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.
Buddhist Take on Materialism - Clinging / liking possesions
Having read this interesting quote, I seek for a little advice, more specifically I wonder how one is supposed to interpret this?“Viewing an object by way of the eye, just see it.” This needs explaining. When objects make contact with the eye, observe and identify them; know what action has to be taken with whatever is seen. But don’t permit liking or disliking to arise. If you permit the arising of liking, you will desire; if you permit the arising of disliking,
you will want to destroy. Thus it is that there are likers and haters. This is what is called “the self”. To go the way of the self is suffering and deception. If an object is seen, let there be intelligence and awareness. Don’t allow your mental defilements to compel you to grasp and cling. Cultivate enough intelligence to know which line of action is right and appropriate. And if no action is required, ignore the object. If some sort of result is wanted from this thing, then proceed, with full awareness and intelligence, not giving birth to the self-idea. In this way you get the results you wanted and no suffering arises. This is a very concise principle of practice, and it should be regarded as a most excellent one.
Is this passage refering to a "mental object" ? An unpleasent thought for example? Or is it in fact referring to actual objects?
If so, then how can this be interpreted in the present. I mean I cannot imagine people on this forum not liking things or rather desiring object or disliking them. Many people will own objects they like, ranging from a car to a book etc.
I hope I am not waaay off
but am very interested in understanding this passage & its underlying philosophy.Thanks !!
0
Comments
This is just my opinion.
I love the sentence in the Kadampa prayer 'The Stages of the Path' which reads "Samsara's pleasures are deceptive, give no contentment, only torment."
I think the first paragraph is saying that we can observe objects but give them no meaning in your mind, have not opinion (like, dislike etc) - as such all material items are empty of meaning (for example- consider a chocolate cake: to a 'normal' female, this is a tasty luxury which will give them pleasure, but to a chronic diabetic, this dessert is a deadly food item. The labels are given by the producers, and the meaning by you - develop an unbias opinion towards material things and you will find peace).
A good way to understand this is by applying the theory of Semiotic Analysis (Saussure). Lets take a red sports car. Our eyes see it and yes we realise its a red sports car (step 1 - denotation). Then our own opinions come in - its a mode of transport, is a gorgeous car, its a dream car etc (step 2: connotation). Then, we apply the opinions of our society towards this object - sports cars are good, symbolising power, rebellion and freedom / sports cars are bad because they cause more pollution, are expensive and encourages bad driving (step 3: ideology). We should aim to shift our connotation to encompass all and none opinions and preferences towards everything we see, and develop equinimity.
Does that help, or have i hurt your head more?
Haha... well my head hurt sometimes, not on this one though, also in part due to your clear explanation.
I think I understand what you are saying: ... "all material items are empty of meaning" ... so they should be perceived in an "objective manner" by us rather than a "subjective manner".
In your "steps-plan" that would mean that step 1 is the most vital step, yet step 2 is where we should "see it" but let intelligence work its own way, and we should avoid step 3, which I guess would mean avoiding to "stereotype" objects for what the ideology of "many" perceive them to be (...whilst that may not necessarily be the case).
I hope I got that right? The last sentence I'm not totally sure about:
"We should aim to shift our connotation to encompass all and none opinions and preferences towards everything we see, and develop equanimity".
I interpret it as: we should allow our "connotation" objects be the limit to our perceptions, and not allow the "ideology" to influence it, to reach a right balance... ?
Thanks again !!
The author is refering to the Buddha's teachings of Dependent Origination, which is an illustration of how suffering arises. The Buddha taught that consciousness is not permanent, but arises dependent on certain conditions. He taught that there are "six sense gates," which are the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, skin, and mind. Their objects are that which is seen, heard, smelled, tasted, felt, or thought. When a "sense organ" and a "sense object" meet, this is when consciousness arises. When consciousness arises, this is where ignorance (clinging, self-fabricating) either arises or doesn't arise. The author is describing consciousness with and without ignorance.
The Buddha taught that there is nothing which is unchanging/permanent (that is, not subject to anicca), which is fit to be clung to as I/me/mine, because when there is clinging to things which are impermanent, there is dukkha. Either you're wanting something to go away, to stay, to come or not to come; this is all dukkha, and all because of values we impute onto things.
He taught that peace and true happiness comes from within.
The passage states what it states. Interpretation is not required. The passage recommends to engage with experience using mindfulness & wisdom rather than with liking & disliking.
For example, if you like your car, if it is scatched, stolen or insulted, suffering will occur in your mind. But if the car is related to via mindfulness & wisdom, namely, understood as required for transport & understood as impermanent & unsatisfactory, i.e., is subject to decay, then suffering will not occur.
The passage is unconcerned with your likes & dislikes. The passage is about how to be free from suffering.
Kind regards
DDhatu
STILL ... I wonder, I hear people here speak of "their teacher" said this/that, so sometimes things can be taken as read, but still not be understood, the line between explanation <_> interpretation is a thin one don't u agree ?
Kind regards 2u2.
To: o0Mundus-Vult-Decipi0o
You may recognize the quote, as you suggested I looked into BUDDHADASA's writing (for students in this case), thanks for bringing it back to Dukkha, the Buddhists terms are starting to stick
All the best !!
You are going about this backwards, looking at the quote and then trying to understand it with your mind. Buddhism is not an exercize in intellectualization.
Buddhism is a living experience. That experience is the experience of doing your practice as taught by your teacher.
If you have a skilled teacher, you will learn from your practice, regardless of the specific Buddhist tradition you follow. Be patient ... it will take years to start to understand.
Although I understand that it may not be all about intellectualizing it, there wouldn't be so many writings if one was not meant to study them in some way.
Surely you could "learn" by just practice (no reading) with a teacher and that's fine, BUT I read that's not a requirement. Personally my intentions are to understand & put to practice.
But people, correct me if I'm wrong
Hi Hank,
Just a quote... take it for what it's worth:
I guess what I'm saying is: whatever way you choose to practice the dhamma, it's only you that will know whether you are making progress.
But don't take me too seriously... I'm just a beginner like you.
With kind regards.
Yes we may be beginners, but the eagerness to learn is right now as much an advantage as not being a veteran Buddhist is a disadvantage
Wish I had a giant, multicolored snow cone like your kitty, though. (It is a snow cone, isn't it?)
Here's one for you however ... enjoy!!
Thank you very much.