“The mind is everything. What you think, you become.”

the-mind-is-everything.-what-you-think-you-become-buddha-235x300“What you think, you become,” or sometimes “The mind is everything. What you think, you become,” is commonly attributed to the Buddha, but doesn’t isn’t scriptural. At best an overly-free — well, inaccurate — paraphrase.

Jayarava did a blog article on this one some time ago and concluded it was not from the Buddha. His exposition is rather long, but worth reading. I agree with him, by the way.

The closest I know of to this quote is in Majjhima Nikaya 19, “Whatever a monk keeps pursuing with his thinking and pondering, that becomes the inclination of his awareness.” That’s a rather different statement, of course.

“What you think, you become” has always puzzled me. If I think about Lady Gaga I’m not going to become an outré pop star. But that’s probably just me being literalist. I suppose it’s intended to mean something like “Whatever a monk keeps pursuing with his thinking and pondering, that becomes the inclination of his awareness.”

Here’s a fuller version of that quote:

Whatever a monk keeps pursuing with his thinking and pondering, that becomes the inclination of his awareness. If a monk keeps pursuing thinking imbued with sensuality, abandoning thinking imbued with renunciation, his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with sensuality. If a monk keeps pursuing thinking imbued with ill will, abandoning thinking imbued with non-ill will, his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with ill will. If a monk keeps pursuing thinking imbued with harmfulness, abandoning thinking imbued with harmlessness, his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with harmfulness.

This is from a sutta called the Dvedhavitakka, or “Two Modes of Thinking,” where the Buddha is talking about his realization, before his Enlightenment, that there were two tendencies within the mind.

First, he would notice that, ‘Thinking imbued with sensuality [or ill will, or harmfulness] has arisen in me; and that leads to my own affliction or to the affliction of others or to the affliction of both. It obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, and does not lead to Nibbana.’

He further noticed that as he mindfully observed this kind of thinking, with an awareness that it led to suffering, it would subside.

Second, he would notice that ‘Thinking imbued with renunciation [and non ill will, and non-harmfulness] has arisen in me; and that leads neither to my own affliction, nor to the affliction of others, nor to the affliction of both. It fosters discernment, promotes lack of vexation, and leads to Nibbana.’

And having observed the arising of this kind of thinking, he would give it his mindful attention. As he says, in a rather lovely simile:

Just as in the last month of the hot season, when all the crops have been gathered into the village, a cowherd would look after his cows: While resting under the shade of a tree or out in the open, he simply keeps himself mindful of ‘those cows.’ In the same way, I simply kept myself mindful of ‘those mental qualities.’

From that point on, to cut a long story short, he entered the jhānas and then got enlightened.

So this is the context of “Whatever a monk keeps pursuing with his thinking and pondering, that becomes the inclination of his awareness.” It means that the mind is trainable, and what kind of thoughts we put our energy into come to shape the mind, and affect both its affective tone (are we happy or unhappy) and its ability to discern the truth.

It’s been suggested that the “what you think, you become” quote may also stem from the first two verses of the Dhammapada, which express in poetic form what the Dvedhavitakka Sutta explains in a more expanded form:

1. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.

2. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.

These verses are from the “Chapter on the Pairs” (Yamakavagga) which explores these two modes of thinking, or being.

This derivation, rather than the Dvedhavitakka Sutta origin, may be supported by the fact that “What you think, you become” is often seen in another form: “The mind is everything; What you think, you become.” The connection may not be obvious, but sometimes those Dhammapada verses have been translated to include “our life is the creation of our mind” rather than “our mind is the creation of our thoughts.” And it’s not a great leap from “our life is the creation of our mind” to “the mind is everything.” So that may be the origin of this suspect quote.

Eknath Easwaran’s translation of the first verse of the Dhammapada in fact begins, “Our life is shaped by our mind, for we become what we think.” This is not at all far from “The mind is everything; What you think, you become.”

And that fuller version of the quote is very old indeed. I’ve found it in a 1897 book, In Tune with the Infinite, by Ralph Waldo Trine. Trine used “The mind is everything; What you think, you become” in several of his books, but I haven’t been able to establish where he got it from. I’ll keep looking.

These two Dhammapada verses are often rendered in a very different way from how they were intended, along the lines of “The world is the creation of your mind” — but that’s for another fake Buddha Quote post.

PS A close match is from a non-Buddhist source: ‘You are what you think’ (from the 11th verse of Chapter 1 of the ‘Ashtavakra Gita’ – Marshall’s translation, 2005).

Also, Easwaran’s translation of Dhammapada verse 1 has “Our life is shaped by our mind; we become what we think.” However, the first line of Dhammapada 1 is Manopubbaṅgamā dhammā manoseṭṭhā manomayā.

I would translate this as “All experiences (dhammā) are preceded by mind (Manopubbaṅgamā), having mind as their master (manoseṭṭhā) created by mind (manomayā).”

I don’t see anything in there that corresponds to “we become what we think.”

40 thoughts on ““The mind is everything. What you think, you become.””

  1. Thanks for this article; it was informative.

    I think that the idea that “the mind is everything” is often used as a defense mechanism, since it allows one to deny any aspect of reality which is anxiety-provoking or causes stress.

    I try to maintain equanimity even when aspects of reality are anxiety-provoking, although it is easier said than done. I’m still not convinced that training the mind in this way is the path to the cessation of suffering; it seems to make logical sense, but in practice, it seems like some aspects of mind are hard-wired, and cannot be trained.

  2. Lecture by Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh

    Did he gave the words of Buddha a spin?

    The Dhammapada: The Way of the Buddha, Vol 1
    Talks given from 21/06/79 am to 30/04/80 am
    The Dhammapada: The Way of the Buddha, Vol 1
    Chapter #1
    Chapter title: We are what we think
    21 June 1979 am in Buddha Hall


    Dhammapada Vol 1 Osho

    1. Rajneesh/Osho did in fact mangle or even invent quite a few Buddha quotes — you can search for “Osho” on this site and find some examples — but in this case the translation was not his.

      In fact, technically it’s not a translation at all, but a “rendering” (the word used by the publisher). This version is from Thomas Byrom’s Dhammapada, which is almost certainly the most inaccurate one that’s ever been published. As far as I know, Byrom didn’t know any Pali, and relied on others’ translations and his own creative impulses to put together a highly poetic and beautiful Dhammapada that at times unfortunately has little relation to the original language

  3. Dear friend,
    As you must know, Buddha taught the hinayana (small vehicle), mahayana (great vehicle) and the Vajrayana (tantric buddhism). If you are a strict Hinayana you won’t believe in the Buddhism of Dalai Lama and the Mahayana Buddhism of Nargajuna, Bodhidharma and many others.
    In the Vajrayana and Mahayana it is that everything is the manifestation of our thoughts. So it is not a fake Buddha’s quotation. The only here who is misleading others and explaining wrong is you.

    If you really believe that you are lady Gaga you will be a pop star, with millions of fans and full of money (on your mind). Wether you will be considered as madman on the society is another thing. You are what you believe. Buddha stated that clearly in hundreds of occasion. Please, read the works of the yogachara and mind only school of the mahayana branch. You can read Asanga and Vasubhandu works. They are considered to be among the 6 main Mahayana masters. So, please, get more informed, open the mind and don’t keep Buddhism on the confines of Hinayana view. Buddhism has 3 branches at least, wether you believe it or not.

    Thank you
    Warm regards
    Lady Gaga

    1. This may come as an unwelcome shock, but the Buddha did not teach “Hinayana,” Mahayana, and Vajrayana. Although that’s the myth that’s found embedded in the teachings of the latter two yanas, the Buddha did not teach any “yana” at all: He taught simply “Buddhadharma,” without holding anything back (as he said in the Parinibbana sutta). The Mahayana and Vajrayana were later historical developments. There are plenty of sources of information on Buddhist history, and you might want to consult some of them rather than merely repeating what your own tradition says.

      “Hina” by the way, means “inferior” or “lowly,” rather than “small.” It’s a term of abuse devised by the Mahayana as a way of asserting their perceived superiority. In the spirit of the Buddha’s teachings on right speech, you might want to avoid using such a pejorative term.

  4. Again, you are misleading people. Buddha taught the Buddhadharma which by itself is a “yana”. And the first tantra was taught by Buddha himself in Amaravati and it is historically recorded on the sutras of the Tibetan canon. Whether you accept it or not is another thing. The Dalai Lama, the most influential Buddhist master of this time, has been in Amaravati giving the same teachings that were given by Buddha. And the Mahayana teachings of emptiness and bodhicitta were given by Buddha himself in the vulture peak in Rajgir and other places and it is recorded on the Mahayana sutra. There are plenty of sources of information on Buddhist history, and you might want to consult some of them rather than merely repeating what your own tradition says. Certainly the crooked history your are reading is from Hinayana source or skeptical western scholars who love to distort the history and talk about what they have no knowledge. The highest authority of the Vajrayana teachings is Dalai Lama and not those uninformed historians which many times are not even buddhist. Some of them would even say that Buddha did not exist. Mahayana and Vajrayana are teachings from the Buddha’s time. You should inform yourself.

    If the Buddha had taught only one “yana”, why the hinayanists or Theravada don’t accept the teachings of bodhicitta and the Vajrayana meditation as authentic teachings? Was Nagarjuna, Asanga, Dalai Lama all wrong and teaching something that is not Buddhism?

    If you want to say that those quotes are wrong, at least inform people that it is wrong accordingly with the Theravada tradition and not from the Mahayana and Vajrayana. If you don’t know you should not comment about and be misleading people.

    Hina can means inferior, lowly but it is best translated as “lesser” in the context. Small vehicle as a contrast to big vehicle is also a valid translation since it is called small because the Hinayana is a vehicle for self-liberation while the Mahayana talk about liberating all sentient being. How could be teachings that are just for one self-liberation be the buddhas teachings while the other who teach about liberate all beings be not the teachings of Buddha?

    A question, why in your tradition there is no vow of returning after enlightenment to continue to help sentient beings? Why just be in nirvana and forget to come to help the mother sentient beings?

    you should change the name of the link

    1. It’s sad that you assume that someone who disagrees with your views must be a “Hinayanist” or a Theravadin. I do not in fact practice in the Theravadin tradition, and your question about “my tradition” is therefore moot.

  5. You have first to read the vajra, maha and hina full canon, interpret them and memorize then in full and then you can start to say that this or that quote is wrong. I had a short look on the quotes you say are fake. Maybe some kitschy translations there but I can’t say everything is fake, I have not read all the sutras and sastras so instead of spreading misunderstanding you could rather study the sutras.

    Another thing is that many times traslations are translated in a loose way with modern words sometimes. It is not that it is wrong but the translation is made in a modern way or in a certain context.
    Hinayana interprets the teachings of the Buddha in a literal way while Mahayana interprets the Buddha’s teachings accordingly with the meaning.

    I will bookmark your blog. I have some questions about the Hinayana tradition. If there are no yanas so there is no one who will get offended due the use of the word “Hinayana” 😛


    1. If you think some of the quotes I’ve said are fake are in fact canonical, then please point me to a source. I’m always open to changing my mind, because I have no desire to present inaccurate information. I count anything that’s in the any of the Buddhist scriptures as being authentic.

      When a translation is “loose,” I only count it as false when it is so far from the original that it conveys something very different. At least I think I do.

      You really should stop using the term “Hinayana.” What does it say about your practice that you continue to use a pejorative term after it’s been pointed out to you that it’s offensive?

  6. Whether this exact quote is from him or not is irrelevant. The idea is what he expressed over and over in his teachings.

    1. I’d disagree that the Buddha expressed this idea over and over. He did say that what we repeatedly dwell on becomes the tendency of the mind (in other words we develop mental habits through repetition), but that is very different from the very vague and ambiguous statement that we become what we think.

  7. Bodhipaksa, you are wrong. First, you study the teachings of the yogachara tradition then you can say that, specially on the internet. Misleading people on your wrong view. Look for the masters of mind only tradition in Japan and China, and specially Tibetan masters and they will tell you hundreds of quotes that buddha says, “EVERYTHING IS MIND” in the sense that reality is what you see, what you conceive.

    You are not even a Buddhist master, how can you be talking about what the buddha said or not with so much certainty?!

    You are just creating bad karma to yourself and teaching bullshit to others.

    1. The Buddha did not teach the Yogacara, therefore your argument doesn’t hold water. And do you really have to stoop to telling people what their karma is? You’re not a Buddha. And to throwing around insults like “bullshit”? Maybe you should spend more time learning about basic Buddhist ethics and a little less time on Vijñānavāda.

      Anyway, if everything is mind, then presumably you’re arguing with yourself. Perhaps you could find better things do do with your time 🙂

  8. Yes, what you are telling others is completely bullshit. You first read the Avatamsaka sutra, which is one of the bases of yogachara and mind only school. Who are you, stupid man who doesn’t know about Buddas teachings to say that the yogachara is not Buddha’s teachings? All Chinese and Japanese Buddhists they know it is from Buddha and you are the only stupid here without knowledge who is telling bullshit. You do not even know what you are saying.

    If people wish to understand
    All Buddhas of the three periods of time,
    They should contemplate the nature of the Dharma Realm:
    Everything is made from the Mind Alone.
    (that is from where the “mind only” school start, stupid, you dont know)

    It is from one of the sutras and always quoted by Tibetan masters as a reliable source. You are so dumb, man. If you have any sense of shame you would stop to spread lies about the buddhas teachings.

    All Tibetan masters would tell that it is from Buddha since Tibetan Buddhism is very much connected with yogachara and mind only school.

    If you say it is not Buddha’s teachings it just shows how bullshit is your knowledge about the tradition of Dalai Lama.

    I stop here…it is just that I can’t stand stupid people saying stupid things about the Buddhas teachings. If you don’t know, you should shut up.

    bye bye baby
    Hope you don’t reborn in avichi hell due belittle the buddha’s teachings.

    1. I’m so sorry you’re suffering, and I hope you manage to let go of clinging to the idea that the Buddha taught Yogacara.

      1. I’m sure you’re more within accuracy in this debate, but as a passing nobody, I’ll point out that you’re coming off as a little condescending, and arguing from ego, rather than discussing from compassion. Never been to this site, probably won’t be back, just a subjective note on potential room for improvement, as a Buddhist.

        1. The Buddha called people he debated with “foolish man” or “worthless man.” I think that by comparison I was rather gentle with our dogmatic friend 🙂

        2. Incidentally, if we’re talking about compassion, re-read the diatribe above and imagine you’re on the receiving end of it. Receiving hate mail isn’t easy, and neither is responding to it!

  9. You are not sorry for the suffering of anyone, you are just lying again, stupid baby. your are a lier, fake and you dont know about buddhas teachings.
    your opinion about Buddhas teachings is completely BULSHIT.
    No one gives a shit to your opinion when you stupidly says that Mind Only school teachings are not from Buddha. The whole mahayana and vajrayana would be fake if mind only is not buddhas teachings. We have Bodhidharma, Dogen Zenji, Dalai Lama, Padmashambhava, VAsubhandu, Asanga, Shantideva and many others. And you are just a baby who doesnt know anything Dharma. Your opinion and wrong view is completely uselees in front of the holders of Buddha`s teachings. You are just a sick guy looking for attention in your websites spreading lies. What your are to say what is Buddhas teachings or not.

    I hope you manage to let go of clinging to the idea that the Buddha did not taught emptiness and Yogacara.

      1. THIS is probably the only appropriate reply to the chain of anger, insults, and other very “buddhist-like” responses in these comments…
        For a moment I thought I was reading some fundamentalist christian internet troll.
        It deeply concerns me that some buddhists will go to great extents of studying various texts, traditions, doing so many ceremonies and revering so many religious figures but then seem to forget simple concepts such as “right speech”.

        Anyway thank you Bodhipaksa for all you explanations on this quote.

        1. Indeed, Maria. Clinging to the literal truth of texts (especially the texts’ claims of originating with the Buddha); extreme anger when beliefs are challenged; threatening people with hell for disagreeing with them; I don’t really see much difference between some Buddhists and fundamentalist Christians. It seems some people just swap one dogma for another.

  10. 1-If everything does not arise from mind so it arises from what?
    2-And even interdependence is not understood by the projection of individual mind?
    3-Why shit is delicious for mosquitos and disgusting for human beings? Are not all those projections or creations to different individual beings as process of mind only?
    Please, comment.
    Thank you

    1. 1. What does mind arise from? What does mind create the universe out of? Is it a sort of “In the beginning Mind created the heavens and the earth?” thing?
      2. I’ve no idea what your question means. Sorry!
      3. I believe mosquitoes eat blood, not shit, and I’ve no idea whether they have a sense of taste. But are you suggesting that mosquito minds create blood? If they create blood, then do they also create the rest of the bodies whose blood they feed on? Am I the creation of a mosquito? For that matter, did you create me? Did you write this post?

  11. 1-You did not reply this question. Waiting your reply 🙂
    Mind arises from mind since the beggineless time in a interdependent way. There is no beginning of mind and sentient beings as in the way you suggested.
    universe is just your and mine deluded perception. In Buddhas mind there is nothing as universe or non-universe because it is all dualistic conceptual (mind) and Buddha has no such a dualistic projection. Have you heard that all phenomenas are empty? You can never find ultimately (superior mind) such a thing called universe or non-universe.
    2- basically, the matrix that we live is all the play of interdependence of individual and collective minds projection, no? Why not?
    When you talk about mind you forget interdependence.Why? All minds of beings are in a process of interdependence. Created interdependent due individual and collective karma.
    3- I should say “flyies”. Shit is delicious food for them. If shit was a outer object not created by/and dependent of the mind of the perceiver it should be always dirty and smelly but it is banquet for flies. All mind creation. Everything is mind 🙂
    -But are you suggesting that mosquito minds create blood? If they create blood, then do they also create the rest of the bodies whose blood they feed on? Am I the creation of a mosquito? Reply:
    Reply for that is YES, their mind create blood with their individual karma plus ALL beings collective mind/karma. All responsability on the mosquito shoulder is not fair, specially on a buddhist context 🙂
    For that matter, did you create me?
    REply: I create my perception of you because “you” doesn’t exist ultimately or truly. You are a false perception (of mind) And you create yourself too. Precess explained above already. Annata 🙂
    Did you write this post? reply: My and your projection together see your post as a post but a lunatic see it as noodles or whatever they come to believe. We 3 are creating different realities of the same object and the object as singular (in some sense) is our collective karma projection.
    4- When you dream there is a outer world there? That is what seems you are suggesting. Dreams should be made of matter accordingly with your logic. Dreams are all mind process without objects but still a hambuguer is delicious in the dream and I get drunnk with beers too.
    Perception of objects trully existing outside is not the Buddha’s teachings, I guess. The blood that you perceive are you sure that mosquitos perceive it as blood too?
    Like dreams, there is even elephants in a small room….all are no other than projection of mind. When you wake up you will see that you were only dreaming. 🙂

    Would be happy to hear good arguments 🙂 But not simplistic, please.

    1. “You did not reply this question. Waiting your reply. There is no beginning of mind and sentient beings as in the way you suggested. universe is just your and mine deluded perception.”

      Well, you’re going to have to keep waiting. This is pure speculation of the kind that the Buddha discouraged, and the suggestion that the universe is nothing more than a deluded perception is contrary to what I understand the Buddha to have taught. He certainly doesn’t seem to have made any such claim.

  12. You are relying in a source that is completely contrary to reality. The Abhidharma explanation of the universe is clear to be nothing to do with the facts. The explanation of the universe on the Abhidharma is scientific proved as wrong. It has nothing to do with the studies of the universe as made by Stephen Halking and all others scientist. That shape of the universe on the Abhidharma only those who believe in myths would believe and that is what you are taking as a prove to your claims…

    What are your arguments to your claim of your understand be right while Asanga is wrong?

  13. Bodhipaksa, your lack of reply is because you don’t know how to explain how you are right and Asanga is wrong? 🙂
    I hope it is not a dogma from hinayana view 🙂
    Normally it is how we follow our religious believes, as dogmas 😛

    1. I’ve already explained why I’m not going to attempt to answer your questions, and I decline to be goaded by your childish accusations.

  14. Dear Bodhipaksa,

    Even during his lifetime, the Buddha was accused several times, some even tried to kill him. But whoever lives by/in Dhamma, will be protected by the Dhamma.

    I am extremely grateful to you for time and energy that you have put in sharing the original Dhamma . I am sincerely glad to see, that you are not only stand for the purity of the Buddha’s teaching bud you are a living example of it.

    Buddha said: “… be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge.” (DN 16; Sister Vajira & Francis Story tr.)
    I see you’ve found this island. 🙂

    May you to be healthy, happy and free from dukkhā!

    Ṭhitañāṇo Bhikkhu

    1. Thank you, Bhante. I’m not sure how good an example of Dharma practice I am, though. I can be a bit snippy in my responses here sometimes!

  15. I always had a feeling that there was something off with this quote. In fact it is probably the biggest reason why I never really took Buddha quotes seriously. I suffer from OCD so when a quote tells me that all my worst nightmares will come true and it’s all my fault and there’s nothing I can do about it, I tend to steer away.

    How I see it is that thoughts are cheap. You can think whatever you want as much as you want, but without a real motive its just random repetitive static. It’s when you focus your awareness on what is truly important to you, that it can manifest. It’s really the intention that counts. Intention leads to meaningful action, or at least, meaningful thoughts.


  16. “WE are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts we make the world.”
    From the Dhammapada, translation Thomas Byron

    The meaning is the same. The quote is not fake.

    A more important question for you to ask yourself it’s why do you feel the need to be judgemental, especially with things that are positive change and help people?

    1. Unfortunately Byrom’s translation is wrong. It’s the worst Dhammapada translation you could have possibly picked, and shows the pitfalls of trying to justify one misrepresentation of the Buddha’s teachings with another.

      An important question for you to ask yourself is why do you feel the need to be judgmental, especially when someone is presenting accurate information that can help people and prevent them falling into what the Buddha called “wrong view”?

  17. Where did a computer come from? Mind, an idea turned into reality. Microsoft? It’s founders mind. Apple? It’s founders minds. A building ? An architect conceptualizes it from their imagination and then brings it to being into this dimension. A clothe design, a designer creates it from thought and descends it from the higher dimensions through fabric. WE CREATE THE WORLD THROUGH THOUGHTS AND FEELING. Not by any other means. Democracy? Aristotle’s and his counterparts ideas. the Buddha himself desired to be a Buddha and made the vow he would be one before it happened as Siddhartha. Whether you call it feeling or mind (they are different but inter-related), there is always a precedent before one’s experience. ALL, everything begins in mind. Even the Triratna Buddhist Community where you began was somebody’s (or some people) idea ; describing itself as “ecumenical” rather than “eclectic” began in the mind of someone. I have read all the threads on this quote and can see that indeed you were insulted but you shouldn’t play victim either with you dishing out subtle equivalents. You are also heavily reliant on Buddha’s scriptures rather than your own contemplative discerning to raise points. Buddha said this ,he didn’t say that is the basis of most of your argumnents.

    “Now, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them.”

    That betrays an over reliance on Buddhist scriptures. However, reality is far greater than one mode of philosophy. Reality is far greater than all the Buddha’s combined, however important their spiritual contributions have been. He didn’t have all Truth about how reality works as there is no such thing. If he did, all beings on the planet would naturally be drawn to Buddhism, however that’s not the case and never will be. Why? Because they are many paths to salvation outside of the one you have chosen Bodhipaksa. Sub-consciously I observe (may be wrong) but you feel that His way is the ONLY & Ultimate way and that is why you simultaneously use his words and actions to justify him calling another being of equal existential importance ‘foolish’ (just cause he said something he (Buddha) didn’t like, otherwise he would have used a calmer approach meaning he wasn’t as perfect {no such thing as “almost perfect” because its a statement of absoluteness} as most perceive)and you doing the same subtly calling another’s arguments as childish which means you subjectively consider yourself more “mature” based on your efforts of understanding Buddhism in relation to Lady Gaga’s argument, though they were emotionally charged as well, No excuses for anyone, me included. I make the ASSUMPTION you have once entertained ideas of calling others “laymen.” Beware, Ego dies hard. No such thing as being “better” “more mature” than another. You can cross the ‘ocean of suffering’ through many paths, there is no one size fits all. Existence is fond of variety and that is why different religions/philosophy attract certain groups of people. That’s why their are many species of Animals. Many types of skin tones. All from the Oneness of it all. Unless you want to make the bold claim that only Buddhism and Buddhas words will lead people across the Ocean?

    Indeed sometimes just thinking of something may not bring it to being unless you are fully aligned in mind, emotion and physical (sometimes action is needed), but there is no argument that there is a mental precedent for all experiences. Kalpavriksha is perhaps what Lady Gaga is trying to refer to. Want to go to the moon for the first time? Imagine then design then materialize the vessel for taking your physical vessel there. Though their are other spiritual means to do this e.g astral projection.’ I can go on and on, but I have raised my point. I’m open to more discussion. Love to all of you. See you all at the end of this life cycle having fulfilled your being to the fullest. Peace

    1. Where did a computer come from? Mind, an idea turned into reality. Microsoft? It’s founders mind. Apple? It’s founders minds

      Where did the minerals that made up an Apple computer come from? Were they created by someone’s mind? The earth, the sun, the universe; where did they come from? Did your mind make them?

      You are also heavily reliant on Buddha’s scriptures rather than your own contemplative discerning to raise points.

      The purpose of this site is to let people know whether or not particular quotes are genuinely from the Buddhist scriptures. No amount of contemplative practice can do that, and therefore the basis of discussion is the Buddhist scriptures.

      If you want discussion of contemplative practice then I’d suggest visiting another site. My own meditation site, http://www.wildmind.org has plenty of discussion of practice, for example.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.