Leo was right about Buddhism

[Jodistrict]

12 hours ago, Mellowmarsh said:

“It’s the difference between having a house built on rock and a house built on sand.”

 Bye bye Dubai. 👋  

Homelessness is our real natural and true home.  🏠 AKA  Consciousness. 
 

 

 

 

playing with words.

[Oppositionless]

@Jordan of the Shire @kavaris
you two seem to be describing morphic resonance . The memory of past actions in a specific place condition future expressions.

----

I wasn't saying Buddhism was wrong in fact Zen Buddhism has the One Mind, Unborn Mind, Dharmakaya etc,  rather just commenting on the fact that despite having this doctrine I almost never hear my zen teachers talk about it and also not much about love or intelligence .  But I think I got a satisfactory answer as to why they don't talk about it much .

Edited 15 hours ago by Oppositionless

[cetus]

On 8/22/2026 at 9:05 PM, Oppositionless said:

But as for understanding of reality, I've been a little let down

That's where a good Zen Koan comes in.

A monk asked, "What is the meaning of the ancestral teacher's coming from the West?" and the master replied, "Three pounds of flax."

[Petals]

This may sound arrogant but I think almost no one has a clue about Buddhism these days. I had a wrong view before I dove into it. Most of Buddhism we have today is later additions and when it comes to 'Western' Buddhism it is pretty much all romanticized. I recommend reading 'Noble Truths, Noble Path' by Bhikkhu Bodhi. There you can read actual suttas, the teachings of the Buddha. You have to be hardcore if you want to follow the Buddha's teachings. It is a teaching of renunciation.

The Buddha was once in a forest with his disciples and he said that what he teaches is a handful of leaves but what he knows is like all the leaves in the forest. He probably knew the deepest truths of reality but he didn't teach them. What he cared about is teaching people "suffering and the end of suffering".

——

Imagine a being that has zero desire or aversion towards anything, no desire towards any sensual experience, no desire for continued existence - not because you are depressed but because you have a mind that is so pure that it cannot be bothered, cannot be disturbed anymore. Imagine the ridiculous amount of development you need for this. That is what an arahant, an enlightended being is like.

——

Understanding God and Reality is fine but it cannot replace the actual end of suffering which is possible according to the Buddha. I assume Leo is still suffering a lot although he has a high understanding of God and Reality.

Edited 3 hours ago by Petals

[Sugarcoat]

11 minutes ago, Petals said:

This may sound arrogant but I think almost no one has a clue about Buddhism these days. I had a wrong view before I dove into it. Most of Buddhism we have today is later additions and when it comes to 'Western' Buddhism it is pretty much all romanticized. I recommend reading 'Noble Truths, Noble Path' by Bhikkhu Bodhi. There you can read actual suttas, the teachings of the Buddha. You have to be hardcore if you want to follow the Buddha's teachings. It is a teaching of renunciation.

The Buddha was once in a forest with his disciples and he said that what he teaches is a handful of leaves but what he knows is like all the leaves in the forest. He probably knew the deepest truths of reality but he didn't teach them. What he cared about is teaching people "suffering and the end of suffering".

——

Imagine a being that has zero desire or aversion towards anything, no desire towards any sensual experience, no desire for continued existence - not because you are depressed but because you have a mind that is so pure that it cannot be bothered, cannot be disturbed anymore. Imagine the ridiculous amount of development you need for this. That is what an arahant, an enlightended being is like.

And how is the path like? Decades of dullness, boredom and perhaps suffering only for a tiny fraction of practitioners to reach their goal? Am I onto something?

Edited 3 hours ago by Sugarcoat

[Petals]

@Sugarcoat Reality is the way it is. If only a few practicioners can reach it then that is how it is. Don't blame it on the Buddha. Dullness and boredom are assumptions on your part. I don't know how old you are but I assume that by now you have realized that none of what you imply as valuable - excitement and experiences - can last or be satisfactory. Just read the teachings and think about it for yourself. I am not trying to convert anybody. I am not a Buddhist but I still think the Buddha's teachings are very valuable.

——

The Buddha in fact found something that is beyond sensual pleasures - the jhanas. There is debate about what they are exactly but implying that the Buddhist path is dull and boring comes from a lack of familiarity with the teachings. And these jhanas are possible way before any enlightenment.

Edited 2 hours ago by Petals

[Sugarcoat]

1 minute ago, Petals said:

@Sugarcoat Reality is the way it is. If only a few practicioners can reach it then that is how it is. Don't blame it on the Buddha. Dullness and boredom are assumptions on your part. I don't know how old you are but I assume that by now you have realized that none of what you imply as valuable - excitement and experiences - can last or be satisfactory. Just read the teachings and think about it for yourself. I am not trying to convert anybody. I am not a Buddhist but I still think the Buddha's teachings are very valuable.

I just asked, idk what you do, your reply has at least as many assumptions as mine I feel haha

[Petals]

@Sugarcoat Sure, I assumed that 'am I onto something?' means that you think it is a kind of trap that lures people in but never delivers, like so many other spiritual paths. That was my assumption. And my answer was - actually look into it and find out for yourself plus giving a hint towards what you will find. And that there is no lasting happiness in the world is not an assumption, it is just the case.

[Sugarcoat]

7 minutes ago, Petals said:

@Sugarcoat Sure, I assumed that 'am I onto something?' means that you think it is a kind of trap that lures people in but never delivers, like so many other spiritual paths. That was my assumption. And my answer was - actually look into it and find out for yourself plus giving a hint towards what you will find. And that there is no lasting happiness in the world is not an assumption, it is just the case.

Not necessarily trap because that could be said for how most humans live anyways, but theres also difference between questioning peoples paths vs the core teaching itself, because how each individual does it will have some degree of variation. So I questioned whether it worked for people in large, if not then maybe flaws in their personal way of going about it, or maybe in the teachings too. 

I can question something based on what I know and have heard, im not going into details so I dont need to know the details for that

Yea I agree I think the self is greatest curse to ever exist

Edited 2 hours ago by Sugarcoat

[Petals]

@Sugarcoat Ok. I think the teachings of the Buddha in the actual suttas are sound. But of course it will not work for people at large because it is too difficult and people are too satisfied with their lives and they have no grasp of the first noble truth. Even I don't have it deeply although I am interested in it.

My point was exactly not to question something based on what you have heard because that could be false and when it comes to Buddhism it is false most of the time. 

Edited 2 hours ago by Petals

[Sugarcoat]

1 hour ago, Petals said:

@Sugarcoat Ok. I think the teachings of the Buddha in the actual suttas are sound. But of course it will not work for people at large because it is too difficult and people are too satisfied with their lives and they have no grasp of the first noble truth. Even I don't have it deeply although I am interested in it.

My point was exactly not to question something based on what you have heard because that could be false and when it comes to Buddhism it is false most of the time. 

I bet theres lots of  wisdom there yes, and I understand such teachings can be very hardcore so not many will stick to them.  

But I can question from what Ive heard because when you look it up online, its not straight up lies, also a little from school for example, some encounter with a buddhist, but yes I am aware that I could've heard something that isn't completely accurate, but one can still get a gist of some of the core teachings. 

Edited 34 minutes ago by Sugarcoat

[Breakingthewall]

57 minutes ago, Petals said:

Imagine a being that has zero desire or aversion towards anything, no desire towards any sensual experience, no desire for continued existence - not because you are depressed but because you have a mind that is so pure that it cannot be bothered, cannot be disturbed anymore. Imagine the ridiculous amount of development you need for this. That is what an arahant, an enlightended being is like.

That's the main principle of Buddhism. Imo it's an impossible ideal. Those arhats use to be in Tibet in wonderful natural places right? What if they were working 16 h per day in a factory in Bangladesh? If anyone tells them, what would you prefer, return to the Himalayas or here? Maybe they would answer :for me it's the same, I don't care, everything is the reality. Give me 2 hours more per day if you want 

Edited 2 hours ago by Breakingthewall