Depth Versus Shallow

[Henri]

The Dalai Lama once stated that in life it`s better to dig one deep hole rather than a lot of shallow holes. Meaning it`s better to dive deep into a certain tradition rather than pick-up a little from many traditions.
When I look at the audience on this site I think most of us are digging lots of shallow holes.
And to my opinion many questions, problems and misunderstandings arise because of that.
Share your opinions please.

[Henri]

@Socrates  And are they missing the point?

Isn`t `green` a minority in the UK and the US? 

[SkyPanther]

5 minutes ago, Henri said:

The Dalai Lama once stated that in life it`s better to dig one deep hole rather than a lot of shallow holes. Meaning it`s better to dive deep into a certain tradition rather than pick-up a little from many traditions.
When I look at the audience on this site I think most of us are digging lots of shallow holes.
And to my opinion many questions, problems and misunderstandings arise because of that.
Share your opinions please.

Personally, I follow Theravada Buddhism as my main tool of "dislodging" my conditioning.   However I do know about the other paths, (and Vedanta(Hinduism) and the Śramaṇa movements tends to be compatible with most of Buddhism at least in "spirit".), I just do not mix the traditions though, for instance Christianity, Islam and Judaism are very different from the Eastern philosophies, and I think tend to reinforce the ego. 

But I agree with @Socrates, eclecticism is a problem when trying decondition yourself; you are in danger of creating a spiritual ego and create delusion of what you think the path should be.

And people in the West, including some prominent teachers tend to paint all religions as the same thing, when in reality they have different end goals.

The end goal of Buddhism is to decondition yourself out of existence.  The main goal of Judaism/Christianity/Islam is to live eternity with a creator being.   You could argue that "Nibbana" and "Heaven" are really the same things, but the actual teachings disagree.  Heaven in the Judaic/Christian/Judaic/Islamic sense is more akin to the higher realms in Buddhism/Hinduism/Vedanta which are not the "end goals". 

[Henri]

@SkyPanther  I agree fully with you. Whatever problem or question will arise on your developmental journey, your chosen tradition will provide answers and solutions. You don`t have to dig other holes, so to speak.

In essence one can say there are only two religions. There`s Judaism which is based upon fear for God and there`s Hinduism which is based upon love for God. All other religions rise from those two. It`s a bit like raising a kid; you can do it with love and with fear. In the Middle East they needed fear to be able to start something like a society in the middle of a nomad-culture. In India they needed the love factor to develop an agricultural society.

[SkyPanther]

10 minutes ago, Henri said:

@SkyPanther  I agree fully with you. Whatever problem or question will arise on your developmental journey, your chosen tradition will provide answers and solutions. You don`t have to dig other holes, so to speak.

In essence one can say there are only two religions. There`s Judaism which is based upon fear for God and there`s Hinduism which is based upon love for God. All other religions rise from those two. It`s a bit like raising a kid; you can do it with love and with fear. In the Middle East they needed fear to be able to start something like a society in the middle of a nomad-culture. In India they needed the love factor to develop an agricultural society.

I agree, different teachings come up as solutions for different circumstances (based on location).

And this kind of bring up a different idea:

Quote

And here comes in the question whether it is better to be loved rather than feared, or feared rather than loved. It might perhaps be answered that we should wish to be both; but since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved. For of men it may generally be affirmed, that they are thankless, fickle, false, studious to avoid danger, greedy of gain, devoted to you while you are able to confer benefits upon them, and ready, as I said before, while danger is distant, to shed their blood, and sacrifice their property, their lives, and their children for you; but in the hour of need they turn against you. - The Prince - Niccolo Machiavelli

"God" in the Abrahamic religions, as you noted Judaism being the "root", is basically the egoic father figure which wants his children to act in accordance to his will.

This is a far cry from any of the Vedic schools, where as you note "God" is a non-personal entity, but "the ultimate reality" which we are all parts of, but do not realize it because of the various conditioning. So acceptance of yourself as you are is more of a focus. 

 

[Henri]

@SkyPanther Machiavelli never could have dreamed to be mentioned on a `enlightenment-topic`! 

[Henri]

@Socrates Hahaha 

As far as the Chinese takeaway; Lao Tze is said to be more read in the west as in China nowadays!

[Henri]

@Socrates In my country there`s a war going on right now against the `political correctness`. There`s no middle path of politics anymore, it`s extreem right or extreem left wing. It`s a riot against all the shadow parts of green influence that has poisoned the culture for too long now.

Yesterday the voters voted against some european trade-law with the Ukraine. The papers consider this as the beginning of the end of the European Union. Lots going on here...