|
Prickly Pete posted:If you are going to claim to be a Buddhist and a Christian, then you are going to end up neglecting or ignoring pretty fundamental portions of one faith or the other. Stream consciousness is completely different from the western definition of a soul? Which definition of rebirth do you subscribe to? Can you be reborn in one of six different realms of existence based on your non-enlightenment by the time of your death? What is your karma attached to, anything? How can a person escape the cycle of death and rebirth? If we have no self, no soul, then what is the point of enlightenment? I guess I don't get it. e. Well, sorry, you can either be a Christian or a Buddhist, you have to choose only one, you must take all of it or none of it. Also, if there are conflicting teachings or scriptures in either instance you must accept both conflicting scriptures. standardtoaster fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Dec 3, 2013 |
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 20:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 15:35 |
|
|
standardtoaster posted:Stream consciousness is completely different from the western definition of a soul? In as much as the western definition of a soul tends to indicate something unchanging and permanent, then yes it is completely different. quote:Which definition of rebirth do you subscribe to? The one the Buddha taught, which is completely at odds with the Christian idea of dying once, then going to heaven for eternity. quote:Can you be reborn in one of six different realms of existence based on your non-enlightenment by the time of your death? quote:What is your karma attached to, anything? quote:How can a person escape the cycle of death and rebirth? quote:If we have no self, no soul, then what is the point of enlightenment? I guess I don't get it. The point is the cessation of suffering, which can be done by fully realizing dukkha, anatta and anicca. e. quote:Well, sorry, you can either be a Christian or a Buddhist, you have to choose only one, you must take all of it or none of it. Also, if there are conflicting teachings or scriptures in either instance you must accept both conflicting scriptures. If there are conflicting scriptures, the best thing you can do is analyze them in a critical way so as to try and arrive at the original intent of the teaching. This is true of any religion or philosophical system. edit: I don't mean to come off as curt in this reply, I'm just working right now and I don't have a lot of time to elaborate. These are all good questions you are asking and worthy of discussion by anyone who studies Buddhism. People Stew fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Dec 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
I guess I have a follow up question; Does rebirth depend on a dualistic conception of the mind? It seems that much of Western neuroscience and philosophy are codifying around a monistic version where the mind is the brain or is an emergent property of the brain. I guess I could kinda conceptualize how an emergent mind could work with rebirth, but I would have to kinda stretch the emergent mind.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:I guess I have a follow up question; Does rebirth depend on a dualistic conception of the mind? It seems that much of Western neuroscience and philosophy are codifying around a monistic version where the mind is the brain or is an emergent property of the brain. Rather the opposite - it denounces a dualistic conception of the mind, including the idea that the mind exists or does not exist. The mind is not the brain, the mind is not not the brain. They are both interdependently originating, and they neither can exist without the other. But, neither exist "intrinsically" either. There is no eternal element that is intrinsic and inherent to the identity of either a mind or a brain. Regarding the Christianity/Buddhism thing, I do not think it is possible to be Christian and Buddhist, but the problem is on both sides. To be truly Christian, or even to believe in the Western conception of God as an anthropomorphic being, essentially requires a belief in an eternal, unchanging thing. That doesn't work well with the concept of dependent origination and the concepts of emptiness and such. However, there are Buddhist conceptions of deities that do work in accordance with Buddhist thought and doctrine - but those gods do not meet the same standard Christianity requires. Also, the whole conception of salvation being necessary is kinda non-Buddhist. I mean, original sin? Heck naw dawg, only cause and effect. However, that doesn't mean that Buddhists should reject other people practicing their religions outright. My teacher is fond of saying that any religion that leads to the cessation of suffering is right for that person. If you are doing Christianity, and it's making you happier and encouraging right ethical behavior, then do that! If you're doing it and it's making you suffer, or encouraging non-virtue, then stop! That's pretty much as simple as it gets. Buddhism is nothing if not practical.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 02:55
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Also, the whole conception of salvation being necessary is kinda non-Buddhist. I mean, original sin? Heck naw dawg, only cause and effect. Is it possible that the fact we all possess Buddha nature/primordial purity is actually the complete opposite of original sin?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 03:10
|
|
|
Leon Sumbitches posted:Is it possible that the fact we all possess Buddha nature/primordial purity is actually the complete opposite of original sin? Yeah pretty much. We have no innate essence, thus primordial purity. How can we have an innately sinful state, then?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 03:13
|
|
|
I'm sorry to say it, but Christianity is ultimately incompatible with Buddhism. Buddhism denounces the idea of anything being eternal, permanent, and unchanging. In Buddhism, all things are subject to impermanence and decay, and nothing has a fixed nature or identity. But Christianity posits the idea of a supreme God that is the source of everything, and which is itself eternal and everlasting. Christians also believe that we have eternal souls which define who we are, and that after death our souls join with God in Heaven. None of this is compatible with Buddhism, I'm afraid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 03:16
|
|
|
I'm going to be contrary and say it is possible to be both Christian and Buddhist. (For reference, I am not Christian, and technically not Buddhist either, although I do practice) What about all of the Wrong View and God being pissed and etc... and so forth? Well, basically it's pretty simple. Average people just don't take religion that seriously. I mean the bible is available pretty much everywhere, but so few actually read the dang thing. My sister has recently done the whole born-again thing and I don't even think she's read it. Even many hard-core Christians only read selected parts of it. And we've already talked about the stoners that call themselves Buddhists in here before and the dreaded Athiest-Buddhist in here before who likely have not read a line of sutta to save their lives. So depending on how seriously a person adheres to the teachings of any religion, they could be many at once. Some folks even just take bits and pieces from them all and combine it into something else entirely. My approval of this is really irrelevant, and I think pretty much anyone's is. I have faith in people to figure this stuff out for themselves and if they need a bunch of different religions to do that, then that's just fine. I do like to encourage people to think about this though, and in this thread when this comes up I sometimes think it can be really hard on people that aren't wholly on-board. However, then I realize that we're just encouraging thought. It's important to ask ourselves why we're doing things, otherwise we're just going along with the 'me' program, and that's never gotten us anywhere but suffering.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 07:08
|
|
|
I guess I'll say that I didn't mean to imply that I was going to try to syncrentize some Buddha-Christian mix; Just that I wasn't coming from a relationship of hatred as it were. Though I am annoyingly skeptical and trying to reconcile modern brain studies with rebirth is hard. But, I don't like blatantly refusing things and I haven't even started to try to practice so maybe it'll make more sense later; I do hope that I'm not just getting into the practice for the wrong reasons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 07:22
|
|
Leon Sumbitches posted:Is it possible that the fact we all possess Buddha nature/primordial purity is actually the complete opposite of original sin? I actually know Rev. Kusala (who does Urban Dharma) brings this point up a ton, that the entire idea of an innately sinful state is anathema to Buddhism. Razage posted:I'm going to be contrary and say it is possible to be both Christian and Buddhist. (For reference, I am not Christian, and technically not Buddhist either, although I do practice) Basically this, since the idea of an omnipotent God falls flat on the Four Noble Truths. There's also Basic Points Unifying the Theravāda and the Mahāyāna: quote:1. The Buddha is our only Master (teacher and guide) Which pretty solidly can't be reconciled with Christian theology. WAFFLEHOUND fucked around with this message at 11:45 on Dec 4, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 11:43
|
|
|
Leon Sumbitches posted:Is it possible that the fact we all possess Buddha nature/primordial purity is actually the complete opposite of original sin? Do you know for a fact we all possess Buddha nature? First find your own buddha nature, then surprise, surprise. The enlightened mind is neither buddhist nor christian because those are at best, belief methodologies. free means free.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 03:20
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:First find your own buddha nature, then surprise, surprise. The enlightened mind is neither buddhist nor christian because those are at best, belief methodologies. free means free. Mind clarifying this?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 09:41
|
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:Do you know for a fact we all possess Buddha nature? the worst thing is fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Dec 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 18:43
|
|
|
Hey guys and gals, I've never been much of a religious person but have done quite a bit of meditation as a form of stress relief. I've always been interested in Buddhism and was wondering if someone could give me some insight into more Buddhist directed teachings and meditation. It's helped me so much I would really like to learn more about meditation while I practice it as opposed to just meditating. That may have sounded super confusing but hopefully you understand!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
Claes Oldenburger posted:Hey guys and gals, I've never been much of a religious person but have done quite a bit of meditation as a form of stress relief. I've always been interested in Buddhism and was wondering if someone could give me some insight into more Buddhist directed teachings and meditation. It's helped me so much I would really like to learn more about meditation while I practice it as opposed to just meditating. That may have sounded super confusing but hopefully you understand! Mindfulness in Plain English is generally regarded as a very good, if not the best, introduction to Buddhist meditation and I recommend it to anyone who is interested in approaching meditation from a Buddhist perspective. You can find it used on Amazon for around $5, or you can read it online here for free. There are plenty of books out there covering meditation but I really think this is the best place to start. It answers pretty much any of the common questions you will have when starting out, and addresses the typical roadblocks and frustrations you will encounter. The author, Bhante Gunaratana, is a very respected Sri Lankan Buddhist monk who has been ordained for around 60 years. He also gives really great Dhamma Talks about Buddhism in general, not just meditation. One of my favorite teachers for sure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Mind clarifying this? This is a very good pun, bravo 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 23:39
|
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:Do you know for a fact we all possess Buddha nature? Yes. It's not that hard to experience, if you use the proper technology.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
Leon Sumbitches posted:Yes. Do you possess your own hand?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 03:19
|
|
|
So as someone who has yet to start a meditation practice, how reliable or trustworthy is it? I read people saying that aspects of Buddhism will make sense with enough mediation, and monks who claim that they can recollect past lives or other things. These are generally criticized by saying that meditation puts you in a very suggestive state. I don't wanna discount monks or anything but could they be "fooling themselves" as it were?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 05:44
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:So as someone who has yet to start a meditation practice, how reliable or trustworthy is it? Anyone could be fooling themselves about anything I suppose. I don't think meditation puts you in a suggestive state at all. I think, if anything, it does quite the opposite. You aren't lulling yourself or trying to alter your consciousness in the same way that you would with a psychoactive substance or hypnosis or anything like that. You are really trying to still the mind, quiet the chatter and confusion that you normally exist in, and see things as they really are: inherently unsatisfactory, impermanent, and without self.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 05:59
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:So as someone who has yet to start a meditation practice, how reliable or trustworthy is it? Eh, maybe they can see past lives? There are apparently psychics and the suttas talk about superpowers too. If anyone wants to believe they have superpowers and can see past lives, that sounds fine to me so long as they aren't causing suffering. Scientologists believe they have super powers too, but they also run prisons in some of their facilities in addition to people dying in their care, not to mention the extortive practices. Believing in super powers isn't all that bad if it's not creating harm and ignorance. However, these aren't the goals of the practice, so it's better to pay it no mind. If you start to think you have some kind of super power or vision while meditating it's probably best to let it go and not get involved. There are apparently teachings that deal in that sort of business later on, so just leave it be until if/when you work with a teacher on that kind of thing. I've never really found myself to be more suggest able when I've been meditating. However it has done wonders for my tolerance and acceptance of views other then my own. These two things have significantly improved my own life. You might find the same, it may not implant some view in your head but it will make you question your own views a lot, this is not a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 06:03
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:Mindfulness in Plain English is generally regarded as a very good, if not the best, introduction to Buddhist meditation and I recommend it to anyone who is interested in approaching meditation from a Buddhist perspective. This is EXACTLY what I was looking for. Thanks so much!
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 06:32
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:So as someone who has yet to start a meditation practice, how reliable or trustworthy is it? Yeah, the opposite of this, basically. Meditation is generally about quieting the mind to allow oneself to be present in the moment as it truly is, without mental obscurations and appellations. Most of us engage primarily in top-down processing, a very efficient mental heuristic where we take a mental schema of a situation and impose it upon the world in order to quickly sort out what's going on. Through mindfulness, through meditative awareness, we learn to instead simply experience how things actually are, without mental appellations, without imposing our own take upon things. I know of very few monks who claim they can recollect past lives who are legit. His Holiness the Dalai Lama, perhaps the best known tulku, or reincarnated being, has himself said that he does not recall a past life as if it was his present life. There may be impressions, thoughts, sort of memories of familiarity with locations he's never been to, but many of us have such experiences. It's all cause and effect. It is important to not get too heavily caught up in that kind of thing, because when one gets into "woo," with psychic experiences and what not, it is the inclination of many to start pursuing that as if it were the path. Like Razage said, Buddhist scripture talks about psychic powers and such. A lot of Buddhists through history have demonstrated "miracle powers" and so on. But if that's your fixation, you're no longer pursuing non-attachment. Hell, the primary text of my lineage talks at some length about all the capacities of various attainments, but if you're of the level that you're experiencing those things, you don't need to worry about them. If you're not of the level where you're experiencing things, you also don't need to worry about them. So yeah, I think you will find the opposite is true with a genuine meditation practice. It's not fooling yourself, because you're fooled now! Thinking in dualistic ways, believing things exist or things don't exist, and so on. It's unfooling yourself that's the trick.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 06:52
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:Do you possess it like you possess your own hand? Do you experience it like you experience typing on your computer? Interesting questions, I'm curious. I do posses Buddha nature like I posses my own hand because, in fact, I posses no hand. There is a hand that exists in tandem with a body that is the seat of this consciousness. I neither posses this hand, nor does the hand posses me. My experience of Buddha nature is the same -- it exists in tandem with (not within) my body and consciousness. I do not experience Buddha nature like I experience typing on my computer. Typing on my computer is a primarily cognitive then mechanical experience. My awareness is purposefully directed towards an object (getting them words out) and the vast majority of sense impressions are ignored. My experience of Buddha nature has come when I let go of any object or technique completely and have an experience of wearing my sense perceptions like a costume. I can not will that experience to occur, so it is different than my experience of typing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 07:22
|
|
|
Leon Sumbitches posted:Interesting questions, I'm curious. Nice post Leon Sumbitches, but let me offer my take- your body is not, in fact, the seat of your consciousness, it is a garment worn and created by your mind within your karma field. Your mind seats via your brain, which expresses and inputs through your senses; mind also has access to buddha nature because your mind is a most miraculous instrument. You had to learn typing through practice, and through diligent practice, I feel you can, in fact, will experiencing of Buddha nature. And to answer Wafflehound, Buddha nature clarifies mind, i.e. mind clarifying. Wonderful. I love it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 16:19
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:I guess I have a follow up question; Does rebirth depend on a dualistic conception of the mind? It seems that much of Western neuroscience and philosophy are codifying around a monistic version where the mind is the brain or is an emergent property of the brain. Besides, from the mind's point of view the brain is the emergent property. If the two did not support each other, why evolve a brain?  It is interesting to ask why we don't feel what others feel. E.g. when you look at someone who is in great pain, you know that they feel pain, but you don't feel their physical sensation of pain, but surely the subjective experience of pain is going on in that other person, but you don't feel the raw sensory input. Whenever a new brain is being made, there has to emerge a mind in that brain to feel the raw sensory input; being conscious has to 'feel' like something. So when you die, you're free to emerge somewhere else (rebirth), but it is not 'you' as in your personality, you are now just subjectively experiencing the input of some other integrated system. At least this is how I think about it so far.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 22:24
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:This is a very good pun, bravo Not intentionally, I'm just curious about your statement since I'm not sure it lines up with Buddhist thought.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 05:13
|
|
|
Leon Sumbitches posted:Interesting questions, I'm curious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 05:14
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Not intentionally, I'm just curious about your statement since I'm not sure it lines up with Buddhist thought. What really? The idea that the enlightened mind is beyond trivial description as religious affiliation, without attachment to any term of identity or state of belonging, is so fundamental to Buddhist thinking that it is boggling my mind how you could think this. The Buddha was not a Buddhist. No Buddhas are Buddhists.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 05:34
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:What really? The idea that the enlightened mind is beyond trivial description as religious affiliation, without attachment to any term of identity or state of belonging, is so fundamental to Buddhist thinking that it is boggling my mind how you could think this. A Buddha, to use your words for a second, is not a Buddhist in the sense that he thinks calling himself a Buddhist describes something final about himself, or fundamental (in an unrational sense..using this word on purpose). Rather than using the label as sort of an anchor in the world, a way to take a position at the expense of all other positions, he can still call himself a Buddhist if he understands the qualities that make up that distinction. Now I've never seen a more thoughtful approach to determining what makes one a Buddhist than this article, so I suggest you all read that and decide what you think about it, so I can make my point better. If a person decides he can agree with these four points: All compounded things are impermanent. All emotions are pain. All things have no inherent existence. Nirvana is beyond concepts. Then he is a Buddhist, simply by the fact that he lines up with the qualities or beliefs it proposes. It comes down to deciding what the qualities that make up a certain identification are, and not instead looking for something intrinsic to the qualification itself, whatever that would mean. Another example. Am I an American? Well, do I have an American passport? Yes. Then I am an American because only an American could have an American passport. Or instead, do I have a social security number? Yes, only an American could have a social security number. And now you see there's a problem here. Someone can have a greencard, not have an American passport or a social security number and still consider themselves an American. What do they derive their American-ness from? Well, simply that they feel like one (edit - or just that they have a greencard..). They talk like one, work in America, listen to American music, and so on. How then, does someone else determine their American-ness? Well they determine if their felt sense of idea of an American matches up with how this person appears. That's all anyone can do. Can you do the same thing with the identification of Buddhist? The definition in the article above I think is the closest anyone can come to a rigorous way to determine someone's "Buddhist-ness", even aside from all "denominational" distinctions. Could there also be such a way to determine if someone is an American? Does the label describe enough to warrant such an attempt? Is this worth doing? But a person with a social security number could never cease to be an American, because by official definitions, he is one. He might not feel like one in terms of culture, but he is an American until he rescinds his official documents. And so, at what point does someone who considers themself a Buddhist no longer consider themself a Buddhist? I personally agree with the 4 qualities of a Buddhist stated above, and I think, for myself, until the day I contest one of those assertions, I am one. I don't wear "Buddhist clothes" or prostrate myself daily or hang out with other Buddhists even, but I prefer to see it as something more fundamental (but still within the realm of logic), and so I still am one. I meet criteria, which have been laid out by those before me. I am just trying to point the way towards the no-man's land of identification and how complicated it becomes. But it never goes away (that's not possible, as long as we are using words to describe things), and that's the important thing. the worst thing is fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:
I suppose this is the only one I would take issue with, and that hinges in how you define emotions I suppose. Emotion without attachment is how I would specify it. Enlightened beings are not emotionless robots. They may show a perfect understanding and grasp of equanimity, but emotion still plays a part. Mudita (empathetic joy) and metta are some of the highest and most sublime states of mind we should strive for, and they can be very powerful emotionally. maybe it is talking about the more "coarse" emotions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 18:13
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:I suppose this is the only one I would take issue with, and that hinges in how you define emotions I suppose. Emotion without attachment is how I would specify it. Enlightened beings are not emotionless robots. They may show a perfect understanding and grasp of equanimity, but emotion still plays a part. Mudita (empathetic joy) and metta are some of the highest and most sublime states of mind we should strive for, and they can be very powerful emotionally.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 18:17
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:Emotion is attachment. Complete lack of attachment does not imply apathy, which maybe is the fight against identification. It points more towards a kind of indifference. Those states you mentioned might be the highest states of mind worth striving for, but they are still states of mind, and therefore conceptual. "Nirvana is beyond concepts." I suppose we are going to tangle over definitions and it isn't really worth it. The Buddha specifically instructed people to cultivate the Brahmaviharas, states of sublime abiding, in an effort to bring peace to the mind and to reduce suffering, both of the practitioner and other sentient beings. Those states themselves are not conducive to suffering. The joy of mudita and the all-encompassing love of metta are not the same as the brief joy one might get at winning the lottery or buying a new car, which is clearly dukkha. Instead of just saying "All emotions are pain", I have found other translations that clarify it as "stained emotions" or "contaminated emotions", which is more in line with what the Buddha typically taught: that emotions based on attachment to compounded states lead to suffering, even when we think they are making us feel good. I think the 4 points are fine, and I ultimately agree with them. I just think phrasing something like "all emotions are painful" leads people who are new to Buddhism down the inevitable road toward "this stuff is pessimistic, I don't want to not feel things", which unfortunately I see all too often.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 18:25
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:I suppose we are going to tangle over definitions and it isn't really worth it. The Buddha specifically instructed people to cultivate the Brahmaviharas, states of sublime abiding, in an effort to bring peace to the mind and to reduce suffering, both of the practitioner and other sentient beings. Those states themselves are not conducive to suffering. The joy of mudita and the all-encompassing love of metta are not the same as the brief joy one might get at winning the lottery or buying a new car, which is clearly dukkha. The "all-encompassing love of metta" is by its nature a fleeting state, therefore transitory and illusory, and therefore pain. Prickly Pete posted:I think the 4 points are fine, and I ultimately agree with them. I just think phrasing something like "all emotions are painful" leads people who are new to Buddhism down the inevitable road toward "this stuff is pessimistic, I don't want to not feel things", which unfortunately I see all too often. the worst thing is fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:Ok but definitions are everything. Our suffering is caused by our becoming tangled in definitions and rules (Maybe I've read too much Wittgenstein). I don't agree with what you've said here. It was said right the first time. Our suffering is caused by our attachment to things that are impermanent as though they are permenent, to things that are without self as though they are self. Not just simply saying "emotions". quote:The "all-encompassing love of metta" is by its nature a fleeting state, therefore transitory and illusory, and therefore pain. Whether or not it is fleeting is not what causes pain or suffering. It is attachment to that state, and having the state arise as a result of attachment to conditioned phenomenon that causes us to suffer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:
You said suffering is brought about by our attachment (craving or aversion) to things that are impermanent through thinking they are permanent. What then, is Metta? Edit - Let's make something clear. The practice of Metta isn't actually about other people, even if they are the object of the practice. It is about yourself. It is an antidote for (some) negative emotions, for instance guilt I suppose. I think you're trying to tell yourself that since you think you're manifesting an emotional state only for others, it couldn't possibly be suffering. That is a trap. That does not mean it is not worthwhile for a time, and not worth doing, but just keep the bigger perspective in mind. First things first. the worst thing is fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:The "all-encompassing love of metta" is by its nature a fleeting state, therefore transitory and illusory, and therefore pain. Transitory and illusory states are not in and of themselves painful or suffering causing. Indeed, all states are transitory and illusory. Emotions are not necessarily suffering. It is only suffering if we attach ourselves on those emotions. It is perfectly acceptable to be happy you won the game - the suffering only comes in if you attach on that, if you think "I want to feel like this forever!" The suffering of happiness only occurs in the suffering of sadness. The various sufferings, those of having a unwanted thing, of wanting an unhad thing, of losing a wanted thing one haves, or of gaining an unwanted thing one does not have, are all predicated upon having a wanted or unwanted thing. When a Buddha's mother dies, he feels sadness, but he does not suffer. When a Buddha performs virtues or sees others performing virtues, he is happy. If when he then sees those others perform non-virtues, surely he is no longer happy, but yet he is free from suffering, because he realizes the transitory nature and does not cling. So, I think it is semantically incorrect to say "all emotions are pain." It may be accurate to say "all emotions are pain when experienced by an unenlightened being who clings to them," but we can reduce this logically to see that emotions are not the core of that statement, by looking at each part piece by piece. Are emotions inherently painful? No. Are experiences inherently painful? No. Are beings inherently pained? No, not inherently. Unenlightened beings? Yes, but only because they cling, for if they did not have attachments or aversions, they would be enlightened beings. So clinging, attachment, and aversion, and by extension wants and unwants, are the root of suffering, and emotions are generally associated with suffering only because we tend to attach very strongly to happy emotions and be aversive to unhappy emotions. One could argue that certain emotions always come with suffering, such as specifically hate-filled anger, but I think under examination one would find that even those emotions are only suffering or only exist because of attachment or aversion. ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:You were talking about Metta as a desireable state, something worth pursuing. What happens when it ends? What do you have then? You have a memory of a good feeling. Do you want to bring it about again? Maybe you do, maybe you don't. If you do, then that is the suffering in itself. If you don't, then why were you trying to bring it about in the first place? Then the desire to bring about a pleasurable state from the start was the suffering. This is the scope of the problem, for us all to continually remind ourselves of. But this is a false dichotomy. When it happens, it happens, that is nice. When it stops happening, it stops happening. I don't have to want it back, nor do I have to pursue it again. I don't have to be upset because it's gone, or yearn for it to be back. States, emotions, events, they rise and fall like waves on the sea. So for an enlightened being, there is certainly the possibility (in fact I believe the certainty) to feel compassion and joy for all sentient beings, and if that ends, for an enlightened being, then it just ends. It is senseless to avoid a positive thing for fear of the loss of that positive thing because that loss is a certainty. All things are impermanent! To avoid happiness because there may follow unhappiness is to embrace that unhappiness as a permanent state. Without understanding a path to the cessation of suffering, we must assume suffering is permanent, but because there has been a Buddha, we know this is not true. Thus we should not act like it is true. There is a path to the cessation of suffering. That path does not constitute emotionlessness. Emotions are experiences, like any other experiences. Avoiding unpleasant things is not the activity of an enlightened being. It is the opposite of the "one taste," to simply avoid things that lead to unpleasantness. So to say "emotions are pain" is false. Attachment and aversion towards emotions are pain. Emotions are pain only if we want to avoid them. Sadness is only suffering if we wish it were some other way. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
Rhymenoceros posted:I think consciousness as an emergent property fits pretty well with rebirth. Though not a property of only the brain; any 'integrated-enough' network that communicates (probably) 'feels' like something. Have you never seen an infant with an apparently full-blown personality?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Transitory and illusory states are not in and of themselves painful or suffering causing. Indeed, all states are transitory and illusory. Emotions are not necessarily suffering. It is only suffering if we attach ourselves on those emotions. It is perfectly acceptable to be happy you won the game - the suffering only comes in if you attach on that, if you think "I want to feel like this forever!" The suffering of happiness only occurs in the suffering of sadness. The various sufferings, those of having a unwanted thing, of wanting an unhad thing, of losing a wanted thing one haves, or of gaining an unwanted thing one does not have, are all predicated upon having a wanted or unwanted thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 18:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 15:35 |
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:You were talking about Metta as a desireable state, something worth pursuing. What happens when it ends? What do you have then? You have a memory of a good feeling. Do you want to bring it about again? Maybe you do, maybe you don't. If you do, then that is the suffering in itself. If you don't, then why were you trying to bring it about in the first place? Then the desire to bring about a pleasurable state from the start was the suffering. This is the scope of the problem, for us all to continually remind ourselves of. From my perspective, metta is an outward manifestation of buddha nature, or at least the effort to manifest it- which is not to be regarded as an emotion or feeling. It is the "Love" in "Love thine enemy".
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 18:55
|
|