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.
The Buddhist ideal on earth is a state of passive indifference to everything?
The <!--k23-->Buddhist ideal on earth is a state of passive <!--3ref=u44=xxyyyk.htm-->indifference<!--k07--> to everything?
0
Comments
There is acceptance of things as they are, because if we are powerless to change them, then they are as they are.
But indifference?
Foolish.
How can one practise compassion if one is indifferent?
Buddhism is about accepting those aspects of life which we cannot control, affecting that which we have power over as skillfully and compassionately as possible, and discriminating between what is and isn't under our control. Things that aren't under our control: the inevitability of death/impermanence (anicca), the suffering/dissatisfaction caused by that impermanence (dukkha) and the fact that all conditioned things, including ourselves, arise co-dependently (anatta). The Eightfold Path shows us how to control what we can as skillfully as possible (doing no harm, practicing compassion and equanimity, etc.).
Mtns
In between is a state where love blooms and things matter, but in a way that lets everything be as it is... as respecting subjective perspectives.
The Buddha taught the "Middle Way" as the path of practice which avoids the extremes of self-mortification and sensual indulgence. He praised, on many occassions, absorption (Jhana). It is only "absorption" in sensual pleasures that does not leading to Awakening.
With Metta,
Guy
Certainly! If you apply that basic foundation toward the energies asked for in the question, would you regard the middle path (or way as you use) as in-between the concepts to which I was pointing?
Would self-mortification be the extreme version of apathy when self-centrically observed? Would sensory indulgence be the extreme version of absorption when also self-centrically observed?
I relate to this middle ground as it applies to how we relate to the world, rather than strictly within our body. There might be a more skillful way to express the dichotomy, I do not equate Jhana to absorption... but words are fickle things
With warmth,
Matt
This is how the Buddha defined the Middle Way in the Dhammacakka-ppavattana Sutta:
"Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta: Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion" (SN 56.11), translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight, June 7, 2009, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.than.html
I don't understand what you mean by this:
With Metta,
Guy
P.S. - Sorry for derailing the thread, but I think it's important that the term "Middle Way"/"Middle Path" is left in tact as the Buddha intended it.
I can see that
I'm not trying to hijack the term, rather I'm applying it to the world of shapes and colors. I admit I've never been one to adhere strictly to the cultural meanings of words, even still I think we're having a translation issue, rather than a conceptual one.
It appears to me that you're describing the middle path, while I am not. I am attempting to translate the sensory experience of stimuli as we stay centered in the middle path. The depiction you offer doesn't seem like it does much to address the question at hand.
When we experience an object, we do not experience it with indifference/apathy (which I relate to as the emotionality that drives affliction). When we experience an object, we do not experience it with absorption (which I suppose could be said 'the arising of an internal aggressive pushing/pulling?')
The Dhammacakka-ppavattana Sutta is a great guide certainly. The question seemed more in line with what the experience might be like for someone there, rather than what the guidelines are for getting there. "direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding" are certainly accurate, but don't seem skillful in responding to the ideas of indifference vs detached communion.
The poet in me was simply attempting to capture the experience into words as best I could. Does that clear it up?
With warmth,
Matt
The reason I opened my big mouth was because of this:
I still think that your definition of the Middle Way/Middle Path is inconsistent with what the Buddha taught as the Middle Way. The extremes on either side of the Middle Way are not "nihilism and absorption", they are sensual indulgence and self-mortification.
It might seem like arguing over semantics to some, but IMO it is very important that we get a clear understanding of what the Middle Way is if we are to practice according to what the Buddha taught.
Anyway, that's all I have to say. Again, sorry for going off-topic.
With Metta,
Guy
The is no reason to be sorry, I think your additions to the thread are wonderful. Again, I wasn't defining the middle path itself, at least not in intent. I was relating my experience of the path and how it, for me, shows the dichotomy.
They're just words anyway... look past the finger to the moon! If you remain convinced we stare at different moons, I'm ok with that!
For me, the archetypal harmony that exists with us while in the Middle Way (now capitalized for your scriptural pleasure!), when applied to what we see is exactly absorption and nihilism. Can you see a relationship between self-mortification (lack of appropriate concern for self) and nihilism (lack of appropriate concern for, well, anything)? How about sensory indulgence (high levels of grasping/desire for self) and absorption (high levels of desire/grasping at others)?
Maybe if you step back an look at the conceptual archetypes I'm trying to relate in terms of illuminating what 'detached connection' might look like, rather than defensiveness over translated scriptures?
Again just words! If conceptually you can't see what I am saying, well, darn it! I'll hug you anyway!
With warmth,
Matt
Yeah, I see what you are getting at; not clinging to certain modes of perception, and that certainly has its place in practice. Having a correct understanding of what the Buddha meant when he talked about the "Middle Way" also has its place in practice.
This is something I consider important because it is such a fundamental teaching and I see the term used lightly and thrown around to fit according to whatever people want it to mean. For example, I have seen on other Buddhist forums people have used the term to mean things like "a little bit of alcohol is the Middle Way, 1 or 2 beers, yeah, that's the Middle Way". (Not their exact words, but you get the idea)
Since this forum is called "New Buddhist" I think such a key concept as the "Middle Way" ought to be defined as it was originally intended, in the right context to avoid confusion among less knowledgeable and less experienced practitioners.
This might seem to you like "defensiveness over translated scriptures", but the scriptures are the best thing we have to go by if we want to have any chance of finding out what the Buddha taught and what he encouraged us to practice and what to avoid. Granted, the Suttas are open to interpretation, but this is something that we must do with great care if we are to preserve the teachings for future generations.
So, I hope this helps to clarify where I am coming from. If not, I'm not really into hugging, but good will to you anyway.
With Metta,
Guy
With warmth,
Matt
Indifference, like aversion and attachment, is a delusion.