[p.3] …like all religions – does have the potential to help certain types of people. It is clear that for some people the Christian approach is more effective than the Buddhist one. It depends on the individual’s mental disposition.
[p.5] Whether or not we like the philosophy of other religions isn’t really the point. For a non-Buddhist, the idea of nirvana and a next life seems nonsensical. Similarly, to Buddhist the idea of a Creator God sometimes sounds like nonsense. But these things don’t matter, we can drop them. The point is that through these different traditions, a very negative person can be transformed into a very good person. That is the purpose of religion – and that is the actual result. This alone is a sufficient reason to respect other religion.
[p.6] The Dharma is like medicine. The main value of medicine is that it cures illness, it is not just a question of very precious and expensive, but if it is not appropriate for the patient, then it is of no use.
[p.7] Whenever I introduce the Buddhist teachings, I make a point of presenting them in term of two basic principles. the first of these is the interdependent nature of reality. All Buddhist philosophy rests on an understanding of this basic truth. The second principle is that if non-violence, which is the action taken by a Buddhist practitioner who has the view of the interdependent nature of reality. Non-violence essentially means that we should do not best to help others and, if this is not possible, should at the very least refrain from harming them.
[10] …Buddha…should not confine…historical person…buddhahood should be based on…levels of spiritual realization…buddhahood is a spiritual state of being.
[p.55] This process of momentary change is not due to a secondary condition that arises to destroy something, but rather the very cause that led a thing to arise is also the cause of its destruction. In other words, within the causes of its origin lies the cause of its cessation.
[p.61] So to summarize, Three Conditions (Condition of the Existence of a Cause, Condition of Impermanence, & Condition of Potentiality) are necessary for anything to arise: a cause should exist, t should be impermanent, and it should correlate with the effect.
[p.64] …when we try to investigate our mind through introspection, we find that it tends to be dominated either by discursive thoughts or by feelings and sensations.
[p.72] … in Buddhism we talk about two types of ignorance, or avidya: ignorance of the laws of karma, and ignorance of the ultimate nature of reality.
[p.76] If we analyze a single karmic action, we can see that there are several stages within that event. There is a beginning, which is the stage of the motivation or intention; there is the actual execution of the act; and then there is the culmination or completion of the act.
[p.77] Let us take the example of a negative action, If, at the stage of motivation, the person has a very strong negative emotion like anger, and then acts on an impulse and carries out the action, but immediately afterwards feels deep regret for the action he has committed, all three stages would not be completely fulfilled. Consequently, the action would be less powerful compared to an instance where the person has acted out all stages completely – with a strong motivation, actual execution, and a sense of taking pleasure or satisfaction from the act committed.
[p.78] It is important to understand the significance of this point, and to appreciate that since there are different stages to every act, karmic actions themselves are composite, and their quality can be characterized as the cumulative result of each of their composing factors.
[p.83-84] … whether consciousness…sentient beings are produced by karma, it seems the answer should be ‘no’. But on the other hand, if we ask whether the human body and the human consciousness are products of karma, the the answer is ‘yes’. because both result from virtuous actions… if we were to ask whether or not our natural instinct to seek happiness and overcome suffering is a product of karma, it seems the answer would again be ‘no’.
[p.84-85] For example, in Buddhist analysis we use what we call the Four Principles. The first is the Principle of Nature: the fact that things exist, and that causes lead to effects. We could almost say that this principle implies an acceptance od natural laws.Then we have the Principle of Efficacy: this deals with the way things have the capacity to produce certain results according to their nature. The third is the Principle of Dependence: given the ffirst two pronciples, we see there is a natural dependent between things and events, between causes and effects. On the basis of these three principles, Buddhist critical analysis applies various types of reasoning to broaden or deepen our understanding of the natural world. Therefore, the fourth principle we accept is the Principle of Valid Proof: given this , that must be the case; and given that this should be the case. [Karma and the Nature]
[p.88] However, the nature of consciousness is sheer luminosity, mere experience; it is the primordial knowing faculty, and therefore it cannot be produced from matter whose nature is different. It follows that since consciousness cannot arise without a cause, and since it cannot arise from a material cause, it must come from a ceaseless contiuum. It is on this premise that Buddhism accepts the existence of (beginningless) former lives.