What do you mean by "religion"?

[brother alan]

Forgive me if this has been done to death; I'm new here.
We all use the word "religion" on TBV as if we all think we mean the same thing by it, but we don't.
I'd really appreciate hearing what the word "religion" means when it pops out of your keyboard. Maybe I'll post my own definition later, but I don't want to start the usual contest of replies and contradictions; I want to hear what you have to say for yourself.
[If the bare mention of the word makes you all frothy-mouthed and junk, okay. We get it. Really. But how about calming down a minute and parsing your thoughts on the subject into something coherent that you and I can both keep and consider going forward? Thanks.]
your brother always

[jufa]

When I, can't speak for any one else, use the word religion verbally or written, I am using it in the manner which is agreeable culture's collective acceptance of relative meaning and understanding. So as all words to myself, the word religion is relative to assumptive agreement.

[Ron-the-Elder]

Religion (to me) is an organized social, worshipping, & support system. Some aspects of Buddhism are religious and others not.

[Trevor]

When I say religion I suppose that I am generally thinking of a group of peoples attempt to share with eachother their similar ideas about a higher power or innate beingness or even way of living morally or dogmatically within their communities or social structures.
The religious elite usually try to discourage changes within the groups structure to maintain their traditions and way of doing things. If any changes do occur it usually comes from the top downwards.
No matter which religion a person belongs to there seems to me to be discrepancies within the group thinking that mostly go unsaid, or if they are out in the open cause major divisions that are most of the time irrepairable.
I feel more comfortable with the idea of spirituality than I do with religion. It is not as much of a group thing, and it isn't as dogmatic.

[peterh]

if everything is the way it is because it is then according to me we should change it do you really want to be a tyrant that says the massacre of humanity just is ill tell you what it is its sickness of the mind evil is a broken self defence mechanism acting for the wrong reasons, to harm earth. the experience of zen as a all encompassing experience of mind and body as one with zen understanding can bring happiness and peace however the practice of zen like all faith is at the very least hurt by violence can any human claim they are not flesh and blood. if they do it is clearly a lie or they are very confused. further more i do not believe this practice can be maintained for long under duress and threat and is broken like any religion if not taught and learned properly. zen like shinto is to my experience when practiced and learned properly is a complete state of being made of preperation it can not be argued as wrong. i refuse to allow myself to be japanese because i have offended and hurt my good friend and brother who is japanese and would commit suicide with out thought or hesitation. to understand this you must be japanese or taught properly to be japanese which is possible. i have abandoned being japanese as for reasons i have said for the japanese who know no other this may not be possible before its to late. there is to my knowledge the sentiment that what is cant be changed history cant the present is fluid to a degree and the future is unknown in part prediction is possible to say we have no control over our destiny is wrong it is not certain but in part of our making.

[kris]

We all use the word "religion" on TBV as if we all think we mean the same thing by it, but we don't.
The word religion and the notion it seems to stand for are foreign to me. Quite naturally, I don't usually use the word myself unless someone else brings it up in conversation. But it does come up in convsersations with many people who are usually enthusiastic about what they refer to as "their religion". Based upon my many conversastions with countless such persons, I have come to the conclusion that this religion thing is essentially a form of insanity.

[wuwei]

Religion is any system of thought that holds something to be "Divine."

By "Divine," I mean non-dependent, or self-existent.

God, Tao, The Mind, numbers, Chaos, Logos, Mana, matter/energy, The Universe . . .

As soon as you claim that it's existence is not dependent upon something else, you have a religion.

[brother alan]

When I, can't speak for any one else, use the word religion verbally or written, I am using it in the manner which is agreeable culture's collective acceptance of relative meaning and understanding. So as all words to myself, the word religion is relative to assumptive agreement

I posit our agreement on the term is too much assumed. Hence the post. ;)

[akatsuki]

I wonder why the need to start a thread around such a topic. Sincere apologies, I am not discouraging you “brother alan” but you would find excellent essays and books, describing “religion” with comparative analysis between the different faiths/beliefs existing in the world.. You will find plenty of individual views/perspectives on religion in those articles, books or essays.
Just go to Wikipedia and search the term “Religion”. You’ll get a fantastic description, the content of which would be acceptable to most of the ppl who are registered members of “Big View”. :huh:

Anyway, appreciating & respecting your initiative to start this discussion, :) I would just say the following-

Religion, barring the divine and spiritual aspects, is actually a code of conduct set up for the society, so that mankind doesn’t fall prey to the animal instinct and act in uncivilized way. It is a kind of leash which tries to control our behavior by predefining what is right or wrong. One cannot rule out the understanding that “this leash” might be developed, as well as customized, along the timeline by man himself.
Now, one would say - “wtf” is “uncivilized way”...:huh:
Uncivilized way means a way which differentiates us from the rest of the animal kingdom.
The problem is most of us; look at religion only from divine/spiritual point of view, as evident from some of the earlier posts.
And the people who hate religion hate it because they feel “this code of conduct” is at the root of all problems existing in today’s world.
“You should do this...” “You should not do that”... etc etc...
Most of us, fail to understand the complex pattern which evolved this whole concept of “Religion” :reallysad:
I am not saying I am an omniscient person who has deciphered all the secrets and hidden meanings in/of the world.
In order to understand Religion we need to go a bit deeper, just like scientists are trying to understand the “origin of the universe”.
However in this case each one of us are trying to discover – probe – understand religion in our own way..

Hence as mentioned in some of the earlier posts, it depends from one person to another. “Religion” defined by/for me, may vary from “religion” defined by/for someone else.:)
However I would say, our aim should be that each one of us has the freedom to practice and follow our own religion/faith without hampering the state of the society.

It’s like a collective effort. For E.g.- In a team each player has his/her strengths and weaknesses and micro strategies , but from the game perspective the team members should assist each other in order to align individual strategies/thought process in a master game plan ,so as to direct the team towards victory.
In our case the team (looking from a high level) is “mankind”. And our goal or lets say “victory” is “conservation of our breed without disturbing nature’s balance”.
I am putting stress on “without disturbing natures balance” because ultimately it is we- who are going to pay for causing the disturbance, which will hamper the conservation process…;)

[wuwei]

I wonder why the need to start a thread around such a t
Religion, barring the divine and spiritual aspects, is actually a code of conduct set up for the society, so that mankind doesn’t fall prey to the animal instinct and act in uncivilized way.
Then by that definition, you could classify the Boy Scouts as a religion. There are many organizations that put forth a code of conduct, but are not themselves considered a religion.

Most Religions might include a code of conduct, but having a code of conduct is not what defines it as a religion.

Also, I don't believe the Shinto religion includes any moral code of conduct.

[akatsuki]

Then by that definition, you could classify the Boy Scouts as a religion. There are many organizations that put forth a code of conduct, but are not themselves considered a religion.

Most Religions might include a code of conduct, but having a code of conduct is not what defines it as a religion.

Also, I don't believe the Shinto religion includes any moral code of conduct.

Hi Wuwei,

Replying with a different font,,this will make the thread to look a bit colorful..hehe:)

Yeah i agree with you, I never said that Religion is ONLY a "code of conduct".
"Code of conduct" is just one of the important and defining aspects of religion.But someone may put it as -"a way of living life"...Sorry I am not much aware of "Shinto" religion.But ,i just read about it and even this faith contains the concept of God, pure and impure deeds etc..which clearly indicates that even this faith stresses on morality.Although it might not have been developed at the level,so as to spell out any code of conduct.Sorry no offense..(but this was said on the basis of your statement)<please dont go into the details,otherwise we would drift away>

I am not trying to define "religion"..:)
But I would say , one of the reasons, Boy Scouts couldn't be classified as a religion because it lacks the divine & spiritual elements.May be its founder didnt include these elements, because he was already aware of the countless faiths existing in the world.;) just kidding..

There are 2 hypotheses,I have tried to explain below,very briefly & i am not asking anyone to agree/argue with it..:thumbsup:

Hypo.1 -Man-made religion
If we try to understand how religion might have developed...during the ages..
then "Boy Scouts" could have been one of the initial versions of religion(although not entirely,something -somewhat similar)..
Later on as human beings progressed..aspects such as association of a "divine being" or "the most ideal entity" might have taken place ,and then came spirituality and so on..

Hypo.2-God-made religion
If we assume that religion was explained to man by some divine/enlightened being through some prophet or sadhu or guru then, it should be pretty straight forward to understand.Judaism,Christianity,Islam,Buddhism,,we have so many examples.

I am still not sure whether I am able to put across my point...but if you try to imagine why/how religion might have been developed,you may get the answers..:thumbsup:

[VossistArts]

I like the different font and color :)

[wuwei]

Hi Wuwei,

Replying with a different font,,this will make the thread to look a bit colorful..hehe:)

Yeah i agree with you, I never said that Religion is ONLY a "code of conduct".
"Code of conduct" is just one of the important and defining aspects of religion.But someone may put it as -"a way of living life"...Sorry I am not much aware of "Shinto" religion.But ,i just read about it and even this faith contains the concept of God, pure and impure deeds etc..which clearly indicates that even this faith stresses on morality.Although it might not have been developed at the level,so as to spell out any code of conduct.Sorry no offense..(but this was said on the basis of your statement)<please dont go into the details,otherwise we would drift away>
Shinto has a belief in deities, but it does not have its own moral code. Most Shinto’s follow the moral code of Confucianism, but it is not an inherent part of their religion, and that moral code has not tie back to their deities.

The same can be said of the Epicureanism. They believed in gods, but those gods cared nothing for humanity and gave them no moral code to live by. They looked elsewhere for moral guidance.

The point is, if moral code is one of your defining characteristics of religion, then Shinto, Epicureanism, Pythagoreanism, etc, can not be considered religions since those faiths do not have a moral code.

To me, a good definition for religion should encompass those beliefs as well. So you could say something like “religion may or may not include a moral code,” but that really does not do much for separating what we call religion from what we call non-religion.

I am not trying to define "religion"..:)

Then perhaps you are in the wrong thread. :)

[akatsuki]

The point is, if moral code is one of your defining characteristics of religion, then Shinto, , etc, can not be considered religions since those faiths do not have a moral code.

Epicureanism, Pythagoreanism?? are these religions or may be they are some system of philosophy..do we have any differentiation between these? I dont think these can be defined as religion.I agree every religion has some philosophy associated with it..but is every philosophy a religion...no i dont think so...I think, my friend, you are getting confused between faith,philosophy and religion..;)

To me, a good definition for religion should encompass those beliefs as well. So you could say something like “religion may or may not include a moral code,” but that really does not do much for separating what we call religion from what we call non-religion.


I don't have a problem with that..if you say that every philosophy or belief system should fall under the category of "Religion"..may be that is re-defining "religion"..Because as explained earlier ,conventionally, this is not the case.I would again iterate that you just try to understand how "Major religions" around the world might have evolved.May be your view point may change,but again I would say,I am not imposing my thoughts on you,but just rationalizing why I am thinking the way I am.
It is like "Faith" is the Super set which contains both philosophy and religion.:thumbsup: So although every "religion" is usually associated with some "philosophy"...the vice versa is not always true..

Then perhaps you are in the wrong thread. :)

:uhoh: Yeah,,sorry you got me there..hehe:hahaha:,..good observation..I am such a dumbo..sometimes i pretend to be humble and lose the track:rofl:..Apologies..:( The reason I said that was because..each of us have a different perception and a view..or to be specific a definiton.. And thats why the originator of this thread asked everyone to give their definitions.. "I am not trying to define religion..means..(i think I should have been more specific there..)"I am not trying to define religion for anyone..or may be impose that definition on anyone.."...that definitin is limited to me,,and whether anyone wants to agree or disagree with it is an individual choice.. That is why if you'll go through my first post in this thread..I gave the example of a team trying to win a match. Each of us have different views , and beliefs..nothing is wrong in that belief ...until it hampers the end result..i.e. "winning the match"..May be that analogy proved to be over the top ,thats why this point was raised..hehe.. This might sound a bit harsh or direct..but the ultimate aim of our life is to delay death (This is not my original thought but something I got from one of the philosophers-U.G. Krishnamurthy , this is kind request please dont start a new thread on this statement..I would rather ask you to go through this guy's stuff)..thats why we have these religions,feel-good philosophies,taichi -yoga-kung fu , exercise, stress busters,Ayurveda, Acupressure..etc etc.. . . . . Looking forward for a response.:thumbsup: ..

[akatsuki]

To me, a good definition for religion should encompass those beliefs as well. So you could say something like “religion may or may not include a moral code,” but that really does not do much for separating what we call religion from what we call non-religion.
:)

Sorry I missed this point..
Yes your definition is really good..
But that is the point- we cant have a universal definition of religion.But observing the major religions followed in the world we can try to draft soemething,trying to identify the common characteristics
..This might be already done,and we may not be even aware of it...:unsure:
But may be we can come up with a system of SETS.

[wuwei]

Epicureanism, Pythagoreanism?? are these religions or may be they are some system of philosophy..do we have any differentiation between these? I dont think these can be defined as religion.I agree every religion has some philosophy associated with it..but is every philosophy a religion...no i dont think so...I think, my friend, you are getting confused between faith,philosophy and religion..;)




I don't have a problem with that..if you say that every philosophy or belief system should fall under the category of "Religion"..may be that is re-defining "religion"..Because as explained earlier ,conventionally, this is not the case.I would again iterate that you just try to understand how "Major religions" around the world might have evolved.May be your view point may change,but again I would say,I am not imposing my thoughts on you,but just rationalizing why I am thinking the way I am.
It is like "Faith" is the Super set which contains both philosophy and religion.:thumbsup: So although every "religion" is usually associated with some "philosophy"...the vice versa is not always true..



:uhoh: Yeah,,sorry you got me there..hehe:hahaha:,..good observation..I am such a dumbo..sometimes i pretend to be humble and lose the track:rofl:..Apologies..:( The reason I said that was because..each of us have a different perception and a view..or to be specific a definiton.. And thats why the originator of this thread asked everyone to give their definitions.. "I am not trying to define religion..means..(i think I should have been more specific there..)"I am not trying to define religion for anyone..or may be impose that definition on anyone.."...that definitin is limited to me,,and whether anyone wants to agree or disagree with it is an individual choice.. That is why if you'll go through my first post in this thread..I gave the example of a team trying to win a match. Each of us have different views , and beliefs..nothing is wrong in that belief ...until it hampers the end result..i.e. "winning the match"..May be that analogy proved to be over the top ,thats why this point was raised..hehe.. This might sound a bit harsh or direct..but the ultimate aim of our life is to delay death (This is not my original thought but something I got from one of the philosophers-U.G. Krishnamurthy , this is kind request please dont start a new thread on this statement..I would rather ask you to go through this guy's stuff)..thats why we have these religions,feel-good philosophies,taichi -yoga-kung fu , exercise, stress busters,Ayurveda, Acupressure..etc etc.. . . . . Looking forward for a response.:thumbsup: ..
"Bless us, divine number, thou who generated gods and men! O holy, holy Tetractys, thou that containest the root and source of the eternally flowing creation! For the divine number begins with the profound, pure unity until it comes to the holy four; then it begets the mother of all, the all-comprising, all-bounding, the first-born, the never-swerving, the never-tiring holy ten, the keyholder of all".


That is a Pythagorean prayer. They believed numbers were divine. In my book, that's a religion. And the Epicureans clearly believed in the existence and importance of gods.


Perhaps you should try to re-read the OP:


I'd really appreciate hearing what the word "religion" means when it pops out of your keyboard. Maybe I'll post my own definition later, but I don't want to start the usual contest of replies and contradictions; I want to hear what you have to say for yourself.

And so as I stated earlier - religion is belief in the divine. A moral code is secondary and immaterial when it comes to forming a definition to separate religion from non-religion.

[Abhinav]

religion is not definable, and still there is no need to define it if one really wants the real for which is beyond words.

[Ron-the-Elder]

Religion, barring the divine and spiritual aspects, is actually a code of conduct set up for the society, so that mankind doesn’t fall prey to the animal instinct and act in uncivilized way. It is a kind of leash which tries to control our behavior by predefining what is right or wrong. One cannot rule out the understanding that “this leash” might be developed, as well as customized, along the timeline by man himself.

I would add that religion also makes often unfulfilled assurances of protection to be provided by various deities. Buddhism offers no such protections, but instead makes us aware of the causes, kamma, which results in these harmful consequences.



Now, one would say - “wtf” is “uncivilized way”...:huh:
Uncivilized way means a way which differentiates us from the rest of the animal kingdom.

The reality is that aside from our large brains we are a part of the animal kingdom and subject to aging, disease, and death as are all other animals.



The problem is most of us; look at religion only from divine/spiritual point of view, as evident from some of the earlier posts.
And the people who hate religion hate it because they feel “this code of conduct” is at the root of all problems existing in today’s world.
“You should do this...” “You should not do that”... etc etc...
Most of us, fail to understand the complex pattern which evolved this whole concept of “Religion” :reallysad:

Sad, indeed!



I am not saying I am an omniscient person who has deciphered all the secrets and hidden meanings in/of the world.
In order to understand Religion we need to go a bit deeper, just like scientists are trying to understand the “origin of the universe”.
However in this case each one of us are trying to discover – probe – understand religion in our own way..

There is no need to go further. This has already been done. No gods to be found anywhere, which ever have been or ever will be of assistance to humans. Humans make their own heavens and hells with their intentional actions.


Hence as mentioned in some of the earlier posts, it depends from one person to another. “Religion” defined by/for me, may vary from “religion” defined by/for someone else.:)
However I would say, our aim should be that each one of us has the freedom to practice and follow our own religion/faith without hampering the state of the society.

Well put. I am in agreement.


It’s like a collective effort. For E.g.- In a team each player has his/her strengths and weaknesses and micro strategies , but from the game perspective the team members should assist each other in order to align individual strategies/thought process in a master game plan ,so as to direct the team towards victory.
In our case the team (looking from a high level) is “mankind”. And our goal or lets say “victory” is “conservation of our breed without disturbing nature’s balance”.

We have learned that if we are to survive then we must also cause no harm to other sentient beings. This understanding comes not only from Buddhist teachings, but also from a modern understanding of the global ecosystems of which we are an integral part.


I am putting stress on “without disturbing natures balance” because ultimately it is we- who are going to pay for causing the disturbance, which will hamper the conservation process…;)

Very wise observation. Wish all of mankind had your perception and understanding. Congratulations! :applause:

[Thomas Knierim]

I would add that religion also makes often unfulfilled assurances of protection to be provided by various deities. Buddhism offers no such protections, but instead makes us aware of the causes, kamma, which results in these harmful consequences.

I am not so sure about that. According to my observation, Buddhism -as a religion- likewise offers plenty of protections and devices to the faithful.

Cheers, Thomas

[Ron-the-Elder]

I am not so sure about that. According to my observation, Buddhism -as a religion- likewise offers plenty of protections and devices to the faithful.

Cheers, Thomas

Dearest Thomas, actually, with deepest respects," not":

In the Visuddhi Magga it is therefore said:

Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found.
The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there,
Nirvana is, but not the man that enters it.
The path is, but no traveller on it is seen.




See Anatta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/various/wheel202.html

I think what you reference is a cultural thing and has nothing to do with Buddha's actual teachings as recorded in The Nikayas.

With deepest respect.

Ron

[Thomas Knierim]

I think what you reference is a cultural thing and has nothing to do with Buddha's actual teachings as recorded in The Nikayas.

Yes, I agree with that. If only everybody would read and understand the Nikayas...

But as things stand, Buddhism does not appear to limit itself to the philosophy of the Theravadin canonical texts. It often happily deviates from it and occasionally one gets the impression that the dhamma and the existent Buddhist religious practices are two entirely different things.

When Thai media magnate Limthongkul was almost assassinated earlier this year, he climbed out of his car with several bullet fragments embedded in his head to take a closer look at his attackers as they fled the scence. They fired more than 100 bullets from M16s and AK47 assault rifles into his car. He survived. Later he and his driver claimed that they were protected by the Buddhist amulets placed in the car. They said that the bullets actually evaded them.

Stories like this are the reason why every single car in Thailand is equipped with amulets, miniature statues and other charms placed around the windshield. There is even a market for protective charms in Thailand. Rare charms from famous monks fetch prices of several ten thousand USD and more. And I haven't talked about the other forms of protections available yet, such as imprints, mantras, diagrams, tattoos, and such. There are plenty.

Furthermore, protection from evil forces is built right into the design of a Buddhist temple. In Thailand, the ubosot building, which is the heart of the temple, is demarcated by sema stones that symbolise barriers to impurity. Likewise, the Yaks and guardian statues are meant to fend off evil and mischievous spirits, such as ghosts and pretas. The idea of protection definitely plays an important role here. From my visits to other countries in Asia, it seems that the theme is not limited to Thailand.

It may be easy to dismiss this as "cultural padding" if you live in the US. But if you live in Asia, it definitely seems a bit more than that...

Cheers, Thomas

[Ron-the-Elder]

Yes, I agree with that. If only everybody would read and understand the Nikayas...

Furthermore, protection from evil forces is built right into the design of a Buddhist temple. In Thailand, the ubosot building, which is the heart of the temple, is demarcated by sema stones that symbolise barriers to impurity. Likewise, the Yaks and guardian statues are meant to fend off evil and mischievous spirits, such as ghosts and pretas. The idea of protection definitely plays an important role here. From my visits to other countries in Asia, it seems that the theme is not limited to Thailand.


Cheers, Thomas


This is what my Bhante' wrote this evening:

The Buddha once spoke straight to Namucī also called Māra the Evil One:

Sense pleasure is your first army, discontent your 2nd, while hunger and
thirst is your 3rd army. The 4th is craving, the 5th is lethargy and laziness,
fear is your 6th, doubt is the 7th, hypocrisy and stubbornness is your 8th.
Gain, renown, honour, and whatever falsely received fame is your 9th army
you Kanha black dark-minded one. One who is not hero cannot conquer that,
but having defeated it, one gains great happiness.

Having brought my mind under full control, well-established in continuous awareness, I will wander through the kingdoms, training many disciples, who alert and well motivated, despite your temptations, will go where having gone, one cannot ever grieve!

Realizing his defeat Māra , the Evil One, replied: For seven long years I have
followed the Blessed One, step by step, without ever obtaining even a single
opportunity against this perfectly Self-Enlightened One, who is fully aware.
Like a crow, which circled a yellow stone, which appeared like a lump of fat,
thinking "Perhaps I can find something soft & sweet here", but after having
attacked the rock, without getting anything, went away sadly disappointed,
even and exactly so will I have to go away. Discouraged the demon's lute fell
from his armpit and overwhelmed by frustration he disappeared right there..

Sutta-Nipāta verses 436-449. Edited excerpt.

This highborn hedonistic devil is called Namucī , since he lets no one escape, and Māra, since he leads beings into a repeated cycle of birth and death....

Translation provided by Bhikkhu Samahita
Ceylon

references:

More on this poor devil some others call Satan or Māra: What_is_Māra???
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/g_m/maara.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/ma/maara.htm

[Thomas Knierim]

Okay... I am not quite sure how this relates to protection and charms, but I guess it had to be said.

Cheers, Thomas

[Ron-the-Elder]

Okay... I am not quite sure how this relates to protection and charms, but I guess it had to be said.

Cheers, Thomas

The mind out of control, undisciplined, superstitious, subject to feelings, passions, desire, longings, permiated with wrong view, occupied by foolish diversions, contentious, obstinant, deceitful, deluded, continuously in flux, never in a state of equanimity.....unlike an anvil, dense, unswerving, massive beyond compare, unlike an immovable rock, The Bodhi Mind so described, impossible to attack (i.g.).......this susceptible mind, a mind without training and equanimity has a need to objectify evil from which it "desires" protection.

Buddha, realizing The Dhamma in another account, confronted by Mara's armies, not only confronted the true cause of fears and delusions, the untrained mind, a mind without equanimity but, by eminating loving-kindness and overwhelming compassion of The Dhamma, abolished in it all desire for protections......for there is truly no one to be protected, none who could be caused harm, no one from which to be protected, none to cause harm, none in jeopardy and peril, none to pass into safety.

What then would be the purpose of talismans?

[Thomas Knierim]

What then would be the purpose of talismans?

Quite right.

I am not a big fan of talismans either, as you might have guessed. But we aren't living in the world of scripture, but in an imperfect world where talismans have their place and -as far as I can tell- are part of Buddhist religious practice, certainly in the Theravadin countries of Southeast Asia.

Cheers, Thomas

[greg]

Quite right.

I am not a big fan of talismans either, as you might have guessed. But we aren't living in the world of scripture, but in an imperfect world where talismans have their place and -as far as I can tell- are part of Buddhist religious practice, certainly in the Theravadin countries of Southeast Asia.

Cheers, Thomas

People who do not meditate think you sit at peace. This is not the case your legs hurt you are prompted by every thought to do something. This comes in many ways. At first it is very hard to clear your mind of this. usually you don't even know you lost the battle.

But this is different. There is the energy of protection in a orange peel.

[thinuwang]

People who do not meditate think you sit at peace. This is not the case your legs hurt you are prompted by every thought to do something. This comes in many ways. At first it is very hard to clear your mind of this. usually you don't even know you lost the battle.

But this is different. There is the energy of protection in a orange peel.

Meditation is a conscious effort to change how the mind works.It helps to develop the awareness and the energy needed to transform ingrained mental habit patterns.

[peterh]

dear ron my faith ahs rocked by the disaster spread by natural disater it is beond my comprehension is it the gia principle?

[peterh]

aahhhh meta physics what a mine field heheheheheheheheheh Hi thom