the holy book.
"Help! Help!" the Master shouted, "I can't swim."
"Please wait a while Master. Please don't get drowned," they pleaded. "We are still seaching in our holy book. There must be an instruction on what to do if you fell off from a wooden bridge into a river."
While they were thus turning over the pages of the holy book in order to find out the appropriate instruction, the teacher disappeared in the water and drowned.
The important message of the story is that we should take the enligtened approach and not slavishly follow outdated conservative ideas, nor resort to any holy book without using our common sense. On the face of changing circumstances, new discoveries and knowledge, we must learn to adapt ourselves accordingly, and respond to them by using them for the benefit of everybody.
longhorn said:
Go figure, this reminds me of a line in a John Prine song.
"she said 'you must know the answers', I said 'no, but I'll give it a try'. And to this very day, we've been livin' our way, and here is the reason why...
Blow up your tv. Throw away yer papers. Move to the country, build you a home. Plant a little garden, eat a lot of peaches, try and find Jesus on yer own."
I especially like the "you must know the answers" line. Why do we always think the "answers" are something known by others and not by us? We are ALWAYS looking for someone who "knows the answers" instead of looking for someone who can FIND the answers. And "the answers" change over time, as Linda points out.
I love the one size fits all mentality of looking for "THE answer". The answers differ for each of us, depending on the question. And no two questions are ever exactly the same. Once that realization sinks in, it frees some of us from needing to convince others that OUR answers are right for them.
Hell, I think I'm damn lucky if I find the answers for ME, much less answers that apply to others as well. But then, I'm not big on evangelizing either. You know, the "try and find Jesus" on your own idea always appealed to me.
Remember what I said the other day about people waiting for their "real life" to start? Part of that also involves "the answers". So many people think their real life will start when they have all the answers. Or some of the answers, or even ONE of the answers. Too bad, they'll be waiting for Godot their entire life. Waiting for their real life. Just waiting...
But hey, "move to the country, eat a lot of peaches" is as good an "answer" as I have found anywhere. It works for me, but not for everyone. And if I eat any more peaches, I'm gonna hafta go to a cheaper brand of toilet paper :)
"she said 'you must know the answers', I said 'no, but I'll give it a try'. And to this very day, we've been livin' our way, and here is the reason why...
Blow up your tv. Throw away yer papers. Move to the country, build you a home. Plant a little garden, eat a lot of peaches, try and find Jesus on yer own."
I especially like the "you must know the answers" line. Why do we always think the "answers" are something known by others and not by us? We are ALWAYS looking for someone who "knows the answers" instead of looking for someone who can FIND the answers. And "the answers" change over time, as Linda points out.
I love the one size fits all mentality of looking for "THE answer". The answers differ for each of us, depending on the question. And no two questions are ever exactly the same. Once that realization sinks in, it frees some of us from needing to convince others that OUR answers are right for them.
Hell, I think I'm damn lucky if I find the answers for ME, much less answers that apply to others as well. But then, I'm not big on evangelizing either. You know, the "try and find Jesus" on your own idea always appealed to me.
Remember what I said the other day about people waiting for their "real life" to start? Part of that also involves "the answers". So many people think their real life will start when they have all the answers. Or some of the answers, or even ONE of the answers. Too bad, they'll be waiting for Godot their entire life. Waiting for their real life. Just waiting...
But hey, "move to the country, eat a lot of peaches" is as good an "answer" as I have found anywhere. It works for me, but not for everyone. And if I eat any more peaches, I'm gonna hafta go to a cheaper brand of toilet paper :)
lindainks55 said:
---Why do we always think the "answers" are something known by others and not by us?---
Thanks longhorn! I needed exactly THAT sentence today. I've been feeling overwhelmed by what I don't know. Along with that is the constant knowledge that I am uneducated and therefore inferior and maybe not even capable of "getting it" if it's served up on a platter.
But I'm OK. I'm average in most everything and I have people to love and people who love me. That means my life is close enough to perfect for me!
And I certainly have challenges! That grass and those weeds are not cooperating and giving up easily. I've made a commitment to myself which is the most serious kind of commitment. No one gives a diddly squat whether I keep that commitment except ME and I am important enough to not disappoint. So I will pull one bag daily and keep that commitment to an important person.
Thanks! I needed that.
Thanks longhorn! I needed exactly THAT sentence today. I've been feeling overwhelmed by what I don't know. Along with that is the constant knowledge that I am uneducated and therefore inferior and maybe not even capable of "getting it" if it's served up on a platter.
But I'm OK. I'm average in most everything and I have people to love and people who love me. That means my life is close enough to perfect for me!
And I certainly have challenges! That grass and those weeds are not cooperating and giving up easily. I've made a commitment to myself which is the most serious kind of commitment. No one gives a diddly squat whether I keep that commitment except ME and I am important enough to not disappoint. So I will pull one bag daily and keep that commitment to an important person.
Thanks! I needed that.
Vaughn Tolle said:
"I've been feeling overwhelmed by what I don't know." To me, Linda, this indicates you are a very educated person. Those who are truly uneducated don't realize what they don't know, and are happy in their ignorance.
As to formal education, well, I hate to say it, being one who has a bunch of it, but what that does from time to time is being able to baffle others with male bovine feces when unable to dazzle them with one's brilliance.
As to formal education, well, I hate to say it, being one who has a bunch of it, but what that does from time to time is being able to baffle others with male bovine feces when unable to dazzle them with one's brilliance.
longhorn said:
"being able to baffle others with male bovine feces when unable to dazzle them with one's brilliance."
Heheheh. You forgot "and make them LIKE it". :)
Well, at the risk of going all Landmark on you again, I learned in one of their semiars that there are things we know, and we know we know them. Like, I know how to drive, and I know I know how to drive.
Then there are the things we dont know, and we know we dont know them. Like, I dont know calculus, and I KNOW I dont know calc.
But those two domains make up a very small part of life. On a pie chart, they would each take up less than an eighth of a slice, or a quarter all together.
But the larger domain, three quarters or more, takes place in the realm of "we dont know, and we dont know that we dont know". That is where the real juice is in intellectual and spiritual curiosity. If I only knew what I dont know I dont know, I'd write a book, 'cause I'm sure it would fill it.
So Linda, we all know what we know and we know a little of what we dont know. But I think, whether we can articulate it or not, we all have anxiety about what we dont know, and dont know that we dont know.
Heheheh. How's that for boiling down a four day seminar to a few paragraphs. Oh, and the other thing they say at the end of a semniar?
"This is not THE truth. It's something we said. Something we made up. You should regard it as such. The truth of it all, you will have to find on your own."
Heheheh. You forgot "and make them LIKE it". :)
Well, at the risk of going all Landmark on you again, I learned in one of their semiars that there are things we know, and we know we know them. Like, I know how to drive, and I know I know how to drive.
Then there are the things we dont know, and we know we dont know them. Like, I dont know calculus, and I KNOW I dont know calc.
But those two domains make up a very small part of life. On a pie chart, they would each take up less than an eighth of a slice, or a quarter all together.
But the larger domain, three quarters or more, takes place in the realm of "we dont know, and we dont know that we dont know". That is where the real juice is in intellectual and spiritual curiosity. If I only knew what I dont know I dont know, I'd write a book, 'cause I'm sure it would fill it.
So Linda, we all know what we know and we know a little of what we dont know. But I think, whether we can articulate it or not, we all have anxiety about what we dont know, and dont know that we dont know.
Heheheh. How's that for boiling down a four day seminar to a few paragraphs. Oh, and the other thing they say at the end of a semniar?
"This is not THE truth. It's something we said. Something we made up. You should regard it as such. The truth of it all, you will have to find on your own."
Vaughn Tolle said:
longhorn, good post. I, too, could fill a book on the same topic; that is, if I could only figure out what it is I don't know that I don't know.
Below is a link to the latest from Michael Totten, an independent "journalist" who posts on the web from Iraq. Food for thought.
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001504.html
Below is a link to the latest from Michael Totten, an independent "journalist" who posts on the web from Iraq. Food for thought.
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001504.html
longhorn said:
VT, that article makes it even MORE horrifying that bushco thought invading and occupying iraq was a good thing. Talk about dont know what you dont know, and dont CARE what you dont know...
Ya know, us libruls have a word for bush's foreign policy. Enphuckment.
Ya know, us libruls have a word for bush's foreign policy. Enphuckment.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Yep, longhorn, it certainly does. Anyone else here concerned over the thought that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard might be classified a "terrorist organization" by the DOS?
Vaughn Tolle said:
Reason for the above query. If DOS declares the Revolutionary Guard a "terrorist organization", it seems to me this clears the way for an immediate air and naval strike against Iranian targets. The Iranians will retaliate against our already too-thinly stretched ground forces in Iraq. Given what I understand the current status of Iranian military forces is, this isn't going to be anything like the "cakewalk into Baghdad". Bleakest scenario I can paint, on purpose. "Enphuckment" at its best (or worst).
Vaughn Tolle said:
Or, a bit more likely scenario. The DOS makes the determination, W (by and through his duly appointed agents) goes to the UN demanding further resolutions, sanctions, etc., against Iran. Then when Iran doesn't "bow down" then he goes back demanding further resolutions, which are also ignored by the Iranians, He then goes to Congress for a resolution similar to that for Iraq, and by mid-2008, goes into Iraq.
gster said:
Anyone see a parallel with the Grand Dutchy of Fenwick in "The Mouse That Roared", or Capt. Queeg in "The Cane Mutiny" ?
Bush seems to be on the verge of totally unraveling!
Bush seems to be on the verge of totally unraveling!
Vaughn Tolle said:
Does anyone see the actions of VP Cheney at work here? BTW, in the 11:06 post above, last "Iraq" should be "Iran".
Vaughn Tolle said:
Something on what's expected to be contained in the eagerly anticipated September report by General Petraeus, which, surprise, surprise, will actually be written by the White House.
http://tinyurl.com/235vve
http://tinyurl.com/235vve
Vaughn Tolle said:
OK, y'all, I have some issues with this one. What do you think?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118714764716998275...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118714764716998275...
Danny said:
Vaughn,
The article(mentioned at 12:41) was interesting. I think it should be allowed(as has been prior to now) on a case by case basis. If used for border patrol, then can "skirt" the legal issue and point to the Mexican half of the border. ;)
I don't really have an issue with the satellite imagery or being used by law enforcement, primarily because aircraft was allowed to be used without warrants to begin with. I suspect now the only difference is, the suspect of a search from above the property can't see the satellite coming. Perhaps that does make a difference.
Longhorn,
Your first reply at the top, I really liked that. In many respects I agree one should find answers on their own. I think this because, in order to have real meaning to the individual that individual should attempt to understand and find the answer for themselves. I also think that there are some constants that are the same for everybody.
Global Warming, for instance, I agree there is warming, I'm not certain it is quite the doom and gloom some(many?) want us to believe. At the same time, I don't think it is something we should entirely ignore either. If for no other reason, it does help to clean the air we breath by taking precautions to prevent Global Warming.
The article(mentioned at 12:41) was interesting. I think it should be allowed(as has been prior to now) on a case by case basis. If used for border patrol, then can "skirt" the legal issue and point to the Mexican half of the border. ;)
I don't really have an issue with the satellite imagery or being used by law enforcement, primarily because aircraft was allowed to be used without warrants to begin with. I suspect now the only difference is, the suspect of a search from above the property can't see the satellite coming. Perhaps that does make a difference.
Longhorn,
Your first reply at the top, I really liked that. In many respects I agree one should find answers on their own. I think this because, in order to have real meaning to the individual that individual should attempt to understand and find the answer for themselves. I also think that there are some constants that are the same for everybody.
Global Warming, for instance, I agree there is warming, I'm not certain it is quite the doom and gloom some(many?) want us to believe. At the same time, I don't think it is something we should entirely ignore either. If for no other reason, it does help to clean the air we breath by taking precautions to prevent Global Warming.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Danny, as to the lawfulness of taking the photos without a warrant, I believe the photos from aircraft cases are applicable. That isn't what I'm concerned about; it is, rather, the potential for abuse of the photos. Clearly, the operation of the sats is TS, and this makes it impossible for anyone to find out whether s/he is a target of the surveillance. I guess I'm at a point where "trust us" in connection with the government doesn't get off the ground anymore, let alone fly. I just can't go with the "sign off" being within the same department that's running the program.
Example, if you will; I'm building a 40' x 60' shed on my rural property, into which I am placing ag chemicals. Not being sure of the sensitivity of the various spectrometers, etc., of the sats, what if the "signature" of the chemicals is similar to that of explosives, such that I'm raided by DHS, etc., on the suspicion of terrorist activities?
Case by case, well, I think on balance I could accept that with some type of "outside" review.
I've a problem with the border issue, on the basis set forth in the linked article. This is fixable by Congress, of course; and should Congress determine to "fix" it, I'd expect a few safeguards built in which hopefully would involve more than a review by attorneys working for DHS.
Example, if you will; I'm building a 40' x 60' shed on my rural property, into which I am placing ag chemicals. Not being sure of the sensitivity of the various spectrometers, etc., of the sats, what if the "signature" of the chemicals is similar to that of explosives, such that I'm raided by DHS, etc., on the suspicion of terrorist activities?
Case by case, well, I think on balance I could accept that with some type of "outside" review.
I've a problem with the border issue, on the basis set forth in the linked article. This is fixable by Congress, of course; and should Congress determine to "fix" it, I'd expect a few safeguards built in which hopefully would involve more than a review by attorneys working for DHS.
Danny said:
Vaughn,
I think that is where I tend to agree with you, the "trust us" part shouldn't fly blindly, but I do think there needs to be a certain level of trust in place. If what it takes to build that trust is having outside reviews for the case-by-case basis use by law enforcement, then I don't see that being a hindrance to the use of satellite. Which is why I'm generally ok with the case-by-case basis as has been done in the past, I believe the review was done by a non-interested agency.
The example is well taken. I do suspect that there should be safeguards in place for that. I think the sale of some of the chemicals used in agriculture is regulated and tracked(I could be wrong on this). Thus perhaps the independent reviewer could look into did sales take place and were these sales unusual? At the same time, I think that if it were really a fear of terrorist activity, while the review is going on, agents could request a warrant and conduct surveillance on the individual in question at that point.
I think that is where I tend to agree with you, the "trust us" part shouldn't fly blindly, but I do think there needs to be a certain level of trust in place. If what it takes to build that trust is having outside reviews for the case-by-case basis use by law enforcement, then I don't see that being a hindrance to the use of satellite. Which is why I'm generally ok with the case-by-case basis as has been done in the past, I believe the review was done by a non-interested agency.
The example is well taken. I do suspect that there should be safeguards in place for that. I think the sale of some of the chemicals used in agriculture is regulated and tracked(I could be wrong on this). Thus perhaps the independent reviewer could look into did sales take place and were these sales unusual? At the same time, I think that if it were really a fear of terrorist activity, while the review is going on, agents could request a warrant and conduct surveillance on the individual in question at that point.
Loading....