Discussion in 'Belief and Spirituality' started by Kenneth, Apr 24, 2011.
*** Punch!!!!! ***
Can you still see?
*** Punch!!!!! ***
Is that better now?
I agree to some extent, and yet I still feel compelled to point out how against such words you seem... you seem quite reactive to words like death or destruction - these things are unavoidable, to avoid them so adamantly serves no purpose at all.
You appear to have studied Buddhism to some extent intellectually, how many enlightened being have you studied? I think there is only so much you can gain from reading about something, understanding their insights in a non-academic light allows you to see things from a much different perspective. I think it would do you some good to read their words rather than keeping with the scriptures.
Attachment to the idea of self often leads to the fear of destruction of the idea of self. If you take a non-threatening skeptical stance towards the theory of self, much delusion can be dispelled, and you can see the reality of impermanence clearly.
Oh, I've read stuff other than scriptures. (I just happen to have a couple of Thich Nhat Hanh's books here within arm's reach at the moment.)
I also understand the difference between theory and practice. (My Sen-Sei drilled that into me by sneaking Zen practices into my martial arts lessons without teaching me any of the theory. Boy, did I get a good laugh after I figured it out after the fact! )
I was stuck with Christian theory and Zen practice!
Not to be offensive, but this explains a lot actually. Christian teachings are all about this false sense of hope, always rationalizing why things will be good if we play follow the leader skillfully. At the very core of Christianity, however, there is an overwhelming sense of duality which I think is quite harmful. Heaven and hell, holy and sinful, etc... these are all things which separate Christians from their own mystic aspect of theosis. Even if heaven exists, however, would anyone actually want to spend eternity anywhere like this? If everything is good and blissful, it would eventually be normal and dull through tolerance. Same goes for hell, if you spend long enough there, you'd consider it normal and wouldn't notice its negative aspects. Similarly, holy and sinful behavior, it paints a picture of black and white within a world of grays. We see this often, Christians strongly push a particular idea without any notion of exceptions. Of course, this also manifests in racial groups and patriotism in the US, it is all from the notion of duality and favoring one thing over another. For me, this is extremely poisonous.
In closing, life and death are two sides of the same coin, you must accept death because you are alive. It is not something which is scary unless you are attached to your physical being, this is a delusion of ego. Many faiths utilize fear and greed in their teachings - fear death, live forever. Do not permit yourself to fall into this trap, guilt is pointless because you cannot change it and the future isn't guaranteed so it is pointless to consider it in depth. All that is promised is this very second, enjoy it rather than missing it through distraction
Actually, I see Christianity as a transformational religion. (But then again, I wasn't raised in any religion as a child to get that kind of religious conditioning.)
I can't pretend to know what heaven is like.
We don't seem to miss the negative aspects here.
I guess this is where patience comes in.
Well for me, it is extremely bizarre.
Blinding flash of the obvious.
Unfortunately, this is true.
Thank you for sharing that Alagaddupama Sutta: The Snake Simile. I take it from the text that the blessed one, the selfish one, the one presenting the double standard, the hypocrite, the one that implemented the pernicious view, is the snake?
Ego is a word. Either suffer or don't suffer your neighbor. Your choice. Either make or don't make your neighbor suffer you. Your choice. In some languages the ego is the one that makes the choice. To you it sounds like it is merely just a choice.
It sounds like Sidhartha defeated his relationship with Mara, which may or may not have been good.
I don't see anything scary about suicide. I don't see anything good about it either. I don't have to kill my car to realize that I am not the car. I don't have to burn my house down to realize that I am not the house. I do not need to destroy the computer to realize that I am not the computer. I can give a car, a house, a computer, my own mind, and my own time.
As they say: beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
From what I have seen, taking responsibility for one's actions is typically more difficult than denying responsibility.
You can know and realize intellectually what the goal of enlightenment is, scientists are doing this today with quantum theory, but this is no substitute for experiencing. You can even experience without killing the ego/self, but again it isn't the same. Names for this are like kensho and satori, but these are only temporary glimpses - not particularly fulfilling although they create a steadfastness that you are on the right path. True enlightenment or samadhi requires killing of the ego, however, and this is what all the enlightened beings in history have attained.
I suppose it really depends how deep down the rabbit hole you wish to go, many are quite content with superficial things.
The transformation is quite superficial, they change behavior but they do not change their being. Theosis is never highlighted like enlightenment in other traditions, Christians believe they cannot attain to the state of Christ, they believe thoroughly that Christ was unique and this is part of the basis for their perceptions of duality. They are taught to serve something outside themselves and this dictates their world view.
And yet it is such an emphasis in Christianity and Islam, its all about this promise after death. Always, people find consolation in the future, but this distracts from the present.
lol, no. The pernacious one was the one who had the wrong grasp of the snake (or the monastic code.) He argued against the monastic code (probably regarding celebacy.) Since that sort of behavior the monk was advocating would lead to suffering, his wrong grasp of the teachings of the ending of sufferring (snake,) it would "turn back and bite him," and he would suffer.
LOL, I wouldn't say that my transformation from an atheist materialist has been superficial.
People can't think of more than one thing at a time?
I cannot say as I do not really know you, all I can discuss is what I have seen in Churches I have attended - people just going through the motions, whispering while the teaching is being told etc, it is such a shallow faith. This is partly why I have ventured elsewhere, searching for something real rather than imaginary.
If you are distracted by thought, how can you experience this second? It is already gone before the thought is through, you have already missed it. I do not mean the present activity, I mean the present second. Did you have time to be grateful for it? Not to say "thank you", but just to feel grateful from your very core.
For many, this is reserved for meditation because they allow their lives to become too hectic, it is a shame.
Does Buddhism really advocate celibacy? It teaches to control desire, for desire is the cause of all suffering. Of course, sex is one of the most prevalent desires of many humans (mostly due to its repression) but denying it entirely also leads to suffering. I am sure this is essentially what you're getting at, I just want to make it more clear for others. Buddhism is about the middle way, for both extremes lead to suffering - Buddha called us to balance the scales of life, not tip them in a particular direction.
This seems obvious, but I am not sure if your notion of Buddhism is purely intellectual or not yet, thus I feel compelled to state quite obvious teachings. I do not believe any faith can remove suffering through its study, it is about its practice. Viewing them from a scholarly perspective, especially in Buddhism, really goes against the teachings themselves for you are trying to decipher right and wrong conclusion - yet another pair of extremes.
If you actually look at the history of Buddhism, the rules were only defined for those not wise enough to decipher the teachings correctly. When you can understand, no rules are necessary.
For monks it does. For laypeople, it doesn't.
Here's one sutta;
Yodhajiva Sutta: The Warrior (1)
Here's the Buddhist monastic code:
The Buddhist Monastic Code I: The Patimokkha Training Rules Translated and Explained
Buddhist Monastic Code I: Chapter 4
I am asking whether you know the nature of these codes, why they came about? Well, that isn't strictly correct, I am hinting at the reason for them coming about. I am rather against these rules, however, since they actually cause suffering via repression - the monks desire to follow the rules.
I find it quite interesting that the very last thing you are supposed to renounce is the teachings themselves, only the nature of Dharma should remain once its understanding is realized.
Alagaddupama Sutta: The Water-Snake Simile
Yes, I believe this is what I was referring to.
lol, I reminded of your pun while reading this sutta about a buddhist nun being confronted by a cad in the forest:
last line of Subha Jivakambavanika: Subha and the Libertine
Plucking out her lovely eye, with mind unattached she felt no regret. "Here, take this eye. It's yours." Straightaway she gave it to him. Straightaway his passion faded right there, and he begged her forgiveness. "Be safe, follower of the holy life. This sort of thing won't happen again. Harming a person like you is like embracing a blazing fire, It's as if I have seized a poisonous snake. So may you be safe. Forgive me." And freed from there, the nun went to the excellent Buddha's presence. When she saw the mark of his excellent merit, her eye became as it was before.
The Vinaya Pitaka was the framework for the Sangha that the Buddha constructed as required. It is these "rules" that maintained harmony.
The Buddha's teaching was concerned only with dukkha (sometimes transliterated as suffering; not the best word I think) and its cessation.
The desire to realise liberation from dukkha (for oneself and all sentient beings) may be seen as the beginning of the practice - the arising of bodhicitta.
Samadhi is a state of hiding in darkness, like a snake in the bushes that can see and experience, but that remains motionless and thus cannot be seen. Why do you call it good to hide in darkness? For personal gain?
Separate names with a comma.