Why we share?

[donq]

I wonder whenever anyone (including me) talks/posts the real serious on spirituality, with no sugarcoat, will that be "a strange combination of display of faith, while at the same time attempting to destroy your faith in spirituality?"
When I lived in a forest temple and was a (volunteer without paid) teacher of 40-50 pre-school kids (our temple built kids center), once I had a hard time to tell my students not to play near our artesian well. Even after I tried my best to explain how dangerous it was, they didn't understand. Until one day, an older (village) woman yelled to those kids that there was a children-eating monster in that well, after that, no kids dared to go near that well again.
So, a lie is necessary in that case or in so many other cases?

I've learned a hard way that sharing spiritual experience is not always welcome much nowadays. Still, I feel if you know something, it's your duty, no, your privilege to share. Let me quote the Buddha here a bit:

"There arose in me vision, knowledge arose, insight arose, wisdom arose, light arose. Just as if, brethren, a man faring through the forest, through the great wood, should see an ancient path, an ancient road traversed by men of former days. And he were to go along it, and going along it he should see an ancient city, an ancient prince's domain, wherein dwelt men of former days, having gardens, groves, pools, foundations of walls, a goodly spot. And that man, brethren, should bring word to the prince or to the prince's minister: "Pardon, Lord, know this ... I have seen an ancient city, an ancient prince's domain, wherein dwelt men of former days, having gardens, groves, pools, foundations of walls, a goodly spot. Lord, restore that city." And, brethren, the prince or his minister should restore that city. That city should hereafter become prosperous and flourishing, populous, teeming with folk, grown, and thriven."

[mojomojo]

Hello Monty,

The door bell rang today, just on lunch hour.
When I opened the door, a young and elderly woman stood there.
When I enquired what they wanted, the old lady asked, how do you see the future.
I replied, with what is going on in the world today, not very good.
She replied, so you don’t believe in God or anything like that, then.
I replied, yes, I do believe in God.
We then spent about an hour conversing about God and the Bible, while my lunch went very cold.

A lot of the time when I write a post, it is nothing more than me thinking aloud, the questions and queries are directed at myself, no one else.
It’s not an attack on someone else’s belief, but a dissection on what I believe and why.
I have no problem looking at beliefs from every angle, and will question everything.

During my time of spiritual practice and enquiry, I have been shown proof, proof that no matter what, I can never deny, even though it was subjective, it was still my proof.
Even in the most negative of times, when faith is put to the ultimate test, I think back to those incidents of proof, and that’s it, I can not deny the existence of God.

I do understand your point of view, maybe I’m hoping someone will come up with something to counter these negative points, but I can assure you, destroying peoples faith is not on the list.

[gruntal]

Teachers often challenge their students to produce something if they think they are smarter then the teacher. That is good as far as it goes but alas a teacher can be very unhappy or insecure. Not to mention a prime egomaniac. That is why these things should be a two way street.

I remember attending a funeral; the eulogy just naturally offered the comforting reminder " when Jehovah returns the desert will bloom" . I live on the low desert and I don't want it to to bloom. The scorpions and rattlesnakes and scorching dry heat is what it is. Comfort - even happiness - can be just an escape at times ....

[mojomojo]

It is often used in spirituality as the point of reference to break away from, to be free of ego, the ultimate goal.
Unfortunately spiritual ones are far more likely to suffer from that which in theory they shun.
Time on spiritual forums alone will testify to this.
There has not been one, who at some time hasn’t displayed large dollops of ego, been careful to hide your ego, is not ego free.
To even consider oneself to be free of ego, is in it self egotistical.
Though displayed in many different forms, from those who consider themselves to be teachers, to those who speak in rhetoric, in the pretence of helping others, leaving themselves high and mighty on account of not been understood.
Let him that has not sinned, throw the first stone.

[donq]

Hi Robert,

Sorry for a a bit late reply.
You were so right. And my question was about myself. Sometimes I felt that I was (intentionally, of course) destroying others' faith as I didn't like a lie, nor sugarcoat. Let me give you an example.
I've lost one of my (pen) friends after she tried so hard to convince me to believe in God. I honestly explained to her that I preferred to believe in dharma or Tao but I had with no problem with God as all were one (at least, to me). And it seemed the more I was confident in myself, the more she lost her confidence in herself. Sure, if she was not my friend, I didn't need to honestly tell her what I really believed at all.
Agree about hiding ego. It's somehow the heart of Buddhism. And that's one of the meanings of Anattā, "non-self" or no-ego. Its aim is not to trust our ego in the very utmost, as it can come in so many disguise.

Hi George,
I like an ancient Chinese saying, "when a student is ready, a teacher". Yes, it has its deep meaning and doesn't even really mean a real teacher out there, but in here, in yourself.
And there's a Buddhist teaching called "Kalama Sutra" (sorry for quoting on Buddhist scripture here):

10. Do not believe just because the monk or preacher, the speaker, is "our teacher."

The other ones are:
1. Do not accept and believe just because something has been passed along and retold through the years
2. Do not believe just because some practice has become traditional.
3. Do not accept and believe merely because of the reports and news spreading far and wide through one's village, or even throughout the world.
4. Do not accept and believe just because something is cited in a Buddhist scripture.
5.Do not believe just because something fits with the reasoning of logic
6. Do not believe just because something is correct on the grounds of (deductive and inductive) reasoning alone.
7. Do not believe or accept just because something appeals to one's common sense, which is merely snap judgments based on one's tendencies of thought.
8. Do not believe just because something stands up to or agrees with one's preconceived opinions and theories.
9. Do not believe just because the speaker appears believable.

[mojomojo]

Hi Monty,
I agree with everything you say.
As a friend of mine once said, if the person sitting next to you holds no I’ll intent, the person sitting next to him most certainly will.
I asked him, did he not think that was been paranoid.
His response, no it’s not, but it’s very close.
The amount of people who live with that mindset, I understand why, and have held that mindset at times myself, but it’s so draining and I would imagine not good for one’s health.
I remember talking to my wife about the same subject and we both came to the same conclusion, we decided we were not like that and did not want to live that way.
That in itself brings up a question, is there something missing, a vital link, that allows one to walk a spiritual path while living in this world, while moving around people who are unconscious.
I can not except, that we should become door mats for others, but if we allow ourselves to be pushed to the point of aggression, do we then become the same as our oppressors.
Or does it boil down to the simple fact, the difference been, the aggressor uses violence to get his way, while the righteous only uses it in defence or when he has to.
Either way you both play the same game, just for different reasons.
When China invaded Tibet, because of the monks beliefs, they lost everything, they had to flee for their lives.
If every Country was hostile and no one would grant asylum, where would the monks have gone.
Their choice, to put aside their beliefs and fight for what is rightfully there’s, or to be subject to their invaders.
That brings me to another point, as one travels down the spiritual path, certain human traits start to fall away, one is the ability to harm another living creature, the ability to harm another human being, animal or insect is gone, to the point one starts to become vegetarian.
When in that position, how does one live on this earth.