|
Mr. Mambold posted: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 18:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:37 |
|
|
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. [quote] It is a desirable state not due to how it feels, or how it makes you feel - It is desirable (that might not be the best word in this context) because of the impact it has on the mind and the world. When it ends, it ends. What you have then is the beneficial fruit of karmically good action. If you want to bring it about again, you do. That isn't suffering. If you are miserable at its absence, you suffer. That also means you aren't working with an equanimous mind, which needs to happen in order to prevent attachment and keep suffering out of the mix. A mind imbued with equanimity is what allows a being to exist in a world filled with emotions say "That is ok. It is just like this". The desire to do good is not suffering. The desire to do "good" based on some deluded notion of permanence or self or attachment is suffering. There is a difference. Which is why I replied to this whole thing in the first place. Looking into the 4 points you posted a bit more, I see that other people have also clarified it as "materialistic craving", "All stained emotions are painful" (This is apparently from HHDL), etc. It is really just talking about dukkha in terms of clinging and craving to states with a deluded mind under the false impression that they are permanent, in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 19:01
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:Then you do not understand Buddha-nature yet. The effort to manifest it is no closer to it than the lack of that effort, and so saying it could be either doesn't say much. Just means there's more work to be done. Right. The effort to manifest is just the same as lack of effort. That is why Right Effort is one spoke on the wheel of the eightfold path. And we're the ones that aren't real buddhists. quote:"And what, monks, is right effort? You hear that everyone? Don't make efforts toward metta or sublime joy, or the sublime peace of mental cultivation, or any of the things the Buddha taught. You aren't real Buddhists.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 19:06
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:It is a desirable state not due to how it feels, or how it makes you feel - It is desirable (that might not be the best word in this context) because of the impact it has on the mind and the world. Prickly Pete posted:You hear that everyone? Don't make efforts toward metta or sublime joy, or the sublime peace of mental cultivation, or any of the things the Buddha taught. You aren't real Buddhists. the worst thing is fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 19:06
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:Then you do not understand Buddha-nature yet. The effort to manifest it is no closer to it than the lack of that effort, and so saying it could be either doesn't say much. Just means there's more work to be done. Lol, buddha nature is not to be 'understood', but yeah, agreed there's more work to be done. Believe me, if you don't think Gautama or any Arhant or boddhisattva manifests buddha nature, then I don't know what to say to you. They shine, friend.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:The desire to do good is suffering, just as the desire to do ill is. There is no such thing as an "unstained" emotion. All emotion is conditioned experience. Those other people are wrong. HHDL did not say that, he said "all contaminated phenomena are of the nature of suffering". You might have looked on this page. Some about.com guy put in "all stained emotions are painful", which is a misunderstanding of the teaching. Well those are interesting thoughts but I haven't really ever seen the Buddha say anything that aligns with your interpretation of the Dhamma. If you have some sutras that show your understanding of Dukkha and effort are correct, I'd be very happy to read them. Otherwise I think I'll just go on being a non-Buddhist who mistakenly thinks he is a student of the Dhamma.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 19:17
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:Well those are interesting thoughts but I haven't really ever seen the Buddha say anything that aligns with your interpretation of the Dhamma. If you have some sutras that show your understanding of Dukkha and effort are correct, I'd be very happy to read them. Otherwise I think I'll just go on being a non-Buddhist who mistakenly thinks he is a student of the Dhamma. Edit - also, all traditions past traditional Theravada Buddhism clarified and articulated much more than the Buddha did, without really "stepping on him". Don't stop at just his teachings. And I am not Theravada anyway, I am Dzogchen, if anything, which I have said before. I understand that the original teachings were limited in scope, yet not wrong. the worst thing is fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 19:19
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:Everything he ever said said this (edit - or implied it). Your claims for "evidence" ring shrill. You are a student of the Dhamma but you are not a Buddhist yet. It's not like you don't belong to some exclusive club. It's a standard to live up to. Do it for yourself. Asking for evidence is just asking for evidence. The Dhamma was transmitted via sutra for a very long time. If the teachings you are espousing are as fundamental and clear as you claim they are, it should be very, very simple for you to cite a few sutras where the Buddha made the claims you are making. I'm sure the rest of us non-Buddhists would be very interested in seeing how closely aligned your views are with those of Gotama. In the meantime, you might want to take it under consideration that discussing religious doctrine with people with whom you have a few subtle differences, and then taking the approach that the others aren't "real" practitioners, is highly arrogant, and speaks just as much to your own attachment to views as it does to their supposed lack of understanding.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 19:28
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:Asking for evidence is just asking for evidence. The Dhamma was transmitted via sutra for a very long time. If the teachings you are espousing are as fundamental and clear as you claim they are, it should be very, very simple for you to cite a few sutras where the Buddha made the claims you are making. I'm sure the rest of us non-Buddhists would be very interested in seeing how closely aligned your views are with those of Gotama. I'm not going to play your evidence game, we don't even need to resort to it. We're talking about the four seals. You are asking for it because you think it doesn't exist and because you can't think for yourself, not because you genuinely want to know. You're not fooling me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 19:33
|
|
|
Why do you want to be a Buddhist so badly anyway?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:Remember, we're still talking about the four seals of Buddhism, and a disagreement on whether emotions are pain or not. All anyone has tried to do is say "some emotions are pain" when it clearly says "all emotions are pain". Therefore, not Buddhists. There was a logical progression to this point. I am not saying you're not Buddhists as a starting point because of some felt sense, it is the logical conclusion of a whole conversation. If you think that's somehow arrogant, then I dunno what to say. Just calling it how I see it, since no one else is going to do it. Actually, if it does exist I'd like to see it, because I haven't ever seen it. Not some teacher, not some interpretation of Dukkha, but the Buddha actually saying that. If that is the mark of who is or is not a real Buddhist, it should be fairly evident in the teachings and easy to find. I don't think "All emotions are pain" is a proper conclusion of the Buddha's teaching on Dukkha. That is my position and has been this entire time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 19:40
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:Remember, we're still talking about the four seals of Buddhism, and a disagreement on whether emotions are pain or not. All anyone has tried to do is say "some emotions are pain" when it clearly says "all emotions are pain". Therefore, not Buddhists. There was a logical progression to this point. I am not saying you're not Buddhists as a starting point because of some felt sense, it is the logical conclusion of a whole conversation. If you think that's somehow arrogant, then I dunno what to say. Just calling it how I see it, since no one else is going to do it. Wait you're doing this as a four seals thing? Because the four seals as I learned them are All conditioned things are impermanent All tainted things are suffering Nirvana is peace All phenomena are devoid and without self Sooo??? I see, I clicked the article you posted before from Shambhala Sun. I will not argue with the Dzongsar in this matter, but that is not a translation from Tibetan that I would personally endorse. Of course, Tibetan is certainly not my native language. So, with all the argument resulting from language, I am thoroughly amused that the Wittgensteinian nightmare has fruited, and people are being called non-Buddhists over translational differences ITT. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 19:41
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Wait you're doing this as a four seals thing? Because the four seals are That is basically the version of the four seals that I have seen as well. With the idea of the second seal that: "All tainted things are suffering" "All conditioned phenomenon are suffering" etc, basically, all things that the Buddha himself has said. Not "All emotions are painful", which doesn't really follow from the rest of the teachings, and doesn't fit in the context of the four noble truths. The seals, as you have described them, fit with the 4 noble truths, and with the ideas of anicca, anatta and dukkha. All very fundamental teachings of the Buddha. I feel like Obamacareshugsquad found a different version and is just fixated on it, and anyone who doesn't agree with the points explicitly as he has stated them is somehow not Buddhist. It is really strange and not really supported by the Dhamma as I have ever read it. People Stew fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Wait you're doing this as a four seals thing? Because the four seals are Prickly Pete posted:That is basically the version of the four seals that I have seen as well. With the idea of the second seal that: Paramemetic posted:
the worst thing is fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
The four seals as translated by Khenchen Konchog Gyaltsten that my center uses are: All composite phenomena are impermanent All the afflicted states are suffering All phenomena are devoid of self The unconditional, ultimate peace is nirvana The second part there can be taken to be "tainted" in the Dzogchen-styled sense to be "all things capable of being a subject of afflicted emotions," but an "afflicted state" does not translate to "emotion." The author of that article has taken a liberty with a translation, or is working with an unorthodox source. Edit: I think "afflicted things" is a greater set than "emotions" and so "all emotions are pain" is not accurate. Afflicted things are afflicted by attachment and aversion, which I think tends to agree with the point I made initially that nothing in and of itself is suffering, rather, suffering arises from attachment and aversion. This, I think, agrees very closely with the second Noble Truth, being that attachment, aversion, and craving are the origin of suffering. Suffering is not an inherent property of anything, including emotions, because all things are primordially empty. They are not primordially with-suffering. Suffering is an experiential state (and, arguably, constitutes this entire world as a continually arising process) that is dependently arisen. Emotions are not equal to pain because that would imply that the experience of emotion has an intrinsic, non-empty, permanent and foundational state, which is suffering. This is not true, because emotions, like any other experience, are dependently arisen. Afflicted states, being states tainted by attachment or aversion, are suffering because that suffering arises as a result of the attachment, aversion, or craving. Emotions can be afflicted in this way, but are not fundamentally or eidetically so afflicted. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:The four seals as translated by Khenchen Konchog Gyaltsten that my center uses are:
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:
They really aren't saying the same thing at all. One is an explicit claim that all emotions are suffering. The other is that emotions based on attachment, or "taints" or however your tradition classifies them, are suffering. There are options outside of that classification.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:They really aren't saying the same thing at all. One is an explicit claim that all emotions are suffering. The other is that emotions based on attachment, or "taints" or however your tradition classifies them, are suffering. There are options outside of that classification. Have any more translations? the worst thing is fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:States are nothing if not afflicted! Next So, would you say that all states are afflicted by definition? Would you assert, then, that this is a fundamental, permanent, and independent natural "state" of all states, that all states are afflicted by nature? Because if so you have thrown out the First Seal in favor of the Second. ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:My tradition doesn't classify emotions in any way at all! It sidesteps the whole issue. It doesn't, because making an existential statement of identity is certainly classification.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 19:56
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:My tradition doesn't classify emotions in any way at all! It sidesteps the whole issue. How does it define Dukkha?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
When in scripture the Buddha "enters into a state of samadhi," as an enlightened being, would you say that this state is necessarily tainted?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 19:58
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:So, would you say that all states are afflicted by definition? Would you assert, then, that this is a fundamental, permanent, and independent natural "state" of all states, that all states are afflicted by nature?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:How does it define Dukkha? the worst thing is fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 20:01
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:When in scripture the Buddha "enters into a state of samadhi," as an enlightened being, would you say that this state is necessarily tainted?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 20:02
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:There is no natural state apart from all states, aside from the one that we refer to in language. All states are impermanent and therefore afflicted. Affliction constantly happens. I have not introduced any contradiction between the seals. Impermanence is not affliction. Impermanence isn't even suffering. Emotions are empty, without substance. How, then, can an emotion be fundamentally suffering? No, an emotion can only be suffering if it is afflicted by attachment, aversion, or craving. Joy is only suffering when it is afflicted. In its natural state (emptiness), joy is not suffering.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 20:03
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:There is conditioned phenomena (in the mind) and there is unconditioned phenomena. Right, and attachment, or craving, or thirst for those phenomena, which is a result of ignorance, which leads to suffering. Which is why all emotions are not painful. Because they can be experienced without attachment or ignorance, which is the entire point of the path.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 20:03
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Impermanence is not affliction. Impermanence isn't even suffering.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 20:04
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:Right, and attachment, or craving, or thirst for those phenomena, which is a result of ignorance, which leads to suffering.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:Emotions are the suffering itself manifesting. They do not exist within themselves, sure. Emotions are the afflictions themselves, not something that can or can't have the qualities of attachment or aversion. They ARE the attachment or aversion. This is what I have been trying to say. I know this is what you've been trying to say, I just don't think the Buddha ever taught this. quote:Don't try to conceive of what the lack of emotions would be. It is not possible to intellectually describe that. I'm not trying to conceive about lack of emotions. I'm talking about lack of attachment and clinging to emotions. To feelings.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
Put another way, emotions are the core of the self. There is no self experiencing emotions. The self IS emotions. I hope this helps. Now we're zeroing in on something important. You guys still with me?Prickly Pete posted:I know this is what you've been trying to say, I just don't think the Buddha ever taught this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:Put another way, emotions are the core of the self. There is no self experiencing emotions. The self IS emotions. I hope this helps. Now we're zeroing in on something important. You guys still with me? Right. So when I was asking you to "Show me where the Buddha said this", you weren't able to, because he didn't. Telling someone they aren't a Buddhist because they disagree with a statement the Buddha never made is an interest debate strategy, I'll give you that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 20:11
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:So, with all the argument resulting from language, I am thoroughly amused that the Wittgensteinian nightmare has fruited, and people are being called non-Buddhists over translational differences ITT. Hardly a new phenomenon I don't think, even in the thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 20:11
|
|
|
This is how radical the teachings of the Buddha are. The very self you are looking for, trying to remove, is with you all day, every day! All those thoughts and feelings! That is the self. Not the experiencer of those thoughts and feelings that you are trying to find, that is the entire delusion. If you sincerely inspect these statements however you can, everything will change in your practice. If you want to know, you will know. If you need help, find it. There are many willing to help. I am certainly trying to help. I should be writing a paper but I am doing this. It helps me too though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:Right. So when I was asking you to "Show me where the Buddha said this", you weren't able to, because he didn't. Again, the Buddha did not explicitly say this, but he implied it, and future teachers clarified and expounded. He certainly did not argue against what I am saying, he just never said it as such.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 20:15
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:Hm ok we've come back around. I don't think you've listened to a single thing I've said. I've listened to it all. You're just aren't making a very good case for it in terms of things the Buddha actually taught, which is kind of the reason we are here in this thread. To discuss the teachings of the Buddha.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:I've listened to it all. You're just aren't making a very good case for it in terms of things the Buddha actually taught, which is kind of the reason we are here in this thread. To discuss the teachings of the Buddha.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
Do you agree with the three various translations of the four seals we have explored, or don't you? What the Buddha explicitly taught is not entirely relevant to that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
I'm really not trying to be obtuse at all. I think you have a mistaken interpretation of dukkha that leads you to believe that all emotions are painful and suffering. I think that is incorrect in terms of how the Buddha described suffering. It's really very simple. I think the Buddha discussed, at length, that the cause of suffering is attachment and craving, and gave us tools and strategies to avoid this, tools like metta and others that we have discussed in this conversation. They are wholesome tools and not rooted in the ignorance and delusion that causes suffering. Just saying "all emotions are suffering" is a sledgehammer. The Buddha showed a deeper understanding that I happen to agree with.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 20:22
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:Do you agree with the three various translations of the four seals we have explored, or don't you? What the Buddha explicitly taught is not entirely relevant to that. I have already stated this. I think the statement "all emotions are painful" and "all conditioned phenomenon" or "All the afflicted states are suffering" are fundamentally different. They are differentiated based on the presence of absence of clinging or craving. This is the second noble truth.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 20:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:37 |
|
|
I don't mean "don't have emotions". I have emotions every day. Don't supress them. But they are not going to take you anywhere you want to go. "Don't get carried away". The mind is a good servant but a poor master, as my teacher says. You are still being obtuse though, and not understanding that all of Buddhist teachings can be taken together to paint a broader and clearer picture of what's going on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 20:27
|
|