The phisical and mental power of buddhism

According to Smith, Buddhism was created by a man by the name of Siddhartha, Gautama. Siddhartha was born 563 B.C. in Kapilavastu, Nepal into the Gautama family of the Shakaya clan. The Shakayas were members of the priestly-warrior caste. Siddhartha’s father was the head of this casts so he was a prince. He received the best education his father’s wealth could provide. He married a woman named Yashodha and they lived in his father’s kingdom. He was protected from life’s hardships by his father. According to Smith, Siddhartha’s father would give orders to place dancing girls at his desposal, and made sure that there were no unpleasant things going on in his quarters. But on more than one occasion; the orders were neglected. One of these, Siddartha came across a man suffering from the frailties of age. On another, he saw a sick man suffering from disease, and another, he saw a corpse; a dead man which shocked him greatly. This was the Siddhartha’s turning point. He gave up his claim to the succession of his father’s throne and left the palace to begin his search for the truth. At age twenty-nine he mounted his great white steed. Leaving his wife and child behind and set off for the forest. There he studied Yogic meditation with two Brahman hermits and achieved high cognitive states. At the age of thirty-nine, Siddhartha reached enlightenment and became an “enlightened one” a Buddha (a man who woke up). For the next forty-five years he taught as the Buddha (sage of the shakaya). The Buddha died at the age of eighty-nine after eating a poisoned mushroom.
I probably don’t understand the full potentials that stem from the practices of Buddhism. One thing that sparked my curiosity is the quote “Mara challenged Gautama’s right to do what he was doing but he touched the earth with his right fingertip and the earth thundered.” Is it possible to reach such a cognitive state that would allow one to make the nature of physical being weaker than the mental state? Can we create physical powers from cognitive energies? Can we control our material surrounding or induce pleasure out of pain? Or is this statement a play on words, expressing the determination to fulfill Siddhartha’s desire for higher understanding. It is an interesting thought to ponder. Here are some quotes taken from Smiths book. “Buddha preached a religion devoid of authority.” “Buddha preached a religion devoid of ritual.” “Buddha preached a religion that skirted speculation.” “Buddha preached a religion devoid of tradition.” “Buddha preached a religion of intense self-effort.” “Buddha preached a religion devoid of the supernatural.” This religion taught the Eightfold path, which consist of eight steps. Learning the right knowledge, having the right aspiration, the right speech, practicing the right behavior, living the right livelihood, performing with the right effort, being in the right mind, having the right absorption. Although, I don’t understand the complete intentions of this practice, it seems to me to be one that would create individual happiness with in. In addition to the kindness, truthfulness, and the honesty of the people whom practice this religion, it also provides a sense of knowledge about nature. I appreciate the fact that Buddhism values all creatures as living beings by not allowing them to be the source of there nourishment. There is some evidence to support the possibility that humans are not truly carnivorous, for example, our teeth are not shaped to cut through the flesh of meat. We do have two canine shaped teeth that are said to be used to crack nuts. If this is true then, it is likely that our digestive system is not fit for the digestion of meat. This could be the cause of many of our digestion problems as well as, high blood pressure at older ages. Is this the knowledge of the Siddhartha? Self preservation; and fulfillment seemed to be the focus.

Can Western Families Be Influenced by Religious Doctrines?

Can Western Families Be Influenced By Religious Doctrines? A philosophical approach to understanding the motivation of free will Family life in America could be strengthened by attention and adherence to the doctrines and practices of Hinduism, and Islam. Western cultures tend to have an individualistic orientation and other cultures, a collectivist orientation. The differences between these two cultures seem to influence people’s attitudes. Eastern doctrine seems to promote obedience and western doctrine seems to endorse individualism and freedom. In my paper I will explore what Hinduism could contribute to families in the west. In addition, I will look at the difference between Islam and Christianity and pinpoint specific things that I think cause problems in today’s social settings in the west. I will also examine the possible disadvantages of religion as it relates to human existence. However, I would like to start with a few thoughts about how religion can effect personal development. Does the phrase “we must get to know ourselves before we can know anyone else” have any legitimacy? If so you may also agree that to truly know oneself is to be able to control all reactions caused by ones emotions. Some types of emotions one could feel are depression, sorrow, fear, frustration, happiness, and jealousy. It seems that out of these emotions fear is the cause of jealousy, jealousy is the driver of depression and sorrow and frustration are the effects. In order to get out of a mind state in which depression is the dominating factor one may have to except the circumstances by which they are depressed about. By comparing the difference between what they do and what they don’t have one may be able to achieve this goal. These feelings of dejection can cause families to become unstable or dysfunctional. However, what if we could be conditioned overcome the fears that could create such emotions? It seems that throughout western history religion and family have been two institutions linked together through relationships of dependency and control. Religious institutions depend on families to pass on the rituals and beliefs of its particular faith tradition. And in turn religions provided moral guidelines that shape those families practices, and the organization of their life. The difference between this lifestyle and the others seems to be the cause for conflict. If one were to make a notion that a family that follows a faith tradition is a “good family”, they must also say a family that doesn’t support a tradition is a “bad family” or simply is not a good family. Looking at these two families as it relates to Christianity, we can say that a family that has a conviction towards this faith might be less inclined to fear natural occurrences. Therefore, we may see a lower rate of depression within families of faith than in families without. With this, what happens to our communities? As I stated in my second paragraph depression can alter the relationship that one has with their family, therefore, having a faith can be a benefit for their individual social settings. However, with this type of lifestyle one may not see that problems like pollution, litter, and homelessness are of their responsibility. In addition, they may not be accepted among other social groups and groups of different faith. It may be true that introducing faith into family settings could enhance the relationship between the members; however, it could also rattle the relationship of humanity. What can be introduced into the west to balance this equation? I think that by adopting the 3rd pillar of Islam which is an obligation of Muslims to pay a small percentage of their wealth towards “Zakat”, which is used for the benefit of the needy and the poor is one step forward. This act exemplifies a means of social justice, order and respect for Gods creation. However, in order to maintain this principle we must add a regulation. It seems that nothing is more controlling than fear and all emotions are driven by fear. Hinduisms may be the place to turn to. The principal of Karma may be a stepping stone that the west could use to complete the equation. We can think of it as immediate karma, for example, “what goes around comes around” (in this life) or we may also think of it like the Hindus did (your current life determines the path of you next life). Karma is based on the ideas of cause and effect. Therefore, anything one does in this life will affect your future or ones next life. Take for example the idea of homelessness. Are people homeless because they are paying a debt to karma? If so why should we help them? This seems to be the question posed about karma. Although it is hard to answer I would like to take as shot at it by saying this, in order for karma to be relevant, negative and positives notions of it must exist. With the idea of someone doing something negative (evil) you obtain bad karma. By looking at this I examine how karma could work. Karma is a positive energy field that attracts negative energy. It prevents positive energies from entering and negative energies from exiting. If this is true then goal is to make the energy field neutral, but how does one do that? It seems that the only way to do is by good deeds. If we do things out of heart with care and compassion we produce positive energy with in us. That energy is able push the negative energy out of us. In the process the surrounding negative energy builds up and as soon at it reaches an equilibrium point with the positive it the field becomes neutral. Therefore, by helping the homeless we are doing good deeds and maintaining a neutral energy field. All religions have something to contribute to the fundamental values of human life. However, for the most part, they are convictions that tend to separate the ideas of different social groups; therefore, one may never be able to agree on beliefs and issues of another social group which could cause conflicts. However, if there was only one thing to believe in it seems that there would more skeptics than believers. It seems to me that the plan of God is to unite the creation with its creator. The only way to complete task seems to be to bring the creation together as one. How is this possible? To achieve this one needs to have a common notion “there is a God”, it seems that everything that leads up to “there is a God” is the hook used to make the catch. If one could use many different types of hooks to catch a fish, then is it possible that one could use many types of stairwells to get to God as well?

A Philosophical Approach to Understanding Free Will

Do We Have Free Will (A Philosophical Approach)

It seems to me that when one speaks of free will one imagines it to be the right to do what ever, when ever they want. Free will is an idea that we are free and our actions are not bound by laws, rules and regulations or any predetermined destiny. What does this mean? If one is truly free than they have the right to kill, I don’t agree with any argument that suggests that because a person does not have a right to kill or harm other, therefore, they are not free because, the person whom they would kill or harm would have the freedom to live or not be harmed. So what is freedom and does it exist? One could say that freedom is an idea that was brought about to maintain order in a hostile society. In other words, freedom is not a right for one to enact at all, but an idea given to society that would protect them from the actions of others. Or one could say that freedom is a right, in other words, the right to be free gives one the ability to act the way they feel fit. What about the idea that there is a predetermined destiny, that is to say, that there is a “God” who has set a path for everyone. Would one be free?
I spoke to Jolan who is a co-worker of mine and is a Christian. I asked her if she believes that God knows everything that she has done and is going to do in her life. At first, she explained that she thinks God does, she stated “God knows everything.” At this point, I ask her is there anyway that God would not know, she said “no.” I explained if god knows everything that you are going to do that means that he has set a path for you correct, she said “yes.” I said that means that you are bound by his path and there is nothing that you can do in order to change it correct, she hesitated a while and then said “yes.” Then you have no freedom, no say in your life, she didn’t like this idea very much so she didn’t agree instead she explained “yes she thinks that God does know everything, however, she doesn’t.” In other words, she believes that because God has not told her what actions she is going to take in her life she steel feels that she has the freedom to anticipate them and the freedom to execute them. However, what if the motivation to do something comes from the thought of desires, are you free?
Fraud wrote that “man is free only to the extent that his behavior is not unconsciously motivated at all.” In other words, all actions are caused by reasons that you lack awareness of; therefore one doesn’t choose to make those actions consciously.