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.
Originally Posted by Subjectivity9 I found it interesting that after Gautama was 100% Enlightened, that He would still go off and meditate. I am guessing that He just enjoyed it, and wasn’t actually attached to it, or expecting some payback.
What else was he going to do in his spare time? Watch TV?
His meditation was merely his natural state of being.
He had reached a place in His search where He knew what Gautama was not, but He did not actually, as yet, know what He WAS. So, He sat under the Bodhi tree, and pushed that last mile.
I believe this would be similar to what is described in 'a small little jewel of a book' called, ‘The Dark Night of the Soul’ by St. John of the Cross.
I personally do not see Enlightenment as being synonymous with Sainthood. I do not see Enlightenment as just one more achievement that we can add to our bag of tricks. I see it as 180 degrees different than that.
S9
The Buddha completely eradicated any form of greed, hatred & delusion in his mind. Is this sainthood? If so, the Buddha acheived sainthood.
The Buddha's goal was always to find the remedy for suffering. Why you do not understand this is because your nihilistic views are the same as those Siddhartha was stuck in during his six year search.
Siddhartha left the palace and mastered 'non-labelling' with two teachers. He felt this was not Nibbana. Why? Because the mind cannot remain in this state permanently.
Then he tried to master bodily suffering with the mind, namely, imperturbability. Here, he nearly killed himself.
Then, unlike yourself, instead of perpetually clearing the mind of thought, he sat under the BodhiTree and used his clear mind to examine or look at the true nature of phenomena. In seeing phenomena were impermanent, unsatisfactory, not-self & dependently arisen, his mind became dispassionate towards all things and in that dispassion, his mind was released or liberated.
In fact, he came the full circle. In the palace he saw things were impermanent & unsatisfactory & people burned themselves inwardly due to their attachments. Then he sought a solution to this in various forms of non-thinking or nihilism. Then he turned away from nihilism and returned to a more lucid examination(dhamma vicaya/vipassana) of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & attachment.
When his mind thoroughly realised impermanence & unsatisfactoriness was the true nature of life and to regard anything as 'self' was impossible & dukkha, through this acceptance, his mind released from craving & attachment but most of all, his search was over.
So a Buddha can label things and fluidly function in conventional reality. Why? Because labelling per se is not the problem. Greed, hatred & ignorance are the problem.
If we are all, already 100% Enlightened, (as Buddha said) and it is “desire” that is causing all of the trouble, one way or the other, than why are we being born at all? Why is the population growing? This would seem, to me, like a contradiction. Don’t you agree?
I am a very detailed person, when it comes to this subject. That is because of its extreme subtlety. One word, one way or the other, and you are off the mark in describing what is Reality.
You are miles way from describing reality because you mind is thinks reality is non-thinking.
Buddha's enlightenment lead to the cessation of craving, that is, dispassion.
I asked you to leave me out of your delusions, so why do you persist? I never...repeat, NEVER...denied cause and effect. That is your erroneous judgment, and has no basis in reality. Of all the absurd notions you've come up with so far, that one takes the cake.
The really interesting part of all this, is that you have supported my initial point several times using your own words. As far as I can tell, it doesn't seem like our views are very different; we simply use different words and methods of expression. If your mind was open and free from judgment, you might have recognized that immediately.
It seems that you challenge anything anybody says, taking up a contrary position, even though you may share precisely the same underlying viewpoint. The result is an endless debate over words and definitions, rather than over the actual experiences, accomplishing nothing. Instead of building bridges of mutual understanding and shared experience, you are tearing them down.
As such, just like AD, it is not required of you to cling to what you imagine the Buddha was or wanted.
Are you in love with me or something? Clearly you have some attachment since you keep bringing my name up. You brought me up twice in this post, without any good reason.
Well, gee, I love you too.
I suppose you'll want the last word, so have at it. After that, I ask again, please stop referencing me in your posts. Your behavior is that of a bully. I am not afraid of bullies. I simply choose not to play the game.
Nirvana is a break through of sorts. It turns our whole world on its head. It isn’t just being very, very, very, very calm. (Many people confuse trance states with it.)
In Buddhism, Nirvana is the cessation of greed, hatred & delusion.
Nirvana is not your subjective personalised attached excited description nor do others confuse it with trance (whatever that means).
When the world is seen clearly exactly for what it is, the mind's mental defilements will extinguish, like a fire extinguishes, and the mind touches Nirvana.
Nirvana is peace via the road of wisdom or insight knowledge.
Buddhists don't do anything at all. They know nothing, they are nothing. There is no cause, no effect, no liberation. Not even a Buddha. He just wanted you to wake up.
My mind is awake. It has an excellent memory. Elephants do not forget.
320. As an elephant in the battlefield withstands arrows shot from bows all around, even so shall I endure abuse. There are many, indeed, who lack virtue.
321. A tamed elephant is led into a crowd, and the king mounts a tamed elephant. Best among men is the subdued one who endures abuse.
33. "Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge.
Buddhists don't do anything at all. They know nothing, they are nothing. There is no cause, no effect, no liberation. Not even a Buddha. These are all just words, capsules for concepts, themselves empty of substance. If I say, "I am a Buddhist," then I am most assuredly not a Buddhist.
If you quote me without including the sentence in bold, my point is lost.
If I am asked: "Are you are Buddhist?" and I (mind, speech, etc,) say "I am a Buddhist" or "I am not a Buddhist", if one believes the "I" used is that communicative response is real, then one is certainly not a Buddhist.
Your quotes above reinforce my own, using different language. Are we to continue to bicker over words? Do you assume nobody understands as well as you? It appears to me our understanding is much more alike than it is different.
"All the phenomena of existence have mind as their precursor, mind as their supreme leader, and of mind are they made." ~ Buddha
Your quotes above reinforce my own, using different language. Are we to continue to bicker over words? Do you assume nobody understands as well as you? It appears to me our understanding is much more alike than it is different.
Whilst you love me, I love you & we love eachother, our words did not have the same meaning.
This is because you think the concepts of "I am a Buddhist" are unbeneficial to the mind and I think the concepts of "I am a Buddhist" are beneficial to the mind.
Just because something is an egoless mere mental formation, this does not mean it is not beneficial.
My opinion was, it is a beautifying quality to have reverence & gratitude rather than having the mind in a zombie like state.
"All the phenomena of existence have mind as their precursor, mind as their supreme leader, and of mind are they made."
When the Buddha used the word dhamma here, he was referring to wholesome & unwholesome things. He was not referring to all phenomena.
The word dhamma has many usages, such as phenomena, truth, law, teachings, practices, etc. For example, Nibbana is a dhamma but it is unsankhata dhamma, namely, unconditioned phenomena. It is neither mental or physical. Therefore, mind is not the cheif or creator of Nibbana.
1. Mind precedes all dhammas (practices). Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.
2. Mind precedes all dhammas. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.
I am still bickering. So to say "I am a Buddhist" could be acting with a pure mind.
This is because you think the concepts of "I am a Buddhist" are unbeneficial to the mind and I think the concepts of "I am a Buddhist" are beneficial to the mind.
There you go again, telling me what I think. I didn't say having the thought "I am a Buddhist" could not be beneficial. Beneficial is a judgment. I took no stand on "beneficial" or "not beneficial."
My opinion was, it is a beautifying quality to have reverence & gratitude rather than having the mind in a zombie like state.
I couldn't agree more. I especially like your choice of the word "beautifying," as it implies something extra and remarkable. Clinging to the identity of "Buddhist" does not, in my opinion, engender reverence and gratitude. You don't have to "be" anything to revere and appreciate the gift of the Buddha's teachings.
As for the "zombie-like state," that was never part of my contention. I practice mindfulness, not mindlessness.
When the Buddha used the word dhamma here, he was referring to wholesome & unwholesome things. He was not referring to all phenomena.
The word dhamma has many usages, such as phenomena, truth, law, teachings, practices, etc. For example, Nibbana is a dhamma but it is unsankhata dhamma, namely, unconditioned phenomena. It is neither mental or physical. Therefore, mind is not the cheif or creator of Nibbana.
I selected the first translation I found on the web, rather than type it in from my own copy of the Dhammapada. Your interpretation may or may not be correct, but in all the translations I have seen, I have never seen it written the way you suggest. Either way, the quote stands on its own merit. Unless, perhaps, you also claim greater understanding than the Buddha?
I am still bickering. So to say "I am a Buddhist" could be acting with a pure mind.
True. You could also be acting with an impure mind. Simply saying "I am a Buddhist" or "I am not a Buddhist" is meaningless.
It's one of the questions discussed in The Questions of King Milinda. Buddha meditated after enlightenment in order to serve as an example and because of the joy of meditation.
Hi Jinzang, re. your above post to me #92,
I was interested in finding direct references to what Lord Buddha said about this in the Pali Canon.
I Googled the 'questions of King Milinda' but all I could find was info about a debate between King Milinda and Nagasena.
thanks for the reply, S9. i understand your reply, leaving not a whole lot to comment on. we're mainly just two consciousnesses describing the same concepts slightly differently as i see it.
In Buddhism, Nirvana is the cessation of greed, hatred & delusion.
Nirvana is not your subjective personalised attached excited description nor do others confuse it with trance (whatever that means).
When the world is seen clearly exactly for what it is, the mind's mental defilements will extinguish, like a fire extinguishes, and the mind touches Nirvana.
Nirvana is peace via the road of wisdom or insight knowledge.
Got to agree with this guys. I have no intention to add fuel to this endless debate but I must say that, I joined these forums only recently and I find it amusing how some people here have misunderstood what Nirvana really is and what the ultimate goal of Buddhism is.
Some folks don't accept that Buddhism is about ending rebirth and that Nirvana is in fact complete eradication of greed, lust, craving, anger including the delusion of selfhood.
No matter what definition we give it, that is what Nirvana is. It's clearly mentioned in many Buddhist suttas and texts: Complete eradication of all defilements. Also, no matter what we expect by practicing Buddhism, the Buddha taught it for worldings to end rebirth because being born is suffering. This is also explicitly mentioned so in suttas.
If we refer the suttas properly there will be no need for inventing our own definitions and debating endlessly on that because these things are explicitly mentioned over and over again in the suttas.
I agree to disagree that you responded to Dhamma and Mundus' posts in any significant capacity, and agree to disagree that you are free from the chains of over-identification with labels.
"I'm someone who walks my own path" is just another label. Or an "-ism," if you prefer.
G: We're mainly just two consciousnesses describing the same concepts slightly differently as i see it.
S9: Perhaps you are right. When speaking of things this subtle, it is often the small details that make all of the difference.
Sometimes we agree, and have no idea just how differently we are both looking at it.
Sometimes we disagree and have no real idea that we are basically saying the same darn thing.
But, if we continue to talk of these things, sometimes one, or both, of us can clear away the cobwebs of habitual thought that had taken up residence in our mind, and thus far gone unnoticed.
E: So you'd certainly agree that just one clinging to an error doesn't make it truth then, yeah?
S9: Of course, an error is an error. I was merely pointing out that joining hands and singing in unison didn’t add one spec of truth to your song, ya?
E: I agree to disagree.
S9: That is of course you privilege, and I wouldn’t have it any other way if that is how you view this matter. But, I probably likewise would disagree with you on some things. “Be a lamp unto yourself.”
E: Agree to disagree that you are free from the chains of over-identification with labels.
S9: I don’t believe that you are in a place where you can judge me on what I am over-identifying with. You can only judge your own opinions on how my words strike you, at the moment. It may very well be your own confusion in these matters. Often with time, these veiws change.
E: "I'm someone who walks my own path" is just another label.
S9: Perhaps, if that is who I saw myself as being. But, I have stepped off the path.
E: Or an "-ism," if you prefer.
S9: This may just be a matter of not sharing the same definition of an ‘-ism.’
I see an ‘-ism’ as taking on something, as a gospel, that you your self have not witnessed to be the case through personal investigation into your own self, and your own world, or as being more like a religion.
When you stop questioning what you 'believe' to be true, and I mean daily, than you have reached a dead end of sorts.
Of course, an error is an error. I was merely pointing out that joining hands and singing in unison didn’t add one spec of truth to your song, ya?
Who said it did? Your posts seem to be suggesting Dhamma and I are ganging up on you or something and just parroting each other. Two people just happened to disagree with you. I didn't radio Dhamma in to back me up. No one suggested that you being outnumbered proved you were wrong.
“Be a lamp unto yourself.”
You keep attributing quotes to the Buddha without any citations. Quotegarden and Google are not citations.
S9: Perhaps, if that is who I saw myself as being.
That is the point everyone has been trying to make. That, likewise, saying "I am a Buddhist" does not inherently imply that a person has built an illusion of "self" around it... it can simple be said to communicate that the Buddha is one's teacher (which is simply a factual statement):
The problem arises when we regard the "I" as real.
If I am asked: "Are you are Buddhist?" and I (mind, speech, etc,) say "I am a Buddhist" or "I am not a Buddhist", if one believes the "I" used is that communicative response is real, then one is certainly not a Buddhist.
If one believes it, there is as much attachment in "I am not a Buddhist" as there is in "I am a Buddhist", in fact more.
The mind denying the reality of the source of their liberation is in ignorance.
All of the Buddha's arahant disciples identified with the Buddha & his Dhamma but this identification was not born of ignorance.
Again - you actually think the 'self' is real so you keep anihilating it.
'Self' is an illusion. But this does not deny gratitude and cause & effect.
When you stop questioning what you 'believe' to be true, and I mean daily, than you have reached a dead end of sorts.
When you stop questioning what you believe, that is a problem. When you stop believing and speculating at all, that is Nibbana... and that's not to be read as "when you start believing ("knowing") all your beliefs are truth," so please don't warp it.
This may just be a matter of not sharing the same definition of an ‘-ism.’
I see an ‘-ism’ as taking on something, as a gospel, that you your self have not witnessed to be the case through personal investigation into your own self, and your own world, or as being more like a religion.
Then you are clearly projecting. This may be true of some people but not all, and it was clearly defined how Dhamma and I were using the term early in this discussion. So this really is nitpicking and a semantics issue.
Prince Siddartha left the palace as soon as his son was born. He did not spend any time with his son.
If we actually read the suttas, the Prince brooded alot in the palace. He had no desire for worldly things whatsoever. Further, he deeply saw the suffering of humanity, especially the suffering of the upper classes.
.............[snip]..................
My theory is he made a deal with his parents to bear an heir.
Where, in the Siddhartha legends and myth do you find support for this 'theory'?
That is thirteen years of marriage until an heir. Then he left. Such were his sacrifices for us (that is, to force himself to have sex to bear an heir).
His quest was not just for himself. It was a compassionate quest.
"Forced" himself to have sex? This is a wonderfully Puritan view. Can you show me where legitimate sexual contact between man and wife is, in any way, condemned or proscribed by the Buddha's words?
The insult to his wife and to himself seems pretty obvious but I may have misunderstood you.
What is true cannot be chosen. What is true is inherent. Of this, the Buddha said:
"Monks, whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All processes are inconstant.
"Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All processes are unsatisfactory.
"Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All phenomena are not-self.
"The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, & makes it plain: All processes are inconstant. All processes are unsatisfactory. All phenomena are not-self."
We're mainly just two consciousnesses describing the same concepts slightly differently as i see it.
The Buddha taught about five aggregates, namely, body, feeling, perception, mental formation & consciousness. Consciousness is sense awareness. Consciousness cannot describe things. It is the role of mental formation to describe things.
But often some spiritual seekers, still on a spiritual journey, identify strongly with consciousness and are so overwelmed with consciousness, they create theories about oneness, non-duality, permanent stream of consciousness, eternity and, most of all, being the undifferentiated Brahma.
This is what happens to those stuck in spaced out zombie consciousness and who do not take refuge in the Buddha as a guide.
The Buddha did not describe himself in terms of consciousness. The Buddha described himself in terms of insight, namely, having the eye of perfect stainless insight.
I was merely pointing out that joining hands and singing in unison didn’t add one spec of truth to your song, ya?
"Your song".
Since when was truth "yours"?
"Your song" certainly occurs to each human being when they are struggling in the darkness & storms of their own samsara and struggling to find their way home into some clarity.
If one learns to be a counsellor or psychotherapist, to be client centred, then "your song" is the most crucial thing.
But here were are discussing Buddhism.
The Buddha's arahant disciples were without doubt in unison.
Where, in the Siddhartha legends and myth do you find support for this 'theory'?
Hi Simon
Regarding the Buddha's views of worldly life in the palace, these are found in the suttas.
Regarding my theory about a business deal, this is just a theory as I said. Theories require no support nor are they proved true.
Kind regards
"I, too, monks, before my Awakening, when I was an unawakened bodhisatta, being subject myself to birth, sought what was likewise subject to birth. Being subject myself to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, I sought [happiness in] what was likewise subject to illness... death... sorrow... defilement.
The thought occurred to me, 'Why do I, being subject myself to birth, seek what is likewise subject to birth? Being subject myself to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, why do I seek what is likewise subject to illness... death... sorrow... defilement?
What if I, being subject myself to birth, seeing the drawbacks of birth, were to seek the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Nibbana? What if I, being subject myself to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeing the drawbacks of aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, were to seek the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less,, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Nibbana?'
"So, at a later time, while still young, a black-haired young man endowed with the blessings of youth in the first stage of life — and while my parents, unwilling, were crying with tears streaming down their faces — I shaved off my hair & beard, put on the ochre robe and went forth from the home life into homelessness.
"Forced" himself to have sex? This is a wonderfully Puritan view. Can you show me where legitimate sexual contact between man and wife is, in any way, condemned or proscribed by the Buddha's words?
Hi Simon
I was not condemning. Of course the Buddha did not condemn sex between husband & wife.
My point was the accounts in the suttas show the Prince in the palace had already renounced sensuality.
My point was responding to S9 who gave the impression to me that Prince Siddharta was somewhat narcissic; that the Prince had everything & wanted more.
It appears Prince Siddharta had already renounced worldly things prior to his Great Renunciation.
Thus that he left the palace as soon as his son was born after thirteen years of marriage gives the impression he performed a 'family duty' of producing an heir to the throne.
It appears Prince Siddharta had already renounced worldly things prior to his Great Renunciation.
Thus that he left the palace as soon as his son was born after thirteen years of marriage gives the impression he performed a 'family duty' of producing an heir to the throne.
I tried to get more info on the above... but this is all I could get:
The future Buddha bid farewell to his wife, Princess Yasodhara and new son, Rahula, before renouncing the householder's life to seek an end to suffering. He would devote himself to search for the ultimate truth.
Though his love to his family may have hindered him, the birth of his son, Rahula, provided a favorable occasion for his departure since with the birth of his son, Siddattha had fulfilled his karma to his father and his wife according to the Indian tradition.
This supports what Dhamma D said. It seems that Siddattha was following some tradition of sorts... he did not just "deserted" his wife and child. Well I have learnt something new... thanks.
I tried to get more info on the above... but this is all I could get:
This supports what Dhamma D said. It seems that Siddattha was following some tradition of sorts... he did not just "deserted" his wife and child. Well I have learnt something new... thanks.
Yeah me too. Never was exposed to an idea like this. This is great; thanks a lot
Alas, just because something is 'traditional' does not make it OK. Leaving wife and child, without a word, is not something that I can see as good, unless we are obliged to see Gotama as always getting things right - a sort of Christ figure.
What is more, if the son was conceived and born to secure the succession, why is he later allowed to become a monk?
It is really dangerous to divinise the pre-enlightened Gotama. Nothing more than hagiography.
As far as I understand, life in ancient India was not like today. Children and parents were distant; they were not closely emotionally bonded with each other. Children became adults, got married and had their own children when they were barely teenagers or very young adults in the old days. The Gotama, being already fed up with the sensory desires, material comforts might not have got bonded with his new born son as a father of modern day and age would do.
Also, his wife was a princess from a royal family; they were kings and queens surrounded by all the comforts and support they ever needed. He might not have had any reason to worry about their well being like a modern day dad would do. We cannot address his situation from the same context we address a father who leaves his wife and new born child helpless today.
Nonetheless, I don’t think Buddhism specifically glorifies this act anywhere. What is relevant is, the Gotama left his palace for a worthy cause, he achieve it and thus showed the path of cessation of suffering to the worldings to benefit from it even 2500 years after his death.
It is hard to imagine we can discard one third of the 8-fold path! However, as someone noted, it depends on what one means by meditation. To me, devotional chanting is a meditation. It is said that there is no one term for Buddhist Meditation. I see several different terms that are sometimes translated as meditation. If there is a general term, it might be Citta Bhavana; cultivation of the mind and spirituality.
Citta / Chitta 心 {xin / shin}: Mind-heart, mind (as opposed to physical brain), spirituality, consciousness, cognizance. Citta is from a verbal root, cit or chit; which means to accumulate.
I think that statistically most buddhists don't mediate in statistically the same way as most Christians don't go to church.
I meditate while walking, while cooking, while working but rarely while sitting. That's not to say I don't just sit in silence sometimes.
I am a good buddhist. Or as good as the next person. People (in general) would do better to worry about being good people and showing others what buddhism can do rather than workig on their sitting posture I think.
I am a good buddhist. Or as good as the next person. People (in general) would do better to worry about being good people and showing others what buddhism can do rather than workig on their sitting posture I think.
When it came to lay practitioners, that's how the Buddha saw it. His emphasis for lay practitioners (householders) was mainly on conduct (sila) rather than complex meditation techniques and topics such a anatta (no-self). ref: Pali Nikayas
People (in general) would do better to worry about being good people and showing others what buddhism can do rather than workig on their sitting posture I think.
Well if you reduce meditation to "worrying about your sitting posture," then probably.
Trying to be a good and kind person is obviously a good thing. The catch is, though, that true loving-kindness cannot come without selflessness, without clearing away the illusions. People will do some horrible, disturbing things out of what they see as compassion, unfortunately, so working on yourself is very important.
It is hard to imagine we can discard one third of the 8-fold path! However, as someone noted, it depends on what one means by meditation. To me, devotional chanting is a meditation. It is said that there is no one term for Buddhist Meditation. I see several different terms that are sometimes translated as meditation. If there is a general term, it might be Citta Bhavana; cultivation of the mind and spirituality.
I meditate while walking, while cooking, while working but rarely while sitting. That's not to say I don't just sit in silence sometimes.
You both have very good points. My favorite modes of meditation often include physical exercise. Tai chi is a wonderful moving meditation. I also find skating (inline) to be a good opportunity to practice meditation.
I still believe sitting meditation is important, however, and this is why. Sitting meditation forces you to really face the silence. With nothing to distract you from your own thoughts, no comfort zone, you must directly come to terms with...well, everything. Once you breakthrough that feeling of uneasiness and learn to dwell completely in the moment, meditation becomes a joy. It is a process of letting go.
Meditating, while you are exercising, is actually very efficient. I watch my breath, and my muscles, while I ‘body build’ (exercise while lifting weights). If you are not very alert to your body when exercising, than you will definitely be more prone to injury.
I also meditate while reading. This gives me the patience that I need to read for long periods of time, it helps me to stay present to what I am reading with a higher concentration, and also keeps my mind from wandering.
During harvest time on my farm, I meditate while putting food by. Many of the small jobs like peeling, and chopping, would prove too overly tedious, otherwise. Meditation keeps me present to the task, and actually makes it pleasurable.
Those are just a few ways that I meditate. Life done correctly IS meditation.
Trying to be a good and kind person is obviously a good thing. The catch is, though, that true loving-kindness cannot come without selflessness, without clearing away the illusions. People will do some horrible, disturbing things out of what they see as compassion, unfortunately, so working on yourself is very important.
Whenever I hear the phrase, "good person," another phrase comes to mind. "Good dog." We know what a good dog is, right? One who behaves himself, obeys his masters, and doesn't cause a fuss. A "good dog" follows the rules.
A good person is much the same. A person considered as such is usually one who obeys the rules and behaves in a socially acceptable, expected manner. Sure, we also value charity, caring, and compassion, but they aren't usually necessary. If you mind your manners, maybe smile a little, and generally don't offend anybody, you're considered a "good person."
As Mundus pointed out, metta, or loving kindness, is a selfless state that arises from clear seeing, not from a desire to be "good." When you are awake, your higher code of conduct stems from all-encompassing compassion. I know of no better method for gaining this clarity of perception than through meditation.
What I have found to be the case is that, people generally mistreat other people when they themselves are in pain. This is a little like passing a hot potato to the guy who just happens to be standing beside you, because it hurts.
The ‘so called’ good people (the rule people) often use the rules as a means to disguise that they are hurting others, (passing the potato), disguise it even to themselves. (As in justification.)
A typical joke is made of this when speaking of the petty Napoleon’s that become bureaucrats in order to feel the POWER.
But, it also shows its ugly head in the policemen, who were very possibly bullies when they were children, and even the Nazi guards that were only following orders. So, rules certainly CAN NOT be considered the answer to our utopian dreams of existence/fantasies.
There are very few people who do not consider themselves to be "good," or at least justified in their actions. Most people, may not know about you, but they know they are good (by their own personal standards.)
So, the field is wide open, as to what we can get away with. (All too human.)
All we actually need is to be able to do, is to live with our selves; the judgmental son-of- a-gun we can’t seem to get away from.
One convenient way of doing this is, placing blame on the other guy. It need not be rational. We just have to get good at fooling our selves. This has a name. It is called neurosis, and it is epidemic.
I know that you probably know all of this, but…I felt like saying it.
Meditating, while you are exercising, is actually very efficient. I watch my breath, and my muscles, while I ‘body build’ (exercise while lifting weights). If you are not very alert to your body when exercising, than you will definitely be more prone to injury.
I also meditate while reading. This gives me the patience that I need to read for long periods of time, it helps me to stay present to what I am reading with a higher concentration, and also keeps my mind from wandering.
During harvest time on my farm, I meditate while putting food by. Many of the small jobs like peeling, and chopping, would prove too overly tedious, otherwise. Meditation keeps me present to the task, and actually makes it pleasurable.
Those are just a few ways that I meditate. Life done correctly IS meditation.
Respectfully,
S9
Well put. I have been writing about my take on meditation at a blog-site hosted by friends [Fraught with Peril]. Meditation can be a very focused, one pointed concentration. This can focused on form, or an abstract concept like infinite space, It can be a cultivation; such as the metta bhavana {kindness cultivation}. It can be more of a spacious awareness or open presence that enables one to see both the forest and the trees. The approach to any of those can be devotional or contemplative. With devotional chanting; one often focuses on a being that embodies a merit or virtue; so that the devotee, consciously or unconsciously, arouses or awakens that merit or virtue.
I think a lot of people have the impression that meditation only means sitting concentration meditation, and that one must master difficult postures. I get that reaction from non-buddhists all the time.
Here is a brief personal experience. I went through an illness that robbed me of many of my cognitive & motor skills; and an ensuing situation that made me very angry. Meditative practices initially helped me arouse a heart of sincere compassion and forbearance to overcome destructive emotional states. Then, I was able to recover some of my former cognitive skills and even learn new ones. The motor skills are gradually returning.
R: It can be more of a spacious awareness or open presence that enables one to see both the forest and the trees.
S9: I like the way you said this. It pretty much describes how I live my days now. I am a contemplative.
R: I think a lot of people have the impression that meditation only means sitting concentration meditation, and that one must master difficult postures.
S9: Life is a difficult enough posture for me. ; ^ )
R: I went through an illness that robbed me of many of my cognitive & motor skills; and an ensuing situation that made me very angry.
S9: And no wonder. Anger is a perfectly natural response to such a loss of control, and the fear such an experience generates.
R: Meditative practices initially helped me arouse a heart of sincere compassion and forbearance to overcome destructive emotional states.
S9: Then what happened to you would actually a blessing, wasn't it. Of course, not one anyone might wish for. : ^ )
R: Then, I was able to recover some of my former cognitive skills and even learn new ones. The motor skills are gradually returning.
S9: I am glad you found your psychological balance again. A crisis such as that is no picnic.
“What doesn’t kill you, will make you strong.” Nietzche
I wish you “God’s speed” on your further recovery.
Comments
His meditation was merely his natural state of being.
The Buddha completely eradicated any form of greed, hatred & delusion in his mind. Is this sainthood? If so, the Buddha acheived sainthood.
The Buddha's goal was always to find the remedy for suffering. Why you do not understand this is because your nihilistic views are the same as those Siddhartha was stuck in during his six year search.
Siddhartha left the palace and mastered 'non-labelling' with two teachers. He felt this was not Nibbana. Why? Because the mind cannot remain in this state permanently.
Then he tried to master bodily suffering with the mind, namely, imperturbability. Here, he nearly killed himself.
Then, unlike yourself, instead of perpetually clearing the mind of thought, he sat under the BodhiTree and used his clear mind to examine or look at the true nature of phenomena. In seeing phenomena were impermanent, unsatisfactory, not-self & dependently arisen, his mind became dispassionate towards all things and in that dispassion, his mind was released or liberated.
In fact, he came the full circle. In the palace he saw things were impermanent & unsatisfactory & people burned themselves inwardly due to their attachments. Then he sought a solution to this in various forms of non-thinking or nihilism. Then he turned away from nihilism and returned to a more lucid examination (dhamma vicaya/vipassana) of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & attachment.
When his mind thoroughly realised impermanence & unsatisfactoriness was the true nature of life and to regard anything as 'self' was impossible & dukkha, through this acceptance, his mind released from craving & attachment but most of all, his search was over.
So a Buddha can label things and fluidly function in conventional reality. Why? Because labelling per se is not the problem. Greed, hatred & ignorance are the problem.
What are you talking about?
Buddha's enlightenment lead to the cessation of craving, that is, dispassion.
The really interesting part of all this, is that you have supported my initial point several times using your own words. As far as I can tell, it doesn't seem like our views are very different; we simply use different words and methods of expression. If your mind was open and free from judgment, you might have recognized that immediately.
It seems that you challenge anything anybody says, taking up a contrary position, even though you may share precisely the same underlying viewpoint. The result is an endless debate over words and definitions, rather than over the actual experiences, accomplishing nothing. Instead of building bridges of mutual understanding and shared experience, you are tearing them down.
Are you in love with me or something? Clearly you have some attachment since you keep bringing my name up. You brought me up twice in this post, without any good reason.
Well, gee, I love you too.
I suppose you'll want the last word, so have at it. After that, I ask again, please stop referencing me in your posts. Your behavior is that of a bully. I am not afraid of bullies. I simply choose not to play the game.
Thank you.
~ AD
It is indicative of blindly believing what others say Buddhism is.
Nirvana is not your subjective personalised attached excited description nor do others confuse it with trance (whatever that means).
When the world is seen clearly exactly for what it is, the mind's mental defilements will extinguish, like a fire extinguishes, and the mind touches Nirvana.
Nirvana is peace via the road of wisdom or insight knowledge.
Your quotes above reinforce my own, using different language. Are we to continue to bicker over words? Do you assume nobody understands as well as you? It appears to me our understanding is much more alike than it is different.
"All the phenomena of existence have mind as their precursor, mind as their supreme leader, and of mind are they made." ~ Buddha
This is because you think the concepts of "I am a Buddhist" are unbeneficial to the mind and I think the concepts of "I am a Buddhist" are beneficial to the mind.
Just because something is an egoless mere mental formation, this does not mean it is not beneficial.
My opinion was, it is a beautifying quality to have reverence & gratitude rather than having the mind in a zombie like state.
When the Buddha used the word dhamma here, he was referring to wholesome & unwholesome things. He was not referring to all phenomena.
The word dhamma has many usages, such as phenomena, truth, law, teachings, practices, etc. For example, Nibbana is a dhamma but it is unsankhata dhamma, namely, unconditioned phenomena. It is neither mental or physical. Therefore, mind is not the cheif or creator of Nibbana.
I am still bickering. So to say "I am a Buddhist" could be acting with a pure mind.
I couldn't agree more. I especially like your choice of the word "beautifying," as it implies something extra and remarkable. Clinging to the identity of "Buddhist" does not, in my opinion, engender reverence and gratitude. You don't have to "be" anything to revere and appreciate the gift of the Buddha's teachings.
As for the "zombie-like state," that was never part of my contention. I practice mindfulness, not mindlessness.
I selected the first translation I found on the web, rather than type it in from my own copy of the Dhammapada. Your interpretation may or may not be correct, but in all the translations I have seen, I have never seen it written the way you suggest. Either way, the quote stands on its own merit. Unless, perhaps, you also claim greater understanding than the Buddha?
True. You could also be acting with an impure mind. Simply saying "I am a Buddhist" or "I am not a Buddhist" is meaningless.
Only you know what is in your mind.
Hi Jinzang, re. your above post to me #92,
I was interested in finding direct references to what Lord Buddha said about this in the Pali Canon.
I Googled the 'questions of King Milinda' but all I could find was info about a debate between King Milinda and Nagasena.
Kind regards,
Dazzle
_/\_
peace.
Got to agree with this guys. I have no intention to add fuel to this endless debate but I must say that, I joined these forums only recently and I find it amusing how some people here have misunderstood what Nirvana really is and what the ultimate goal of Buddhism is.
Some folks don't accept that Buddhism is about ending rebirth and that Nirvana is in fact complete eradication of greed, lust, craving, anger including the delusion of selfhood.
No matter what definition we give it, that is what Nirvana is. It's clearly mentioned in many Buddhist suttas and texts: Complete eradication of all defilements. Also, no matter what we expect by practicing Buddhism, the Buddha taught it for worldings to end rebirth because being born is suffering. This is also explicitly mentioned so in suttas.
If we refer the suttas properly there will be no need for inventing our own definitions and debating endlessly on that because these things are explicitly mentioned over and over again in the suttas.
I am not new to your ideas. I have been reading you and disagreeing with you, right along.
Seems that you and Mundus are like two peas in a pod.
To my way of thinking, it doesn’t matter how many people agree that an error is the truth, it is still wrong.
So lets cut to the chase, and agree to disagree.
I do wish you both the best on your chosen journey.
Warm Regards,
S9
I certainly must agree.
I simply asked to be shown this supposed "error" but you've yet to do so.
If you cannot then that is ok and we can agree to disagree.
Take care.
So you'd certainly agree that just one clinging to an error doesn't make it truth then, yeah?
I agree to disagree that you responded to Dhamma and Mundus' posts in any significant capacity, and agree to disagree that you are free from the chains of over-identification with labels.
"I'm someone who walks my own path" is just another label. Or an "-ism," if you prefer.
G: We're mainly just two consciousnesses describing the same concepts slightly differently as i see it.
S9: Perhaps you are right. When speaking of things this subtle, it is often the small details that make all of the difference.
Sometimes we agree, and have no idea just how differently we are both looking at it.
Sometimes we disagree and have no real idea that we are basically saying the same darn thing.
But, if we continue to talk of these things, sometimes one, or both, of us can clear away the cobwebs of habitual thought that had taken up residence in our mind, and thus far gone unnoticed.
This is the whole purpose of Satsang.
Peace to you, too.
My fine fellow,
S9
E: So you'd certainly agree that just one clinging to an error doesn't make it truth then, yeah?
S9: Of course, an error is an error. I was merely pointing out that joining hands and singing in unison didn’t add one spec of truth to your song, ya?
E: I agree to disagree.
S9: That is of course you privilege, and I wouldn’t have it any other way if that is how you view this matter. But, I probably likewise would disagree with you on some things. “Be a lamp unto yourself.”
E: Agree to disagree that you are free from the chains of over-identification with labels.
S9: I don’t believe that you are in a place where you can judge me on what I am over-identifying with. You can only judge your own opinions on how my words strike you, at the moment. It may very well be your own confusion in these matters. Often with time, these veiws change.
E: "I'm someone who walks my own path" is just another label.
S9: Perhaps, if that is who I saw myself as being. But, I have stepped off the path.
E: Or an "-ism," if you prefer.
S9: This may just be a matter of not sharing the same definition of an ‘-ism.’
I see an ‘-ism’ as taking on something, as a gospel, that you your self have not witnessed to be the case through personal investigation into your own self, and your own world, or as being more like a religion.
When you stop questioning what you 'believe' to be true, and I mean daily, than you have reached a dead end of sorts.
Warm Regards,
S9
Who said it did? Your posts seem to be suggesting Dhamma and I are ganging up on you or something and just parroting each other. Two people just happened to disagree with you. I didn't radio Dhamma in to back me up. No one suggested that you being outnumbered proved you were wrong.
You keep attributing quotes to the Buddha without any citations. Quotegarden and Google are not citations.
That is the point everyone has been trying to make. That, likewise, saying "I am a Buddhist" does not inherently imply that a person has built an illusion of "self" around it... it can simple be said to communicate that the Buddha is one's teacher (which is simply a factual statement):
When you stop questioning what you believe, that is a problem. When you stop believing and speculating at all, that is Nibbana... and that's not to be read as "when you start believing ("knowing") all your beliefs are truth," so please don't warp it.
Then you are clearly projecting. This may be true of some people but not all, and it was clearly defined how Dhamma and I were using the term early in this discussion. So this really is nitpicking and a semantics issue.
Where, in the Siddhartha legends and myth do you find support for this 'theory'?
"Forced" himself to have sex? This is a wonderfully Puritan view. Can you show me where legitimate sexual contact between man and wife is, in any way, condemned or proscribed by the Buddha's words?
The insult to his wife and to himself seems pretty obvious but I may have misunderstood you.
I prefer to say: "May all beings find their way home."
No wonder we cannot agree on Buddhist concepts.
Advaita is not Buddhism.
This perpetual spaced out zombie state of mind is certainly not Buddhism.
The Buddha found definite answers to all of his questions.
"Neti, Neti" is not enlightenment in Buddhism.
"The Tao that cannot be spoken" is likewise (although we may find some "Zen" sympathisers).
What is true cannot be chosen. What is true is inherent. Of this, the Buddha said:
But often some spiritual seekers, still on a spiritual journey, identify strongly with consciousness and are so overwelmed with consciousness, they create theories about oneness, non-duality, permanent stream of consciousness, eternity and, most of all, being the undifferentiated Brahma.
This is what happens to those stuck in spaced out zombie consciousness and who do not take refuge in the Buddha as a guide.
The Buddha did not describe himself in terms of consciousness. The Buddha described himself in terms of insight, namely, having the eye of perfect stainless insight.
Since when was truth "yours"?
"Your song" certainly occurs to each human being when they are struggling in the darkness & storms of their own samsara and struggling to find their way home into some clarity.
If one learns to be a counsellor or psychotherapist, to be client centred, then "your song" is the most crucial thing.
But here were are discussing Buddhism.
The Buddha's arahant disciples were without doubt in unison.
Even many non-arahants are in unison.
Regarding the Buddha's views of worldly life in the palace, these are found in the suttas.
Regarding my theory about a business deal, this is just a theory as I said. Theories require no support nor are they proved true.
Kind regards
Hi Simon
I was not condemning. Of course the Buddha did not condemn sex between husband & wife.
My point was the accounts in the suttas show the Prince in the palace had already renounced sensuality.
My point was responding to S9 who gave the impression to me that Prince Siddharta was somewhat narcissic; that the Prince had everything & wanted more.
It appears Prince Siddharta had already renounced worldly things prior to his Great Renunciation.
Thus that he left the palace as soon as his son was born after thirteen years of marriage gives the impression he performed a 'family duty' of producing an heir to the throne.
Kind regards
"There is a delight apart from sensual pleasures which surpasses even divine bliss"
I tried to get more info on the above... but this is all I could get:
This supports what Dhamma D said. It seems that Siddattha was following some tradition of sorts... he did not just "deserted" his wife and child. Well I have learnt something new... thanks.
Yeah me too. Never was exposed to an idea like this. This is great; thanks a lot
What is more, if the son was conceived and born to secure the succession, why is he later allowed to become a monk?
It is really dangerous to divinise the pre-enlightened Gotama. Nothing more than hagiography.
Also, his wife was a princess from a royal family; they were kings and queens surrounded by all the comforts and support they ever needed. He might not have had any reason to worry about their well being like a modern day dad would do. We cannot address his situation from the same context we address a father who leaves his wife and new born child helpless today.
Nonetheless, I don’t think Buddhism specifically glorifies this act anywhere. What is relevant is, the Gotama left his palace for a worthy cause, he achieve it and thus showed the path of cessation of suffering to the worldings to benefit from it even 2500 years after his death.
Citta / Chitta 心 {xin / shin}: Mind-heart, mind (as opposed to physical brain), spirituality, consciousness, cognizance. Citta is from a verbal root, cit or chit; which means to accumulate.
Bhavana 修 {xui / shu} or 修行 {xuixing / shugyo}: Cultivation, development, education, training.
I think that statistically most buddhists don't mediate in statistically the same way as most Christians don't go to church.
I meditate while walking, while cooking, while working but rarely while sitting. That's not to say I don't just sit in silence sometimes.
I am a good buddhist. Or as good as the next person. People (in general) would do better to worry about being good people and showing others what buddhism can do rather than workig on their sitting posture I think.
When it came to lay practitioners, that's how the Buddha saw it. His emphasis for lay practitioners (householders) was mainly on conduct (sila) rather than complex meditation techniques and topics such a anatta (no-self). ref: Pali Nikayas
Well if you reduce meditation to "worrying about your sitting posture," then probably.
Trying to be a good and kind person is obviously a good thing. The catch is, though, that true loving-kindness cannot come without selflessness, without clearing away the illusions. People will do some horrible, disturbing things out of what they see as compassion, unfortunately, so working on yourself is very important.
I still believe sitting meditation is important, however, and this is why. Sitting meditation forces you to really face the silence. With nothing to distract you from your own thoughts, no comfort zone, you must directly come to terms with...well, everything. Once you breakthrough that feeling of uneasiness and learn to dwell completely in the moment, meditation becomes a joy. It is a process of letting go.
"Don't just DO something, sit there!"
I also meditate while reading. This gives me the patience that I need to read for long periods of time, it helps me to stay present to what I am reading with a higher concentration, and also keeps my mind from wandering.
During harvest time on my farm, I meditate while putting food by. Many of the small jobs like peeling, and chopping, would prove too overly tedious, otherwise. Meditation keeps me present to the task, and actually makes it pleasurable.
Those are just a few ways that I meditate. Life done correctly IS meditation.
Respectfully,
S9
~ AD
A good person is much the same. A person considered as such is usually one who obeys the rules and behaves in a socially acceptable, expected manner. Sure, we also value charity, caring, and compassion, but they aren't usually necessary. If you mind your manners, maybe smile a little, and generally don't offend anybody, you're considered a "good person."
As Mundus pointed out, metta, or loving kindness, is a selfless state that arises from clear seeing, not from a desire to be "good." When you are awake, your higher code of conduct stems from all-encompassing compassion. I know of no better method for gaining this clarity of perception than through meditation.
~ AD
What I have found to be the case is that, people generally mistreat other people when they themselves are in pain. This is a little like passing a hot potato to the guy who just happens to be standing beside you, because it hurts.
The ‘so called’ good people (the rule people) often use the rules as a means to disguise that they are hurting others, (passing the potato), disguise it even to themselves. (As in justification.)
A typical joke is made of this when speaking of the petty Napoleon’s that become bureaucrats in order to feel the POWER.
But, it also shows its ugly head in the policemen, who were very possibly bullies when they were children, and even the Nazi guards that were only following orders. So, rules certainly CAN NOT be considered the answer to our utopian dreams of existence/fantasies.
There are very few people who do not consider themselves to be "good," or at least justified in their actions. Most people, may not know about you, but they know they are good (by their own personal standards.)
So, the field is wide open, as to what we can get away with. (All too human.)
All we actually need is to be able to do, is to live with our selves; the judgmental son-of- a-gun we can’t seem to get away from.
One convenient way of doing this is, placing blame on the other guy. It need not be rational. We just have to get good at fooling our selves. This has a name. It is called neurosis, and it is epidemic.
I know that you probably know all of this, but…I felt like saying it.
"Here, take this potato." ; ^ )
Respectfully,
S9
Well put. I have been writing about my take on meditation at a blog-site hosted by friends [Fraught with Peril]. Meditation can be a very focused, one pointed concentration. This can focused on form, or an abstract concept like infinite space, It can be a cultivation; such as the metta bhavana {kindness cultivation}. It can be more of a spacious awareness or open presence that enables one to see both the forest and the trees. The approach to any of those can be devotional or contemplative. With devotional chanting; one often focuses on a being that embodies a merit or virtue; so that the devotee, consciously or unconsciously, arouses or awakens that merit or virtue.
I think a lot of people have the impression that meditation only means sitting concentration meditation, and that one must master difficult postures. I get that reaction from non-buddhists all the time.
Here is a brief personal experience. I went through an illness that robbed me of many of my cognitive & motor skills; and an ensuing situation that made me very angry. Meditative practices initially helped me arouse a heart of sincere compassion and forbearance to overcome destructive emotional states. Then, I was able to recover some of my former cognitive skills and even learn new ones. The motor skills are gradually returning.
R: It can be more of a spacious awareness or open presence that enables one to see both the forest and the trees.
S9: I like the way you said this. It pretty much describes how I live my days now. I am a contemplative.
R: I think a lot of people have the impression that meditation only means sitting concentration meditation, and that one must master difficult postures.
S9: Life is a difficult enough posture for me. ; ^ )
R: I went through an illness that robbed me of many of my cognitive & motor skills; and an ensuing situation that made me very angry.
S9: And no wonder. Anger is a perfectly natural response to such a loss of control, and the fear such an experience generates.
R: Meditative practices initially helped me arouse a heart of sincere compassion and forbearance to overcome destructive emotional states.
S9: Then what happened to you would actually a blessing, wasn't it. Of course, not one anyone might wish for. : ^ )
R: Then, I was able to recover some of my former cognitive skills and even learn new ones. The motor skills are gradually returning.
S9: I am glad you found your psychological balance again. A crisis such as that is no picnic.
“What doesn’t kill you, will make you strong.” Nietzche
I wish you “God’s speed” on your further recovery.
Travel in peace,
S9
__________________