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.
Yes, have read all those. But I prefer "suffering" than "stressful". And this could be attained by proper meditation, I suppose, however, I cannot really visualize the procedure. That is why I'll be traveling in the Southern part of the Philippines to meet with the monks and laymen Buddhist there.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
"Suffering" has long been deemed both inaccurate and depressing. Dukkha does not actually translate accurately as 'suffering'.
'Stressful' is more accurate, because there is positive stress, and negative (dis)stress.
What is there to visualise? Just wake up in the morning, and observe your thought-patterns and interactions. There will be everything you need to 'visualise' right there. Our very existence is 'dukkha'...
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited June 2016
"Hyper-analysis causes paralysis". Sometimes, one can over-think things to an extreme extent and get nowhere.
"He who deliberates fully before taking each step will spend his entire life on one leg".
There are times when, instead of 'seeking clarification' we need to let it gently come to us....
Point of debate: Just how would we define "depressing"? The word stress is depressing, though there is a positive stress. Meanwhile, "suffering" is depressing, too. However, suffering propels us to hurdle our current state. Regardless of acceptance, both seem to apply.
I may agree with you on that point. One cannot move forward because of extreme analysis, as he continually meditates on it. However, pros and cons arise as we critically think of things. One cannot move either without understanding the dynamics of things better, as if were only doing things without reason - doing something as it is pointless.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
You misunderstand me. The original translators of the Pali Canons were elderly Victorian Christian men, who understood little if anything, about the lingual nuances of the language they were translating.
This isn't a philosophical inaccuracy. It's actually a linguistic etymological one.
It's not up for debate; it's actually recognised by Buddhist scholars as being wrong.
2
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
This is what I mean about over-analysis. Not everything is necessarily subject of analytical and philosophical debate.
Sometimes, shit is exactly that.
Just shit.
Lama Surya Das isn't a Christian, but frequently uses the term "suffering". Like what I said, the term doesn't matter. It may apply to me, but not you. It depends on how much we put meanings and weight to it. Besides, you've been with Buddhism for a long period of time than me who is about to start his quest. You know better than I do.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Yes, indeed. Lama Surya Das wrote the "Awakening" Trilogy, all three of which I have.
The term 'suffering is still widely used because it has been so for many years, but it doesn't make it any the more accurate. It's used more as habit that anything else.
Rather like people having to adopt the term 'black because 'negro' was apparently derogatory, or Down's Syndrome because Mongol was also deemed inappropriate.... Suffering is deemed commonplace, but still wrong.
The link you sent me is contradictory to Lama Surya Das's statement. And I quote, "Why do we seek, why do we ask, doubt, wonder? Because. Because we must." While it is true that we should empty our cups (unlearn), one must clearly understand things (the process of emptying the cup). No, you got it all wrong. My cup isn't full, I unloaded it actually, presenting them before you for me to get some clarifications. I am carefully looking at all the angles, rather than being nonchalant
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Lama Surya Das is not THE authority on Buddhism. He is just one voice of many. The story precedes him by quite some time.
There is a difference between nonchalance and acceptance. I think you need to also be looking at how constructive or useful your questions are, and whether in the end they ultimately support your practice or stunt and hinder it.
Some questions may be viewed as reasonable. Others appear to be argumentative for the sake of it. I am speaking generally now, not specifically to you...
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
You cannot 'unlearn' anything. You merely have to be willing to fully accept that there are other tea flavours than the one you are currently drinking, and that all teas are ok.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited June 2016
@Markus_Louis said:
Not everything is necessarily subject of analytical and philosophical debate.
That sounds nonchalance, taking things in without critically thinking.
Not really. You're reading things into my responses which are not there.
The Kalama Sutta is a fine way to learn how to benchmark what you learn.
It's also very discerning to ask one's self:
How useful and constructive would this be to my practice, whether I get an answer or not?"
Some of the Wisest people in the world, use "I don't know!" to their credit....
And just to add (though you may know it already)
@Markus_Louis said:
Lama Surya Das isn't a Christian, but frequently uses the term "suffering".....
Lama Surya Das was once a good devout Jewish Boy.... His mother refers to him as the Deli Lama...
@Markus_Louis said: @ajhayes Oh, goodie! A Pinoy. Yes, I actually joined a group of Filipino Buddhists in Fcebook, and I'll be meeting them one of these days.
I'm just your average Kano, I had a few Philipino friends when I was in the military who taught me some Tagalog.
@Markus_Louis said: The word "suffering" came from a lama, who took refuge with the Tibetan. I am quoting Lama Surya Das', by the way.
It might be better to just use "dukkha", the Pali term, and allow your understanding to develop over time. Translations of these key terms are often inadequate and misleading.
@federica I see. Thank you, I really learned a lot from you. Enlighten me more. I am currently reading some Sutras for days now - one of which is the Aganna Satta. I'll be reading the other Sutra you mentioned after I finish the one I mentioned earlier.
@Markus_Louis said:
The word "suffering" came from a lama, who took refuge with the Tibetan. I am quoting Lama Surya Das', by the way.
Actually he clarifies in "Awakening The Buddha Within" that while suffering is the general and accepted definition of dukkha, unsatisfactory is more apt.
Yes Buddhism is an organized religion. Some Buddhist eg forest tradition is quite independent. Reincarnation in Buddhism include other species eg animals and insect s. So a man could be reborn as a beetle. There is no creator God in Buddhism. We come into being due to natural causes. Yes there are some Buddhist monks in the Philippi nes.
Comments
Yes, have read all those. But I prefer "suffering" than "stressful". And this could be attained by proper meditation, I suppose, however, I cannot really visualize the procedure. That is why I'll be traveling in the Southern part of the Philippines to meet with the monks and laymen Buddhist there.
"Suffering" has long been deemed both inaccurate and depressing. Dukkha does not actually translate accurately as 'suffering'.
'Stressful' is more accurate, because there is positive stress, and negative (dis)stress.
What is there to visualise? Just wake up in the morning, and observe your thought-patterns and interactions. There will be everything you need to 'visualise' right there. Our very existence is 'dukkha'...
"Hyper-analysis causes paralysis". Sometimes, one can over-think things to an extreme extent and get nowhere.
"He who deliberates fully before taking each step will spend his entire life on one leg".
There are times when, instead of 'seeking clarification' we need to let it gently come to us....
Point of debate: Just how would we define "depressing"? The word stress is depressing, though there is a positive stress. Meanwhile, "suffering" is depressing, too. However, suffering propels us to hurdle our current state. Regardless of acceptance, both seem to apply.
I may agree with you on that point. One cannot move forward because of extreme analysis, as he continually meditates on it. However, pros and cons arise as we critically think of things. One cannot move either without understanding the dynamics of things better, as if were only doing things without reason - doing something as it is pointless.
You misunderstand me. The original translators of the Pali Canons were elderly Victorian Christian men, who understood little if anything, about the lingual nuances of the language they were translating.
This isn't a philosophical inaccuracy. It's actually a linguistic etymological one.
It's not up for debate; it's actually recognised by Buddhist scholars as being wrong.
This is what I mean about over-analysis. Not everything is necessarily subject of analytical and philosophical debate.
Sometimes, shit is exactly that.
Just shit.
The word "suffering" came from a lama, who took refuge with the Tibetan. I am quoting Lama Surya Das', by the way.
Lama Surya Das isn't a Christian, but frequently uses the term "suffering". Like what I said, the term doesn't matter. It may apply to me, but not you. It depends on how much we put meanings and weight to it. Besides, you've been with Buddhism for a long period of time than me who is about to start his quest. You know better than I do.
Yes, indeed. Lama Surya Das wrote the "Awakening" Trilogy, all three of which I have.
The term 'suffering is still widely used because it has been so for many years, but it doesn't make it any the more accurate. It's used more as habit that anything else.
Rather like people having to adopt the term 'black because 'negro' was apparently derogatory, or Down's Syndrome because Mongol was also deemed inappropriate.... Suffering is deemed commonplace, but still wrong.
Not everything is necessarily subject of analytical and philosophical debate.
That sounds nonchalance, taking things in without critically thinking.
I see. I see.
http://www.prairiewindzen.org/emptying_your_cup.html
As your cup seems full, I am wondering if you can make room for more tea...
The link you sent me is contradictory to Lama Surya Das's statement. And I quote, "Why do we seek, why do we ask, doubt, wonder? Because. Because we must." While it is true that we should empty our cups (unlearn), one must clearly understand things (the process of emptying the cup). No, you got it all wrong. My cup isn't full, I unloaded it actually, presenting them before you for me to get some clarifications. I am carefully looking at all the angles, rather than being nonchalant
Lama Surya Das is not THE authority on Buddhism. He is just one voice of many. The story precedes him by quite some time.
There is a difference between nonchalance and acceptance. I think you need to also be looking at how constructive or useful your questions are, and whether in the end they ultimately support your practice or stunt and hinder it.
Some questions may be viewed as reasonable. Others appear to be argumentative for the sake of it. I am speaking generally now, not specifically to you...
You cannot 'unlearn' anything. You merely have to be willing to fully accept that there are other tea flavours than the one you are currently drinking, and that all teas are ok.
Not really. You're reading things into my responses which are not there.
The Kalama Sutta is a fine way to learn how to benchmark what you learn.
It's also very discerning to ask one's self:
How useful and constructive would this be to my practice, whether I get an answer or not?"
Some of the Wisest people in the world, use "I don't know!" to their credit....
And just to add (though you may know it already)
Lama Surya Das was once a good devout Jewish Boy.... His mother refers to him as the Deli Lama...
I'm just your average Kano, I had a few Philipino friends when I was in the military who taught me some Tagalog.
It might be better to just use "dukkha", the Pali term, and allow your understanding to develop over time. Translations of these key terms are often inadequate and misleading.
@federica I see. Thank you, I really learned a lot from you. Enlighten me more. I am currently reading some Sutras for days now - one of which is the Aganna Satta. I'll be reading the other Sutra you mentioned after I finish the one I mentioned earlier.
@SpinyNorman Yes. Dukkha. Regardless of the term, it's matter of one's preference.
@ajhayes I see.
Indeed he is. He is the one who guided me to Buddhism. I also have a lot of love for Thich Nhat Hanh
Seems I missed the fun - oh well
Actually he clarifies in "Awakening The Buddha Within" that while suffering is the general and accepted definition of dukkha, unsatisfactory is more apt.
Yes Buddhism is an organized religion. Some Buddhist eg forest tradition is quite independent. Reincarnation in Buddhism include other species eg animals and insect s. So a man could be reborn as a beetle. There is no creator God in Buddhism. We come into being due to natural causes. Yes there are some Buddhist monks in the Philippi nes.
there was a philipino monk ordained at vbg vihara Buddha gotama in temoh Malaysia a few months ago. I can not remember his name.
http://vbgnet.org/ this is the website
Thank you, @hermitwin!