A spiritual person is...

[Lunitik]

In our relationship with God, yes we are talking about people. Are you and I not people? As you said that you desire a master to learn more about God from, who do you suspect the master learned from? What master did the master seek? Is there a difference there between yourself and the master that you seek?

This is not the purpose of a master.

I believe in faith, love, and honesty. I believe in trusting, forgiveness, and conscientious objection. I believe in service, patience, and communication. I believe in the golden rule, thinking, and doing. I believe in the power of God, the grace of God, and a record of all events. etc...

Blind faith is never useful. I have been using the word "God" during this discussion to appease you, but what exactly do you think God is?

At least you admit to the initial value of pain. Now, your pain and suffering can be caused by yourself, by someone else, or by natural causes. Agreed? If pain and suffering is caused by someone else, then would you put an end to it? How? Do you think meditation puts an end to the pain and suffering caused by you, by someone else, or by natural causes? One approach is to claim that you just don't care, because after all you have dissociated from your mind / body and you believe it best to have no desires over your mind / body senses. There are other approaches. Notice how I am getting back to relationships? In a relationship, there may be some pain or suffering. Do your beliefs hold for pain under all circumstances, or just the pain caused by your own greed or foolishness?

I have been saying there is value in the initial experience of pain since you brought up pain. We were initially discussing suffering, suffering is much more vast than merely pain. It is irrelevant where the pain comes from, it is never useful to not gain control over it once it is acknowledged.

 

[Lunitik]

you might want to look into space.

You might want to look into the expansion of space in regards to the Big Bang, and the metric expansion of space. The big bang is not like an explosion, as I understand the theory.

I'm not doing your homework.

Homework time.

lol... ugh

 

[luecy7]

This is not the purpose of a master.

So you seek instruction from a master for some purpose: where did that master obtain his instruction from? Are you doing as the master did to learn?

Blind faith is never useful. I have been using the word "God" during this discussion to appease you, but what exactly do you think God is?

So then don't be blind. If you don't interact and have faith in people then you are blind of them. So now you testify that meditation is not interacting with God, because you were just using the word "God" to appease me.

I have been saying there is value in the initial experience of pain since you brought up pain. We were initially discussing suffering, suffering is much more vast than merely pain. It is irrelevant where the pain comes from, it is never useful to not gain control over it once it is acknowledged.

If the pain or suffering comes from someone else, then how do you seek to control it? Meditation?

 

[seattlegal]

If we were to split every atom within a given structure and take each half to opposite sides of the world, they would still react as one - manipulation of one side will automatically put into motion the other. There are many ramifications here, but essentially everything about reality is being redefined by scientists right now.

Have you ever considered the type of "entanglement" from the "big bang" that makes "everything one" manifesting as the laws physics we continue to discover?

 

[Lunitik]

So you seek instruction from a master for some purpose: where did that master obtain his instruction from? Are you doing as the master did to learn?

Masters study and learn from their own master in a long line of direct experience.

So then don't be blind. If you don't interact and have faith in people then you are blind of them. So now you testify that meditation is not interacting with God, because you were just using the word "God" to appease me.

I do not know what you refer to as God, I refer to the Buddhist idea of interconnectedness when I use the word and thus I have no issue using it. In general this works quite well with faith based discussion. I have compassion for all people I come in contact with, but I do not have faith in them. To have faith is to open yourself to disappointment, I prefer to be pleasantly surprised by any way they may benefit me and otherwise let them be themselves. I am grateful for them allowing me into their life briefly, and look for it to be mutually beneficial if possible but to have faith is to have expectation.

If the pain or suffering comes from someone else, then how do you seek to control it? Meditation?

I just switch it off until it is useful to analyze damage, then switch it off again so I can concentrate on doing something about it. As I attempt to fix any injuries, I continue to check in but do not allow the pain constantly.

 

[Lunitik]

Have you ever considered the type of "entanglement" from the "big bang" that makes "everything one" manifesting as the laws physics we continue to discover?

Certainly, however I also understand the world to not be physical in reality, thus I attempt to see how these laws may correspond to the true nature of things we encounter.

 

[luecy7]

Masters study and learn from their own master in a long line of direct experience.

Who was the Buddha's master?

I do not know what you refer to as God, I refer to the Buddhist idea of interconnectedness when I use the word and thus I have no issue using it. In general this works quite well with faith based discussion. I have compassion for all people I come in contact with, but I do not have faith in them. To have faith is to open yourself to disappointment, I prefer to be pleasantly surprised by any way they may benefit me and otherwise let them be themselves. I am grateful for them allowing me into their life briefly, and look for it to be mutually beneficial if possible but to have faith is to have expectation.

Hence the discussion of selfishness, pain, and suffering. In my experience placing faith in others is a matter of opening yourself to that potential disappointment, and that is a good thing to do. That is faith. Faith is not religion. Faith is opening yourself up to the potential disappointment of others. That potential is also the potential for much more. Suffering the will of others does win a few kudos from higher places.

I just switch it off until it is useful to analyze damage, then switch it off again so I can concentrate on doing something about it. As I attempt to fix any injuries, I continue to check in but do not allow the pain constantly.

Information is in the surprise. What you already know is not a surprise. Sensory is not for what you already know, it is for what you don't know. The issue is, if the pain and suffering is caused by your neighbor, then how do you switch off your neighbor? Do you ignore the pain and suffering caused by your neighbor, do you seek to stop, or to flee your neighbor, or do you tell your neighbor and let your neighbor decide what to do? Is meditation a good method to stop your neighbor from causing pain and suffering?

 

[seattlegal]

Who was the Buddha's master?

He studied with ascetics for something like 6 years, and found it didn't lead to the end of suffering, so he sat under the Bodhi Tree and vowed to stay there until he found enlightenment. He has been called "self-awakened."

 

[Lunitik]

Who was the Buddha's master?

His master isn't named as far as I know, however he certainly studied Hindu religious practices, and met at least one Brahman who he studied with. This Brahman is the reason he cut off his hair and became an ascetic, however he gained followers himself according to tradition based on miracles which were witnessed by the others during those 6 years. In Eastern thought, you do not enter the world aware of past lives, you must take steps to recall them. It seems Buddha guided himself towards this after those 6 years, which is probably what you are referring to here.

Hence the discussion of selfishness, pain, and suffering. In my experience placing faith in others is a matter of opening yourself to that potential disappointment, and that is a good thing to do. That is faith. Faith is not religion. Faith is opening yourself up to the potential disappointment of others. That potential is also the potential for much more. Suffering the will of others does win a few kudos from higher places.

Buddhism does not look at things like this at all, it teaches to not expect and be grateful for anything that occurs. If you expect and they do not live up to your own expectations you will suffer, you will be angry because reality differs from your desire. For me, it is quite presumptive to apply your own wants and desires onto another, they must live their own life and do what is pleasant for them. It is enough that they share some of their life with you, you should not expect anything from them - which is precisely what faith is, you expect them to not betray your trust.

Of course, I am also not saying that you shouldn't open up to them, of course you should, you should be unguarded with everyone and give completely of yourself. It is only possible to be hurt when you do this with something in mind, if you do it freely without expectation there is no reason to fear being hurt by them. If you give completely without expectation you cannot be hurt because nothing they do will differ from what you wanted from them.

Information is in the surprise. What you already know is not a surprise. Sensory is not for what you already know, it is for what you don't know. The issue is, if the pain and suffering is caused by your neighbor, then how do you switch off your neighbor? Do you ignore the pain and suffering caused by your neighbor, do you seek to stop, or to flee your neighbor, or do you tell your neighbor and let your neighbor decide what to do? Is meditation a good method to stop your neighbor from causing pain and suffering?

They pain is caused by your nerve endings being distressed, it is possible for another to inflict pain on your body but it is still your body which is experiencing pain. You seem to be preferring to place blame on another for the pain, yet this will not stop the pain. If the neighbor persists, you should perhaps look at your options with respect to putting distance between yourself and this neighbor, but this is really irrelevant to the discussion pertaining to pain. You should always look to what you can control in a situation and not concern yourself with what you cannot.

I certainly believe that meditation can guide you to a solution with the neighbor, and I believe that meditation can assist in controlling the pains effect on yourself, yes.

 

[luecy7]

His master isn't named as far as I know, however he certainly studied Hindu religious practices, and met at least one Brahman who he studied with. This Brahman is the reason he cut off his hair and became an ascetic, however he gained followers himself according to tradition based on miracles which were witnessed by the others during those 6 years. In Eastern thought, you do not enter the world aware of past lives, you must take steps to recall them. It seems Buddha guided himself towards this after those 6 years, which is probably what you are referring to here.

Precisely. He learned from alleged non-masters, and he was a conscientious objector. Yet, you desire an enlightened master to learn from.

Buddhism does not look at things like this at all, it teaches to not expect and be grateful for anything that occurs.

If Buddha says, "Have faith in me", then he understood faith. Do you understand faith? Will you be obeying your alleged teacher? If you were to place faith in a person like Buddha, then you may be disappointed. I think you have presumed that Buddha is good and honest because you hear that he was enlightened. That would be an expectation.

For me, it is quite presumptive to apply your own wants and desires onto another, they must live their own life and do what is pleasant for them. It is enough that they share some of their life with you, you should not expect anything from them - which is precisely what faith is, you expect them to not betray your trust.

Your punctuation is questionable. If you trust someone, there is no requirement for expectaction that they will be honest or dishonest. Faith does not require any expectation. Faith does involve a want and desire, and not only that, it requires communication of the want and desire. Sharing wants and desires between people is part of a relationship. Do you not read the Buddha expressing his wants and desires? I certainly do. You have expressed some of your wants and desires. Just because someone wants something does not mean they should expect it. If you truly trust someone then there is no expectaction that they will be honest or dishonest, but you clearly want and desire for them to be honest.

Of course, I am also not saying that you shouldn't open up to them, of course you should, you should be unguarded with everyone and give completely of yourself. It is only possible to be hurt when you do this with something in mind, if you do it freely without expectation there is no reason to fear being hurt by them. If you give completely without expectation you cannot be hurt because nothing they do will differ from what you wanted from them.

False. You are in denial. If someone hits you tomorrow and turns you into a paraplegic, did you expect it? You would be in denial that it did not hurt you, and perhaps catatonic to do anything about it. There is no expectation that pain is coming. As you had said, having faith in others opens you up to being hurt. It does not mean you should expect to be hurt, but it does mean that there is a potential for it.

They pain is caused by your nerve endings being distressed, it is possible for another to inflict pain on your body but it is still your body which is experiencing pain. You seem to be preferring to place blame on another for the pain, yet this will not stop the pain. If the neighbor persists, you should perhaps look at your options with respect to putting distance between yourself and this neighbor, but this is really irrelevant to the discussion pertaining to pain. You should always look to what you can control in a situation and not concern yourself with what you cannot.

Faith is a matter of mutual control. The two methods you express: denial and flight, are a bit selfish, or self reliant. You are of no help to your neighbor in those cases. You may seek enlightenment for yourself, but you do not seek to help your neighbor find enlightenment. The solutions you express would be to avoid suffering, placing value in yourself over others.

I certainly believe that meditation can guide you to a solution with the neighbor, and I believe that meditation can assist in controlling the pains effect on yourself, yes.

If meditation involves conscientious thinking with your brain, then it will help. If it involves ignoring, shutting down, or thoughtlessness, then it will not help you or anyone. If you were to ask someone for help instead of trying to be self reliant (selfish), and have a talk with the neighbor that causes the pain, then that could not only help but it would be an example of placing faith in others and not having expectations on how they would react. To control pain as you have described would be to place an expectation on it, and not only that: the expectation that you are the only one who can help yourself. If you fail to identify and communicate with someone your pain, then you are controlling them: you have shut them out and have prevented them from helping.

 

[luecy7]

He studied with ascetics for something like 6 years, and found it didn't lead to the end of suffering, so he sat under the Bodhi Tree and vowed to stay there until he found enlightenment. He has been called "self-awakened."

He didn't go looking for an enlightened master? How about that. He was a conscientious objector that learned from teachers who were not enlightened. To be like Buddha a person must seek those who are not enlightened, suffer them, learn from them, and meditate upon it under a Bodhi Tree.

 

[Lunitik]

Precisely. He learned from others, and was a conscientious objector.

I wouldn't really say he was a conscientious objector at all, have you read what he has said relating to Brahma - the creator God's name in Hinduism, which various faiths state is Allah or Yehwah in the desert faiths, named differently due to different communities and languages only... an example would be the Baha'i Faith.

If Buddha says, "Have faith in me", then he understood faith. Do you understand faith? Will you be obeying your alleged teacher? If you were to place faith in a person like Buddha, then you may be disappointed. I think you have presumed that Buddha is good and honest because you here that he was enlightened. That would be an expectation.

He doesn't say this though, in fact he states not to even believe him if his words disagree with your reasoning. He invites us to analyze his writings and confirm them through experience. Certainly, if you should enter a monastic school of Buddhism, you are to confirm your reverence of Buddha, but this is not a requirement of Buddhism at all. Buddha clearly separates obligations of householders and monks.

Your punctuation is questionable. If you trust someone there is no expectaction that they will be honest or dishonest. Faith does not require any expectation. Faith does involve a want and desire, and not only that, it requires communication of the want and desire. Sharing wants and desires between people is part of a relationship. Do you not read the Buddha expressing his wants and desires? I certainly do. You have expressed some of your wants and desires. Just because someone wants something does not mean they should expect it. If you truly trust someone then there is no expectaction that they will be honest or dishonest, but you clearly want and desire for them to be honest.

What is faith if not an expectation? Is that want and desire not an expectation? I disagree wholeheartedly that mutual wants and desires are synonymous with relationships, in fact, this is most usually the reason friendships end and is never why they are successful. Buddha desires to end all suffering, certainly, but there is a difference between personal reward and wanting to do something for others that happens to benefit yourself too. Do you think Buddha would be remembered today if he had selfishly desired to cease suffering for himself, and thus never taught others how to cure their own? Trust itself is false in my opinion, it too is an expectation and thus a kind of desire. It should not be about any of these things, relationships should be solely based on sharing some of each others life, nothing more and nothing less.

False. You are in denial. If someone hits you tomorrow and turns you into a paraplegic, did you expect it? You would be in denial that it did not hurt you, and perhaps catatonic to do anything about it. Expectation and pain caused by someone else have little to do with each other. As you had said, having faith in others opens you up to being hurt.

No, you are making assumptions because you believe I must really think like you and cannot fathom different thinking. If your example happened to me, what can I do to change the situation? I can perhaps partake in various rehab tasks and perhaps become better. There is absolutely nothing gained by being angry about the situation, this only shows your lack of willingness to accept what has happened. If I woke in such a state, I would be grateful I am still alive and would begin thinking about any options I may have, but any negative feeling towards the event only hinders progress. If nothing could be done about it, fine, this would be what I would have to deal with, but there is nothing I can do other than accept and be grateful something worse didn't happen.

Faith is a matter of mutual control. The two methods you express: denial and flight, are a bit selfish. You are of no help to your neighbor in those cases. You may seek enlightenment for yourself, but you do not seek to help your neighbor find enlightenment.

I know little about faith, spirituality is about letting go however. I do not seek enlightenment, I have explained this already. I have engaged in a course which may result in this, but the course itself has been beneficial to me. I also attempt to show others those same gains through advising certain ways to experience similar, thus your assumption is completely invalid. What exactly do you think I'm doing on these forums?

If meditation involves conscientious thinking with your brain, then it will help. If it involves ignoring, shutting down, or thoughtlessness, then it will not help you or anyone. If you were to ask someone for help instead of trying to be self reliant (selfish), and have a talk with the neighbor that causes the pain, then that could not only help but it would be an example of placing faith in others and not having expectations on how they would react. To control pain as you have described would be to place an expectation on it, and not only that: the expectation that you are the only one who can help yourself. If you fail to identify and communicate with someone your pain, then you are controlling them: you have shut them out and have prevented them from helping.

Meditation is often referred to as a state of no-mind, thus there is no thinking at all. I can assure you it has helped me a great deal, please cease assumptions. This world is entirely intertwined, thus I do not seek independence because it is impossible. Even on a deserted Island, you are dependent on many things which are out of your control. Always focusing on outside forces for your own healing is just absurd to me, everything negative you encounter is your own doing because it is you that sees it as negative. Over reliance on others cannot change how you perceive things, however it is always good to also attempt to teach others compassionately whether they harm or help you. It is wrong to see an imbalanced person and not even attempt to cause them to become balanced.

Life is one big balancing act, things happen which tip the scales and you can either fight it creating more imbalance or accept it and become balanced again. People are experiencing depression at extremely high rates in society today because they never learn to take control for themselves, they never learn to just let go and let the world be. When you are obsessed with control, and obsessed with outward influences, you never get to root of your issues. Inevitably you realize your illusion of control is utterly false and depression sets in. Desiring things to be different than they are will always be the cause of suffering, and letting go of those desires is the only way to cease it. We come into the world without any say in the matter, we leave just the same, any illusion we create for ourselves pertaining to control of the middle is utterly flawed.

 

[luecy7]

He doesn't say this though, in fact he states not to even believe him if his words disagree with your reasoning.

He said it in the first suttra that SG referenced on this thread.

What is faith if not an expectation?

Mutual control. Opening yourself up to the potential of being hurt.

Is that want and desire not an expectation?

No. Just because someone wants and desires something does not mean they expect it.

I disagree wholeheartedly that mutual wants and desires are synonymous with relationships, in fact, this is most usually the reason friendships end and is never why they are successful.

I did not say synonymous, and I did not say mutual. Did I? If an alien lands and walks up to you, will you not be seeking to know what the alien wants or desires? Will you not be seeking to express your wants and desires?

Trust itself is false in my opinion, it too is an expectation and thus a kind of desire.

There is no expectation in trusting someone. If you do not trust someone then you probably have an expectation that they are untrustworthy, and you are selfish not wanting to trust an untrustworthy person.

If your example happened to me, what can I do to change the situation? I can perhaps partake in various rehab tasks and perhaps become better. There is absolutely nothing gained by being angry about the situation, this only shows your lack of willingness to accept what has happened. If I woke in such a state, I would be grateful I am still alive and would begin thinking about any options I may have, but any negative feeling towards the event only hinders progress. If nothing could be done about it, fine, this would be what I would have to deal with, but there is nothing I can do other than accept and be grateful something worse didn't happen.

(Regarding someone paralyzing you): When you are paralyzed, you don't feel pain. There is nothing to meditate away. There is nothing you have to do. The hurt will be the absence of pain. Nothing to sense. Sensation would be ripped away. The point was, being hurt and suffering comes without expectation.

I know little about faith, spirituality is about letting go however.

Denial, flight, and suicide, are about letting go.

Meditation is often referred to as a state of no-mind, thus there is no thinking at all. I can assure you it has helped me a great deal, please cease assumptions.

In the example where your neighbor is causing the hurt and suffering, or any situation where you have something to contend with, you should use your mind. In fact if you don't use your mind, it is the cause of a problem. I know the bliss that comes from the no-mind meditation, and I know that there are personal physical benefits to it. It is like a self induced drug. In some cases it can be beneficial.

Even on a deserted Island, you are dependent on many things which are out of your control.

That is a physical dependence, not a spiritual one. A deserted island is not dishonest with you. If you know the deserted island then it is within your control.

Always focusing on outside forces for your own healing is just absurd to me, everything negative you encounter is your own doing because it is you that sees it as negative.

You think everything negative that you encounter is your own doing? If someone paralyzes you, you think it is your fault? If there is nothing negative then there is nothing positive. If there is nothing positive then there is nothing negative.

It is wrong to see an imbalanced person and not even attempt to cause them to become balanced.

It would be wrong to balance them if they don't want it. You have to respect that someone else may desire being imbalanced. Faith can be a matter of balancing something together.

When you are obsessed with control, and obsessed with outward influences, you never get to root of your issues.

So tell me again how meditation is used to control pain and suffering? In most of what you have said on this thread, I see an obsession with control.

Desiring things to be different than they are will always be the cause of suffering, and letting go of those desires is the only way to cease it.

False. That is the selfish and suicidal way. There are other ways.

 

[luecy7]

... and I did not say mutual. Did I?

I did, but not in the same context. Mutual control does not mean mutual desires and hopes. It might be the case, but not necessarily. Even a husband and wife will have different desires and hopes.

 

[Quahom1]

I appreciate all your views and comments to my thread "What it means to be a spiritual person? I agree with some of your views and wish to add further.

Before we go into the meaning of a spiritual person; In this context, what could we mention about atheists or those who do their duty alone and do not give much importance to spirituality or who do not have the correct knowledge about any religion, its teachings, rituals, meditation, etc. Or those who are completely sinful and in-human. Take Hitler or eg. or the person who dropped the dropped the atom bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to kill thousands of people. Or the people who took the planes to bomb the twin-towers in US, killing thousands of people.

So many people like this. In our day to day life we would have come across many such Hitler like people, what about all of them. Are they spiritual?

GOD created us in the most varied ways possible. Every thought, act, belief and the results that we experience, is an experience of GOD. Here there is nothing like, this is a perfect bad and a perfect good, my religion is better than your religion, this lifestyle is better than that, etc.

Without the intention of GOD no book would have been written. We say that certain religious books are myth and did not happen. We try and do research and prove or disprove its authenticity. I say that, even if they are not real and only myth, be it. We need to look only for the wisdom and relevance to our day to day life. Without GOD’s intention these words of wisdom would have not been written and become so popular.

One of my favourite thinkers is Osho. In his Book “Krishna the Man and His philosophy” he gives a wonderful explanation of the GOD as Krishna. To him Lord Krishna is ultimate and symbolises GOD. He considers Lord Rama to be incomplete and stuck to one particular principle. Whereas Lord Krishna is complete and more realistic and true nature of GOD and accepts life and everything as it is.

Osho again criticises Mahatma Gandhi because he shuns war unlike Krishna when it is needed. Osho says that Mahatama Gandhi could practice Non-Violence to the liberal British, but what if he was doing it against Hitler who equals Duryodhana in the Mahabharata.

Very good thinking by Osho. But I have a point to mention. If that was the case then why should Lord Krishna give a person like Mahatma Gandhi to this world and make him and his principle of non-violence popular? Why should there be Hitler and other violent people in this world? Why should there be plenty of food, Prosperity on one-side and starvation and poverty on the other?

All opposites are created by GOD to maintain balance and harmony in the world. For us death is the end but according to GOD there is no death for us. Everything is only an experience. Experience of all the extremes possible both good and bad.

Why GOD does this is I believe is for experience? Everything has to be experienced to know and be understood clearly. There has to be an experience of jealously, hatred, love, forgiveness, killing, death, birth, etc. at all the extremes possible. The whiteness of the board is clearly known only when a black mark is scribbled on it. That is why, when certain in-human events happen in the world, it makes many believe that GOD does not exist. At the end, the good values will be understood clearly and surface stronger as mankind would have experienced or know its opposites clearly.

Whether Spirituality has a Vision i.e. to say a perfect lifestyle / order at the personal level for you and me and Nature around us some day in the future is not known. But one thing is clear. Its very goal is to ensure that order and righteousness is maintained in the world when things go really out of control.

I believe that all is from GOD and everything is his experience and hence everything and everybody has to be spiritual. Hence, I believe, that in the unending journey of our souls experiencing all that God has destined for us, we are all spiritual beings.

Ya know how a magnet works? Amazing thing really. It affects three types of material:

The first is ferromagnetic - this magnet thing really gets the attention of the stuff that is "ferromagnetic" (which includes Iron based metals, Nickel and Cobalt), and tends to keep it magnetic after the charge is pulled away (residual magnetism).

The second is paramagnetic - this magnet gets the attention of the stuff that is paramagnetic...as long as the magnet is "charging" the stuff before it. But as soon as the magnet is gone, so is the magnetic charge within the material (which includes wood, copper, aluminum, stainless steels, etc...) It is weaker in strength, and holds no charge once the magnet (source), is gone.

The last is diemagnetic - this magnet gets no attention from the stuff that is diemagnetic. Nothing alligns with the magnetic poles because it makes no difference (I think you are getting the point).

God is a magnet...a very powerful one. Some are attracted to him and remain so. Some are attracted to him as long as there is some bond or field to keep them so. Some are never attracted to him.

Is that wrong? Yes I think so, but is it reality? You consider...

 

[Lunitik]

He said it in the first suttra that SG referenced on this thread.

Mutual control. Opening yourself up to the potential of being hurt.

No. Just because someone wants and desires something does not mean they expect it.

I did not say synonymous, and I did not say mutual. Did I? If an alien lands and walks up to you, will you not be seeking to know what the alien wants or desires? Will you not be seeking to express your wants and desires?

There is no expectation in trusting someone. If you do not trust someone then you probably have an expectation that they are untrustworthy, and you are selfish not wanting to trust an untrustworthy person.

(Regarding someone paralyzing you): When you are paralyzed, you don't feel pain. There is nothing to meditate away. There is nothing you have to do. The hurt will be the absence of pain. Nothing to sense. Sensation would be ripped away. The point was, being hurt and suffering comes without expectation.

Denial, flight, and suicide, are about letting go.

In the example where your neighbor is causing the hurt and suffering, or any situation where you have something to contend with, you should use your mind. In fact if you don't use your mind, it is the cause of a problem. I know the bliss that comes from the no-mind meditation, and I know that there are personal physical benefits to it. It is like a self induced drug. In some cases it can be beneficial.

That is a physical dependence, not a spiritual one. A deserted island is not dishonest with you. If you know the deserted island then it is within your control.

You think everything negative that you encounter is your own doing? If someone paralyzes you, you think it is your fault? If there is nothing negative then there is nothing positive. If there is nothing positive then there is nothing negative.

It would be wrong to balance them if they don't want it. You have to respect that someone else may desire being imbalanced. Faith can be a matter of balancing something together.

So tell me again how meditation is used to control pain and suffering? In most of what you have said on this thread, I see an obsession with control.

False. That is the selfish and suicidal way. There are other ways.

Allow me to point out that the first statement you replied to from me related to enlightenment being ego-suicide. It does not mean you die, it means your ego dies. Everything you state relates to your illusions of ego, and we have finally gone full circle.

We are done, I do not wish to go around again. I would perhaps suggest, in closing, that you look deep within to discover your attachments to the body. No matter how you protect it, no matter how much you desire for it to last forever, you must eventually leave it. Consider what is left of you when you depart this place, and ponder honestly what priorities you have during your time here. Does the state of something impermanent really matter? Does your expectations of this place change anything? It is all temporary, enjoy every second of it no matter what is going on around you. Even when things can be seen as going badly, you are still alive to know it is not optimal, you should be grateful for this rather than wish for something different.

Good luck.

 

[luecy7]

Allow me to point out that the first statement you replied to from me related to enlightenment being ego-suicide. It does not mean you die, it means your ego dies. Everything you state relates to your illusions of ego, and we have finally gone full circle.

We are done, I do not wish to go around again. I would perhaps suggest, in closing, that you look deep within to discover your attachments to the body. No matter how you protect it, no matter how much you desire for it to last forever, you must eventually leave it. Consider what is left of you when you depart this place, and ponder honestly what priorities you have during your time here. Does the state of something impermanent really matter? Does your expectations of this place change anything? It is all temporary, enjoy every second of it no matter what is going on around you. Even when things can be seen as going badly, you are still alive to know it is not optimal, you should be grateful for this rather than wish for something different.

Good luck.

If a person owns something like a vehicle, there may be a number of interests in the vehicle: appearance, performance, safety, cost, longevity, freedom, distance, weight capacity, space, maintenance, fuel efficiency, clearance height, traction, etc... Many interesting factors to consider. However: ego, honesty, love, faith, trust, patience... these are not factors of the vehicle. The vehicle is physical. If the vehicle has an autopilot, then I'll make use of it, but it is not the ego. It is better to take responsibility. If my vehicle is prideful, dishonest, unloving, uinterested in having faith in others, untrusting, impatient, etc... then what do you think the cause is? I am. Ego Ami. I am not the vehicle. If I am driving it though, then I am responsible for its behavior. If I tailgated you, failed to let you in, wouldn't stop for you, didn't forgive you when you ran the red light, then I suspect it will not be the vehicle itself that was the cause. There will be nothing in the vehicle to kill to change that behavior. I will not be gouging out the headlights, disabling the computer, removing the fuses, starving the vehicle of fuel, or parking it for long periods to find enlightenment. Punishing the vehicle won't help. If I run someone over and kill them, then it won't help to sentence the vehicle to life in prison. The vehicle seems impermanent, because every vehicle eventually gets dismembered. Every day is a day closer to death for the vehicle.

Yet according to physics: while the vehicle seems impermanent by what we can see, it is not impermanent. An account of everything that I do with the vehicle is being kept by the vehicle and the physics itself, in a permanent manner. Why, or for what purpose, I don't know. My behavior with ego, honesty, love, faith, trust, patience, or the negative thereof, are on that permanent record which you have so decisively called impermanent. I don't know how it matters, but I learn a little every day.

At the same time my behavior with my ego, honesty, love, faith, trust, patience, for example, or the negative thereof, can be altered. Somehow, and again I don't know how, I am not permanent. While I made some poor choices in the past with my vehicle, upon both interaction and reflection I (we) found it beneficial and possible to change. I have to accept that other people can somehow change their character. If I am permanent: once a sinner, always a sinner, then I should be destroyed for being faulty. I have sinned and been at fault in the past. People are not permanent, but can somehow change from dishonesty to honesty, from hate to love, from unfaithful to faithful, and go the other direction too. To love can be to consider the character of someone impermanent, for you might not love the character, but you can still love the person. I cannot change the past, but I can change my behavior in the future. The Buddha's concept and valuation of impermanence is either misguided, or misinterpreted.

Yes we can meditate, we can joy ride, and drive only for our own selfish pursuits. I have done these things too. A bit of alone time, quiet time, and focus time can be good, but it is the together time where we discover ego, honesty, love, faith, trust, patience, for example, or the negative thereof. As we drive on the road with each other, and for each other's purpose, then we get to see and know each other's spirit. On a deserted island you won't get to see your honesty or dishonesty, will you? Meditating, do you think you can see your dishonesty? As we contend with the ensuing turmoil that we see, what we see we can somehow keep or change. If we seek isolation instead of the turmoil of spending time together, then we do not see, and we do not learn about our spirit. That has been my experience with myself and the people I have driven with.

Answering your questions: Does the state of something impermanent really matter? Yes, because seeing the state allows you to choose whether to change it. Also, I find that what you are ultimately calling impermanent: history, is actually permanent.

Does your expectations of this place change anything? If we choose to change a place, then it will be changed. If by this place, you really mean another person, then no... I cannot change another person, but I can set an example for them and help show them what I see in them so that they may choose whether to change. Vice versa the same.

 

[seattlegal]

If a person owns something like a vehicle, there may be a number of interests in the vehicle: appearance, performance, safety, cost, longevity, freedom, distance, weight capacity, space, maintenance, fuel efficiency, clearance height, traction, etc... Many interesting factors to consider. However: ego, honesty, love, faith, trust, patience... these are not factors of the vehicle. The vehicle is physical. If the vehicle has an autopilot, then I'll make use of it, but it is not the ego. It is better to take responsibility. If my vehicle is prideful, dishonest, unloving, uinterested in having faith in others, untrusting, impatient, etc... then what do you think the cause is? I am. Ego Ami. I am not the vehicle. If I am driving it though, then I am responsible for its behavior. If I tailgated you, failed to let you in, wouldn't stop for you, didn't forgive you when you ran the red light, then I suspect it will not be the vehicle itself that was the cause. There will be nothing in the vehicle to kill to change that behavior. I will not be gouging out the headlights, disabling the computer, removing the fuses, starving the vehicle of fuel, or parking it for long periods to find enlightenment. Punishing the vehicle won't help. If I run someone over and kill them, then it won't help to sentence the vehicle to life in prison. The vehicle seems impermanent, because every vehicle eventually gets dismembered. Every day is a day closer to death for the vehicle.

Yet according to physics: while the vehicle seems impermanent by what we can see, it is not impermanent. An account of everything that I do with the vehicle is being kept by the vehicle and the physics itself, in a permanent manner. Why, or for what purpose, I don't know. My behavior with ego, honesty, love, faith, trust, patience, or the negative thereof, are on that permanent record which you have so decisively called impermanent. I don't know how it matters, but I learn a little every day.

At the same time my behavior with my ego, honesty, love, faith, trust, patience, for example, or the negative thereof, can be altered. Somehow, and again I don't know how, I am not permanent. While I made some poor choices in the past with my vehicle, upon both interaction and reflection I (we) found it beneficial and possible to change. I have to accept that other people can somehow change their character. If I am permanent: once a sinner, always a sinner, then I should be destroyed for being faulty. I have sinned and been at fault in the past. People are not permanent, but can somehow change from dishonesty to honesty, from hate to love, from unfaithful to faithful, and go the other direction too. To love can be to consider the character of someone impermanent, for you might not love the character, but you can still love the person. I cannot change the past, but I can change my behavior in the future. The Buddha's concept and valuation of impermanence is either misguided, or misinterpreted.

Dhammapada 1:1-8

1. All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts. If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him, as the wheel follows the foot of the ox that draws the carriage.

2. All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts. If a man speaks or acts with a pure thought, happiness follows him, like a shadow that never leaves him.

3. 'He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me,'--in those who harbour such thoughts hatred will never cease.

4. 'He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me,'--in those who do not harbour such thoughts hatred will cease.

5. For hatred does not cease by hatred at any time: hatred ceases by love, this is an old rule.

6. The world does not know that we must all come to an end here;--but those who know it, their quarrels cease at once.

7. He who lives looking for pleasures only, his senses uncontrolled, immoderate in his food, idle, and weak, Mâra (the tempter) will certainly overthrow him, as the wind throws down a weak tree.

8. He who lives without looking for pleasures, his senses well controlled, moderate in his food, faithful and strong, him Mâra will certainly not overthrow, any more than the wind throws down a rocky mountain.​

Yes we can meditate, we can joy ride, and drive only for our own selfish pursuits. I have done these things too. A bit of alone time, quiet time, and focus time can be good, but it is the together time where we discover ego, honesty, love, faith, trust, patience, for example, or the negative thereof. As we drive on the road with each other, and for each other's purpose, then we get to see and know each other's spirit. On a deserted island you won't get to see your honesty or dishonesty, will you? Meditating, do you think you can see your dishonesty? As we contend with the ensuing turmoil that we see, what we see we can somehow keep or change. If we seek isolation instead of the turmoil of spending time together, then we do not see, and we do not learn about our spirit. That has been my experience with myself and the people I have driven with.

Hey, some people can actually be honest with themselves. (Yes, it is possible.) Give us introverted nerds a break! We don't need as much external stimulation as you extroverts! (In fact, it can be quite draining.)

 

[Lunitik]

If a person owns something like a vehicle, there may be a number of interests in the vehicle: appearance, performance, safety, cost, longevity, freedom, distance, weight capacity, space, maintenance, fuel efficiency, clearance height, traction, etc... Many interesting factors to consider. However: ego, honesty, love, faith, trust, patience... these are not factors of the vehicle. The vehicle is physical. If the vehicle has an autopilot, then I'll make use of it, but it is not the ego. It is better to take responsibility. If my vehicle is prideful, dishonest, unloving, uinterested in having faith in others, untrusting, impatient, etc... then what do you think the cause is? I am. Ego Ami. I am not the vehicle. If I am driving it though, then I am responsible for its behavior. If I tailgated you, failed to let you in, wouldn't stop for you, didn't forgive you when you ran the red light, then I suspect it will not be the vehicle itself that was the cause. There will be nothing in the vehicle to kill to change that behavior. I will not be gouging out the headlights, disabling the computer, removing the fuses, starving the vehicle of fuel, or parking it for long periods to find enlightenment. Punishing the vehicle won't help. If I run someone over and kill them, then it won't help to sentence the vehicle to life in prison. The vehicle seems impermanent, because every vehicle eventually gets dismembered. Every day is a day closer to death for the vehicle.

Yet according to physics: while the vehicle seems impermanent by what we can see, it is not impermanent. An account of everything that I do with the vehicle is being kept by the vehicle and the physics itself, in a permanent manner. Why, or for what purpose, I don't know. My behavior with ego, honesty, love, faith, trust, patience, or the negative thereof, are on that permanent record which you have so decisively called impermanent. I don't know how it matters, but I learn a little every day.

At the same time my behavior with my ego, honesty, love, faith, trust, patience, for example, or the negative thereof, can be altered. Somehow, and again I don't know how, I am not permanent. While I made some poor choices in the past with my vehicle, upon both interaction and reflection I (we) found it beneficial and possible to change. I have to accept that other people can somehow change their character. If I am permanent: once a sinner, always a sinner, then I should be destroyed for being faulty. I have sinned and been at fault in the past. People are not permanent, but can somehow change from dishonesty to honesty, from hate to love, from unfaithful to faithful, and go the other direction too. To love can be to consider the character of someone impermanent, for you might not love the character, but you can still love the person. I cannot change the past, but I can change my behavior in the future. The Buddha's concept and valuation of impermanence is either misguided, or misinterpreted.

Yes we can meditate, we can joy ride, and drive only for our own selfish pursuits. I have done these things too. A bit of alone time, quiet time, and focus time can be good, but it is the together time where we discover ego, honesty, love, faith, trust, patience, for example, or the negative thereof. As we drive on the road with each other, and for each other's purpose, then we get to see and know each other's spirit. On a deserted island you won't get to see your honesty or dishonesty, will you? Meditating, do you think you can see your dishonesty? As we contend with the ensuing turmoil that we see, what we see we can somehow keep or change. If we seek isolation instead of the turmoil of spending time together, then we do not see, and we do not learn about our spirit. That has been my experience with myself and the people I have driven with.

Answering your questions: Does the state of something impermanent really matter? Yes, because seeing the state allows you to choose whether to change it. Also, I find that what you are ultimately calling impermanent: history, is actually permanent.

Does your expectations of this place change anything? If we choose to change a place, then it will be changed. If by this place, you really mean another person, then no... I cannot change another person, but I can set an example for them and help show them what I see in them so that they may choose whether to change. Vice versa the same.

Why have you written this? I told you we are done, this conversation is futile.

 

[luecy7]

Why have you written this? I told you we are done, this conversation is futile.

I will believe you that it was futile for you, but it was not futile for me. You asked the questions.

Hey, some people can actually be honest with themselves. (Yes, it is possible.) Give us introverted nerds a break! We don't need as much external stimulation as you extroverts! (In fact, it can be quite draining.)

It looks to me like you are defending apathy or selfishness. Both introvert and extrovert use of the mind is good towards the relationships with others.

It is very difficult for a person to be willfully dishonest to themself. If a person had a failing memory and wrote lies to themselves knowing that they would forget that they were lies, then it is possible. Honesty or dishonesty with another person is very different.