Yeah, but I think when you learn about muppets in a more in-depth way, and about Miss Piggie in a more in-depth way… relating them directly to some arbitrary point may cease to be an issue.
That seems unfair to me. Perhaps if you want to know more about what it’s like to be a Muppet, you could study Miss Piggie in a more in-depth way or Swedish Chef in a more in-depth way. It’s not necessary to draw one-to-one correspondences between them. And getting caught up in a project of identifying one-to-one correspondences (back to Buddhism, here) sounds like an intellectual exercise which may be beside the point. Anyway, it’s good that you took my opinion there with a grain of salt.
Nope, that wasn’t.
The first thing I posted was what I would call Buddhism in a nutshell.
That’s why that bit started with, “What I’ve figured out, at least in regards for myself, is…”.
Because that was more what I would refer to as (if anything) my response to Buddhism.
I share a tiny piece with Buddhism in only the, “shut up and listen”; otherwise, nothing in that response was Buddhism.
“The way is broad and level, but people delight in tortuous paths.”
One must be careful to not let the words become an instruction manual. At some point, one must trust themselves and be their nature. One may look at the four noble truths, the four seals, all for guidance, and then forget them. The same is true for “The Tao that can be named is not the Tao.” The “fixing” of process is futile. Life has no instruction manual. Only humans can create such a thing. Take the understanding and let the words go.
The words are instructions actually. There’s truth in what you’re saying, but in this context it sounds a bit like telling a lazy person not to work too hard. You don’t have to tell many modern western people to “let the words go”. Letting the words go is all too easy, for those who have never even begun to take them seriously.
I do understand that the very first step is stark brutal honesty within self. Without that, there will be no spiritual awakening. There are many who are willing to call themselves “Buddhist” who are capable of quoting chapter and verse their sacred writings - and wrap themselves in the trappings and never confront themselves. The same is true of Christians who can recite half the bible from memory or the muslim who knows every word of the Koran by heart. There is nothing in this world that can’t be twisted into whatever agenda we wish. It all begins (and ends) with honesty. All fall along a continuum, from those who pay lip service to those who dedicate their lives to the path, the way. I’ll reiterate: One must trust their nature to carry them forward. Consider: if I can’t trust myself, how can I trust not trusting myself? So yes, look to the words for guidance, but what we seek lies beyond words. I can’t be concerned with those who choose to lie to themselves. They have chosen the “tortuous path” - of which there are many. I can only be concerned with my path and being honest with myself. Does this make me a good buddhist, or a good taoist, or christian, or muslim? No. It simply makes me what my nature can be. Words can instruct, but living isn’t the words.
I mean no disrespect TheStumps but there is nothing you have done yourself without the kind help of your fellow human beings.
The human race has dragged you up Mt McKinley - kicking and screaming - and when you get on your own two feet you say to them.
Look what I have done for myself, you too need to do it for yourself.
There has been nothing in your life that you have achieved without your fellow human being by your side, holding your hand, handing you the tools, and encouraging you.
And yes, this relates to the OP… What is Buddhism in a Nutshell?
EDIT: To expand… we cannot listen if the “self” is broadcasting at 3456 dB
Tentaive, I think everyone is acting accordance to their nature and being true to their nature - and has trust in their nature.
Everyone without exception does this and I have not yet met a person who does not do this.
The paedophile or the saint do this equally (I am aware that you know this).
When you state that “one must trust their nature to carry them forward” implies that a person is not trusting of their nature.
It is a vicious circle - one in which you are bound as equally as I or another (and I am aware that you are aware of this).
A Taoist who has been practicing for over 20 years is also capable of quoting chapters and verses from the Tao - and wraps themselves in the trappings of never confronting themselves.
Who are those that do not trust in their nature and who are those who do not confront themselves - It is “me”!
A person who trusts themselves or who does not trust themselves is still acting in accordance with their nature.
A person who confronts themselves or who does not confront themselves is still acting in accordance with their nature.
There is no contradiction between the two persons.
That’s not what I’m referring to.
I’m referring to the existential fact of self-experience.
What I was saying was that telling you how big it is doesn’t do anything for really comprehending just how big it is until you are actually in it’s presence.
You focussed on only one term. If you’ll recall, I mentioned honesty with self. Self-deceit, self illusion isn’t honesty. That is mere ego. Our true nature cannot appear until we release ego. (but you know that)
We all speak in a form of shorthand and often miss what others are saying. I do that all the time. I think nothing less of you for anything you’ve written. We are constantly going back and filling in the blanks. I have to do that because I’m lazy and rarely write with full clarity. For leading you off from what I should have made clear in the beginning, I apologize. Don’t sweat the small stuff, OK?
There is never any offence taken from anyone on this forum - or in my life.
My own thoughts harm me more than any others persons thoughts or words harm me.
