I found this one among thousands Buddhist story timely and wanted to share with you folks:
Once a very old king went to see an old hermit who lived in a bird's nest in the top of a tree, "What is the most important Buddhist teaching?" The hermit answered, "Do no evil, do only good. Purify your heart." The king had expected to hear a very long explanation. He protested, "But even a five-year old child can understand that!" "Yes," replied the wise sage, "but even an 80-year-old man cannot do it."

iZen,

Are there any websites u can reffer to me, so I could visit em at times. That would be great. As I get time, I have always tried to spend my time reading about Spirtual experiences by SIDDHAS. Those moral studies, such as u posted, would help to expand my horizons of spiritual knowledge a bit. Thank you.

-BD

On a lighter note.. Gyanendra isn't an octogenarian...
but hey why point out only Gyanendra when he wan't the one who started " the evil, " (assuming you and i are on the same page on the this term). What he is trying is to preserve Neapl and Neplai's "astitva."
Gave all these so called netas 10-15 years why not give him a shot too?

Hi BD,
How are you?Long time no chat.
Nothing serious bud.I am here and there before this screen.There are many you can surf for words of wisdom.Focus has been Buddism lately so I am logged on few sites:My favorite though has been
www.buddhanet.net
And google search ofcourse short-cut to "nirvana":)
say like "bhagavad gita" or "dhammapada".Isn't that simple?
I find jesus's teaching equally fascinating a virtually find him before my face next to that olive tree typing "sermon on the mount"
Planning to study koran some day.
"I have heard really good things about its teachings.
Wherever I find drops of wisdom.Solace.:)
Hello DT,
Couldn't agree more..Gyanendra isn't an octogenarian.It applies same to our other shree 3,4 octogenarians democratic leaders.

"Gave all these so called netas 10-15 years why not give him a shot too? "
:-& you know what I mean :)

Thanks iZen.

Ya, same here, Bible is sitting right of the seat of my car. Started to read, but haven't completed. Koran, I haven't seen its Cover yet. Hopefully some day. But people who read all those were saying they all were giving the same message that Hinduism and Buddisim explored. But, anyway time will come for everying if I hope for the best, Right ?

Well, I have read the book " where are you going" by Swami Muktananda Baba. Here is the official web site for SIDDHA YOGA:

http://www.siddhayoga.org/index.html

I am excited about the SAKTIPATH & KUNDALINI, which could be achieved or at least try to achieve through GURU's teaching and working hard by myself. Well. I would like to wish you achieve the spiritual powers the way you have choosen. Whatever way we follow, the distination would be the same. Let's Share Ideas at times. Thank you.

-BD

Good Morning BD,
Thanks for sharing the website.I am impressed :) you are reading bible.I am kind of skeptical about the whole "genesis" theory.I rather follow Charles Darwin and his evolution which is more meaningful.But the teachings of Jesus which you find on "Sermon on the mount" is what I find more meaningful.You are right they all have the same message.Like Krishna said on Gita:"All road leads to me".Aren't we all heading towards same destiny?
Drop by some whenever you can.

I heard people say "the bible says this and the bible says that.." so I eventually decided to take a peek. Read it with an open mind and Gosh what I think is people twist the words according to their likings and needs. Nowhere did I find anything that leads to what some of the conservatives say. I also did realize that people look at excerpts and not the whole picture.

His teachings(jesus) are universal regardless what conservatives and liberals twist them for their vested interests.It is really daunting for politicians from either sides to live the words if they dare to do so.The only human being who has lived or tried lived the words of "Sermon on the mount" was Gandhi who happens to be a non-christian politician.And he did pay dear price for doing so.
Once you are labeled a conservative or a liberal you are already in conflict with the teachings of basic human values.And that is where the real problem lies.

"Once you are labeled a conservative or a liberal you are already in conflict with the teachings of basic human values"I hate to be the one but I don?t quite agree with this. I bet you no one ever wants to be a label. No politicians would want to be called a liberal or conservative. It is another who labels a person. It just so happens that their values are different, they have been taught differently.

How would you define the political philosophies of GW Bush and Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts?Ask Ted Kennedy if he would be comfortable by being labeled as a conservative.And you know the answer.Bush's campaign in the first election was based upon his own comassionate what?.Yes my friend compassionate conservatism which the republican were proud to market.
"Jeffersonian Bible" which Thomas Jefferson enunciated is a reflection of liberal political views.Basic human values taught by the prophets like Jesus versus conservatism/liberalism is like church versus state.It is important for politicians to hold those principles otherwise they have no firm standing.You are saying liberal or conservatives donot exist.Personally I have my own political philosophies like everyone else which I may not want to reveal here publicly but nevertheless.Come on how can you be a liberal and a conservative at the same time?

Read all the above posts. I've just changed my way during this travel. I used to read religious texts like Buddha n' all n' used to feel good knowing about all these best things. But when I'm back to life, I do the same shit to myself n' others. For me, it happened to be just a 'Buddi Bilas'. I tend to develop more ego as I can cite more examples during talks n' people get impressed during conversations. But personally I knew that I'm back at the same level as I was before reading all these texts. So I just doubt whether reading is ever gonna help me. I now read only what is required for me like text books or novels or some other brilliant ideas n' i don't crave to read for any religious books like Bible or koran n' i would never read probably. I've realized the most important thing is to learn and know about myself. The knowledge about me will help me to realize that I'm not different than others, will broaden my mind n' my way of looking at stuffs.

Isn?t being Liberal or Conservative based on some specific issues? So one issue at a time I can bet that not all liberals or conservatives agree to everything that their side stands for or is supposed to stand for. The result they are labeled moderate. So what is moderate? Doesn?t it mean agreeing to some liberal as well as conservative issues?
As for Ted Kennedy and George Bush, they are two sides of the river that never meets? you know what I mean :)

Well, apart from being a linguistic tool, labels are necessary as functional and utilitarian entity in achieving goals, at least politically, I think. Philosophically, one could argue for the non-dual nature of human consciousness and any attempt to divide it as simply futile act of projecting one?s ego and limitations. But politicians and average human beings by nature hardly have easy time processing, digesting and carrying out such high philosophy in every-day life. It becomes very difficult to live up to the high-flight of universalism when your sole individuality puts a claim on itself over everything else. As a result, on a continuous sub-stratum of human consciousness we draw boundaries and limitations and diverge and disconnect from each other because we want to know ourselves, define ourselves in individual terms that gives our individuality/ego comfort. To incorporate the 'whole', by definition means to get rid of the part, the part that is you, or the limited idea that is of you. Consequently, most of us, at least the non-Arhants or non-Bodhisattvas shy-away from ideas where our identity is not tangible to ourselves, something we cannot measure or point out so easily. Thus, in politics it becomes essential for members to create a 'package' and present it to the public so that they can 'know' who or what they (person/parties) are. Liberalism usually have open-ended agendas, meaning things are not always clearly defined which become vague after some point Most of it assumes a conceptual understanding that requires us to step outside of our everyday selves which frankly is not everyone?s cup of tea. Conservatism on the other hand campaigns on what is already visible and experienced and does not always require us to give up our comfortable individual ground hence more popular among the traditionalists.

where does one's logic come into play then?

Logical proofs depend on premises you choose to deduce an argument and the means of such premises (perception, inference, experience etc.). If the chosen premises already have biases then one cannot expect the conclusion to be a fair and un-biased deduction. As for choosing premises fairly, ordinary languages only help to certain extent because we constantly run into mis-interpretation. Thus, a formal set is used within logical structures (with its own rules, like propositions) that allow us to deduce any statement, event with some degree of confidence. However, when we use logic in our daily lives, we necessarily do not examine the truths of each and every premise, since those premises are born out of various means (like perception, inference) which we for granted take to be conclusive truths already (like, I saw such and such so it must be true!). So, to answer your question after all this mumbo jumbo, yes, there is enough room for logic, but just depends on how cleanly one uses it to reach a conclusion.

You can logically prove things that isn't so. Especially law and logic go hand in hand. as you say logical proof depends on the premises. However, beetween premises are embedded assumptions. The assumtions become unstated premises and one can always challenge these assumptions. Thus i guess there comes the rift between right and left.

Functionally, you could challenge some assumptions but not all (though you could hypothetically). You say assumptions are embedded in premises, I could further stretch and claim definitions are embedded in assumptions. So, we regress enough until we re-define the event, theory, experience and what have you until an agreeable (or not) definition is found. This leads to not only a rift between political left and right but a major idelogical/phisophical divide in which we will be forced to choose sides at some point.

I agree that it leads to a divide both philoshopical/ideological but can't one person be on an extrerme right on one issue and extreme left on the other? sounds kinds corny but it is. OK politicians are presented as a "package" but what about judges and lawyers? they don't run for any election, they are appointees and are to judge each case with an open mind so is it fair for them to choose sides even before hearing the facts of the case??

What Gynendra should learn?
Nothing ... Shre 5 Dr. Gyanendra Bir Bikram Shahdev has nothing to learn, not any more. Drink, sex, relax and suck. Send that fat Shree 5 Rani on a vacation to Switzerland or so, and whole Darbariyas are his. Throw the extra bones to his dogs. This ethics he learnt while growing up. Is there anything else to learn, I don't think so.

Jaya Dr. Gyanendra

Possibly, one could agree to different principles of different political groups. In such cases, I guess we just go with the ones that 'weigh' more than others if one is really forced to choose sides, else we could be comfortable with our 'non-voting' status of immigrant and simply be a critical observer without a need for or offer of a label. I think lawyers are more driven by specifics of a case relavant to contemporary time and situation rather than deep philosophical quest to carry-out/project their ideological slant into legal practice. But, legally there is no conflict if a lawyer believes in conservative agenda and wants to practice and specialize that within a legal framework. Judges on the other hand are ideally expected to be 'neutral', at least when judging a case or interpreting the constitution. But, in realistic terms, do you really think a person can be so objective and logical to a point so as not to affect the merit ofa case by their ideological slant to certain extent, especially when one is appointed by administration/president who blatently announce their ideological/philosophical preference or platform? I am kind of skeptical, aren't you?