Saltmeister
The Dangerous Dinner
*** Punch!!!!! ***
Can you still see?
*** Punch!!!!! ***
Is that better now?
Can you still see?
*** Punch!!!!! ***
Is that better now?
It is the attachment to the false idea (or delusion) of self that causes the suffering and impediments. The source of this false idea is the 7th consciousness. Refuting the false idea of self is like pinning the 7th consciousness down at the head with a forked stick, as is mentioned in the Alagaddupama Sutta. It is not the death of anything, it is the dispelling of delusion.
Attachment to the idea of self often leads to the fear of destruction of the idea of self. If you take a non-threatening skeptical stance towards the theory of self, much delusion can be dispelled, and you can see the reality of impermanence clearly.I agree to some extent, and yet I still feel compelled to point out how against such words you seem... you seem quite reactive to words like death or destruction - these things are unavoidable, to avoid them so adamantly serves no purpose at all.
Oh, I've read stuff other than scriptures. (I just happen to have a couple of Thich Nhat Hanh's books here within arm's reach at the moment.)You appear to have studied Buddhism to some extent intellectually, how many enlightened being have you studied? I think there is only so much you can gain from reading about something, understanding their insights in a non-academic light allows you to see things from a much different perspective. I think it would do you some good to read their words rather than keeping with the scriptures.
I was stuck with Christian theory and Zen practice!
Actually, I see Christianity as a transformational religion. (But then again, I wasn't raised in any religion as a child to get that kind of religious conditioning.)Not to be offensive, but this explains a lot actually. Christian teachings are all about this false sense of hope, always rationalizing why things will be good if we play follow the leader skillfully.
I can't pretend to know what heaven is like.At the very core of Christianity, however, there is an overwhelming sense of duality which I think is quite harmful. Heaven and hell, holy and sinful, etc... these are all things which separate Christians from their own mystic aspect of theosis. Even if heaven exists, however, would anyone actually want to spend eternity anywhere like this? If everything is good and blissful, it would eventually be normal and dull through tolerance.
We don't seem to miss the negative aspects here.Same goes for hell, if you spend long enough there, you'd consider it normal and wouldn't notice its negative aspects.
I guess this is where patience comes in.Similarly, holy and sinful behavior, it paints a picture of black and white within a world of grays. We see this often, Christians strongly push a particular idea without any notion of exceptions.
Well for me, it is extremely bizarre.Of course, this also manifests in racial groups and patriotism in the US, it is all from the notion of duality and favoring one thing over another. For me, this is extremely poisonous.
Blinding flash of the obvious.In closing, life and death are two sides of the same coin, you must accept death because you are alive.
"Self-as-body/mind"It is not something which is scary unless you are attached to your physical being, this is a delusion of ego.
Unfortunately, this is true.Many faiths utilize fear and greed in their teachings - fear death, live forever.
AlrightyDo not permit yourself to fall into this trap, guilt is pointless because you cannot change it and the future isn't guaranteed so it is pointless to consider it in depth. All that is promised is this very second, enjoy it rather than missing it through distraction
Thank you for sharing that Alagaddupama Sutta: The Snake Simile. I take it from the text that the blessed one, the selfish one, the one presenting the double standard, the hypocrite, the one that implemented the pernicious view, is the snake?It is the attachment to the false idea (or delusion) of self that causes the suffering and impediments.
Ego is a word. Either suffer or don't suffer your neighbor. Your choice. Either make or don't make your neighbor suffer you. Your choice. In some languages the ego is the one that makes the choice. To you it sounds like it is merely just a choice.Ego is the cause of suffering.
It sounds like Sidhartha defeated his relationship with Mara, which may or may not have been good.You speak of the Eight Fold Path, what do you think Mara is? Mara is desire, Mara is ego, Sidhartha defeated his own ego. He killed his ego, just like many yoga and vedant groups discuss.
I don't see anything scary about suicide. I don't see anything good about it either. I don't have to kill my car to realize that I am not the car. I don't have to burn my house down to realize that I am not the house. I do not need to destroy the computer to realize that I am not the computer. I can give a car, a house, a computer, my own mind, and my own time.This seems drastic to many people, they consider their ego as themselves and so it is scary.
As they say: beauty is in the eye of the beholder.It is truly a beautiful thing in reality.
From what I have seen, taking responsibility for one's actions is typically more difficult than denying responsibility.Buddhism goes even further though, you are to discover that you yourself do not even exist - this is extremely difficult to attain when competing with an active ego.
I don't see anything scary about suicide. I don't see anything good about it either. I don't have to kill my car to realize that I am not the car. I don't have to burn my house down to realize that I am not the house. I do not need to destroy the computer to realize that I am not the computer. I can give a car, a house, a computer, my own mind, and my own time.
Actually, I see Christianity as a transformational religion. (But then again, I wasn't raised in any religion as a child to get that kind of religious conditioning.)
I can't pretend to know what heaven is like.
lol, no. The pernacious one was the one who had the wrong grasp of the snake (or the monastic code.) He argued against the monastic code (probably regarding celebacy.) Since that sort of behavior the monk was advocating would lead to suffering, his wrong grasp of the teachings of the ending of sufferring (snake,) it would "turn back and bite him," and he would suffer.Thank you for sharing that Alagaddupama Sutta: The Snake Simile. I take it from the text that the blessed one, the selfish one, the one presenting the double standard, the hypocrite, the one that implemented the pernicious view, is the snake?
LOL, I wouldn't say that my transformation from an atheist materialist has been superficial.The transformation is quite superficial, they change behavior but they do not change their being. Theosis is never highlighted like enlightenment in other traditions, Christians believe they cannot attain to the state of Christ, they believe thoroughly that Christ was unique and this is part of the basis for their perceptions of duality. They are taught to serve something outside themselves and this dictates their world view.
People can't think of more than one thing at a time?And yet it is such an emphasis in Christianity and Islam, its all about this promise after death. Always, people find consolation in the future, but this distracts from the present.
LOL, I wouldn't say that my transformation from an atheist materialist has been superficial.
People can't think of more than one thing at a time?
lol, no. The pernacious one was the one who had the wrong grasp of the snake (or the monastic code.) He argued against the monastic code (probably regarding celebacy.) Since that sort of behavior the monk was advocating would lead to suffering, his wrong grasp of the teachings of the ending of sufferring (snake,) it would "turn back and bite him," and he would suffer.
For monks it does. For laypeople, it doesn't.Does Buddhism really advocate celibacy?
For monks it does. For laypeople, it doesn't.
Here's one sutta;
Yodhajiva Sutta: The Warrior (1)
Here's the Buddhist monastic code:
The Buddhist Monastic Code I: The Patimokkha Training Rules Translated and Explained
Buddhist Monastic Code I: Chapter 4
IndeedI am asking whether you know the nature of these codes, why they came about? Well, that isn't strictly correct, I am hinting at the reason for them coming about. I am rather against these rules, however, since they actually cause suffering via repression - the monks desire to follow the rules.
I find it quite interesting that the very last thing you are supposed to renounce is the teachings themselves, only the nature of Dharma should remain once its understanding is realized.
lol, I reminded of your pun while reading this sutta about a buddhist nun being confronted by a cad in the forest:It's all fun and games until someone loses an I
I am asking whether you know the nature of these codes, why they came about? Well, that isn't strictly correct, I am hinting at the reason for them coming about. I am rather against these rules, however, since they actually cause suffering via repression - the monks desire to follow the rules.
Samadhi is a state of hiding in darkness, like a snake in the bushes that can see and experience, but that remains motionless and thus cannot be seen. Why do you call it good to hide in darkness? For personal gain?You can know and realize intellectually what the goal of enlightenment is, scientists are doing this today with quantum theory, but this is no substitute for experiencing. You can even experience without killing the ego/self, but again it isn't the same. Names for this are like kensho and satori, but these are only temporary glimpses - not particularly fulfilling although they create a steadfastness that you are on the right path. True enlightenment or samadhi requires killing of the ego, however, and this is what all the enlightened beings in history have attained.
I suppose it really depends how deep down the rabbit hole you wish to go, many are quite content with superficial things.