Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Which post are you responding to, ourself?
Hmmm... I was responding to yours because I thought it may be a commentary about petty disagreements, lol.
Maybe I shouldn't post so quickly after waking up in the morning.
Not really. How does one teach the Dharma without spreading it?
it depends as to what convention you are using for spreading. Buddha discovered and taught the Dhamma - this is the point - i used the convention of spreading with respect to the areas to which it got spread, so in that sense Buddha did not spread Dhamma to different areas of the world. you are using spreading in the convention that if a thing is told to another person, it is spread - then in this convention, Buddha spread Dhamma.
here in the discussion of the word spreading, i found an example of conventional truth, which is always with respect to a frame of reference.
And you also seem to be saying that it is ok to be attached to compassion and the hope that others will awaken.
How are you able to see attachment in the selfless act of compassion for reducing the suffering of others? Hope you are remembering that you asked about Buddha, who was Awakened. Now if you try to understand it, you can understand it.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
it depends as to what convention you are using for spreading. Buddha discovered and taught the Dhamma - this is the point - i used the convention of spreading with respect to the areas to which it got spread, so in that sense Buddha did not spread Dhamma to different areas of the world. you are using spreading in the convention that if a thing is told to another person, it is spread - then in this convention, Buddha spread Dhamma.
Do you think I was saying Buddha was a gossip? lol...
Ok, you seem to agree that Buddha not only spread the Dharma but asked his students to do the same.
How are you able to see attachment in the selfless act of compassion for reducing the suffering of others?
That's pretty much what I was asking you. Why do you think I ask the questions I do?
Some things are good to hold onto.
Hope you are remembering that you asked about Buddha, who was Awakened. Now if you try to understand it, you can understand it.
Of course I remember, lol. You however seem to be all over the place, no offence.
You say that awakening is the end of the path because Nirvana is realised but know that Buddha got up and started teaching after he was awakened... Does that sound like the end to you? Next you tell me that me wanting to enjoy life and help others do the same is grasping at life but if it is Buddha we are talking about, it's a different story.
You seem to be putting Buddha out of reach and that is contrary to the Dharma I have come to know.
it depends as to what convention you are using for spreading. Buddha discovered and taught the Dhamma - this is the point - i used the convention of spreading with respect to the areas to which it got spread, so in that sense Buddha did not spread Dhamma to different areas of the world. you are using spreading in the convention that if a thing is told to another person, it is spread - then in this convention, Buddha spread Dhamma.
Do you think I was saying Buddha was a gossip? lol...
Ok, you seem to agree that Buddha not only spread the Dharma but asked his students to do the same.
I said if you are taking the convention of spreading with respect to the areas to which it got spread, so in that sense Buddha did not spread Dhamma to different areas of the world - Hope you read this thing also above. I do not know whether Buddha asked his disciples to spread Dhamma all over the world, or it was the disciples' intention to spread the Dhamma all over the world.
How are you able to see attachment in the selfless act of compassion for reducing the suffering of others?
That's pretty much what I was asking you. Why do you think I ask the questions I do?
Some things are good to hold onto.
My understanding of Buddha's teachings till now: If you feel there is anything which is good to hold onto, then i think you miss the key point of Buddha's teachings.
Hope you are remembering that you asked about Buddha, who was Awakened. Now if you try to understand it, you can understand it.
Of course I remember, lol. You however seem to be all over the place, no offence.
You say that awakening is the end of the path because Nirvana is realised but know that Buddha got up and started teaching after he was awakened... Does that sound like the end to you? Next you tell me that me wanting to enjoy life and help others do the same is grasping at life but if it is Buddha we are talking about, it's a different story. You seem to be putting Buddha out of reach and that is contrary to the Dharma I have come to know. To worship Buddha is to miss the Buddha.
I think you till now do not understand why Buddha got up from the tree.
I am not saying to worship Buddha and i think even Buddha did not said to worship him.
My theoretical understanding says: But if you are trying to compare yourself with Buddha, then first attain Nirvana, then i think you will understand why Buddha got up from that tree. Because currently you are seeing/understanding the things through your mind, which is currently not the Awakened mind - but after you attain Nirvana, you will see/understand the things from your Awakened mind as did Buddha after getting Awakened.
The above is based on my theoretical understanding as till now I have not experienced anything with direct experience.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
My understanding of Buddha's teachings till now: If you feel there is anything which is good to hold onto, then i think you miss the key point of Buddha's teachings.
You contradict yourself by holding onto your view of Buddhas teachings. Or do you not think the Dharma is good?
Not a big deal, my friend. Since you have only been studying a short time, this is to be expected.
I will direct you to the Karaniya Metta Sutta
As a mother would risk her life to protect her child, her only child, even so should one cultivate a limitless heart with regard to all beings. With good will for the entire cosmos, cultivate a limitless heart: Above, below, & all around, unobstructed, without hostility or hate. Whether standing, walking, sitting, or lying down, as long as one is alert, one should be resolved on this mindfulness. This is called a sublime abiding here & now.
I feel this argument is about nothing, really. Compassion is a result of letting go, that's what matters.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited April 2012
Letting go of what exactly?
Do you let go of compassion? Of the Dharma?
Or is it the desire of an outcome. Of a destination?
Let go of everything and you won't be able to tie your own shoes.
You take letting go too literal/theoretical. You have to see it in the context of the practice. Letting go of compassion is impossible because it a result of letting go itself. Specifically, a result of letting go of anger. People hold onto anger, not onto compassion and love. And so, letting go does not mean not caring. When teachers talk about letting go, they mean to let things fall away that cause suffering. To not carry those things around anymore.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited April 2012
Exactly. This is basically what I am trying to get accross.
Caring about someone or something is still a kind of attachment but this is not the kind of attachment we are to let go of.
I am people and I don't hold onto anger. I hold onto compassion and love and so there comes a time to let go of letting go.
Some things are good to hold onto.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Don't get me wrong, I can tell compassion is both your objectives and that is all that really matters in my honest opinion.
This is all semantics and/or whistles and bows. If the answer is compassion, I don't need to see the work, haha!
The way I see it, the world is not as it seems. Everything we touch is real, but it exists in a completely different way than we percieve due to the ego. There is scientific proof stating that reality is a mental projection based on our personal likings. It is filtered mainly by the ego and does not display the true state of somethings being. It was also discovered in the double slit experiment that everything is flowing energy in a state of non solidity while we are not paying attention to it. This means that consciousness is what causes things to pull themselves together and everything comes from One unified field.
I define enlightenment as non-attachment to anything which leads to existence on the highest level. Once we truly accept everything as it truly is, which takes eliminating the ego, then we can truly see REALITY. I think that for now, we can't call this existence reality, rather illusion based on misinterpretation.
My understanding of Buddha's teachings till now: If you feel there is anything which is good to hold onto, then i think you miss the key point of Buddha's teachings.
You contradict yourself by holding onto your view of Buddhas teachings. Or do you not think the Dharma is good?
My understanding of Buddha's teachings till now says: good or bad - both are determinations, means they do not intrinsically exist. so they are conditioned things.
all conditioned things are unworthy of attachment because all conditioned things are impermanent(anicca), suffering(dukkha) and not-self(anatta).
the cessation of all conditions is true happiness.
@misecmisc1; Not a big deal, my friend. Since you have only been studying a short time, this is to be expected.
Agreed. I have been studying Buddha's teachings for only 8 months now. So currently, i am trying to understand Buddha's teachings.
My understanding of Buddha's teachings till now says: Buddha taught to see the things as they are.
So if you see the complete path, you will see that ultimately all conditioned things have to be let go, to experience the unconditioned.
You take letting go too literal/theoretical. You have to see it in the context of the practice. Letting go of compassion is impossible because it a result of letting go itself. Specifically, a result of letting go of anger. People hold onto anger, not onto compassion and love. And so, letting go does not mean not caring. When teachers talk about letting go, they mean to let things fall away that cause suffering. To not carry those things around anymore.
@sabre: Agreed that compassion is a result of letting go - but i think compassion is the result of letting go of self-view which in turn will let go of unwholesome states of selfishness, anger etc.
Do you think above is ok, if not then please correct me.
The way I see it, the world is not as it seems. Everything we touch is real, but it exists in a completely different way than we percieve due to the ego. There is scientific proof stating that reality is a mental projection based on our personal likings. It is filtered mainly by the ego and does not display the true state of somethings being. It was also discovered in the double slit experiment that everything is flowing energy in a state of non solidity while we are not paying attention to it. This means that consciousness is what causes things to pull themselves together and everything comes from One unified field.
I am not sure about " the world is not as it seems " and the scientific proof you speak about in this post, MrAaronoch. In any event, my understanding is still compatable. It is not the events of our lives which cause the suffering and difficulties, rather our reactions to them, which do. For me, things are as they seem - conditioned by causes which we can not fully understand and which are always changing. This does not mean that we can not live with personal identity and integrity - in fact, understanding the four noble truths and three marks of existance highlights the importance of making wise choices ... we always have a choice. Courage and honesty is needed to express who we are - as fleeting as that may be, moment to moment. Often I have heard a narrative/excuse for personal dishonesty or as it is presented " living in the moment" with no regard for long term consideration of the implications of our actions for self and others - other than having to live with the guilt of it. Human life is about finding out who we are - not avoiding it.
You take letting go too literal/theoretical. You have to see it in the context of the practice. Letting go of compassion is impossible because it a result of letting go itself. Specifically, a result of letting go of anger. People hold onto anger, not onto compassion and love. And so, letting go does not mean not caring. When teachers talk about letting go, they mean to let things fall away that cause suffering. To not carry those things around anymore.
@sabre: Agreed that compassion is a result of letting go - but i think compassion is the result of letting go of self-view which in turn will let go of unwholesome states of selfishness, anger etc.
Do you think above is ok, if not then please correct me.
Not everything starts with letting go of self-view. But I'd say go find it out.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
My understanding of Buddha's teachings till now: If you feel there is anything which is good to hold onto, then i think you miss the key point of Buddha's teachings.
You contradict yourself by holding onto your view of Buddhas teachings. Or do you not think the Dharma is good?
My understanding of Buddha's teachings till now says: good or bad - both are determinations, means they do not intrinsically exist. so they are conditioned things.
all conditioned things are unworthy of attachment because all conditioned things are impermanent(anicca), suffering(dukkha) and not-self(anatta).
the cessation of all conditions is true happiness.
@misecmisc1; Not a big deal, my friend. Since you have only been studying a short time, this is to be expected.
Agreed. I have been studying Buddha's teachings for only 8 months now. So currently, i am trying to understand Buddha's teachings.
My understanding of Buddha's teachings till now says: Buddha taught to see the things as they are.
So if you see the complete path, you will see that ultimately all conditioned things have to be let go, to experience the unconditioned.
Ahh, all conditioned things...
Now, how do you personally define "conditioned"?
Did you read the sutta I posted? Do you see how Buddha would have us define "good" and "wholesome"?
My understanding of Buddha's teachings till now: If you feel there is anything which is good to hold onto, then i think you miss the key point of Buddha's teachings.
You contradict yourself by holding onto your view of Buddhas teachings. Or do you not think the Dharma is good?
My understanding of Buddha's teachings till now says: good or bad - both are determinations, means they do not intrinsically exist. so they are conditioned things.
all conditioned things are unworthy of attachment because all conditioned things are impermanent(anicca), suffering(dukkha) and not-self(anatta).
the cessation of all conditions is true happiness.
@misecmisc1; Not a big deal, my friend. Since you have only been studying a short time, this is to be expected.
Agreed. I have been studying Buddha's teachings for only 8 months now. So currently, i am trying to understand Buddha's teachings.
My understanding of Buddha's teachings till now says: Buddha taught to see the things as they are.
So if you see the complete path, you will see that ultimately all conditioned things have to be let go, to experience the unconditioned.
Ahh, all conditioned things...
Now, how do you personally define "conditioned"?
@ourself: i have not defined "conditioned" personally. Buddha said all phenomena except Nirvana are conditioned because they arise due to their conditions arising and cease due to their conditions ceasing as explained in Dependent Origination.
Exactly. This is basically what I am trying to get accross.
Caring about someone or something is still a kind of attachment but this is not the kind of attachment we are to let go of.
I am people and I don't hold onto anger. I hold onto compassion and love and so there comes a time to let go of letting go.
Some things are good to hold onto.
Compassion need not be coupled with attachments. The Buddha had compassion but had no attachments. There is no need to hold on to compassion because it is a naturally occurring quality of an enlightened mind. It is a mistake to believe that some attachment or grasping is necessary to have compassion.
Let go of everything and you won't be able to tie your own shoes.
The only thing you need to hold on to to tie your shoes, is your shoe laces.
Nirvana is always there in the first place. But till we remain deluded with ignorance, we do not realize it. After the ignorance is removed with wisdom, we may get Awakened.
The rest of the argument seem to be about "why did the Buddha get up and teach people then?"
Because what he found out was amazing, and he like to share it.
And you also seem to be saying that it is ok to be attached to compassion and the hope that others will awaken.
I don't think it's about being attached to compassion,
He doesn't need to spread the dharma, doesn't crave it, doesn't get annoyed/frustrated when he doesn't get to do it etc...
Attachments are fear, fear of losing something you imagine you have/will have etc...
You don't need the fear in order to help someone. as in : "maybe he wont get it, maybe i wont be able to show them the way, that would be terrible" or fantasizing : "someday everyone will know the dharma!" then everything that would threaten this idealize vision of the future would cause him anxiety.
you just try your best. thats all he can do. Not expecting things to fit his ideal version of the world.
Attachments are a physical thing, the sensation of fear in the belly, the deluded ideas that lead to these fears etc... Without these, you are just free to do whatever you want, to truly try your best with what you have to work with.
Understanding the true nature of things makes it difficult to have attachments.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
i have not defined "conditioned" personally. Buddha said all phenomena except Nirvana are conditioned because they arise due to their conditions arising and cease due to their conditions ceasing as explained in Dependent Origination.
I can agree with you here... A thing manifests when the conditions are right and until then it stays hidden. However, I am more talking about being happy. Is happiness a condition in your view? In mine, it is the default state. When we touch our true nature, beyond birth and death, there is a joy that has no opposite. To me, that joy is impossible to let go of because it arises from letting go of the preconceived notion of permenance and being seperate. But I have also heard the teaching about letting go of letting go if it gets to the point where we think we should let go of happiness.
When it comes to the individual versus the whole, I see no struggle and I have let go of the idea that I am this person that types even while I sit here enjoying typing. I can walk the middle path between the individual and the whole by enjoying both.
I'm not trying to say I'm an enlightened being because that is far from the truth but if I am mindful and focus in a certain way, I can make the labels fall away and touch our true nature.
Compassion need not be coupled with attachments. The Buddha had compassion but had no attachments. There is no need to hold on to compassion because it is a naturally occurring quality of an enlightened mind. It is a mistake to believe that some attachment or grasping is necessary to have compassion.
I wouldn't and havn't said that. I already said in this thread that compassion is common sense when our true nature is realised. It's the same as putting a bandage on a cut finger... There is no feeling sorry for the finger, we tend to it because it is a part of us in need of healing.
The reason this debate got started was because I said that it doesn't matter if all is virtual because we still have to navigate obstacles. Meaning if we are walking down the street and a car is approaching, we would have to move out of the way or possibly be killed. From this, I was accused of holding onto life too much. Sorry, but that's silly. Just because we enjoy life all the more for its impermanence doesn't mean we suffer from thinking we are seperate or will last.
The only thing you need to hold on to to tie your shoes, is your shoe laces.
Umm... That is what I said. I said Nirvana is the path and he said Nirvana is the destination.
What you quoted him saying came later in the conversation and was my original point on that matter.
The rest of the argument seem to be about "why did the Buddha get up and teach people then?"
Because what he found out was amazing, and he like to share it.
Enlightenment didn't make him a mindless robot.
Simple
You really have to read the whole thread. Misecmisc1 said that if I found anything good to hold onto then I was missing the Buddhas teachings. So I asked why did Buddha get up from his tree.
You follow?
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited April 2012
And you also seem to be saying that it is ok to be attached to compassion and the hope that others will awaken.
I don't think it's about being attached to compassion,
He doesn't need to spread the dharma, doesn't crave it, doesn't get annoyed/frustrated when he doesn't get to do it etc...
But he did teach the Dharma instead of staying under the tree. He made a choice and obviously thought it was a worthy ideal.
Attachments are fear, fear of losing something you imagine you have/will have etc...
You don't need the fear in order to help someone. as in : "maybe he wont get it, maybe i wont be able to show them the way, that would be terrible" or fantasizing : "someday everyone will know the dharma!" then everything that would threaten this idealize vision of the future would cause him anxiety.
you just try your best. thats all he can do. Not expecting things to fit his ideal version of the world.
Attachments are a physical thing, the sensation of fear in the belly, the deluded ideas that lead to these fears etc... Without these, you are just free to do whatever you want, to truly try your best with what you have to work with.
Understanding the true nature of things makes it difficult to have attachments.
Yes I know. And understanding the nature of things makes one want to get out of the way of moving cars too.
Meaning if we are walking down the street and a car is approaching, we would have to move out of the way or possibly be killed. From this I was accused of holding onto life too much.
I didn't see anyone say that.
The only thing you need to hold on to to tie your shoes, is your shoe laces.
Shoe laces don't really exist remember?
I didn't see anyone say that either.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Meaning if we are walking down the street and a car is approaching, we would have to move out of the way or possibly be killed. From this I was accused of holding onto life too much.
I didn't see anyone say that.
Then you weren't paying attention... I understand the need for joking around but the wrong perception of emptiness can lead one to a nhilistic viewpoint which is obviously unhealthy. A true nhilist is a dead nhilist. :bawl:
From ourself;
That doesn't make sense to me. We do indeed have to navigate around things lest we be crushed by them.
That there is no rock is just another story.
From misecmisc1;
Now let me take you to what my theoretical understanding of Buddha's teachings say: you see an obstacle in car - first of all there is only a car and a you. now you think about you only as your body because you are attached to your body - if you say you are not attached to your body, then the worry of dying will not be there, so even if the car hits you and you die, then also you will see that it is not something to worry because the body is impermanent and its nature is to perish one day or the other, either by itself or by some external cause - so if something is impermanent, then your thought of keeping it as permanent and safe always, will always lead you to suffering. But when you see the things as they are, then you will see that your body is just an aggregation of earth, water, wind and fire and it is impermanent and it is not-self, So there is no 'you' to begin the story. It is only a matter (car) running over another matter(your body). The obstacle was not the car hitting you, the obstacle was that you do not want to die, or in other words, the obstacle was your clinging to the view of your body being your self and your clinging to keep your body as such with no change allowed to your body.
First it is assumed that I think of myself as only this body when I already made it clear as can be that I do not in a previous post and secondly getting out of the way of a moving car doesn't mean one is afraid of dying... It usually means one enjoys living.
I am not sure about " the world is not as it seems " and the scientific proof you speak about in this post, MrAaronoch. In any event, my understanding is still compatable. It is not the events of our lives which cause the suffering and difficulties, rather our reactions to them, which do. For me, things are as they seem - conditioned by causes which we can not fully understand and which are always changing. This does not mean that we can not live with personal identity and integrity - in fact, understanding the four noble truths and three marks of existance highlights the importance of making wise choices ... we always have a choice. Courage and honesty is needed to express who we are - as fleeting as that may be, moment to moment. Often I have heard a narrative/excuse for personal dishonesty or as it is presented " living in the moment" with no regard for long term consideration of the implications of our actions for self and others - other than having to live with the guilt of it. Human life is about finding out who we are - not avoiding it.
You misinterpret, I am saying that what we perceive is not what things actually exist as. Everything is flowing energy on different frequencies. If your not sure then do a bit of researching. Look into new discoveries into quantum physics as of 2002 untill recently. The Buddha himself said that nothing is as it is perceived. I never mentioned anything about avoiding life. when you say "For me, things are as they seem" thats perfectly fine. I'm not arguing, i'm just giving my personal insight based on my experience of things.
Comments
Maybe I shouldn't post so quickly after waking up in the morning.
here in the discussion of the word spreading, i found an example of conventional truth, which is always with respect to a frame of reference. How are you able to see attachment in the selfless act of compassion for reducing the suffering of others? Hope you are remembering that you asked about Buddha, who was Awakened. Now if you try to understand it, you can understand it.
Ok, you seem to agree that Buddha not only spread the Dharma but asked his students to do the same. That's pretty much what I was asking you. Why do you think I ask the questions I do?
Some things are good to hold onto. Of course I remember, lol. You however seem to be all over the place, no offence.
You say that awakening is the end of the path because Nirvana is realised but know that Buddha got up and started teaching after he was awakened... Does that sound like the end to you? Next you tell me that me wanting to enjoy life and help others do the same is grasping at life but if it is Buddha we are talking about, it's a different story.
You seem to be putting Buddha out of reach and that is contrary to the Dharma I have come to know.
To worship Buddha is to miss the Buddha.
I am not saying to worship Buddha and i think even Buddha did not said to worship him.
My theoretical understanding says: But if you are trying to compare yourself with Buddha, then first attain Nirvana, then i think you will understand why Buddha got up from that tree. Because currently you are seeing/understanding the things through your mind, which is currently not the Awakened mind - but after you attain Nirvana, you will see/understand the things from your Awakened mind as did Buddha after getting Awakened.
The above is based on my theoretical understanding as till now I have not experienced anything with direct experience.
Not a big deal, my friend. Since you have only been studying a short time, this is to be expected.
I will direct you to the Karaniya Metta Sutta
As a mother would risk her life
to protect her child, her only child,
even so should one cultivate a limitless heart
with regard to all beings.
With good will for the entire cosmos,
cultivate a limitless heart:
Above, below, & all around,
unobstructed, without hostility or hate.
Whether standing, walking,
sitting, or lying down,
as long as one is alert,
one should be resolved on this mindfulness.
This is called a sublime abiding
here & now.
The full Discourse can be found here. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.08.than.html
Buddha thought there was good to hold onto and he asked us to hold onto it.
Don't be too attached to being unattached or you will enter dissociation... Non-seperation implies attachment.
It is the desire to possess that is harmful.
Don't take my word for it, listen to Buddha and see if it works for you.
Do you let go of compassion? Of the Dharma?
Or is it the desire of an outcome. Of a destination?
Let go of everything and you won't be able to tie your own shoes.
Caring about someone or something is still a kind of attachment but this is not the kind of attachment we are to let go of.
I am people and I don't hold onto anger. I hold onto compassion and love and so there comes a time to let go of letting go.
Some things are good to hold onto.
This is all semantics and/or whistles and bows. If the answer is compassion, I don't need to see the work, haha!
all conditioned things are unworthy of attachment because all conditioned things are impermanent(anicca), suffering(dukkha) and not-self(anatta).
the cessation of all conditions is true happiness. Agreed. I have been studying Buddha's teachings for only 8 months now. So currently, i am trying to understand Buddha's teachings.
My understanding of Buddha's teachings till now says: Buddha taught to see the things as they are.
So if you see the complete path, you will see that ultimately all conditioned things have to be let go, to experience the unconditioned.
Do you think above is ok, if not then please correct me.
In any event, my understanding is still compatable.
It is not the events of our lives which cause the suffering and difficulties, rather our reactions to them, which do.
For me, things are as they seem - conditioned by causes which we can not fully understand and which are always changing.
This does not mean that we can not live with personal identity and integrity - in fact, understanding the four noble truths and three marks of existance highlights the importance of making wise choices ... we always have a choice. Courage and honesty is needed to express who we are - as fleeting as that may be, moment to moment.
Often I have heard a narrative/excuse for personal dishonesty or as it is presented
" living in the moment" with no regard for long term consideration of the implications of our actions for self and others - other than having to live with the guilt of it.
Human life is about finding out who we are - not avoiding it.
Now, how do you personally define "conditioned"?
Did you read the sutta I posted? Do you see how Buddha would have us define "good" and "wholesome"?
Beyond good and bad is joy. Joy is good.
The cushion is always right here right now, but unless we grab the cushion, open it, and realize whats in it, we'll remain ignorant of it's content.
This realization is something that happens "one day, when everything is perfect". but nirvana was always here right now, with us all along.
Once we realize it, you cannot un-realize it.
We cannot go back to not knowing the cushion is full of money.
Like @misecmisc1 said:
The rest of the argument seem to be about "why did the Buddha get up and teach people then?"
Because what he found out was amazing, and he like to share it.
Enlightenment didn't make him a mindless robot.
Simple
He doesn't need to spread the dharma, doesn't crave it, doesn't get annoyed/frustrated when he doesn't get to do it etc...
Attachments are fear, fear of losing something you imagine you have/will have etc...
You don't need the fear in order to help someone.
as in :
"maybe he wont get it, maybe i wont be able to show them the way, that would be terrible"
or fantasizing :
"someday everyone will know the dharma!"
then everything that would threaten this idealize vision of the future would cause him anxiety.
you just try your best. thats all he can do. Not expecting things to fit his ideal version of the world.
Attachments are a physical thing, the sensation of fear in the belly, the deluded ideas that lead to these fears etc...
Without these, you are just free to do whatever you want, to truly try your best with what you have to work with.
Understanding the true nature of things makes it difficult to have attachments.
When it comes to the individual versus the whole, I see no struggle and I have let go of the idea that I am this person that types even while I sit here enjoying typing. I can walk the middle path between the individual and the whole by enjoying both.
I'm not trying to say I'm an enlightened being because that is far from the truth but if I am mindful and focus in a certain way, I can make the labels fall away and touch our true nature.
@Seeker242: I wouldn't and havn't said that. I already said in this thread that compassion is common sense when our true nature is realised. It's the same as putting a bandage on a cut finger... There is no feeling sorry for the finger, we tend to it because it is a part of us in need of healing.
The reason this debate got started was because I said that it doesn't matter if all is virtual because we still have to navigate obstacles. Meaning if we are walking down the street and a car is approaching, we would have to move out of the way or possibly be killed. From this, I was accused of holding onto life too much. Sorry, but that's silly. Just because we enjoy life all the more for its impermanence doesn't mean we suffer from thinking we are seperate or will last. Shoe laces don't really exist remember?
@Pattbb Umm... That is what I said. I said Nirvana is the path and he said Nirvana is the destination.
What you quoted him saying came later in the conversation and was my original point on that matter. You really have to read the whole thread. Misecmisc1 said that if I found anything good to hold onto then I was missing the Buddhas teachings. So I asked why did Buddha get up from his tree.
You follow?
:rolleyes:
From ourself; From misecmisc1; First it is assumed that I think of myself as only this body when I already made it clear as can be that I do not in a previous post and secondly getting out of the way of a moving car doesn't mean one is afraid of dying... It usually means one enjoys living.
Let's be "real" here, lol.
I am not sure about " the world is not as it seems " and the scientific proof you speak about in this post, MrAaronoch.
In any event, my understanding is still compatable.
It is not the events of our lives which cause the suffering and difficulties, rather our reactions to them, which do.
For me, things are as they seem - conditioned by causes which we can not fully understand and which are always changing.
This does not mean that we can not live with personal identity and integrity - in fact, understanding the four noble truths and three marks of existance highlights the importance of making wise choices ... we always have a choice. Courage and honesty is needed to express who we are - as fleeting as that may be, moment to moment.
Often I have heard a narrative/excuse for personal dishonesty or as it is presented
" living in the moment" with no regard for long term consideration of the implications of our actions for self and others - other than having to live with the guilt of it.
Human life is about finding out who we are - not avoiding it.
You misinterpret, I am saying that what we perceive is not what things actually exist as. Everything is flowing energy on different frequencies. If your not sure then do a bit of researching. Look into new discoveries into quantum physics as of 2002 untill recently. The Buddha himself said that nothing is as it is perceived. I never mentioned anything about avoiding life. when you say "For me, things are as they seem" thats perfectly fine. I'm not arguing, i'm just giving my personal insight based on my experience of things.
Blessings my friend