|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:No it just means you might not be very smart. My arguments have always been logical and NEVER been based on some kind of authority. I am starting to think you're not exactly my audience. Nor WaffleHound, nor Paremetic, or some other people. Maybe Mr. M. (I get a sense of intelligence from him) and everyone who has said nothing but only read silently. Don't be so inflammatory; remember that a bodhisattva's vows include not giving distorted questions to those who ask in earnest, it includes giving teachings to those who follow a different path than you in their own honest faith to help them. Keep it civil- Remember that everyone should be your audience when it comes to dharma, their faculties are not limited- you're just not reaching them, and that's on you to correct.
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 07:16 |
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:I like most of this except this part: full-blown personality is part of the brain which I think derives from our erroneous Western materialistic notion that the form creates the consciousness. It is never so, IMO. But yes, I agree, karma determines not only your start out personality, but heredity, environment, and the events that will shape that personality. And I've heard that that basically encompasses the first 35 or 40 years of life. I don't really have a strong standpoint on how much of what gets transferred through each rebirth, but it is fun to think about  Mr. Mambold posted:You know, that last sentence reads like just blindly following along, so I'm going to pick on you about it. If the Buddha was right all along, he'd never have allowed women and laypersons into the Sangha. It took Ananda's nagging for Gautama to recognize his error and correct it. Before having some slightly deeper meditation, I don't think I could have been open to the idea of rebirth, because I just didn't have the right information. It's like looking at the world through a telescope, never knowing it's possible to look into the telescope at the observer. Mr. Mambold posted:Where's the fun in that? But agreed, it is an excellent opportunity for Right posting. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 20:49
|
|
|
Buried alive posted:The point is to say that for someone who is lost in the forest, but sees the tree line, you certainly don't act like it very much. The most that can be said is that you are sinking to ad hominems just like they are and that you're misunderstanding them just like they are you. That doesn't seem to be the case. They get that you think emotions are pain/attachment/tainted/etc. They just disagree with it by drawing a line between attachment and emotions. Their observation being that emotions are things that happen spontaneously regardless of whether you are attached to them or not. It seems like according to them emotions are no more an attachment than your leg moving when the doctor taps your knee is an attachment. Attachment is its own thing which can certainly play upon emotions, it might even be an emotion itself. Yet for all that, "I want to feel happy" is different than "I feel happy." You deny this. Fine. Why? You've stated many times that emotions are attachment, that by necessity they are craving, or aversion or whatever. I think that I and most others don't see why that is so. First off, I wonder how you know someone "who is lost in the forest but sees the treeline" is supposed to act. I think I act exactly like that kind of person, lol. I wrote a bunch after this point and just erased it because I think I have just realized I was wrong. If an enlightened person still has functional thoughts, they must still have functional emotions. Because thought and emotion are ultimately on the same gradient within conditioned mind, with thought being more precise and emotion being more diffuse. They couldn't be separate qualities of mind. This isn't providing some new level of understanding for me just yet, but I guess I just need to explore further. I guess conditioned mind never goes away in a way. I'm not sure. But it does seem now that there must be functional emotions just as there are functional thoughts (rather than self-reflexive emotions and self-reflexive thoughts). Thanks for this post again. You helped me realize this somehow. It takes someone with actual curiousity and intellectual precision to move a discussion forward. edit - Although, those functional emotions are only necessary when relating to others, emotions are not relevant on one's own as far as I can see. Maybe sensed feelings about things that are not articulated yet. Are those emotions? What's the difference between emotions of the personality and the feelings that happen when you have a thought but can't put it into words yet? So maybe I am too quick to admit I was wrong. I think those personality emotions disappear, but those sensed feelings never do, because they are part and parcel with the intellectual process of mind. And an enlightened person can feel someone else's emotions but not confuse them for their own in one sense, but as their own in another sense. And they can relate to them better that way, and at the same time not coddle them. So they still feel emotions, just not from the self-reflexive personality of their own mind, which has been rendered irrelevant. Of course individual tendencies are still there, but what were they going to do, disappear? edit 2 - So I guess the important distinction is between "creative" emotions and "reflexive" emotions. Unfortunately, Buddhism doesn't talk about creativity as such that much, so it is difficult to arrive at these kinds of distinctions within Buddhism. Does anyone agree that creative emotions remain, but reflexive emotions (the ones that create a self identity) are the ones that dissipate? That seems a better way to say it for me, and doesn't go against the whole four seals argument. the worst thing is fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Dec 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:
What do you mean by creative? Do you mean emotions that are beneficial when cultivated? Like the joy one would get from meritorious deeds or something like that. edit: I just saw your edit. I think anything that stems from self-identity would fade away for sure. Doing away with identity view is one of the first things that is abandoned upon stream-entry. People Stew fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Dec 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:What do you mean by creative? Do you mean emotions that are beneficial when cultivated? Like the joy one would get from meritorious deeds or something like that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
An emotion would be creative if it can fit no prior category. As in, you couldn't feel it and say "this is joy". It would be something entirely new in itself. An entirely new thing in the world that would require articulation and expression. This doesn't preclude the fact that the idea may have already been done. Just that the process that created this feeling/emotion was totally novel and fit no prior form that was partially constrained by language and what had come before.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 21:19
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:Sefless emotions that begin to express new ideas, new ways of doing things, new ways of seeing things. Sensed feelings about things that turn into articulated thoughts. Even creative emotions that require expression in dance, art, music because they can't be articulated in thought (language). Not "feel-good" emotions where they are solely for the purpose of building up some sense of self, like I am still saying joy is, not that joy is a bad thing. Cultivating joy is very important, but it is an antidote, not a creative emotion in itself I am saying. Honestly I don't know. I could see arguments on both sides. On one hand you could argue that the urge to take a sensed feeling and turn it into a creative "something" stems from self-view, as only someone with self-view would have this impulse. I don't know if an enlightened being would want to create art, for example. I think not, but I'm not sure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:Honestly I don't know. I could see arguments on both sides. On one hand you could argue that the urge to take a sensed feeling and turn it into a creative "something" stems from self-view, as only someone with self-view would have this impulse. I don't know if an enlightened being would want to create art, for example. I think not, but I'm not sure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 21:26
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:An emotion would be creative if it can fit no prior category. As in, you couldn't feel it and say "this is joy". It would be something entirely new in itself. An entirely new thing in the world that would require articulation and expression. I think this is an entirely over-complicated way of trying to understand it. I mean, it's really clear from both the canon and from later Buddhist scholarship that liberation isn't cessation of emotions, it's cessation of suffering which includes suffering that can come from those emotions. The Dalai Lama, for example, certainly feels joy and sadness. What he probably feels much less of suffering due to these emotions than any of us here. It is possible to feel happy without having negative grasping emotions that bind us to a desire for that happiness, for example. ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:First off, I wonder how you know someone "who is lost in the forest but sees the treeline" is supposed to act. I think I act exactly like that kind of person, lol. They probably wouldn't be rude, self-centred, have a poor grasp of the Dharma, insist that they are no longer in a position where they need to learn and thus everyone trying to help them is ignorant, edit: get so frustrated that they lash out with maliciousness, and reject great teachers who might disagree with them, or say things like this: ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:It takes someone with actual curiousity and intellectual precision to move a discussion forward. When for a couple of pages many of us have actually tried presenting you with real, solid information on the very questions you asked about. We just also take issue with your attitude and your ridiculous claims to be near Arahatship when despite the fact that you are probably one of the least knowledgeable and most ego-centric posters in this thread who claims to be a Buddhist. Beyond not being able to admit that you may have been wrong at any point, even now there cannot be a concession that makes others correct in their understanding of the Dharma no matter how great a teacher they may be. You seem to only operate on the assumption that you are capable of greater understanding than anyone else here and therefore that some novel new theory that you come up with but is different from the known understanding is correct, because the alternative is you were wrong and we were in a position where we were teaching you something. I'm not saying that as some giant personal shot, if you can't handle criticism of yourself from a Dharma perspective then you need to really consider why you feel that way, because Buddha himself wasn't above admonishing disciples who had decided to embrace wrong view.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 21:34
|
|
|
Listen buddy I dunno why you go through all this trouble. None of this is helpful to me in any way. Like, I don't care what you think in this regard. I only care about helpful things that move thought forward. It's like you're trying to keep me in line more than you are trying to either teach or learn. I don't even want to reply to anything specific in it, just as before, because it's just filler. Buried Alive's post was helpful. Mr Mambold's posts are at least interesting. Yours are filler. Maybe you should figure out why. And cut the "we" nonsense. Speak for yourself. You're not part of some monolithic entity of truth. Quit trying to hide in the crowd. edit - I don't even know why I feel the need to respond. Maybe I'm trying to ward off these stupid hijacks so people can think about things that actually matter without worrying about getting jumped on. the worst thing is fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Dec 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 21:42
|
|
|
Wait a second, how do you know what the Dalai Lama feels? If anything, he BECAME peace/joy. That's my standpoint on it. He doesn't feel those things. I am nowhere near that, keep that Arhant word away from me. "Reaching the clearing" for me is still a couple years away at least, and at best.
the worst thing is fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Dec 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 21:54
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:Listen buddy I dunno why you go through all this trouble. None of this is helpful to me in any way. I can't begin to imagine why, most people would find posts from people helping them with dharma or pointing out that their behaviour is inappropriate to be helpful. You really should consider why it's not helpful to you, because it's not me. And many of us here talk outside of this thread or even know each other in person, there isn't a royal "we" here as much as the fact that a lot of us are bothered by your behaviour and claims. Please retread my last post and assume I wasn't speaking from anger but from stern compassion, since that's accurate. You're assigning undue maliciousness to what I say, when I'm trying, like many other posters here, to help you. As to your Dalai Lama question: http://www.dalailama.com/messages/transcripts/10-questions-time-magazine First response.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
Alright what do you want me to do at this point. I'm getting tired of this whole thing. I am getting the sense that you also have an uncompromising position and aren't actually willing to agree to disagree. I am willing to agree to disagree about the similarity or difference between emotions and attachment to emotions. I always was, as I said before. Are you? What is it you want me to do, or not do? Admit something? Just "fall in line"? Leave the thread forever? (Wouldn't that be a shame!) WAFFLEHOUND posted:
the worst thing is fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Dec 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 22:13
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:Alright what do you want me to do at this point. I'm getting tired of this whole thing. I am getting the sense that you also have an uncompromising position and aren't actually willing to agree to disagree. Crazy wisdom without the wisdom
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 22:17
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:Alright what do you want me to do at this point. I'm getting tired of this whole thing. I am getting the sense that you also have an uncompromising position and aren't actually willing to agree to disagree. The reason I'm not compromising is your thesis is demonstrably incorrect. You keep arriving at some novel conclusion that butts up against religious scholarship for the last 2500 years. Not to mention that the idea of emotions being bad is actually a fairly common beginner conversation, one that people new to Dharma are often concerned about. The onus isn't on me to come to some kind of middle ground with an idea that isn't even accurate, and the scorn you're getting is in large part directed at your disdain for those trying to help you understand the truth while at the same time you make outrageous claims and call those disagreeing with your (incorrect) ideas either not Buddhist, not enlightened enough, or charlatans. You've been so willing to personally attack others on their understanding and so totally unwilling to examine yours in the slightest.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 22:20
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:I'm not sure you want to hear my responses to these kinds of things anymore. But this doesn't say what you think it does. I see anger as the creative type of feeling, a precursor to articulation of something, and not necessarily self-reflexive. I doubt he feels self-reflexive sadness for example,but probably sadness over things in the world. You still don't understand my point of view. Of course it doesn't say what I think it does. I'm sorry for thinking I had a point, I obviously am incapable of the kind of understanding you have and only you know Dharma. How foolish of me.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:The reason I'm not compromising is your thesis is demonstrably incorrect. You keep arriving at some novel conclusion that butts up against religious scholarship for the last 2500 years. Not to mention that the idea of emotions being bad is actually a fairly common beginner conversation, one that people new to Dharma are often concerned about. The onus isn't on me to come to some kind of middle ground with an idea that isn't even accurate, and the scorn you're getting is in large part directed at your disdain for those trying to help you understand the truth while at the same time you make outrageous claims and call those disagreeing with your (incorrect) ideas either not Buddhist, not enlightened enough, or charlatans. You've been so willing to personally attack others on their understanding and so totally unwilling to examine yours in the slightest. I never said emotions were bad. You are not being "compassionately stern", just foolish and grasping at straws. You told me to seek counseling without knowing a single thing about me, that was a fear-based statement more than compassion. You have no idea who I am. What do you think I've been talking about all this time concerning the 4 seals anyway? We're going around in loving circles. That was the basis for my argument. That is "religious scholarship". Around and around in loving circles. You might think I look bad at this point but you are really showing your rear end with your mischaracterizations. You really shouldn't be posting in this thread. Maybe I shouldn't either. So you just want me to admit that I am wrong about everything I said. That's a silly thing to want. I've already made too much of a case, anyone with half a brain can see I at least have a point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
When the Dalai Lama said he felt depressed when his brother died, or extremely sad when that one monk misinterpreted his advice and killed himself, what he actually meant was, uh, something different.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 22:25
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:OK you're being an idiot. You are the poster farthest away from Dharma I have ever seen in this thread, and that includes the occasional FYAD insurgency.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 22:26
|
|
|
Ruddha posted:When the Dalai Lama said he felt depressed when his brother died, or extremely sad when that one monk misinterpreted his advice and killed himself, what he actually meant was, uh, something different. Anyway I don't know in what manner he was depressed or sad, and your snarky tone is not necessary.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:You are the poster farthest away from Dharma I have ever seen in this thread, and that includes the occasional FYAD insurgency.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 22:29
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:OK very few people in the world are or have been totally enlightened. Many are partially. That's not a strike against them, just shows the force of karma in action. You're hyper concerned with other people being mean to you while being a giant jerk to everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 22:30
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:That's the goal, to be free of the Dharma. What did you think, it was a color by numbers adventure? If you just do everything you're supposed to, you get the goodies? That is what Buddhism is, yes. It's a path to follow, not a dirt road to go ATVing around and occasionally just happen to overlap. There is a goal and Dharma is the path to that goal.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 22:32
|
|
|
Ruddha posted:You're hyper concerned with other people being mean to you while being a giant jerk to everyone else. WAFFLEHOUND posted:That is what Buddhism is, yes. It's a path to follow, not a dirt road to go ATVing around and occasionally just happen to overlap. There is a goal and Dharma is the path to that goal. You're like the Buddhist police. I'm more like the Buddhist court jester. the worst thing is fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Dec 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 22:33
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:I'm much more flexible than the rabble in this thread. I am at least willing to agree to disagree. Would someone who has actually cultivated any Buddha nature call people trying to help teach them Dharma "rabble"?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:I'm much more flexible than the rabble in this thread. I am at least willing to agree to disagree. Your baffling illogic and emotional instability are actively harmful to anyone trying to learn anything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Would someone who has actually cultivated any Buddha nature call people trying to help teach them Dharma "rabble"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
Ruddha posted:Your baffling illogic and emotional instability are actively harmful to anyone trying to learn anything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:I don't think you actually believe that. I have made many helpful posts in this thread, and also the Meditation thread. I just can't tolerate foolish thinking. And I have made every effort to be logically consistent. You've spoken hypocritically and childishly a whole bunch in this thing and been shown it a bunch. You're acting like a crazy person, and if you indeed suffer some sort of mental illness, I recommend you seek medical attention and proper council.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
Are you 15? You sound like a teen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
Please please please don't think I'm trolling when I say you really should consider reaching out to counselling services. I'm not trying to be a dick, you come across as unstable and not in a good place.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
Ruddha posted:You've spoken hypocritically and childishly a whole bunch in this thing and been shown it a bunch. You're acting like a crazy person, and if you indeed suffer some sort of mental illness, I recommend you seek medical attention and proper council.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Please please please don't think I'm trolling when I say you really should consider reaching out to counselling services. I'm not trying to be a dick, you come across as unstable and not in a good place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 22:44
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:OK let me go do that then and see what they say. Don't forget to mention that you think you're pretty much an arahat. Again, not being a dick, it's just that that's kind of an important detail.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 22:46
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:I can give you my cell and we can hash this out on the phone, I'm sick of this..not looking to argue though XXX-XXX-XXXX, I'll edit this out once you call.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Don't forget to mention that you think you're pretty much an arahat. Again, not being a dick, it's just that that's kind of an important detail.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
I actually called that number by the way. Come on man, let's talk. I'm not as antagonistic as I appear.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 22:49
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:I actually called that number by the way. Good.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
See, you think of me as the enemy now. You're not actually trying to help me. If you were, you'd give me your real number. So could you drop the pretense? You're putting on airs. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 22:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 07:16 |
|
|
Come on man, reach out. I need help. Your help
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 22:52
|
|