Thoughts on Buddhism

[Abracadabra]

Magic is the art of manipulating aspects of reality either by supernatural means or through knowledge of occult laws unknown to science.

It is true that if we were going to discuss "magic" we had better have a working definition. Otherwise our conversations would be pointless.

I'm glad that you placed the term "OR" in your definition.

As someone who studies and practices various Wiccan spiritual concepts, I'm fully aware of the need to define "Magic" before even speaking of it. In fact, part of the Wiccan traditions is to write a journal called a "Book of Shadows". One of the purposes of the journal is to document the concepts as the practitioner views them. One of the very first things I had to do was define what "magic" means to me. That would then be my "working definition" throughout my Wiccan rituals and practices.

The very first thing I did was chose to spell the work ending with a "k". So I refer to my practices as "magick". This reason for this is to distinguish between stage "magic" which is merely illusion and deception.

My own personal definition has then become as follows. This is precisely how I have written it in my "Book of Shadows":

Magick - The science and art of transformation of matter, spirit, and energy to orchestrated to bring about change in accordance with my will in ways that may not yet, or ever, be understood or explainable by scientific knowledge.

I refuse to use a term like "supernatural". That would be foolish. Whatever powers I use must necessarily be part of nature. What I don't require is that they make sense in any scientific or logical sense. I also don't restrict nature to solely the world that we call "physical".

Gee whiz, even scientists are proposing hidden and unseen dimensions, parallel universes, dark matter, dark energy, Higgs Fields, Inflaton Fields, etc., etc., etc. So why place limitations on what might be natural?

Our knowledge of nature through science could indeed be nothing more than a mere scratch on the surface for all we know. In fact, it appears the even scientists themselves are pretty convinced of this.

~~~~

However, when I was speaking to the issue of "magic" in my previous posts I wasn't thinking in terms of my Wiccan Spiritual Magick. I know that exists. That can even exist in a purely secular world actually. The term "spiritual" here can simply be thought of as emotional, cerebral, and psychic energy which we already know to exist from science.

When I was addressing magic in my previous posts I was thinking more in terms of anything that is a blatant violation and utter contradiction to what we consider to currently be "logical" or even mathematically or physical "sound".

We already have examples of such phenomenon in science. Like entanglement. We have no "rational explanation" for quantum entanglement to date. For all we know it may be caused by processes that are beyond our comprehension to even logically grasp. If so, it may forever be outside the realm of 'Scientific explanation' and thus forever remain "magic" to us.

In that sense I'm simply defining "magic" to be anything that science can never explain in rational terms that we would consider to be "natural" in the sense of being comprehensible.

Such "magic" may very well exist. We really have no reason to believe that we will ever be able to break the secrets of the Quantum World.

That's just a faith-based wishful thinking on the part of secularists as it is.

Am I right?

We don't have any guarantee, or even reason to believe that we should be able to understand everything there is to know about this reality we live in.

Some things may forever remain "magical" to us in this sense of the term.

---

Hey that's true, I'm glad for the honest feedback. I can at times, feel overly eager to spread the beautiful artistry, depth and scope of buddha's message. It is also a very intimate and subjective analiysis. It is just such a brilliant tradition all together, even with Hindu tantra and yoga to benefit mediation even more if I could just be more down to earth with it. I get carried away with it, I agree with that!

I understand. I agree that Buddhism can indeed be absolutely beautiful artistry and it certainly has much depth and wisdom. It's easy to fall in love with Buddhism when you see these things in it. And it's natural to want to "spread the joy" when you fall in love with something.

However, you mentioned the concept of a "Bodhisattva". This is both a term and a concept that I too have great respect for. However, just like Christian "evangelism" it can easily be abused.

The idea behind becoming a "Bodhisattva" is to help those who are themselves seeking the enlightenment. It's actually incorrect to think that it's the job of a Bodhisattva to go around trying to convince everyone to go the way of the Buddha.

I personally believe that Jesus (or the person who sparked the rumors of Jesus) was indeed a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva. I have many historical reasons for coming to this conclusion. Not the least of which is that the teachings of Jesus match up far better to the teachings of Buddhism than they do to the teachings of the Torah which even the New Testament clearly shows that Jesus himself renounced.

Please bear with me on this, because if you'll think of Jesus as a Buddhist Bodhisattva for a moment things may become clear,...

According to the gospel rumors of Jesus (which I confess are highly undependable), even those authors recognized the following various things about Jesus:

1. Jesus obtained disciples and requested that they too spread his teachings.

This is one of the things that a Bodhisattva is required to do (at least in the Mahayana Tradition of Buddhism) which would have been the most powerful form of Buddhism at the time when Jesus lived. Mahayana Buddhism was at it's peak at that time in history.

In other words Jesus was asking his disciples to also become "Bodhisattvas" which was an important aspect of Mahayana Buddhism.

2. Jesus also taught his disciples that not everyone is prepared to hear these teachings nor understand them.

In other words, Jesus knew that the job of a Bodhisattva is to help others who are seeking enlightenment to become enlightened, but not to bother those who are not yet awakening.

3. Jesus even went further and taught his disciples not to argue with people about these teachings and that if someone wasn't interested in hearing this they should leave and not press it. (A teaching that has totally gone over the heads of Christian Evangelists and Fundies) Although, in all fairness there do exist Christian Evangelists who do understand this to some degree.

~~~~

So yes, love it, and spread it where it is welcomed! But don't go around "playing mental chess" with people who aren't interested. That's not what being a Bodhisattva is all about. That's the misguided mentality of Christian Fundamentalism.

YES, you can preach it and teach it, but be sure that you're doing this only for people who want to hear it.

Check out Deepak Chopra videos. Or just watch how the Dalai Lama does it. Although both of those men are in a special situation. But still, the key is in making sure your audience actually wants to hear the philosophy.