Questions about Buddhism. Eastern Vs Western line of thought

[human1111]

Hello all.

First of all I am a very determined seeker of truth. I have read countless philosophies, belief systems and religions and I have came to a dilemma.

I have read a lot about two lines of thought: Kabbalistic (Western) and Buddhist (Eastern). They are similiar in some but contradictory in others.

I have questions to those that know Buddhism:

a) Does Buddhism permanently change the nature person into something better or it just "supressess" the undesirable side of the person? If so into what? A person who wants nothing and needs nothing, or a very active and altruistic worker for the benefit of the higher purpose?

I mean when I used to meditate for a lot, I may have been calm and cool headed for a while. But once I get off meditations (vipassana) my negative traits have resumed. Some say that meditations and breath exercises calm the person but do not permanently change him.


b) Isn't it selfish to run away from the society (mentally or physically or both) don't contribute anything to it, such as labor or taxes and seek induvidual liberation as many Theravadans do?

Eastern methodics think that if some influence is negative than you should avoid it. Kabbalah says that even the negative and complex situations are there for us to overcome and grow, rather than avoid and leave it for another day to overcome.

c)Is there a way to work WITH negative traits and convert them into a positive ones rather than try to erase them? Kind a like trying to pull out a tooth rather than healing the cavity.

d) God. Buddhist do not beleive in God (of course we are not discussing the anthropomorphic fundamentalist version of it). I do not fully understand the problem about God.

I mean, Buddhists beleive in Karma. If so couldn't the automated process that "determines" exact karmic situation for each of us could be renamed as "God"? What is wrong with that?

If anyone of you are familiar with Buddhism and have spare time (site is very big) please visit the site http://kabbalah.info/engkab/book_1/book1eng_intro.htm

and provide here critique of that so that I will be better informed about either paths...

Sometimes the hardest thing to make is to decide which path to follow when there are good ones...

Thank you all!

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Human1,

thank you for the post.

we have an assortment of Buddhists that visit the board, i suspect you'll get a broad view.

a) Does Buddhism permanently change the nature person into something better or it just "supressess" the undesirable side of the person? If so into what? A person who wants nothing and needs nothing, or a very active and altruistic worker for the benefit of the higher purpose?

nothing permanent in Buddhism... all things in constant state of becoming.

b) Isn't it selfish to run away from the society (mentally or physically or both) don't contribute anything to it, such as labor or taxes and seek induvidual liberation as many Theravadans do?

Asian culture views things differently.. monks and nuns are not seen as a drain on society, the opposite in fact.

i'm a bit reluctant to comment on the Theravedan process of Arhantship... suffice it to say that the Bodhisattva ideal is found in Theravedan Buddhism as well... and, further, the main difference between the Mahayana and Hinyana views are aspects of the Vinya and the capacities of the individual beings engaged in the praxis.

c)Is there a way to work WITH negative traits and convert them into a positive ones rather than try to erase them? Kind a like trying to pull out a tooth rather than healing the cavity.

in Buddhism, this Vehicle is called Vajrayana Buddhism. in particular, the Tantric praxis of Buddhism works with the mundane and negative traits.

d) God. Buddhist do not beleive in God (of course we are not discussing the anthropomorphic fundamentalist version of it). I do not fully understand the problem about God.

describe God and we can then determine if Buddhism says anything about it one way or the other. this is really the crux of this issue... without a description of God it's rather difficult to say what, if anything, the Buddhist view is.

I mean, Buddhists beleive in Karma. If so couldn't the automated process that "determines" exact karmic situation for each of us could be renamed as "God"? What is wrong with that?

Karma isn't intelligent and it doesn't determine anything in particular. karma is a word that denotes the causal relationship between intentional actions and their consequences. if you feel comfortable deeming a causal process as God, then i suppose that you could.

 

[human1111]

Namaste Human1,

nothing permanent in Buddhism... all things in constant state of becoming.

Stream entry is a permanent in a sense that you are guranteed 7 lives at the most with no turning back...

Of course the specifics change and tiny steps to the side is possible, but is there a way to permanently gain certain qualities, paramitas and retain them?

If there was no consistency in gaining paramits how could a person become Buddha?

Asian culture views things differently.. monks and nuns are not seen as a drain on society, the opposite in fact.

Please explain. As far as I know they do not work, don't pay taxes, don't produce anything for the society in general.

describe God and we can then determine if Buddhism says anything about it one way or the other. this is really the crux of this issue... without a description of God it's rather difficult to say what, if anything, the Buddhist view is.

Since it is not a being of any kind, it is altrusitic. It wants nothing for itself (as it cannot receive anything, even our praises) it only gives. God as a law/ force behind everything controling everything and everyone.

Karma isn't intelligent and it doesn't determine anything in particular. karma is a word that denotes the causal relationship between intentional actions and their consequences. if you feel comfortable deeming a causal process as God, then i suppose that you could.

Well there are numerous graduations of it by the time of ripening, by its severity, is it destructive/constructive/obstructive/supportive etc. There has to be a "formula" that it follows, right? It has to determine your rebith, your loka, your general life direction, etc.

Thanks.

 

[Li Jiong]

Good questions and good answers, perhaps if we know what we do really want, things will be simple, perhaps there are not so many important difference between Eastern and Western.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste human1,

thank you for the post.

Stream entry is a permanent in a sense that you are guranteed 7 lives at the most with no turning back...

what does Stream Entry effect? what does this term actually signify? who is it that enters the Stream?

once you have properly cognized the answer to these queries, you'll understand why Buddhism says that there is nothing permanent. of course, we are speaking of the relative and not the Absolute, which is due to the nature of langauge and how it works and all of that sort of thing.

Of course the specifics change and tiny steps to the side is possible, but is there a way to permanently gain certain qualities, paramitas and retain them?

relatively, yes. Absolutely, no. Buddhism posits Two Truths, the Relative and the Absolute. our words and language are all pinned to the Relative and as such, we must say "no", nothing in the relative truth is permanent. from the Absolute view, we cannot say anything, one way or the other... it is ineffable.

If there was no consistency in gaining paramits how could a person become Buddha?

indeed, how could a person become a Buddha? a person doesn't become a Buddha, per se, all sentient beings are already Buddha but the dross of our mental defilments obsures this realization. think process theology, if that helps.

Please explain. As far as I know they do not work, don't pay taxes, don't produce anything for the society in general.

funerals, weddings, holidays, ceremonies et al, are part of what the monks and nuns duties are to society.

Since it is not a being of any kind, it is altrusitic. It wants nothing for itself (as it cannot receive anything, even our praises) it only gives. God as a law/ force behind everything controling everything and everyone.

based on that description, Buddhism would refute this God.

Well there are numerous graduations of it by the time of ripening, by its severity, is it destructive/constructive/obstructive/supportive etc. There has to be a "formula" that it follows, right? It has to determine your rebith, your loka, your general life direction, etc.

Thanks.

no formulas other than cause and effect. perhaps, a more thorough explanation would help elucidate some of the finer points. now.. it should be said that unawakened beings are not really able to discern the full range of Karma... as such, we can only really talk about some aspects of it.

further... karma is only one of 24 other factors which influence ones rebirth, karma is not the only thing.

this view of kamma (karma) is mostly from the Theravedan view:

Karma is the law of moral causation. The theory of Karma is a fundamental doctrine in Buddhism. This belief was prevalent in India before the advent of the Buddha. Nevertheless, it was the Buddha who explained and formulated this doctrine in the complete form in which we have it today.

Perplexed by the seemingly inexplicable, apparent disparity that existed among humanity, a young truth-seeker approached the Buddha and questioned him regarding this intricate problem of inequality:

"What is the cause, what is the reason, O Lord," questioned he, "that we find amongst mankind the short-lived and long-lived, the healthy and the diseased, the ugly and beautiful, those lacking influence and the powerful, the poor and the rich, the low-born and the high-born, and the ignorant and the wise?"

The Buddha’s reply was:

"All living beings have actions (Karma) as their own, their inheritance, their congenital cause, their kinsman, their refuge. It is Karma that differentiates beings into low and high states."

He then explained the cause of such differences in accordance with the law of cause and effect.

Certainly we are born with hereditary characteristics. At the same time we possess certain innate abilities that science cannot adequately account for. To our parents we are indebted for the gross sperm and ovum that form the nucleus of this so-called being. They remain dormant within each parent until this potential germinal compound is vitalised by the karmic energy needed for the production of the foetus. Karma is therefore the indispensable conceptive cause of this being.

The accumulated karmic tendencies, inherited in the course of previous lives, at times play a far greater role than the hereditary parental cells and genes in the formation of both physical and mental characteristics.

The Buddha, for instance, inherited, like every other person, the reproductive cells and genes from his parents. But physically, morally and intellectually there was none comparable to him in his long line of Royal ancestors. In the Buddha’s own words, he belonged not to the Royal lineage, but to that of the Aryan Buddhas. He was certainly a superman, an extraordinary creation of his own Karma.

According to the Lakkhana Sutta of Digha Nikaya, the Buddha inherited exceptional features, such as the 32 major marks, as the result of his past meritorious deeds. The ethical reason for acquiring each physical feature is clearly explained in the Sutta.

It is obvious from this unique case that karmic tendencies could not only influence our physical organism, but also nullify the potentiality of the parental cells and genes – hence the significance of the Buddha’s enigmatic statement, - "We are the heirs of our own actions."

Dealing with this problem of variation, the Atthasalini, being a commentary on the Abhidharma, states:

"Depending on this difference in Karma appears the differences in the birth of beings, high and low, base and exalted, happy and miserable. Depending on the difference in Karma appears the difference in the individual features of beings as beautiful and ugly, high-born or low born, well-built or deformed. Depending on the difference in Karma appears the difference in worldly conditions of beings, such as gain and loss, and disgrace, blame and praise, happiness and misery."

Thus, from a Buddhist point of view, our present mental, moral intellectual and temperamental differences are, for the most part, due to our own actions and tendencies, both past and present.

Although Buddhism attributes this variation to Karma, as being the chief cause among a variety, it does not, however, assert that everything is due to Karma. The law of Karma, important as it is, is only one of the twenty-four conditions described in Buddhist Philosophy.

Refuting the erroneous view that "whatsoever fortune or misfortune experienced is all due to some previous action", the Buddha said:

"So, then, according to this view, owing to previous action men will become murderers, thieves, unchaste, liars, slanderers, covetous, malicious and perverts. Thus, for those who fall back on the former deeds as the essential reason, there is neither the desire to do, nor effort to do, nor necessity to do this deed, or abstain from this deed."

It was this important text, which states the belief that all physical circumstances and mental attitudes spring solely from past Karma that Buddha contradicted. If the present life is totally conditioned or wholly controlled by our past actions, then certainly Karma is tantamount to fatalism or determinism or predestination. If this were true, free will would be an absurdity. Life would be purely mechanistic, not much different from a machine. Being created by an Almighty God who controls our destinies and predetermines our future, or being produced by an irresistible Karma that completely determines our fate and controls our life’s course, independent of any free action on our part, is essentially the same. The only difference lies in the two words God and Karma. One could easily be substituted for the other, because the ultimate operation of both forces would be identical.

Such a fatalistic doctrine is not the Buddhist law of Karma.

continued next post.....

 

[Vajradhara]

continued....


According to Buddhism, there are five orders or processes (niyama) which operate in the physical and mental realms.

They are:

Utu Niyama - physical inorganic order, e.g. seasonal phenomena of winds and rains. The unerring order of seasons, characteristic seasonal changes and events, causes of winds and rains, nature of heat, etc., all belong to this group.

Bija Niyama - order of germs and seeds (physical organic order), e.g. rice produced from rice-seed, sugary taste from sugar-cane or honey, peculiar characteristics of certain fruits, etc. The scientific theory of cells and genes and the physical similarity of twins may be ascribed to this order.

Karma Niyama - order of act and result, e.g., desirable and undesirable acts produce corresponding good and bad results. As surely as water seeks its own level so does Karma, given opportunity, produce its inevitable result, not in the form of a reward or punishment but as an innate sequence. This sequence of deed and effect is as natural and necessary as the way of the sun and the moon.

Dhamma Niyama - order of the norm, e.g., the natural phenomena occurring at the advent of a Bodhisattva in his last birth. Gravitation and other similar laws of nature. The natural reason for being good and so forth, may be included in this group.

Citta Niyama - order or mind or psychic law, e.g., processes of consciousness, arising and perishing of consciousness, constituents of consciousness, power of mind, etc., including telepathy, telaesthesia, retro-cognition, premonition, clairvoyance, clairaudience, thought-reading and such other psychic phenomena which are inexplicable to modern science.

Every mental or physical phenomenon could be explained by these all-embracing five orders or processes which are laws in themselves. Karma as such is only one of these five orders. Like all other natural laws they demand no lawgiver.

Of these five, the physical inorganic order and the order of the norm are more or less mechanistic, though they can be controlled to some extent by human ingenuity and the power of mind. For example, fire normally burns, and extreme cold freezes, but man has walked scatheless over fire and meditated naked on Himalayan snows; horticulturists have worked marvels with flowers and fruits; Yogis have performed levitation. Psychic law is equally mechanistic, but Buddhist training aims at control of mind, which is possible by right understanding and skilful volition. Karma law operates quite automatically and, when the Karma is powerful, man cannot interfere with its inexorable result though he may desire to do so; but here also right understanding and skilful volition can accomplish much and mould the future. Good Karma, persisted in, can thwart the reaping of bad Karma, or as some Western scholars prefer to say ‘action influence’, is certainly an intricate law whose working is fully comprehended only by a Buddha. The Buddhist aims at the final destruction of all Karma.

WHAT IS KARMA?

The Pali term Karma literally means action or doing. Any kind of intentional action whether mental, verbal, or physical, is regarded as Karma. It covers all that is included in the phrase "thought, word and deed". Generally speaking, all good and bad action constitutes Karma. In its ultimate sense Karma means all moral and immoral volition. Involuntary, unintentional or unconscious actions, though technically deeds, do not constitute Karma, because volition, the most important factor in determining Karma, is absent.

The Buddha says:

"I declare, O Bhikkhus, that volition is Karma. Having willed one acts by body, speech, and thought." (Anguttara Nikaya)

Every volitional action of individuals, save those of Buddhas and Arahants {and Bodhisattvas [vajradhara]}, is called Karma. The exception made in their case is because they are delivered from both good and evil; they have eradicated ignorance and craving, the roots of Karma.

"Destroyed are their germinal seeds (Khina bija); selfish desires no longer grow," states the Ratana Sutta of Sutta nipata.

This does not mean that the Buddha and Arahants are passive. They are tirelessly active in working for the real well being and happiness of all. Their deeds ordinarily accepted as good or moral, lack creative power as regards to themselves. Understanding things as they truly are, they have finally shattered their cosmic fetters – the chain of cause and effect.

Karma does not necessarily mean past actions. It embraces both past and present deeds. Hence in one sense, we are the result of what we were; we will be the result of what we are. In another sense, it should be added, we are not totally the result of what we were; we will not absolutely be the result of what we are. The present is no doubt the offspring of the past and is the present of the future, but the present is not always a true index of either the past or the future; so complex is the working of Karma.

It is this doctrine of Karma that the mother teaches her child when she says "Be good and you will be happy and we will love you; but if you are bad, you will be unhappy and we will not love you." In short, Karma is the law of cause and effect in the ethical realm.

 

[iBrian]

Hi Li Jiong, and welcome to CR.

 

[human1111]

Thank you for a very interesting post! Those are from Tibetan/tantric buddhism? Because when I studied theravadan buddhism, I did not encounter these things (and I've read a lot from Pali Cannon, in english).

continued....
According to Buddhism, there are five orders or processes (niyama) which operate in the physical and mental realms.
Like all other natural laws they demand no lawgiver.

Could G-d be an underlying natural law that is behind and/or includes those five?

Karma does not necessarily mean past actions. It embraces both past and present deeds. Hence in one sense, we are the result of what we were; we will be the result of what we are. In another sense, it should be added, we are not totally the result of what we were; we will not absolutely be the result of what we are. The present is no doubt the offspring of the past and is the present of the future, but the present is not always a true index of either the past or the future; so complex is the working of Karma.

Doesn't this support determination? In other words, what if due unwholesome kamma a person is reborn in a place where s/he cannot do good and can only do evil to survive. Wouldn't that send a person into almost eternal rollercoaster ride to hell (a negative kamma constantly magnifying like a snowball effect)?

Thanks again!

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Human111,

thank you for the post.

Thank you for a very interesting post! Those are from Tibetan/tantric buddhism? Because when I studied theravadan buddhism, I did not encounter these things (and I've read a lot from Pali Cannon, in english).

the Sutras cited are from the Pali canon, in the referenced post.

Could G-d be an underlying natural law that is behind and/or includes those five?

i'm unclear of the significance of positing an underlying law which lies under the other laws... which are called laws for lingusitic purposes only.

could God be a natural law? i suppose that God could be. that isn't the typical definition that one finds beings hold with regards to a Creator God. there is a Christian Protestant Theologian named Paul Tillich who said that God was the "Ground of Being" from which all things come forth. Buddhists, generally, wouldn't have a huge problem with a definition of this nature... however... it should be understood that Buddhism teaches that there is nothing which can rightly be regarded as the "root" cause.

Doesn't this support determination? In other words, what if due unwholesome kamma a person is reborn in a place where s/he cannot do good and can only do evil to survive. Wouldn't that send a person into almost eternal rollercoaster ride to hell (a negative kamma constantly magnifying like a snowball effect)?

Thanks again!

Although Buddhism attributes this variation to Karma, as being the chief cause among a variety, it does not, however, assert that everything is due to Karma. The law of Karma, important as it is, is only one of the twenty-four conditions described in Buddhist Philosophy.

Refuting the erroneous view that "whatsoever fortune or misfortune experienced is all due to some previous action", the Buddha said:

"So, then, according to this view, owing to previous action men will become murderers, thieves, unchaste, liars, slanderers, covetous, malicious and perverts. Thus, for those who fall back on the former deeds as the essential reason, there is neither the desire to do, nor effort to do, nor necessity to do this deed, or abstain from this deed."

It was this important text, which states the belief that all physical circumstances and mental attitudes spring solely from past Karma that Buddha contradicted. If the present life is totally conditioned or wholly controlled by our past actions, then certainly Karma is tantamount to fatalism or determinism or predestination. If this were true, free will would be an absurdity. Life would be purely mechanistic, not much different from a machine. Being created by an Almighty God who controls our destinies and predetermines our future, or being produced by an irresistible Karma that completely determines our fate and controls our life’s course, independent of any free action on our part, is essentially the same. The only difference lies in the two words God and Karma. One could easily be substituted for the other, because the ultimate operation of both forces would be identical.

Karma does not necessarily mean past actions. It embraces both past and present deeds. Hence in one sense, we are the result of what we were; we will be the result of what we are. In another sense, it should be added, we are not totally the result of what we were; we will not absolutely be the result of what we are. The present is no doubt the offspring of the past and is the present of the future, but the present is not always a true index of either the past or the future; so complex is the working of Karma.

 

[bgn]

Sawasdee all,
May I share my opinion? Firstly, I have been a Theravadan buddhist for more than 30 years but just started to really practice meditation few months ago (not too late tho) .
Seconly, as English is not my first language, there might be some grammatical and wording errors.

a) Does Buddhism permanently change the nature person into something better or it just "supressess" the undesirable side of the person? If so into what? A person who wants nothing and needs nothing, or a very active and altruistic worker for the benefit of the higher purpose?

I mean when I used to meditate for a lot, I may have been calm and cool headed for a while. But once I get off meditations (vipassana) my negative traits have resumed. Some say that meditations and breath exercises calm the person but do not permanently change him.

Everything is anicca (unsteady, inconsistent), dukkha (suffering, pain etc) and anatta (ownerless) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html#kammatthana.

Meditation, as I understand, means "bhavana" which consists of "vipassana" and "samadhi" bhavana (please see the link above). If one practices just samadhi, he would be calm but it won't last forever. We have to do both vipassana and samadhi (for a long long time depending on individual skill) to get enlightened. Nothing is really permanent uless you attain nirvana.

b) Isn't it selfish to run away from the society (mentally or physically or both) don't contribute anything to it, such as labor or taxes and seek induvidual liberation as many Theravadans do?

Eastern methodics think that if some influence is negative than you should avoid it. Kabbalah says that even the negative and complex situations are there for us to overcome and grow, rather than avoid and leave it for another day to overcome.

No not really selfish at all. People are not forced but glad to give them food, medicine, dress and temple. Apart from what Vajradhara said, Theravada monks also teach and train common people to improve their mind. This contribution is even more valuable than anything related to MONEY.

c)Is there a way to work WITH negative traits and convert them into a positive ones rather than try to erase them? Kind a like trying to pull out a tooth rather than healing the cavity.

Keep training your mind in the right way (I won't give more comments as I myself haven't achieve it so far)

d) God. Buddhist do not beleive in God (of course we are not discussing the anthropomorphic fundamentalist version of it). I do not fully understand the problem about God.

Personally, I neither accept nor deny the existent of God. According to the four noble truths, I would emphasise on how to remove or suppress suffering. It is like if we are prickled (dukkha), the first thing to do is pulling it out of our foot and perhaps going to a hospital. You don't need to waste time to find out where that sharp prickle came from and what sort of plant it is before unprickling it.

That is just my view and I won't say that it is correct or wrong. Just add my two cents in.
see also http://www.buddhistinformation.com/good_question,_good_answer.htm

 

[MindFreak]

The teachings of the Buddha are meant to point one to the true reality, which exists whether or not the teachings themselves do. Awakening, enlightenment, nirvana, bodhi, whatever, doesnt change a person it just awakens them to what really is.

 

[No essential nature]

Wow, Vajradhara has certainly given you a lot to read! let me say first, that I think there is fudnamnetal unity to be found not so much between Religions, but between great thinkers in all religions, and i am far from alone among Buddhists in thinking this (eg. Thich Nhat Hanh's Living Buddha Living Christ)

Now, a previous Pope has declared Buddhism fundamentally incompatable with Christianity because of the difference about Creation, I believe - a key Buddhist tenet is that existence always has been, quite differntly to the western outlook that there must have been a first cause, a key christian tenet. However, I think this results from a misguided view - before the Universe, God still existed. In Judaism I think this issue is different - two accounts of creation are given in the Torah.

I should state that Vajradhara's outlook appears principally influenced by Tibtetan Buddhism, whereas mine is by Zen.

a) Does Buddhism permanently change the nature person into something better or it just "supressess" the undesirable side of the person? If so into what? A person who wants nothing and needs nothing, or a very active and altruistic worker for the benefit of the higher purpose?

For me this quote sums up the aim of Buddhism, as simply as can be. Buddhas was asked "How do we know that you are enlightened?" He said "I know what should be known. I have cultivated what should be cultivated. I have let go what should be let go. Thus I am awake."

Its that simple - not supressing anything, but no longer regretting or wishing anything about you was different. So i would say that latter, but of course it may be different for everyone. Deciding which is what of course is where the teaching and the teachers come in, but they can only help.

I mean when I used to meditate for a lot, I may have been calm and cool headed for a while. But once I get off meditations (vipassana) my negative traits have resumed. Some say that meditations and breath exercises calm the person but do not permanently change him.

Even Scientologists meditate. Single point meditation is only half of it, you should be practicing mindfulness meditation too - it is not simply about calming, but seeking the inner reserves of insight and wisdom that we too often drown out.

b) Isn't it selfish to run away from the society (mentally or physically or both) don't contribute anything to it, such as labor or taxes and seek induvidual liberation as many Theravadans do?

Eastern methodics think that if some influence is negative than you should avoid it. Kabbalah says that even the negative and complex situations are there for us to overcome and grow, rather than avoid and leave it for another day to overcome.

I agree, this is the perception and perhaps often the practice. However, extinguishing hate anger and ignorance, and being motivated by wisdom and compassion should logically lead to helping others, not just spiritually but from all suffering.

c)Is there a way to work WITH negative traits and convert them into a positive ones rather than try to erase them? Kind a like trying to pull out a tooth rather than healing the cavity.

Work with what you got! The Buddha emphasized again and again that its better to take a single step along the path, than to put it off because you cannot see the end or think you won't get there. It is meant simply to be medicine, and while somtimes that may have to be a scourge or sting, it only does so in respect of returning to health and balance.

d) God. Buddhist do not beleive in God (of course we are not discussing the anthropomorphic fundamentalist version of it). I do not fully understand the problem about God.

I've done a quick search and couldn't find it, but as I say I know there is a papal proclamation out there that could clarify this.

Buddhism would have to see God as impermenent, composite and subject to change, unless possibly He is the totality of all being - essential not a coherent mind of a personal God. But then Muslims are much more accepting of the seemingly obvious fact God must be beyond our understanding.. know anything about Sufism? Along with Kabbalah its an, outlook, i find very interesting.