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.
That's fine. Now tell us about the other births that you can have where you might practice the Dharma . Are you living any of them now? If not then this birth is the only one in which you can practice the Dharma. True or not?
That's fine. Now tell us about the other SANDWICHES that you can have EATEN where you might practIice EATING . Are you EATING THEM now? If not then this SANDWICH is the only one in which you can (ever) EAT. True or not?
That's fine. Now tell us about the other births that you can have where you might practice the Dharma . Are you living any of them now? If not then this birth is the only one in which you can practice the Dharma. True or not?
That's fine. Now tell us about the other SANDWICHES that you can have EATEN where you might practIice EATING . Are you EATING THEM now? If not then this SANDWICH is the only one in which you can (ever) EAT. True or not?
I suppose Nagarjuna might be able to make an arguement for what you are proposing. I can only say that I can see and choose from one of many sandwiches or even buy two and save one for later.
Huge mistake to view precepts just a cultural thing, IMO.
I started to write a post agreeing with this, and as I wrote it I found that I was actually disagreeing with it. Hmmmm.
On the one hand, many, if not most, cultures have a set of rules that are similar in varying degrees to the Precepts. So that would argue that the Precepts are a "cultural thing".
Or, are they more than that? And I would suggest they are. That they get down to what I'll call the basic contract between human beings...which I see as more than just a "cultural thing".
Hmm, yes that's interesting! I would agree with Cinorjer, but only up to a certain point. For example. Two homosexual men who love each other. Viewing this as a broken precept I think could easily be considered a cultural thing. No one is caused harm by this, at least not any more than a man and a woman having sex for pleasure.
However, to say it's not a precepts violation to rape your slaves, simply because it's legal, socially acceptable and everyone does it, goes way too far! That actually does cause harm. The idea that sexual abuse is any sexual behavior that the culture decides is deviant, removes the whole ethical foundation of the precepts and puts it on the back of a bunch of deluded people instead of wise people, which is where it should be.
:om:
My fault for not making my point clear. I mean what a culture considers sexual misconduct can vary widely and that includes Buddhist cultures. The Buddhists of Tibet, for instance, kept slaves long after the West outlawed the practice and had their justifications for it. So trying to come up with a definitive list of specific acts that constitute "sexual misconduct" pretty much winds up with people from different cultures disagreeing on some things.
Yes I agree @robot. I was trying to show how we can still talk about a later birth even though we are not experiencing it, the future, right now.
Just like I can talk about my future sandwiches.
I guess so. But if I talk about different sandwiches that I would like to try, it's based on certain knowledge that I can and will try them. So back to the question. Can you say that there are other births that you can take where you can practice the Dharma? If I say it will be me who is practicing the Dharma in some other life, will that be correct?
@robot, I'm not sure. My teacher said that it is not like a karma 'back pack' comes off one person and then to another at a different time and space. But I don't recall her saying how it does actually work.
@robot, I'm not sure. My teacher said that it is not like a karma 'back pack' comes off one person and then to another at a different time and space. But I don't recall her saying how it does actually work.
Right. That's why I was thinking that the truth that is most valid and important, and I believe the one that @Chaz was talking about, and probably what Samahita is getting at, is that this life is an opportunity to take the Buddhas teachings seriously. Any other is unknown, and it's a gamble that you will wind up in the same favourable circumstances, if you accept that you will be reborn at all. To talk about hell is to emphasize that point. If one doesnt accept that one will be reborn, then how can one say that it is anything other than true, that this is the only opportunity to practice the Dharma.
@robot, I think a hell realm belief helps alleviate craving for pleasure. If you reflect on the possible suffering in this time and later upon losing what you crave then you will be less attracted to pleasure.
I am reading that and I am not sure if it is true, but it is related to a teaching in the Jewel Ornament of Liberation:
All dharma teachings consist of the following
reflect on impermanence to fix craving to this life reflect on suffering to fix craving to pleasure reflect on love to fix craving for peace.
There's just one kind of birth where you can practice the Dharma. Just one, and you've got it.
And you believe that merely because someone told you that it's true. :-/
It's true because it is true. Any other birth you can imagine is just that. imaginary. What is to be gained from trying to establish whether there are other forms you might take in which you could be enlightened? At that point you have wandered away from the here and now into dreamland. You can practice now which is a fact.
Let me help you think this trough, Robot.
Do you know any "enlightened" human beings? Of course you don't, no one does. There are legends of enlightened human beings, but no living ones. So it could be that in fact humans cannot practice the Dharma. Indeed, having no living examples indicates that a wiser and more compassionate species is required to practice the Dharma.
There's just one kind of birth where you can practice the Dharma. Just one, and you've got it.
And you believe that merely because someone told you that it's true. :-/
It's true because it is true. Any other birth you can imagine is just that. imaginary. What is to be gained from trying to establish whether there are other forms you might take in which you could be enlightened? At that point you have wandered away from the here and now into dreamland. You can practice now which is a fact.
Let me help you think this trough, Robot.
Do you know any "enlightened" human beings? Of course you don't, no one does. There are legends of enlightened human beings, but no living ones. So it could be that in fact humans cannot practice the Dharma. Indeed, having no living examples indicates that a wiser and more compassionate species is required to practice the Dharma.
This is true, because it's true!
No, that's nonsense, because it is nonsense. I can practice as can you. I have realization to prove that my effort is not in vain. I don't accept that their are no enlightened humans. If fact I dare say that there are and have been multitudes of them. Do I have proof? Only my own realization, that tells me that greater realization is possible. Oh, and of course the readily accessable material written by any number of teachers. Is your proof your lack of realization? If so, as lobster might say tsk, tsk.
I think the buddhist description of hell is very conflicting, because on the one hand there is reason to doubt it, and on the other hand, there is obviously reason to be careful not to discard the possibility that hell is real.
Why do I see reason to doubt it? Because there is no way to verify it's existence or it's plausibility. I would take the Buddha's word for it, but how can one know that the Buddha actually spoke the words that have been written down? For example, I have my doubts about the Alavaka sutta. Here we see a demon that repents his previous wrong-doing and decides to become a disciple of the Buddha. But what about his karma? Will this demon go to hell and suffer there? On what basis should I believe that this story is real?
I'm sorry if my question is naive, maybe you could comment on it. I don't want to discourage anybody in studying the dharma and learning from it, but I think this can be done just as well without having absolute belief in the correctness of all the scriptures. I can see enough suffering here on earth to be careful about my actions (I do belief in rebirth and in virtue).
Thanks in advance, Maarten
2
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited December 2013
This thread now reminds me of a Jim Morrison quote...
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn"
I think it is counter productive to have faith in things like hell realms and possibly even harmful. Afterall, the more hells we concoct, the more we are liable to create.
It makes me think of the sutras where Buddha is talking to devas and other god-like beings along with his human students... I don't think Buddha believed in these beings in the sense that he believed in his students.
I think he paid them homage for manifesting in the minds of those he would liberate but that they only existed because they were thought to exist. Still deserving of compassion but only living in the mind of others.
I mean... What was Buddha in the middle of when Mara approached him?
Planes of existence are just states of being in my honest opinion.
Where we go next is not important in the quest to end suffering and hell realms.
We are here now... That is what is important.
Being kind because we wish a favorable rebirth is not the kind of morality the Buddha I recognize means to instill. That is most definitely not how to foster compassion and it never will be.
It leads some to think like this;
Ooops there goes the non-believers down the barbecue drain ever again. Knowing they have been told otherwise makes their perpetual screaming like barbwire-gagged pigs in a bonfire somewhat pathetic IMHO. But then again: Well so be it...
"Being kind because we wish a favorable rebirth is not the kind of morality the Buddha I recognize means to instill. That is most definitely not how to foster compassion and it never will be."
"Being kind because we wish a favorable rebirth is not the kind of morality the Buddha I recognize means to instill. That is most definitely not how to foster compassion and it never will be."
I think it just depends on where you stand. Someone who is kind might reflect that kindness leads to more happiness for other people now, more happiness for themselves now, more happiness for other people in the future (because of the effects of kindness now), and more happiness for themselves in the future (because of a favorable rebirth). Someone who is not so kind might reflect that their lack of kindness is causing them suffering now (because of isolation) and suffering in the future (because of an unfavorable rebirth). The first person just continues to be kind, and the second person might try to be kinder. I think both are being skillful.
If being 'good' is a motivation for being kind then that is fine. It has to be TRUE kindness to be of benefit to make the mind more positive and buoyant. But it doesn't matter if there is a little bit of a carrot and stick. In my humble opinion at least that is true.
There's just one kind of birth where you can practice the Dharma. Just one, and you've got it.
And you believe that merely because someone told you that it's true. :-/
It's true because it is true. Any other birth you can imagine is just that. imaginary. What is to be gained from trying to establish whether there are other forms you might take in which you could be enlightened? At that point you have wandered away from the here and now into dreamland. You can practice now which is a fact.
Let me help you think this trough, Robot.
Do you know any "enlightened" human beings? Of course you don't, no one does. There are legends of enlightened human beings, but no living ones. So it could be that in fact humans cannot practice the Dharma. Indeed, having no living examples indicates that a wiser and more compassionate species is required to practice the Dharma.
This is true, because it's true!
No, that's nonsense, because it is nonsense. I can practice as can you. I have realization to prove that my effort is not in vain. I don't accept that their are no enlightened humans. If fact I dare say that there are and have been multitudes of them. Do I have proof? Only my own realization, that tells me that greater realization is possible. Oh, and of course the readily accessable material written by any number of teachers. Is your proof your lack of realization? If so, as lobster might say tsk, tsk.
There's just one kind of birth where you can practice the Dharma. Just one, and you've got it.
And you believe that merely because someone told you that it's true. :-/
It's true because it is true. Any other birth you can imagine is just that. imaginary. What is to be gained from trying to establish whether there are other forms you might take in which you could be enlightened? At that point you have wandered away from the here and now into dreamland. You can practice now which is a fact.
Let me help you think this trough, Robot.
Do you know any "enlightened" human beings? Of course you don't, no one does. There are legends of enlightened human beings, but no living ones. So it could be that in fact humans cannot practice the Dharma. Indeed, having no living examples indicates that a wiser and more compassionate species is required to practice the Dharma.
This is true, because it's true!
No, that's nonsense, because it is nonsense. I can practice as can you. I have realization to prove that my effort is not in vain. I don't accept that their are no enlightened humans. If fact I dare say that there are and have been multitudes of them. Do I have proof? Only my own realization, that tells me that greater realization is possible. Oh, and of course the readily accessable material written by any number of teachers. Is your proof your lack of realization? If so, as lobster might say tsk, tsk.
cvalue said: When we fail to keep our third precept to commit adultery, we also violate the precepts do not steal...
That implies that the marriage partner is property.
In March 2010, Cynthia Shackelford won a $9 million suit against her husband's mistress for "alienation of affections". Stealing affection is also a steal.
By the way, ever notice that, in many movies, the husband chose to tell his wife that he would leave her for another woman in the kitchen, while his wife was holding a sharp knife, chopping vegetables. As he talks, the chopping noise gets louder. It's nerve cracking!
There's just one kind of birth where you can practice the Dharma. Just one, and you've got it.
And you believe that merely because someone told you that it's true. :-/
It's true because it is true. Any other birth you can imagine is just that. imaginary. What is to be gained from trying to establish whether there are other forms you might take in which you could be enlightened? At that point you have wandered away from the here and now into dreamland. You can practice now which is a fact.
Let me help you think this trough, Robot.
Do you know any "enlightened" human beings? Of course you don't, no one does. There are legends of enlightened human beings, but no living ones. So it could be that in fact humans cannot practice the Dharma. Indeed, having no living examples indicates that a wiser and more compassionate species is required to practice the Dharma.
This is true, because it's true!
No, that's nonsense, because it is nonsense. I can practice as can you. I have realization to prove that my effort is not in vain. I don't accept that their are no enlightened humans. If fact I dare say that there are and have been multitudes of them. Do I have proof? Only my own realization, that tells me that greater realization is possible. Oh, and of course the readily accessable material written by any number of teachers. Is your proof your lack of realization? If so, as lobster might say tsk, tsk.
Your realization is the proof? I rest my case.
Sorry, I don't think you made a case.
Then why did you provide "proof"?
Apparently realized people don't know what they think. :-/
There's just one kind of birth where you can practice the Dharma. Just one, and you've got it.
And you believe that merely because someone told you that it's true. :-/
It's true because it is true. Any other birth you can imagine is just that. imaginary. What is to be gained from trying to establish whether there are other forms you might take in which you could be enlightened? At that point you have wandered away from the here and now into dreamland. You can practice now which is a fact.
Let me help you think this trough, Robot.
Do you know any "enlightened" human beings? Of course you don't, no one does. There are legends of enlightened human beings, but no living ones. So it could be that in fact humans cannot practice the Dharma. Indeed, having no living examples indicates that a wiser and more compassionate species is required to practice the Dharma.
This is true, because it's true!
No, that's nonsense, because it is nonsense. I can practice as can you. I have realization to prove that my effort is not in vain. I don't accept that their are no enlightened humans. If fact I dare say that there are and have been multitudes of them. Do I have proof? Only my own realization, that tells me that greater realization is possible. Oh, and of course the readily accessable material written by any number of teachers. Is your proof your lack of realization? If so, as lobster might say tsk, tsk.
Your realization is the proof? I rest my case.
Sorry, I don't think you made a case.
Then why did you provide "proof"?
Apparently realized people don't know what they think. :-/
I guess I was hoping you would come up with something useful.
There's just one kind of birth where you can practice the Dharma. Just one, and you've got it.
And you believe that merely because someone told you that it's true. :-/
It's true because it is true. Any other birth you can imagine is just that. imaginary. What is to be gained from trying to establish whether there are other forms you might take in which you could be enlightened? At that point you have wandered away from the here and now into dreamland. You can practice now which is a fact.
Let me help you think this trough, Robot.
Do you know any "enlightened" human beings? Of course you don't, no one does. There are legends of enlightened human beings, but no living ones. So it could be that in fact humans cannot practice the Dharma. Indeed, having no living examples indicates that a wiser and more compassionate species is required to practice the Dharma.
This is true, because it's true!
No, that's nonsense, because it is nonsense. I can practice as can you. I have realization to prove that my effort is not in vain. I don't accept that their are no enlightened humans. If fact I dare say that there are and have been multitudes of them. Do I have proof? Only my own realization, that tells me that greater realization is possible. Oh, and of course the readily accessable material written by any number of teachers. Is your proof your lack of realization? If so, as lobster might say tsk, tsk.
Your realization is the proof? I rest my case.
Sorry, I don't think you made a case.
Then why did you provide "proof"?
Apparently realized people don't know what they think. :-/
I guess I was hoping you would come up with something useful.
The truth is useful to those that value it. :rocker:
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
"Being kind because we wish a favorable rebirth is not the kind of morality the Buddha I recognize means to instill. That is most definitely not how to foster compassion and it never will be."
I think it just depends on where you stand. Someone who is kind might reflect that kindness leads to more happiness for other people now, more happiness for themselves now, more happiness for other people in the future (because of the effects of kindness now), and more happiness for themselves in the future (because of a favorable rebirth). Someone who is not so kind might reflect that their lack of kindness is causing them suffering now (because of isolation) and suffering in the future (because of an unfavorable rebirth). The first person just continues to be kind, and the second person might try to be kinder. I think both are being skillful.
I like how you put that and the way you put it, I have no choice but to agree. However, I'm not sure that's the heart of what I'm getting at.
In my mind, part of what Buddha wants us to wake up to is the logic of compassion. To do this, we have to see beyond the borders of "self" and "other" or our sense of compassion may be limited to feeling bad for others. I don't remember where but I once heard the Dalai Lama say that true compassion is not about feeling sorry for others. It is about wanting to help because they are a part of you in need of healing. Not an ideal born from emotionalism but logic.
We don't put on a bandage because we feel sorry for a cut finger.
But I do see your point and you put it very well, thank you.
I don't know... Maybe the O/P was having a bad day or he was being playful instead of defensive about his view but he was quite sure to make a clear distinction between himself and anyone that doesn't believe in rebirth. It seemed he lacked compassion and wished to instill fear as a means to persuade instead of logic.
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@robot, I'm not sure. My teacher said that it is not like a karma 'back pack' comes off one person and then to another at a different time and space. But I don't recall her saying how it does actually work.
Right. That's why I was thinking that the truth that is most valid and important, and I believe the one that @Chaz was talking about, and probably what Samahita is getting at, is that this life is an opportunity to take the Buddhas teachings seriously. Any other is unknown, and it's a gamble that you will wind up in the same favourable circumstances, if you accept that you will be reborn at all. To talk about hell is to emphasize that point. If one doesnt accept that one will be reborn, then how can one say that it is anything other than true, that this is the only opportunity to practice the Dharma.
Of course you are right, but wouldn't that also imply it's the only opportunity to live in a hell realm?
If I go to a hell realm (for whatever reason as I actually do think rebirth makes sense) would it make sense to say that this current "I" will be living in a hell realm?
If I go to a hell realm (for whatever reason as I actually do think rebirth makes sense) would it make sense to say that this current "I" will be living in a hell realm?
It might make sense, but may not be entire in line with teaching.
Our sense of self (I, Me, Mine) is based on the 5 skandhas. According to Tibetan teachings, the skandhas disolve at the time of physical death. As I understand it, and I'll admit to limited understanding here, because the skandhas disolves, self disolves and something else - a more subtle layer of consciousness (?) - is passed into a new birth. So, "I" won't take birth again after death.
We use self-terms when we discuss such things because we don't have a comfortable vocabulary. So we say "'I' will take rebirth as an intestinal parasite" because we don't have a better way to say it.
I've always liked Trungpa Rinpoche's explanation. A student once asked him "What gets reborn?". His answer was "Our bad habits."
@robot, I'm not sure. My teacher said that it is not like a karma 'back pack' comes off one person and then to another at a different time and space. But I don't recall her saying how it does actually work.
Right. That's why I was thinking that the truth that is most valid and important, and I believe the one that @Chaz was talking about, and probably what Samahita is getting at, is that this life is an opportunity to take the Buddhas teachings seriously. Any other is unknown, and it's a gamble that you will wind up in the same favourable circumstances, if you accept that you will be reborn at all. To talk about hell is to emphasize that point. If one doesnt accept that one will be reborn, then how can one say that it is anything other than true, that this is the only opportunity to practice the Dharma.
Of course you are right, but wouldn't that also imply it's the only opportunity to live in a hell realm?
If I go to a hell realm (for whatever reason as I actually do think rebirth makes sense) would it make sense to say that this current "I" will be living in a hell realm?
To a different audience the Buddha taught that existence, non-existence, both, or neither would be incorrect if held on to as a view of reality. So we should assume that any teaching that includes a self taking rebirth in a realm of human or hell is provisional teaching tailored to a particular audience, as well. Why would a being in hell be instructed that he might suffer if he acts a certain way? He is already suffering. Perhaps that is a teaching aimed at those who are complacent, comfortable, with their ignorance. Someone who is suffering may need to be told about the 4nt. And the path to end their suffering. If hell makes no sense to you, why dwell on it? Move on.
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@robot, I'm not sure. My teacher said that it is not like a karma 'back pack' comes off one person and then to another at a different time and space. But I don't recall her saying how it does actually work.
Right. That's why I was thinking that the truth that is most valid and important, and I believe the one that @Chaz was talking about, and probably what Samahita is getting at, is that this life is an opportunity to take the Buddhas teachings seriously. Any other is unknown, and it's a gamble that you will wind up in the same favourable circumstances, if you accept that you will be reborn at all. To talk about hell is to emphasize that point. If one doesnt accept that one will be reborn, then how can one say that it is anything other than true, that this is the only opportunity to practice the Dharma.
Of course you are right, but wouldn't that also imply it's the only opportunity to live in a hell realm?
If I go to a hell realm (for whatever reason as I actually do think rebirth makes sense) would it make sense to say that this current "I" will be living in a hell realm?
To a different audience the Buddha taught that existence, non-existence, both, or neither would be incorrect if held on to as a view of reality. So we should assume that any teaching that includes a self taking rebirth in a realm of human or hell is provisional teaching tailored to a particular audience, as well. Why would a being in hell be instructed that he might suffer if he acts a certain way? He is already suffering. Perhaps that is a teaching aimed at those who are complacent, comfortable, with their ignorance. Someone who is suffering may need to be told about the 4nt. And the path to end their suffering. If hell makes no sense to you, why dwell on it? Move on.
It doesn't have to do with whether or not hells make sense, it has to do with a recognized teacher using it as reason to take refuge and getting upset with those that believe differently.
@robot, I'm not sure. My teacher said that it is not like a karma 'back pack' comes off one person and then to another at a different time and space. But I don't recall her saying how it does actually work.
Right. That's why I was thinking that the truth that is most valid and important, and I believe the one that @Chaz was talking about, and probably what Samahita is getting at, is that this life is an opportunity to take the Buddhas teachings seriously. Any other is unknown, and it's a gamble that you will wind up in the same favourable circumstances, if you accept that you will be reborn at all. To talk about hell is to emphasize that point. If one doesnt accept that one will be reborn, then how can one say that it is anything other than true, that this is the only opportunity to practice the Dharma.
Of course you are right, but wouldn't that also imply it's the only opportunity to live in a hell realm?
If I go to a hell realm (for whatever reason as I actually do think rebirth makes sense) would it make sense to say that this current "I" will be living in a hell realm?
To a different audience the Buddha taught that existence, non-existence, both, or neither would be incorrect if held on to as a view of reality. So we should assume that any teaching that includes a self taking rebirth in a realm of human or hell is provisional teaching tailored to a particular audience, as well. Why would a being in hell be instructed that he might suffer if he acts a certain way? He is already suffering. Perhaps that is a teaching aimed at those who are complacent, comfortable, with their ignorance. Someone who is suffering may need to be told about the 4nt. And the path to end their suffering. If hell makes no sense to you, why dwell on it? Move on.
It doesn't have to do with whether or not hells make sense, it has to do with a recognized teacher using it as reason to take refuge and getting upset with those that believe differently.
Sorry. I thought that I was trying to get at why someone might use hell for teaching. Are you still talking about Samahita? I never noticed him getting upset. I noticed some others obsessing over his remarks. Is he a recognized teacher?
Whether one agrees or not, is often quite irrelevant... Why so? Self-deception is often quite rigid, stupid & opinionated!
The importance of any statement comes from whether it indeed is TRUE on the absolute level! Non-Buddhists, traditionally called "outsiders", often of Hedonistic views and habits, cannot swallow these 4 Noble Truths, yet that would save them A LOT of tribulation mildly speaking...
I don’t know what this sounds like to you. I just hear that anything I might think or say is quite irrelevant, is self-deception and so on…. It confuses a narrow minded interpretation of Buddhism with TRUTH on the absolute level. I don’t think it is helpful or friendly.
Or is "religious" by definition the same thing as "narrow minded" ?
That last question is a rhetorical one, I hope you saw that. Because I think it is quite possible to be religious without being dogmatic and narrow minded.
"ANY Craving and Urge for any sense pleasure ALWAYS causes more Suffering than enjoyment!"
I don't agree with that.
This is the quote that Samahita was referring to, as you know. Vinlyn was disagreeing with the second noble truth, according to Samahita. So because Samahita apparently takes the 4nt literally, he said what he said. Maybe that is a narrow minded view. But would you expect that a guy who gave up everything to spend his life meditating in a Theravedan monestary to compromise on the most fundamental teaching?
Actually Samahita confuses dukkha with suffering here, I think.
The life of a Brahma-god is dukkha (not ultimately satisfactory) but it is very pleasant, no suffering going on there.
What he could have said is that the joy of letting go is greater than all other joys. A Buddha is better off than a Brahma-God. Doesn’t that sound more accurate? And also it sounds less anti-life.
I'm not sure. Samahita did not say that any sense pleasure causes more suffering than enjoyment. He said that "any craving and urge for any sense pleasure causes more suffering than enjoyment." Which I believe is a fairly accurate way to interpret the 4nt teaching. Suffering is caused by craving for pleasure or craving for pain to end. Attachment to pleasure and pain. End the attachment, end the suffering. Is this correct? So, to disagree with this teaching is irrelevant to the fact of the downside of craving. In his view.
Maybe you're right. In that case he could have explained his point - being friendly and helpful and all - instead of calling people stupid&opiniated for possibly disagreeing with him.
Maybe you're right. In that case he could have explained his point - being friendly and helpful and all - instead of calling people stupid&opiniated for possibly disagreeing with him.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that that never happened. What he said was this:
"Whether one agrees or not, is often quite irrelevant... Why so? Self-deception is often quite rigid, stupid & opinionated!"
Which is a far cry from calling anyone anything. "Self-deception is often quite rigid, stupid and opinionated." Why take that personally? Who doesn't engage in self deception? Is it not often as he said it is? Maybe he has a valid point.
"ANY Craving and Urge for any sense pleasure ALWAYS causes more Suffering than enjoyment!"
I don't agree with that.
This is the quote that Samahita was referring to, as you know. Vinlyn was disagreeing with the second noble truth, according to Samahita. So because Samahita apparently takes the 4nt literally, he said what he said. Maybe that is a narrow minded view. But would you expect that a guy who gave up everything to spend his life meditating in a Theravedan monestary to compromise on the most fundamental teaching?
A few days ago you were complaining that I caused all hell to break loose. Now you've chosen to replay the whole thing again.
"ANY Craving and Urge for any sense pleasure ALWAYS causes more Suffering than enjoyment!"
I don't agree with that.
This is the quote that Samahita was referring to, as you know. Vinlyn was disagreeing with the second noble truth, according to Samahita. So because Samahita apparently takes the 4nt literally, he said what he said. Maybe that is a narrow minded view. But would you expect that a guy who gave up everything to spend his life meditating in a Theravedan monestary to compromise on the most fundamental teaching?
A few days ago you were complaining that I caused all hell to break loose. Now you've chosen to replay the whole thing again.
I've got a lot of time on my hands. They don't seem to put TVs in the rooms in Bali.
Comments
Now tell us about the other SANDWICHES that you can have EATEN where you might practIice EATING .
Are you EATING THEM now? If not then this SANDWICH is the only one in which you can (ever) EAT.
True or not?
Now tell us about the other SANDWICHES that you can have EATEN where you might practIice EATING .
Are you EATING THEM now? If not then this SANDWICH is the only one in which you can (ever) EAT.
True or not?
I suppose Nagarjuna might be able to make an arguement for what you are proposing.
I can only say that I can see and choose from one of many sandwiches or even buy two and save one for later.
Just like I can talk about my future sandwiches.
So back to the question. Can you say that there are other births that you can take where you can practice the Dharma?
If I say it will be me who is practicing the Dharma in some other life, will that be correct?
That's why I was thinking that the truth that is most valid and important, and I believe the one that @Chaz was talking about, and probably what Samahita is getting at, is that this life is an opportunity to take the Buddhas teachings seriously.
Any other is unknown, and it's a gamble that you will wind up in the same favourable circumstances, if you accept that you will be reborn at all. To talk about hell is to emphasize that point.
If one doesnt accept that one will be reborn, then how can one say that it is anything other than true, that this is the only opportunity to practice the Dharma.
I am reading that and I am not sure if it is true, but it is related to a teaching in the Jewel Ornament of Liberation:
All dharma teachings consist of the following
reflect on impermanence to fix craving to this life
reflect on suffering to fix craving to pleasure
reflect on love to fix craving for peace.
Do you know any "enlightened" human beings? Of course you don't, no one does. There are legends of enlightened human beings, but no living ones. So it could be that in fact humans cannot practice the Dharma. Indeed, having no living examples indicates that a wiser and more compassionate species is required to practice the Dharma.
This is true, because it's true!
I can practice as can you. I have realization to prove that my effort is not in vain.
I don't accept that their are no enlightened humans. If fact I dare say that there are and have been multitudes of them.
Do I have proof? Only my own realization, that tells me that greater realization is possible. Oh, and of course the readily accessable material written by any number of teachers.
Is your proof your lack of realization? If so, as lobster might say tsk, tsk.
I think the buddhist description of hell is very conflicting, because on the one hand there is reason to doubt it, and on the other hand, there is obviously reason to be careful not to discard the possibility that hell is real.
Why do I see reason to doubt it? Because there is no way to verify it's existence or it's plausibility. I would take the Buddha's word for it, but how can one know that the Buddha actually spoke the words that have been written down? For example, I have my doubts about the Alavaka sutta. Here we see a demon that repents his previous wrong-doing and decides to become a disciple of the Buddha. But what about his karma? Will this demon go to hell and suffer there? On what basis should I believe that this story is real?
I'm sorry if my question is naive, maybe you could comment on it. I don't want to discourage anybody in studying the dharma and learning from it, but I think this can be done just as well without having absolute belief in the correctness of all the scriptures. I can see enough suffering here on earth to be careful about my actions (I do belief in rebirth and in virtue).
Thanks in advance,
Maarten
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn"
I think it is counter productive to have faith in things like hell realms and possibly even harmful. Afterall, the more hells we concoct, the more we are liable to create.
It makes me think of the sutras where Buddha is talking to devas and other god-like beings along with his human students... I don't think Buddha believed in these beings in the sense that he believed in his students.
I think he paid them homage for manifesting in the minds of those he would liberate but that they only existed because they were thought to exist. Still deserving of compassion but only living in the mind of others.
I mean... What was Buddha in the middle of when Mara approached him?
Planes of existence are just states of being in my honest opinion.
Where we go next is not important in the quest to end suffering and hell realms.
We are here now... That is what is important.
Being kind because we wish a favorable rebirth is not the kind of morality the Buddha I recognize means to instill. That is most definitely not how to foster compassion and it never will be.
It leads some to think like this; And now you all know why I take issue.
Thank you for that reminder.
Sorry, I don't think you made a case.
By the way, ever notice that, in many movies, the husband chose to tell his wife that he would leave her for another woman in the kitchen, while his wife was holding a sharp knife, chopping vegetables. As he talks, the chopping noise gets louder. It's nerve cracking!
Apparently realized people don't know what they think. :-/
I guess I was hoping you would come up with something useful.
:rocker:
I like how you put that and the way you put it, I have no choice but to agree. However, I'm not sure that's the heart of what I'm getting at.
In my mind, part of what Buddha wants us to wake up to is the logic of compassion. To do this, we have to see beyond the borders of "self" and "other" or our sense of compassion may be limited to feeling bad for others. I don't remember where but I once heard the Dalai Lama say that true compassion is not about feeling sorry for others. It is about wanting to help because they are a part of you in need of healing. Not an ideal born from emotionalism but logic.
We don't put on a bandage because we feel sorry for a cut finger.
But I do see your point and you put it very well, thank you.
I don't know... Maybe the O/P was having a bad day or he was being playful instead of defensive about his view but he was quite sure to make a clear distinction between himself and anyone that doesn't believe in rebirth. It seemed he lacked compassion and wished to instill fear as a means to persuade instead of logic.
I have been wrong before.
If I go to a hell realm (for whatever reason as I actually do think rebirth makes sense) would it make sense to say that this current "I" will be living in a hell realm?
Our sense of self (I, Me, Mine) is based on the 5 skandhas. According to Tibetan teachings, the skandhas disolve at the time of physical death. As I understand it, and I'll admit to limited understanding here, because the skandhas disolves, self disolves and something else - a more subtle layer of consciousness (?) - is passed into a new birth. So, "I" won't take birth again after death.
We use self-terms when we discuss such things because we don't have a comfortable vocabulary. So we say "'I' will take rebirth as an intestinal parasite" because we don't have a better way to say it.
I've always liked Trungpa Rinpoche's explanation. A student once asked him "What gets reborn?". His answer was "Our bad habits."
Topics about rebirth makes my brain hurt.
Fortunately, for me, I don't dwell on it.
So we should assume that any teaching that includes a self taking rebirth in a realm of human or hell is provisional teaching tailored to a particular audience, as well.
Why would a being in hell be instructed that he might suffer if he acts a certain way? He is already suffering.
Perhaps that is a teaching aimed at those who are complacent, comfortable, with their ignorance.
Someone who is suffering may need to be told about the 4nt. And the path to end their suffering.
If hell makes no sense to you, why dwell on it? Move on.
Ladies and gentleman - let me introduce you to the buddha's knot.
Are you still talking about Samahita? I never noticed him getting upset. I noticed some others obsessing over his remarks. Is he a recognized teacher?
Although I note that he meditates and lives alone.
It confuses a narrow minded interpretation of Buddhism with TRUTH on the absolute level.
I don’t think it is helpful or friendly.
Or is "religious" by definition the same thing as "narrow minded" ?
Because I think it is quite possible to be religious without being dogmatic and narrow minded.
So because Samahita apparently takes the 4nt literally, he said what he said.
Maybe that is a narrow minded view.
But would you expect that a guy who gave up everything to spend his life meditating in a Theravedan monestary to compromise on the most fundamental teaching?
The life of a Brahma-god is dukkha (not ultimately satisfactory) but it is very pleasant, no suffering going on there.
What he could have said is that the joy of letting go is greater than all other joys. A Buddha is better off than a Brahma-God.
Doesn’t that sound more accurate? And also it sounds less anti-life.
Samahita did not say that any sense pleasure causes more suffering than enjoyment.
He said that "any craving and urge for any sense pleasure causes more suffering than enjoyment."
Which I believe is a fairly accurate way to interpret the 4nt teaching.
Suffering is caused by craving for pleasure or craving for pain to end.
Attachment to pleasure and pain. End the attachment, end the suffering.
Is this correct?
So, to disagree with this teaching is irrelevant to the fact of the downside of craving. In his view.
What he said was this:
"Whether one agrees or not, is often quite irrelevant...
Why so?
Self-deception is often quite rigid, stupid & opinionated!"
Which is a far cry from calling anyone anything.
"Self-deception is often quite rigid, stupid and opinionated." Why take that personally?
Who doesn't engage in self deception? Is it not often as he said it is?
Maybe he has a valid point.
Idiots can't help themseves; they're just idiots.
(maybe that's a valid point; don't take it personally)
"Any being have a choice and thus a chance...
Well so be it!"
I take that to mean that any idiot can help himself.
Moving on to his next post...