Last night I rewatched a documentary about Buddha cause most things, if they have information worth gleaning, require multiple experiences. I suppose it was that frame of mind that suggested a thing I had not realized. When he was searching for a true answer he found sources, yes, but he did not stop with one. It reminds me of what I think about my own children. I woukd not want them to simply take my word for something. I would not want my kids to believe a thing simply because that was what they were taught.
Bhuda found things that were not what he believed originally, and he did not stop because he found truth. Nor figure simply because a thing was not true then others were.
It is not to say the things I teach my children are not true, I merely hopethey would know why. I remember a thing I told my philosophy professor in college. I told him that the reason I seemed like a philosophy major was because I was Mormon. If the conversation had been longer it would have included that I was merely an Amatuer or lover of deep thoughts. He asked what being mormon had to do with it. I explained that inthe Bible Belt I needed to know what I believed and why (Whereas many "saints" happened to be born in places like Utah to LDS families, which we believe is just and a great great blessing ). To summarize, I was Mormon by choice in a place where one was heavily rediculed using scripture and not just trivial arguments.
Before I leave my writing I have another thing to say which is off topic ( There was a topic? ) Have you ever considered that Adam was not allowed the opportunity of choosing a wife? He did; however, choose to eat the fruit in order to stay with her as was commanded. Seems like a pretty good guy, to me. Uh, which brings me back on topic. Both Adam and Buddha were seeking truth and reconcilliation.
But, likely because I had not challanged such thinking, my thoughts side with Adam as being more noble. In my mind, Adam held fast to what he knew was right and rejected things no matter how great they seemed unless he knew. He knew already that he would be redeemed and would accept nothing less.
I never got the feeling that buddha was certain about anything. He could not even believe that he would surely find a reconcilliation or escape from the plights of mortality. My idea was that both of them set an example of how to find ( deduce )what truly is.
It is all about multiple testimonies independent of eachother comming to a conclusion. I read about that yesterday in a post about DNA kits. Brilliantly, a woman searching to find the truth tried multiple DNA kits to see if results were actually based on her donated sample of spit.
Ok, too much time for today already, 👋
