Using Eastern spirituality to repress your individuality

[eye_of_the_storm]

indeed yes it can work both ways...

Edited October 21, 2012 by White Wolf Running On Air

[XieJia]

I don't think a Daoist would neglect any paths,

 

They use whatever is useful,

damn! they even can make what useless useful.

 

so if what they are saying that this, this and this is useful and that is useless.

if they can make something useful from it then good!

if not, it's just same leaving the useless things in the mind.

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[XieJia]

That someone can turn a useless thing into something useful does not make the useless useful it makes the turned thing be useful ... its a subtle difference... Discovering the error is not the useful thing, the useful thing in itself its the insight one gets that enables one to deal with the situation in a better way ... its not about who is right and who is wrong its about what be right...

 

indeed,

what was previously useless is now useful and so it is useful.

finding errors may not be useful but it's what one do with it that makes it useful.

who cares about who is right, who is wrong?

that is/was never useful.

it is about knowing right, knowing wrong and make that useful.

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[XieJia]

kind of like throwing the pebble into the pond to cause the ripples in just the way to cancel out the ripples in the pond sort of way...

 

the point I was making is that was previously useless was transformed and ceased to be useless that is why it is now useful

 

I hope that my clarification of the twisting the twisted to make it straight helped... yea I used distorting the distorted to make it undistorted ... same thing in different words...

 

I do see what you mean but even

when one is saying what is distorted, silence is saying what is undistorted.

 

without the undistorted, can the distorted be present?

 

I don't think that one needs to throw another pebble into the rippling pond,

 

if the natural state of the pond is calm.

the ripples will eventually subside itself, if one are to allow it.

 

and if the state of rippling is the natural state,

then why throw the pebble into the pond.

[Simple_Jack]

I am not a self elected defend-the dharma man ... but I will try.

I LOL'ed at this.

 

The first Noble Truth that existence involves suffering is not based on authority in the sense that it is so because the Buddha says it is so ... but as the story of the Buddha's life illustrates is based on the observation that people do suffer. Suffer does not necessarily mean to be in pain but may just mean 'subject to conditionality' ... the main thrust of the dharma is that this suffering is unnecessary and that you can find happiness instead.

 

Dukkha is one of the most misunderstood aspects of Buddhism. It's described as having three different categories:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukkha Dukkha of ordinary suffering

• Pali: dukkha-dukkha
  
• Also referred to as the suffering of suffering.
  
• Includes the sufferings of birth, aging, sickness, death, and coming across what is not desirable.
  
• This outer level of dukkha includes all of the obvious physical suffering or pain associated with giving birth, growing old, physical illness and the process of dying.
  

Dukkha produced by change

• Pali: viparinama-dukkha
  
• Also referred to as: suffering of change or suffering of impermanence.
  
• Includes two categories: trying to hold onto what is desirable, and not getting what you want.
  
• Buddhist author Chogyam Trungpa includes the category "not knowing what you want."
  
• Pema Chödrön described this type of suffering as the suffering of trying to hold onto things that are always changing.
  
• This inner level of dukkha includes the anxiety or stress of trying to hold onto things that are constantly changing.
  

Dukkha of conditioned states

• Pali sankhara-dukkha
  
• Also referred to as all-pervasive suffering
  
• This category is also identified as one of the "eight types of suffering".
  
• Pema Chodron describes this as the suffering of ego-clinging; the suffering of struggling with life as it is, as it presents itself to you; struggling against outer situations and yourself, your own emotions and thoughts, rather than just opening and allowing.
  
• This is a subtle form of suffering arising as a reaction to qualities of conditioned things, including the skandhas, the factors constituting the human mind.
  
• This is the deepest, most subtle level of dukkha; it includes "a basic unsatisfactoriness pervading all existence, all forms of life, due to the fact that all forms of life are changing, impermanent and without any inner core or substance."^{[web 9]}
  
• On this level, the term indicates a lack of satisfaction, a sense that things never measure up to our expectations or standards.
  

"All-pervasive suffering is the suffering inherent in the fact of being born with contaminated aggregates, which by their very nature are like a magnet attracting sickness, old age and death." -Wangchuk Dorje

[GrandmasterP]

Any religion that needs you to learn a whole different language than the one your old mum taught you is possibly something of an affectation. No disrespect to Buddhists intended but I post on Dharma Wheel now and again and it is chock full of intense western young men spouting all these words and then explaining what they mean.

Get a life chaps. It's all total and complete bollocks even the guy who kick started it all Mr Buddha said as much. The entire canon is just what those who wanted to make a living out of it once the guy had passed over thought or wished he'd meant to say.

Which was what?

Basically... 'Cultivate every day you lazy ba*tards'

All the rest is just so much clerical window dressing written by blokes with shaven heads who saw begging as an easier way to earn a crust than honest work. No change there then eh Lama?

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[GrandmasterP]

I read somewhere that the trick is to throw the pebble into a pond and there be no ripples.

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[GrandmasterP]

LOL

:-)

Excellent metaphor et.

[Simple_Jack]

Dukkha is one of the most misunderstood aspects of Buddhism. It's described as having three different categories:

Sorry, I forgot to add this since I was intending to direct this question to Apech.

 

Apech, I'm just curious as to what your experiences with the teachings since you said this:

 

Do not presume to know what I have done or not done.

 

For instance, how have you investigated or analyzed the four noble truths in order to come to an understanding of or to even accept such an idea? I'm asking because this is isn't always readily understood or discernible to most individuals. I mean we know that things are constantly changing and whatnot, but due to the overriding factor of ignorance (haha which drives the whole chain of causation) we seem to ignore or choose to be oblivious to the constant and undeniable fact of impermanence. We seem to compensate this by seeking: Going so far as to look for something elsewhere, or to find something "other" than these changing moments.

 

Are you aware of how it is explained that this is driven by craving? A very primal force, so powerful that it drives this whole process of (what is called) becoming. This craving for existence, which propels us to seek what is pleasureable and avoid that which unpleasureable; going hither and fro in a mad frenzy....somewhat like a chicken running with it's head cut off.

 

How have you been able to discern for yourself, that this is something you can accept? I mean, this is very deep stuff.....Have you ever analyzed this when going about? Have you noted how this process expressses itself in the way we react to stimuli or sensations; how we respond emotionally when in contact with environmental sense stimuli?

 

Have you noticed how most of this is being driven towards either either desire for or aversion against these sense stimuli? Have you been able to notice how afflictive modes have been able to influence the cognitive process, when interacting with sense phenomena? How they arise, based on either craving or aversion? Have you seriously analyzed how this process gets started? Or how (as Buddhism puts it) this fundamental desire for becoming creates these conditions?

 

I actually am curious, if you've given this some thought.

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[GrandmasterP]

Actually paying someone to think about certain stuff and supporting them in their endeavors can be a way to help oneself in certain particular areas... of course there is the whole issue of sharing the insights gained in a certain domain with the patrons and having the patrons continuing to support the cause... especially after its become evident that the cause isn't producing what the patrons desire... and is just a nifty way to get them to hand over some dow... in other domains its called putting on an entertainment show... running an add campaign ... or even running a scam ...

...................................

Pretty pragmatic bunch Taoists there are lottery shrines all over the place and always busy but not noticeably more Taoist lottery winners than anyone else. Fortune telling brings in the bucks too. It's pretty much a service industry with a lot of do it yourself opportunities for everyday practitioners. Other paths tend to have twonks in clerical robes and such skimming the cream off the top in return for what boils down to a parcel of words and actively discouraging the faithful from going it alone. Completely the opposite with Taoism as at bottom it's all YOYO (you are on your own).

[Birch]

http://www.mudrashram.com/spiritualcontrol1.html

 

Article I found interesting.

[XieJia]

nice post, Thanks Jack.

 

I have heard that Suffering and Impermanence is the same thing viewed from different platforms.

[Simple_Jack]

Edited October 22, 2012 by Simple_Jack

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[Simple_Jack]

Simple_Jack

 

There are some firmly held beliefs and opinions that depend upon knowing the beliefs and opinions... that motivate individual experiences... you insist this stems from a craving rather than an awareness that seeks to cultivate and maintain the beliefs and opinions ... regardless of aversion or desires involved... Again I ask why do you choose to leave out these drivers of individual actions?

 

yes I have seriously analyzed how this process gets started... and maintained... have you ?

 

I'm mainly addressing an individual's experience of dukkha. What you're going on about has been addressed; going by the 5 skhanda model: That would fall under the volition skhanda.

 

I wonder what Apech has to say about all this?

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[Apech]

@simple jack

 

hello,

 

I don't have a lot of time right now to answer your questions. I think I misunderstood the First Noble Truth for many years and discussed it with many people who reacted in the same way as some on here do. That is that they don't want to think that life is about suffering but want to stress the wonder and enjoyment of being alive. Christians particularly are like this. despite the fact that they worship an incarnate god who was tortured and killed by painful crucifixtion.

 

Thats fair enough really if that's how they feel. But Buddha was not saying life is a bag of shit ... so be depressed about it or try to escape (though some seem to think he was) he was actually saying ... look people are suffering! why? ...do they need to? is there a way to stop it? and so on then he goes on to answer this questions. he perceived sickness and provided a remedy. so actually its a very positive approach.

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[Apech]

Apech,

 

I believe that Jesus Christ incarnated God came here to save us thought the path of divine love. Humans had a choice to embrace the path of divine love or 'resist' the path of divine love... the suffering wanted Jesus to suffer in order to be saved... so Jesus consented to the suffering... the suffering could had simply accepted Jesus joy, peace, love in order to be saved... and Jesus consented to their plea... Take the first reported miracle in Jesus life... He was at a celebration being merry... when 'the spirits' ran low... His mother intervenes and He sort of shuts her off ... Undeterred she simply goes to the men and tells them go ask HIm what to do and do it ... so they did and the water became a divine wine... Look the people are choosing to follow the rule 'no pain no gain' 'and eye for an eye' rather than the rule 'love as you are loved' 'turn the other cheek'. Do people need to suffer? NO! do people suffer? Yes. Is there a way to stop the suffering? sure, it involves focusing and cultivating LOVE... what does it take to heal the sickness of humans suffering... the cultivation of love...understanding... peace...

 

Assuming for the purposes of this discussion that the Jesus story is literally true I have a slightly different take on what it means. Jesus was executed by a combination of the established church (the Jewish one) and the secular state (Rome). Jesus threatened priestly authority over people's lives and was deconstructing the hate-the-other cycle by which religion establishes identity. Rome in the person of Pilate tried to wash their hands of the problem but in the end decided that expediency was preferable and more easily managed than truth. ('What is truth?' ... Christ was silent.). The mob called for Barabas to be released because ordinary people are in the thrall of the manipulative concepts/indoctrination operated by Church and State. If the crucifixion has a message it is do not bend the knee to Church and State or you risk destroying your chance of salvation (represented by Christ).

 

Water into wine ... well I get the symbolism ... water (primal substance) becomes wine (spirit). Why did he shut his mother off??? Why did the men have to ask for him to perform a miracle? Who was getting married? I don't want to go all Dan Brown on this but ... there is no groom mentioned ...

 

Turn the other cheek ... is this not actually 'volte face' in Latin and although it does mean turn the cheek ... it means to turn away. It means if someone wants to start a fight you should walk away ... it does not mean offer the other cheek even though it has been made to mean this over centuries of priestly word craft. Jesus did not want us to be door mats but also he did not want us to seek revenge.

 

Love ... Christian love as distinct to romantic love ... means the willingness to become vulnerable yourself in order to benefit others ... this is where jesus sounds exactly like a Mahayana Buddhist ... good for him.