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.
@fivebells said:
If you can give me citations of Buddha and Christ demonstrating that the purpose of their teachings and practices was "meaning," I will go home.
Citations demonstrating? Their respective citations are obviously meaningful, demonstrated by the fact that so many millions of people find them meaningful. If you meant to ask that either of them are quoted as saying literally something like, "the purpose of my teachings and practices is meaning," then I think you're probably going to be late for dinner.
Is it logical to conclude from this that meaning is not the purpose of religion?
Practicing Buddhism doesn't give meaning to life. It changes the experience. The experience is all there is. Painting a different meaning onto it doesn't change anything. Meaning is not realization. Realization changes behaviour. Meaning justifies behaviour.
@genkaku said:
wangchuey -- I guess I'm saying that with practice it becomes difficult if not impossible to discern precisely what could be a waste of time.
I don't understand.
Do you intend to take up a useful war effort? Start a Paris Hilton fan club? Sleep on your cushion and call it awake?
When the founder of a religion explicitly says what the purpose of it is, it is reasonable to construe that as the purpose. When someone else says the purpose is something else and provides no evidence for it, it is reasonable to assume that they don't know what they're talking about.
@lobster -- Some actions deserve repeating; others do not. Is either the one or the other a "waste of time?" Isn't one of the most assured ways of not being a jackass later suffering the experience of being one now?
@Nevermind said:
Pretty sassy for a Cambridge Girl.
Perhaps it would be, if I were from Cambridge. I'm being blunt.
Since you still refuse to contribute anything meaningful to the conversation I'll take it that you can't explain yourself. It's no biggie, heaps of people can't back their words up.
I think "waste of time" only happens when there is a lack of awareness. If there is awareness during that time, it can't be called a waste yet. It is up to the one who is aware to decide if the time is useful or not. Such as contemplating and having good ideas, we can say that the time spent contemplating was not a waste of time.
@robot said:
Practicing Buddhism doesn't give meaning to life. It changes the experience.
I don't follow. Meaning does change experience.
Painting a different meaning onto it [life?] doesn't change anything.
I think it may or may not. I would hope that it changes things for the better.
Meaning is not realization.
What meaning are you comparing it to?
Realization changes behavior.
I think it may or may not. I would hope that it changes behavior for the better, but if it doesn't we can always say that it wasn't True Realization to begin with.
Meaning justifies behavior.
Actually behavior expresses what something like religion actually means.
@fivebells said:
When the founder of a religion explicitly says what the purpose of it is, it is reasonable to construe that as the purpose. When someone else says the purpose is something else and provides no evidence for it, it is reasonable to assume that they don't know what they're talking about.
What evidence do we have that Buddhism ceases suffering? It's been around for several millennia.
@dhammachick said:
Perhaps it would be, if I were from Cambridge. I'm being blunt.
I must have mistaken you for someone else who described herself as a Cambridge Grl. Anyway, they have a somewhat odd notion of what blunt means wherever you're from.
@Nevermind said:
What evidence do we have that Buddhism ceases suffering? It's been around for several millennia.
Well, you need to try it for yourself and see. It takes a fair bit of mucking around and advice/assistance from more experienced people to get it right, but I know from experience that it's effective.
@fivebells said:
Well, you need to try it for yourself and see. It takes a fair bit of mucking around and advice/assistance from more experienced people to get it right, but I know from experience that it's effective.
Effectively meaningful certainly, but do you still suffer?
Calm down, people. Stop fighting. This forum is getting worse every day.
Let me see if I understand this poster's main point: nirvana and heaven may be different insofar as the final state is concerned, but they are essentially the same as they involve a desire to be free of worldly pain.
@betaboy said:
Calm down, people. Stop fighting. This forum is getting worse every day.
The cessation of suffering is a tough business, so gives us a break, if you please.
Let me see if I understand this poster's main point: nirvana and heaven may be different insofar as the final state is concerned, but they are essentially the same as they involve a desire to be free of worldly pain.
They are the same in that it makes no difference if either is true, or not true. You don't concern yourself with the truths expressed in other religions, do you? The vast majority of people do not. In fact I don't think I've heard of anyone concerning themselves with the truths expressed in other religions. Most don't even look at their own religion critically. That being the case, how can it be said that truth is of particular importance? And if truth is not important then what is? What is essential?
@robot said:
You [the one with an imprisoned avatar] just finished saying that meaning can change things for the better.
Actually I wrote that I was hopeful for such an outcome.
Which means effectively meaningful equals less suffering, no?
All sorts of crazy things can be meaningful to folks, but in this case we are talking about the cessation of suffering, not a reduction of suffering, yes?
@genkaku said:
lobster -- Some actions deserve repeating; others do not. Is either the one or the other a "waste of time?" Isn't one of the most assured ways of not being a jackass later suffering the experience of being one now?
OK my apologies. Your use of language kept me thinking that all behaviour is equal was being considered. Empty if you like. So even immoral behaviour is acceptable to the transcendent. That is an advanced teaching about appearance. It is one of the way charlatans get away with lapse behaviour.
So I would suggest the transcendent motivation is not jackassry due to dukkha but sometimes as an illustration, shock out of conditional behaviour, to negate hero worship and so on.
I once had a dharma friend, an advanced yogi, who would wear a sign around his neck whilst on retreat. The sign said, 'in silence'. He looked like a buffoon as he went about illustrating silent speech by not talking. He was no buffoon.
Being a jackass or making a teaching real, may be illustrative. He was quite talkative when the sign was not being used. It was almost a confession, illustration and practice . . .
@Nevermind said:
All sorts of crazy things can be meaningful to folks, but in this case we are talking about the cessation of suffering, not a reduction of suffering, yes?
Truthfully? I'm not really talking about anything. I'm watching rerun episodes of Archer on my laptop while lobbing any old thing out there for you to chew on.
I think giving is essential. I believe its true in all things and every religion. Some sort of sacrifice without regard to the self. All religions speak the same language. Lower the self aspect and give towards something better, either in faith or practices.
@genkaku said:
wangchuey -- I guess I'm saying that with practice it becomes difficult if not impossible to discern precisely what could be a waste of time.
@genkaku: my thinking says - with practice, it will become much easier to discern what could be waste of time. it is ok that every experience, when coming down to a moment, is whole in itself, without lacking anything (if we come from zen perspective) - but after a lot of practice, the mind should have reduced its defilements and be more still, to know whether the intention behind an act is skillful or not - so accordingly, from conventional view point, it can be analyzed that whether the time (in which that act was performed or in which that experience occurred) was a waste of time or a useful utilization of time.
oh goodness, LOL. Such fireworks around these parts lately, is Mercury retrograde or something?
Cessation of suffering is an end-result. That doesn't mean we don't still suffer while we practice. But it means we have a much more effective means of coping with suffering and in choosing how we see and react to it.
You could be smacked off your t*ts on heroin.... But then I suppose theoretically even that could somehow enable some kind of Insight, given the right conditions...
What about... Yeah.... I totally see your point... Could you class walking away from the path altogether and trying to start a family in order to make yourself happy... Or are we still thinking that no-effort is still effort... just how fr down the "Prajna-Paramita rabbit-hole" are we going here...?
Gah!! Someone postes coming from one level, and everyone else, reads it from a different one... Then people get misunderstod... Apart from @Lobster, who is so mental that she/he /it is another level altogether, haha!
I don't know... I'm going off to cry in the corner... Or microwave a curry... Whichever is a better use of my time ;-)
Great question @genkaku - love it! You are a living koan Sir x
Comments
Citations demonstrating? Their respective citations are obviously meaningful, demonstrated by the fact that so many millions of people find them meaningful. If you meant to ask that either of them are quoted as saying literally something like, "the purpose of my teachings and practices is meaning," then I think you're probably going to be late for dinner.
Is it logical to conclude from this that meaning is not the purpose of religion?
Practicing Buddhism doesn't give meaning to life. It changes the experience. The experience is all there is. Painting a different meaning onto it doesn't change anything. Meaning is not realization. Realization changes behaviour. Meaning justifies behaviour.
That's why I think you are wrong.
Pretty sassy for a Cambridge Girl.
I don't understand.
Do you intend to take up a useful war effort? Start a Paris Hilton fan club? Sleep on your cushion and call it awake?
When the founder of a religion explicitly says what the purpose of it is, it is reasonable to construe that as the purpose. When someone else says the purpose is something else and provides no evidence for it, it is reasonable to assume that they don't know what they're talking about.
@lobster -- Some actions deserve repeating; others do not. Is either the one or the other a "waste of time?" Isn't one of the most assured ways of not being a jackass later suffering the experience of being one now?
Perhaps it would be, if I were from Cambridge. I'm being blunt.
Since you still refuse to contribute anything meaningful to the conversation I'll take it that you can't explain yourself. It's no biggie, heaps of people can't back their words up.
Ciao.
I think "waste of time" only happens when there is a lack of awareness. If there is awareness during that time, it can't be called a waste yet. It is up to the one who is aware to decide if the time is useful or not. Such as contemplating and having good ideas, we can say that the time spent contemplating was not a waste of time.
I don't follow. Meaning does change experience.
I think it may or may not. I would hope that it changes things for the better.
What meaning are you comparing it to?
I think it may or may not. I would hope that it changes behavior for the better, but if it doesn't we can always say that it wasn't True Realization to begin with.
Actually behavior expresses what something like religion actually means.
What evidence do we have that Buddhism ceases suffering? It's been around for several millennia.
I must have mistaken you for someone else who described herself as a Cambridge Grl. Anyway, they have a somewhat odd notion of what blunt means wherever you're from.
Well, you need to try it for yourself and see. It takes a fair bit of mucking around and advice/assistance from more experienced people to get it right, but I know from experience that it's effective.
You have a somewhat odd notion of what soteriology is, whatever planet you're from.......
Effectively meaningful certainly, but do you still suffer?
You just finished saying that meaning can change things for the better. Which means effectively meaningful equals less suffering, no?
You're being blunt again I take it.
To be honest we don't use that word [soteriology] in my village.
Calm down, people. Stop fighting. This forum is getting worse every day.
Let me see if I understand this poster's main point: nirvana and heaven may be different insofar as the final state is concerned, but they are essentially the same as they involve a desire to be free of worldly pain.
Correct me if I am wrong.
You village called they're missing..... nevermind.
Oh now that's just priceless.
Yes I agree with the italicised statement..........
The cessation of suffering is a tough business, so gives us a break, if you please.
They are the same in that it makes no difference if either is true, or not true. You don't concern yourself with the truths expressed in other religions, do you? The vast majority of people do not. In fact I don't think I've heard of anyone concerning themselves with the truths expressed in other religions. Most don't even look at their own religion critically. That being the case, how can it be said that truth is of particular importance? And if truth is not important then what is? What is essential?
Actually I wrote that I was hopeful for such an outcome.
All sorts of crazy things can be meaningful to folks, but in this case we are talking about the cessation of suffering, not a reduction of suffering, yes?
OK my apologies. Your use of language kept me thinking that all behaviour is equal was being considered. Empty if you like. So even immoral behaviour is acceptable to the transcendent. That is an advanced teaching about appearance. It is one of the way charlatans get away with lapse behaviour.
So I would suggest the transcendent motivation is not jackassry due to dukkha but sometimes as an illustration, shock out of conditional behaviour, to negate hero worship and so on.
I once had a dharma friend, an advanced yogi, who would wear a sign around his neck whilst on retreat. The sign said, 'in silence'. He looked like a buffoon as he went about illustrating silent speech by not talking. He was no buffoon.
Being a jackass or making a teaching real, may be illustrative. He was quite talkative when the sign was not being used. It was almost a confession, illustration and practice . . .
Truthfully? I'm not really talking about anything. I'm watching rerun episodes of Archer on my laptop while lobbing any old thing out there for you to chew on.
Time wasting at its stupidest.
P.S. Not the Archer part. Archer is awesome!
I know what cessation means, Mr. Robot. You offer nothing to chew.
Glad I could help.
I think giving is essential. I believe its true in all things and every religion. Some sort of sacrifice without regard to the self. All religions speak the same language. Lower the self aspect and give towards something better, either in faith or practices.
Sorry, I must have forgotten to say thank you before.
@genkaku: my thinking says - with practice, it will become much easier to discern what could be waste of time. it is ok that every experience, when coming down to a moment, is whole in itself, without lacking anything (if we come from zen perspective) - but after a lot of practice, the mind should have reduced its defilements and be more still, to know whether the intention behind an act is skillful or not - so accordingly, from conventional view point, it can be analyzed that whether the time (in which that act was performed or in which that experience occurred) was a waste of time or a useful utilization of time.
oh goodness, LOL. Such fireworks around these parts lately, is Mercury retrograde or something?
Cessation of suffering is an end-result. That doesn't mean we don't still suffer while we practice. But it means we have a much more effective means of coping with suffering and in choosing how we see and react to it.
You could be smacked off your t*ts on heroin.... But then I suppose theoretically even that could somehow enable some kind of Insight, given the right conditions...
What about... Yeah.... I totally see your point... Could you class walking away from the path altogether and trying to start a family in order to make yourself happy... Or are we still thinking that no-effort is still effort... just how fr down the "Prajna-Paramita rabbit-hole" are we going here...?
Gah!! Someone postes coming from one level, and everyone else, reads it from a different one... Then people get misunderstod... Apart from @Lobster, who is so mental that she/he /it is another level altogether, haha!
I don't know... I'm going off to cry in the corner... Or microwave a curry... Whichever is a better use of my time ;-)
Great question @genkaku - love it! You are a living koan Sir x
The world is my cushion . . .