--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > Can't comment on that. I'm a Buddhist who doesn't > > even believe that God exists. :-) > > Really? If Buddha-->Buddhism-->Buddhist exists, how can God not > exist? I'd like to hear your definition of Buddha.
Just a normal, everyday guy, who realized what it really is to be a normal, everyday guy. Buddha would have laughed himself silly at the notion that he was anything else. What I don't believe in is God as a being with sentience of his/her/its own or the universe having a will or design/direction of its own. I have no problem with the concept of the Absolute, merely with it having a will or sentience other than that made up of the combination of all the will and sentience of its separate "parts." > > > In other words, there were things I wanted to achieve for myself > > > that were unobtainable at the lesser state of consciousness... > > > > I would say instead that you *assumed* they were not > > available to you. Therefore they weren't. > > Hang on-- Broadening the discussion beyond human form, would you > also say that a chimpanzee doesn't speak English because of some > self-imposed limitation? Where do you draw the line between self- > imposed limitations and physiologically based limitations? I limit myself in these discussions to discussing humans. They have no limitations as far as I am concerned except those that they impose upon themselves. :-) In other words, I do not believe in the "stress keeps us from realizing enlightenment" theory. Not for a minute.
