Why you believe what you believe I

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

.... my mind requires further time to compile.

I remember one of my favorite projects at my university was to write a compiler -fascinating! (of course, only a small set of commands). The parsing, the lexical analysis - just very interesting!

I don't see any more questions from you so far, WF (I was busy with family all weekend and am now trying to catch up) - I was hoping you'd get some more good ones in. I like your questions.

[Rían]

OK - finished reading ... I need some time to think a bit, tho - lots of thoughts!

One question while I'm ruminating :

Reincarnation seems to me to say there must be a general upward trend (i.e., IF eventually all will be one with the absolute, THEN good karma must outweigh the bad overall.) However, I don't see a general upward trend that's taken place over recorded history as far as karma-type good works, as I understand them. (Of course, in areas which rely on accumulated knowledge, such as the medical field, there's advances - but I don't think that would be considered a karma-type thing, do you?) What are your thoughts on this?

ps - yes, the story I heard was said to be a very old one.

[Nurvingiel]

It's not necessarily an upward trend. If you have bad karma you might get reincarnated as a tax attourney (j/k! )! Seriously, you would get reincarnated as a slug or a dog or something that has less chance to get good karma than a human does. If you're really awful, you might get reincarnated as a rock, because then you cannot better yourself, and you will be a rock for eternity. Is that correct?

[Rían]

But if eventually all will be one with the absolute, then there MUST be an upward trend, for good karma outweighing the bad is how one moves up and is eventually released from the reincarnation cycle, right? I'm not saying an individual can't get flunked down a level, just that the general trend must be upward.

And one more quick question - What do you think of the caste system, and of a religion that would create/perpetuate it?

[Rían]

And another -

What if a person does not WANT to be one with the absolute?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

I believe that the Truth is bereft of names.

Then is the truth meaningless, or nonexistent? This reminds me of our earlier discussion about names. Didn't you say something like names are necessary to exchange thoughts? (I agree with you about the BAD use of names, BTW - typically stereotyping people.) If the Truth IS something, then it is NOT something that is opposite. That's one problem I have with Hinduism - it seems to say that logical contradictions are perfectly acceptable. Now, I have no problem with complimentary thoughts, but I just can't accept a worldview that allows logical contradictions (all birds fly; all birds do NOT fly) because I'm a strong believer in truth, and all things become meaningless, IMO, if one accepts flat contradictions. And if one says "well, all birds fly and do not fly in some mysterious way we don't understand now, but will someday", then I say why bother talking at all?

In my research, I came across a quote from a teacher of Vedanta (Swami Prabhavananda, from The Sermon on the Mount according to Vedanta) that says Hindus "would find it easy to accept Christ as a divine incarnation and to worship Him unreservedly, exactly as he worships Krishna or another avatar of his choice. But he cannot accept Christ as the only son of God."

Now as a follower of Vedanta, do you accept this statement from a teacher of Vedanta? And since Jesus said He IS the only son of God, is Jesus just wrong about Himself, or did He deceive us, or what? Or do words and thoughts mean nothing? (asked sincerely )

In Hinduism, the goal is to become One with God.

Would your teachers at the temple agree with this statement? I don't see how they could Unless again, words are meaningless, and the word "God" means whatever you want it to. Or when you say "God" you mean Brahman, who is just reality, not any type of "person", from what I understand ...

I have been visiting that temple on sundays ever since. I have stuck with the principles I have found because they strike me as true, and good, and healthy.

Are the principles that you've found true and good and healthy the same ones that are in Christianity?

[Nurvingiel]

Great questions RÃ*an, I'll just add to one you posed, kind of asking it to you and obviously asking Ñólendil. (I hope you don't want to leave the hot seat, as you hinted earlier...)

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

That's one problem I have with Hinduism - it seems to say that logical contradictions are perfectly acceptable. Now, I have no problem with complimentary thoughts, but I just can't accept a worldview that allows logical contradictions (all birds fly; all birds do NOT fly) because I'm a strong believer in truth, and all things become meaningless, IMO, if one accepts flat contradictions.

What is a logical contradiction, and what is a complimentary thought? Why would "all birds fly; all birds do NOT fly" be a logical contradiction?

I'll take a stab at it... is it logical because there are elements of truth in both statements? Because some birds fly and some birds don't. But why wouldn't you say "Most birds fly"?

[Ñólendil]

Reincarnation seems to me to say there must be a general upward trend (i.e., IF eventually all will be one with the absolute, THEN good karma must outweigh the bad overall.) However, I don't see a general upward trend that's taken place over recorded history as far as karma-type good works, as I understand them. (Of course, in areas which rely on accumulated knowledge, such as the medical field, there's advances - but I don't think that would be considered a karma-type thing, do you?) What are your thoughts on this?

Good karma certainly does not outweight bad karma. I have not yet spoken about karma, I've noticed. Karma does not help anyone reach enlightenment. Karma means literally "action", and it is made up of our actions, and the reactions to those actions. Do "good" things, and you will begin to accumulate good karma, do "bad" things and the opposite will happen. And karma stretches over through life after life after life. But karma does not push anyone to the ultimate goal. Karma only exists in samsara, the cyclic existence of suffering. It is good to do good things, and create good karma. However, what is really needed is non-attachment to the results of your actions. You need to start doing good things for its own sake. The idea is that enlightened people are not attached to the results of their actions--karma is transcended once you are at one with Brahman, and before then all you can do is attempt to live in this world in an unbiased way.

So advences in the medical field, which you mentioned, are certainly karma-type things. Everything is a karma type thing.

As far as reincarnation being an upward trend, the idea is that it ultimately is, but people are going backwards all the time. Murderers don't move up in their next life. It certainly does not seem as though everyone is moving towards enlightenment, that much is for sure. Indeed it is stressed in Hindu scripture often that very few people have attained enlightenment. It is a very slow process, compared to the Heaven model in other religions.

Seriously, you would get reincarnated as a slug or a dog or something that has less chance to get good karma than a human does. If you're really awful, you might get reincarnated as a rock, because then you cannot better yourself, and you will be a rock for eternity. Is that correct?

More or less, yes, although I don't think anyone is reincarnated as a non-sentient thing, such as stones, or (in my opinion) trees. The animal realm is considered lower than the realm we live in, but, there are realms below that, such as the temporary hells I have mentioned. I wouldn't say the main thing about that is less of a chance to get good karma. It's about a far lesser compacity to comprehend and move towards enlightenment, which is not quite the same thing. I think goals for an insect or a slug are much different than the goals for human beings. I have no idea what they would be, but I can't imagine what it would be like if slugs had to be good slugs. Slugs just don't have ethics.

And one more quick question - What do you think of the caste system, and of a religion that would create/perpetuate it?

I absoluty abhor the caste system. For those who don't know what Rian is talking about, there is a caste system that springs from Hinduism. The idea is that they came from God, so that people would be encouraged to fulfill their own roles and have their own place in society. What actually happens in something close to racism. Even though the caste system was legally abolished in India a while ago, it is still widely recognized by Indian families. I think the casts involve priests, rulers, warriors, and workers, and then, outside the caste system, are the "untouchables", people given the lowest jobs imaginable. People are encouraged not to marry outside their caste, so there is really no moving up in the caste system.

I chalk it up to old, bad, traditions. The Vedanta Society does not condone or support or appreciate the caste system. It's just one of the few negative things to have come out of scriptures. It is talked about in the Bhagavad Gita, "the Song of God". The Bhagavad Gita is a wonderful book with a great message, but I think one must remember it was written a very long time ago. In those days, for instance, it was believed to be bad karma to be reborn as a woman, though today, every woman is viewed as a kind of manifestation of Lakshmi, consort of Vishnu and a form of God.

To answer your second question about the religion from which it came, it doesn't make me think any less of Hinduism. Every religion has something about it or in it, or it's past, that I don't agree with. Hopefully someday the caste system will be abolished from the society itself, in India, rather than just in formal law.

And another -

What if a person does not WANT to be one with the absolute?

One doesn't have to think of it in that way. You can think of it as going to Heaven, for instance, and dwelling with Christ and loved ones. You can think of it as existing in total peace and joy.

There are people who do not desire any of that, really, on the surface anyway. They would rather just have fun, or get pleasure out of life, or maybe just be miserable. But I think there is an underlying desire in everyone to get away from suffering.

[Ñólendil]

I said "I believe the Truth is bereft of names". You said:

Then is the truth meaningless, or nonexistent? This reminds me of our earlier discussion about names. Didn't you say something like names are necessary to exchange thoughts?

What I said, or meant, at any rate, is that one must be able to speak with words and use names in order to interact with other people in society. I don't think words or names are useful at all when is one at one with the Truth, beyond our realm of existence. I was trying to get across the idea that the Truth is beyond names and ideas. You cannot truly, accurately, describe the Truth.

Now, I have no problem with complimentary thoughts, but I just can't accept a worldview that allows logical contradictions (all birds fly; all birds do NOT fly) because I'm a strong believer in truth, and all things become meaningless, IMO, if one accepts flat contradictions.

I think people get too caught up in the words. Imagine a wooden table. It is a table. Now imagine where it came from. The wood came from trees. The trees received water, light, and shade, and were rooted in soil. The water rained down from the clouds, which came eventually from the sea. The light came from the Sun. You can keep going with each element of the table (and you can include the people who shaped it, also), and you can keep going further and further back. It is no longer a table, when you think of it in this way. If you look at what makes the table, it is actually the water, light, shade, and soil, and other things beyond them. You can say it is a table, but it is important to understand that the table is the Sun. So, say it is a table, as long as you understand that it is the Sun. Or "Say it is a table, as long as you understand that it is not." This is the idea of interdependence, which is actually very important in Buddhism, but I bring it up to illustrate how (seeming) opposites can both be accepted as true.

The problem is, people get caught up in the names and the words. How can it be a table, or if it is not table? Let go of the word "table" for a moment, and start rethinking about names. We invented the concept of a table. We called it "table", and we said a table is a four legged piece of furniture that you can eat on. But the table came from the earth that held the seed of the tree that was cut down by the loggers, who's ancestors stretch back to the beginning of humanity, and who's bodies may ultimately come of the stardust. Call it a table, but understand that it is other things.

then I say why bother talking at all?

We need language to communicate. But I think we should understand that a name of a thing is NOT the thing that is named. I am not the name "Dylan". That's what I'm trying to say. Truth is not the word "truth", or the ideas we have about "truth". Truth cannot be accurately described. Maybe nothing can, but we need to describe them anyway to have any kind of understanding about them. We should just remember not to get too caught up in the notions about them.

That is what I mean when I say that "Truth is bereft of names".

Interesting note, the Buddhist term "nirvana", literally means "extinction of all notions".

In my research, I came across a quote from a teacher of Vedanta (Swami Prabhavananda, from The Sermon on the Mount according to Vedanta) that says Hindus "would find it easy to accept Christ as a divine incarnation and to worship Him unreservedly, exactly as he worships Krishna or another avatar of his choice. But he cannot accept Christ as the only son of God."

Now as a follower of Vedanta, do you accept this statement from a teacher of Vedanta? And since Jesus said He IS the only son of God, is Jesus just wrong about Himself, or did He deceive us, or what? Or do words and thoughts mean nothing?

Interesting that you should quote Swami Prabhavananda. He was the one who started the Southern California faction of the Vedanta Society, and the temple and monastery in Hollywood, which I attend. I have never read anything written by him. He passed away in 76, so I never met him (although my uncle did), but I have met the swamis who were guided by him, including the current head Minister: Swami Swahananda. A great, interesting man, with a wonderful sense of humor.

As a follower of Vedanta, I think I do accept the statement, but not because it was made by a teacher of Vedanta. I personally agree. I don't know why it is recorded that Jesus said he was the only son of God. I imagine it could very well be the miraculous nature of his birth. Buddha was not born like that, I do not personally believe Krishna was a historical person. What Swami Prabhavananda may have meant was that he believed by "only son" we should interpret "only incarnation", and he can't agree with that. But I think something else may have been meant by it. I certainly don't think Jesus was mistaken, or that he deceived us.

To me there's also the possibility he simply didn't, historically, say that, but I would go to other conclusions before coming to this one.

I said: "The goal of Hinduism is to become one with God"

Would your teachers at the temple agree with this statement? I don't see how they could Unless again, words are meaningless, and the word "God" means whatever you want it to. Or when you say "God" you mean Brahman, who is just reality, not any type of "person", from what I understand ...

Yes, my teachers at the temple would agree. By "God", Brahman is meant indeed, as well as other forms of God. "Brahman" is God without attributes, an impersonal nature. I would not call it "just reality". But God does HAVE attributes, God is both impersonal and personal, because God is both pure-consciousness (for example), and (for example) father and mother. When we say you are to become one with God, we do verily mean God, God the father, God the lover, God the mother, God the companion, God the baby, God the warrior, God the king, and God the Reality. Does that make sense?

There are four great sayings of Hinduism:

"Prajnanam Brahma"
("Complete Awareness is Brahman", "Pure Consciousness is Brahman")

"Aham Brahmaasmi"
("The Witness in me is Brahman", "I am Brahman")

"That Tvam Asi"
("This and That are One and the Same," "Thou Art That", "You are the Divine")

"Ayam Atma Brahma"
("Body, Mind, Soul", this saying equates the three, suggesting you act with the body, think with the mind and witness both as the Atman, or soul. I have heard it also translated, "this inner self is Brahman", which I suppose takes "Atma" and "Brahma" together)

I had to look up these meanings to make sure my memory was serving me correctly. I think they can tell you a lot about Brahman. You may be confused now, though, about the difference between Brahma and Brahman. Apparently, linguistically, they are the same word. Mythologically and Philosophically, they are different.

Are the principles that you've found true and good and healthy the same ones that are in Christianity?

Esentially yes. But I prefer the way they are presented in Vedanta better. It makes more sense to me, personally. I'm not sure what I meant by "principles". If I meant such things as the harmony of all religions, the oneness of existence, and the divinity of the soul, then that is more Vedantist than Christian, although I was a part of a church who believed all religions are equal.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvi

But why wouldn't you say "Most birds fly"?

Personally, that's what I would say
The other thing is an example of the style of talk I hear from Hindus/Buddhists, and I think (without meaning to be disrespectful at all ) that it is without meaning, and is therefore harmful if you try to make it mean anything, and I'll explain that further in my response to Ñólendil.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

What is a logical contradiction, and what is a complimentary thought? Why would "all birds fly; all birds do NOT fly" be a logical contradiction?

What I mean by "complimentary thought" is ... well, darn hard to explain by typing but I'll give it a go.

In physics, you'll hear that light acts like a wave, and light acts like a particle. Now a wave and a particle are different things, but they each have some important attributes that help to describe how light behaves. Light is a complex thing, and it is often helpful to use different analogies to describe certain parts of light - the two descriptions are complimentary, NOT contradictory. But I never confuse light with anything else.

In the Bible, it speaks strongly of the need to be prudent and plan, and it also speaks strongly of how we don't know what will happen in the future and we need to place our trust in God. One would think, why plan then, if we don't know what will happen? They are somewhat conflicting on first look, but on a deeper look, they are complimentary; each describing a different part of how we should act. IMO it is foolish and wrong (and sinful) to NOT plan for the future. I know I have a mortgage payment at the end of the month, so I don't spend all our money on, say, buying a horse (which I hope we can do someday - I love horses!) Yet I realize that I cannot put my TRUST that I will have a house in the fact that we have money in the bank now; many, MANY things can happen that might change that. My TRUST is in God. (I'm NOT saying if I trust in God that I will have a house; I'm saying I trust in God to take care of me, with or without a house.)

I'll take a stab at it... is it logical because there are elements of truth in both statements? Because some birds fly and some birds don't.

No, I'm talking formal logic in the sense of when you say something, it means something. And if you say "all birds fly", it means you think all birds fly. It is then a logical error to say "all birds do NOT fly" because contradicting statements CANNOT both be true, unless you want to abandon logic (in which case I'll decline to discuss anything - why waste time talking if it is meaningless?)

Now I'm NOT saying that I understand everything about birds, or flying, or that I'm even right, or even that that statement covers every aspect about flying. But I AM saying that if I say something, it means something, and CANNOT also mean the opposite.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

Good karma certainly does not outweight bad karma.

But from what I understand, karma from the present life determines a person's station in the next life, and that eventually, all people will be released from the cycle thru this process up going "upward". If that is true, shouldn't it mean that good karma overall outweights bad karma? (and again, I'm asking this in a respectful way; I want to know.)

But karma does not push anyone to the ultimate goal. Karma only exists in samsara, the cyclic existence of suffering. ... karma is transcended once you are at one with Brahman, and before then all you can do is attempt to live in this world in an unbiased way.

Yes, I can see it's transcended once you are at one with Brahman, but to GET there, and move thru the stations, don't you have to have predominately good karma to move up, and if it's mostly bad, you'll move down? And if we're all going to end up at one with Brahman, doesn't there have to be more good karma than bad?

As far as reincarnation being an upward trend, the idea is that it ultimately is, but people are going backwards all the time. Murderers don't move up in their next life.

Yes, I understand that part . Again, I'm talking overall.

[Ñólendil]

I disagree about those bits of logic, Rian.

Following your logic, the following does not make sense:

"God is a rock. God is not a rock."

This, according to you, (correct me if I am wrong), does not make sense. Let's add sentenced in between those statements.

"God is a rock. He is what I hold on to in this world, so that I do not flow away with the tide. He is my salvation. However, God is not made up of physical minerals, I will not pray to a boulder. God is not a rock."

Make sense? It should. The first statement, "God is a rock", is a metaphor. The second statement, "God is not a rock," is a statement meant literally. Your ideas about logic don't take important language devices into account. "God is a rock. God is not rock" can sound nonsensical, but you don't know if it's a nonsensical statement until you know what the speaker means. I am suggesting that meaning is more important than the words used for them.

Take my example.

"That is a table. That is the Sun." Is it a table, or the Sun? It can't be both, right? What if you did the add-ins?

"That is a table. The table was a tree. The tree could not survive without the Sun. The Sun is in that table. That is the Sun."

Now it's more complex, and the first statement "That is a table" is the literal statement, while "that is the Sun" is more figurative.

But you don't need the add-ins, as long as you understand that they are there. Thus "That is a table, that is the Sun" can be a perfectly true and understandable statement. One must read between the words, and beyond them.

[Rían]

And I disagree with what you said, my friend and will explain why, but it will have to wait until tomorrow. Dinner and homework call!

[Ñólendil]

But from what I understand, karma from the present life determines a person's station in the next life, and that eventually, all people will be released from the cycle thru this process up going "upward". If that is true, shouldn't it mean that good karma overall outweights bad karma? (and again, I'm asking this in a respectful way; I want to know.)

Eventually, for each individual, one's good karma must outweight one's bad karma. Eventually, for each individual, one must move "upward", yes. The process is actually practiced widely in one of the four main kinds of Yoga (which have nothing to do with physical exercises). That Yoga is called, of course, Karma Yoga, the Yoga of work and self-sacrifice. In this path to enlightenment, one focuses on one's own actions, and of non-attachment to the results of those actions. But yes, as you suggest, those actions must be positive. I now perceive I didn't understand your question before.

Accumulating good karma is most desirable. So Good Karma is good. But it won't get you to Realization unless you are not attached to the benefits of good karma. I suscribe to beliefnet.com, the Hinduism section. They send me daily Hindu wisdom, or I wouldn't remember this quote, from the Bhagavad Gita. The speaker here is Krishna, an Incarnation:

Whatever I am offered in devotion with a pure heart--a leaf, a flower, fruit, or water--I partake of that love offering. Whatever you do, make it an offering to me--the food you eat, the sacrifices you make, the help you give, even your suffering. In this way you will be freed from the bondage of karma, and from its results both pleasant and painful. Then, firm in renunciation and yoga, with your heart free, you will come to me.

"The bondage of karma", and "its results bothn pleasant and painful". That gets across what I am trying to say, I think.

Yes, I can see it's transcended once you are at one with Brahman, but to GET there, and move thru the stations, don't you have to have predominately good karma to move up, and if it's mostly bad, you'll move down? And if we're all going to end up at one with Brahman, doesn't there have to be more good karma than bad?

So yes, the good karma has to be "more" than the bad karma. You have to be moving in a positive direction, doing actions that would generate good karma. But that alone, I must stress, and you understand this, will not enable you to reach enlightenment.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Ñólendil, do you mind if I ask, in what light do you hold Chenrezig/Avalokiteshvra? (the Buddha of Compassion)

[Ñólendil]

I'm not sure what you mean.

I very much enjoy the writings of the Dalai Lama, who I understand to be the embodiment of Avalokiteshvara. But I don't profess to know much in detail about the different Buddhas, about Avalokiteshvara. I know a bit about Shakyamuni Buddha, but then, I suppose anyone who looks into Buddhism will.

I hold the Buddhas to be enlightened beings, who have attained Oneness with the Divine. I equate nirvana with God, an equation that I first came across in the writings of Thich Nhat Hanh (in Living Buddha, Living Christ, have you read that?).

So, as I don't quite understand your question, I would say that I hold the Buddha of Great Compassion in a good light.

I would greatly appreciate it if you tell me more about Avalokiteshvara. I am already grateful, I may say, for the correct spelling of that name. I have always typed it "Avolokiteshvara".

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

I'm not sure what you mean.

I very much enjoy the writings of the Dalai Lama, who I understand to be the embodiment of Avalokiteshvara. But I don't profess to know much in detail about the different Buddhas, about Avalokiteshvara. I know a bit about Shakyamuni Buddha, but then, I suppose anyone who looks into Buddhism will.

I hold the Buddhas to be enlightened beings, who have attained Oneness with the Divine. I equate nirvana with God, an equation that I first came across in the writings of Thich Nhat Hanh (in Living Buddha, Living Christ, have you read that?).

no, haven't come across that, can you quote me an ISBM?

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

So, as I don't quite understand your question, I would say that I hold the Buddha of Great Compassion in a good light.

I would greatly appreciate it if you tell me more about Avalokiteshvara. I am already grateful, I may say, for the correct spelling of that name. I have always typed it "Avolokiteshvara".

From my view, you gave a perfectly well-reasoned answer,
As with all names/places etc there are lots of spellings, but in Lamaist Buddhism, we usually use the Tibetan form, Chenrezig, easier to spell, eh?

BTW, do you know the Mantra to Avalokiteshvara?
i have it on CD

[Ñólendil]

no, haven't come across that, can you quote me an ISBM?

Oh it is a wonderful book. Means a lot to me. I want to thank you for asking for a quote, as you have allowed me to find the book, and read through it again. Maybe it is because I have not slept, but it bought tears to my eyes.

I found many quotes about the Kingdom of God being the same as nirvana. But here are two quotes which seem to equate nirvana to God Himself.

God as the groud of being cannot be conceived of. Nirvana aso cannot be conceived of. If we are aware when we use the word "nirvana" or the word "God" that we are talking about the grounds of being, there is no danger in using those words. Bt if we say, "According to Buddhism, this exists," or "This does not exist," it is not Buddhism, because the ideas of being and non-being are extremes that the Buddha transcended. When we share the Dharma, we must speak carefully so that we and our listeners do not get stuck in words or concepts. It is our duty to transcend words and concepts to be able to encounter reality. To be in touch with the source of our own wisdom is the most eloquent way to show that the Buddhism is alive. We can touch the living Buddha. We can also touch the living Christ. When we someone overflowing with love and understanding, someone who is keenly aware of what is going on, we know that they are very close to the Buddha and to Jesus Christ.

And here is the second quote which I have found:

Christian contemplation includes the practice of resting in God, which, I believe, is the equivalent of touching nirvana. Although God cannot be described by using concepts and notions, that does not mean you cannot experience God the Father. If the wave does not have to die to become water, then we do not have to die to enter the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God is available here and now. The energy of the Holy Spirit is the energy that helps us touch the Kingdom of God. Tillich has said that speaking of God as a perso is just a figure of speech. He said that God is the ground of being. This makes me think of the water that is the ground of being for the wave. He also said that God is the ultimate reality, and that makes me remember nirvana. I do not think ther is that much difference between Christians and Buddhists. Most of the boundaries we have created between our two traditions are artificial. Truth has no boundaries. Our differences may be mostly differences in emphasis.

Elsewhere Thich Nhat Hanh equates the Holy Spirit with mindfulness. It is a very good read

BTW, do you know the Mantra to Avalokiteshvara?
i have it on CD

I do not know it, but I have heard it sung. I was fortunate enough to be able to attend a talk on non-violence (and many other things) given by Thich Nhat Hanh. He was accompanied by large group of nuns and monks, some of them no more than children. They all sang a song of Avalokiteshvara in clear, soothing voices. It was very inspiring. Could you post the words, and the English meaning? That would be wonderful to know.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

That sounds like a brilliant read, i will have to see if i can find it somewhere, although i don't have many good bookshops where i live - small town syndrome, i think.

I'm afraid i don't know the english translation of the top of my head,
but the mantra itself is entitled
Om Mani Padme Hun

and it is wonderful, i have one sung as a chanted mantra, and the other set to the traditional music, with traditional tibetan instruments,

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

So yes, the good karma has to be "more" than the bad karma. You have to be moving in a positive direction, doing actions that would generate good karma. But that alone, I must stress, and you understand this, will not enable you to reach enlightenment.

Yes, I understand what you're saying