Reflecting on TDB

[Maddie]

51 minutes ago, Apech said:

I suppose one thing that I can reflect on is how often the cause for the arguing is Buddhism. 

 

It surprises me too considering how chill and open-minded Buddhism is.

 

I think the reason goes back to attachment.

 

There's a sutta where the Buddha is asked where war and conflict comes from and he says it comes from greed and desire and attachment. People desperately want what they're attached to and desperately don't want it to be separated from what they cling to. The more attachment the more emotion. When you tell someone that attachments the problem, it's because of attachment that such a strong emotional reaction arises.

[Apech]

20 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

 

Using the words self and ego synonymously is a huge cause of confusion, particularly when trying to understand Buddhism. However you're probably right about the Buddha not having said that the self doesn't exist. He didn't like to delve into philosophical questions with no baring on salvation. I have had an interesting discussion about that on Original Dao and it appears that the Buddha was silent about it. And thus that the anatta doctrine is a later interpretation, although an influential one. This is one of those cases where I had to change my original opinion. If you go by the words of the Buddha alone many a philosophical questions must indeed remain unsettled.

 

 

The way I look at it is that at the time of the Buddha there was an approach (early vedantic) which aimed at discovering the atman - which is like at eternal soul acting as an agent in samsara i.e. being reborn time and time again until it frees itself (moksha).  It's a bit like people these days looking for their 'higher selves' or 'true selves' and all that.  I think the Buddha was saying nope, don't do that because it won't give you liberation.  

[Maddie]

24 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

 

Using the words self and ego synonymously is a huge cause of confusion, particularly when trying to understand Buddhism. However you're probably right about the Buddha not having said that the self doesn't exist. He didn't like to delve into philosophical questions with no baring on salvation. I have had an interesting discussion about that on Original Dao and it appears that the Buddha was silent about it. And thus that the anatta doctrine is a later interpretation, although an influential one. This is one of those cases where I had to change my original opinion. If you go by the words of the Buddha alone many a philosophical questions must indeed remain unsettled.

 

I agree that there's some problematic aspects of using ego and self interchangeably but I think when we use ego to talk about the false sense of self that the Buddha was talking about then it works better. I don't like saying the Buddha taught against self because I can't find a single place in the suttas where he did. He did speak a lot about not being attached to a false sense of self which is basically what ego is. That's the main reason I use the term ego a lot is because it helps clarify what we're talking about a little more specifically in my opinion.

Edited December 26, 2023 by Maddie

[wandelaar]

I still think a lot of the controversy here in this topic could have been avoided by more clearly recognizing the ego for what it is (a temporary fleeting something or process), and not as you do by a priori defining it as illusory. What is illusory is not the ego but the false sense of it as something substantial. Doing away with the ego itself will not work, or if it did work would result in a human plant or doormat. Not something to be applauded. That's why some members here got irritated.

[Maddie]

8 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

I still think a lot of the controversy here in this topic could have been avoided by more clearly recognizing the ego for what it is (a temporary fleeting something or process), and not as you do by a priori defining it as illusory. What is illusory is not the ego but the false sense of it as something substantial. Doing away with the ego itself will not work, or if it did work would result in a human plant or doormat. Not something to be applauded. That's why some members here got irritated.

 

The ego AKA The false sense of self is an impermanent delusion according to the Buddha.

 

It's just a fact it's not necessary to get upset over the fact.

 

 

 

Edited December 26, 2023 by Maddie

[Maddie]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

I had to go back to the OP to see what this thread was about.  I was mildly surprised to see it was a reflection on TDBs and the changes we go through over the years.  I suppose one thing that is perennial is that threads often diverge into bad tempered rows about ... something or other.  

 

In my time on this forum there's been lots of petty squabbles so I guess this is an accurate sample of reflections on this forum LOL.

[wandelaar]

The video by Sam Harris perfectly describes what I'm saying. It's possible to talk about these things without stirring up unnecessary irritation as a result of misleading terminology or even worse by creating even more irritation by subsequently "explaining" that irritation as a result of the delusions of those who have become irritated. Enough!

Edited December 26, 2023 by wandelaar

[Maddie]

2 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

The video by Sam Harris perfectly describes what I'm saying. It's possible to talk about these things without stirring up unnecessary irritation by using a misleading terminology or even worse by subsequently "explaining" that irritation as a result of the delusions of those who have become irritated. Enough!

 

So you don't want me to discuss Buddhism anymore? But isn't this a forum for such things to be discussed?

 

I've honestly been surprised at the amount of emotional reaction to analyzing the Buddha's teaching on the false sense of self and how it leads to suffering because to me it was a glorious revelation that has drastically improved my quality of life.

[Maddie]

I guess I'll try one last time to explain this in the most clinically objective and totally non-emotional way possible.

 

In Buddhism there are what are called the "three poisons", Delusion, Desire, and Aversion. These are some of the most BASIC teachings of Buddhism.

 

So for example if someone gets angry, that is one of the three poisons that cause suffering. 

 

The Buddha described the cause of anger (or any other type of aversion or craving) as being a result of not seeing things as they really are, or aka delusion. 

 

This is just simple Buddhism. This is not emotional. This is just a fact that the Buddha taught. 

[NaturaNaturans]

39 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

So you don't want me to discuss Buddhism anymore? But isn't this a forum for such things to be discussed?

 

I've honestly been surprised at the amount of emotional reaction to analyzing the Buddha's teaching on the false sense of self and how it leads to suffering because to me it was a glorious revelation that has drastically improved my quality of life.

I am not judging at all, and have no problem with it. But dont you think that often these things are better discussed without viewing then trough a lense of teachings?

[Maddie]

Just now, NaturaNaturans said:

I am not judging at all, and have no problem with it. But dont you think that often these things are better discussed without viewing then trough a lense of teachings?

 

What better method would you propose then?

 

Since I am personally not enlightened and therefore in delusion it is necessary for me to grasp onto the teachings of someone that escaped delusion. If I ever reach Nirvana then I suppose I will be qualified to teach from my personal point of view, but until then I study the teachings of the Buddha. If you know a better method I'd be eager to hear it. 

[NaturaNaturans]

15 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

What better method would you propose then?

 

Since I am personally not enlightened and therefore in delusion it is necessary for me to grasp onto the teachings of someone that escaped delusion. If I ever reach Nirvana then I suppose I will be qualified to teach from my personal point of view, but until then I study the teachings of the Buddha. If you know a better method I'd be eager to hear it. 

I mean, im no Christ myself, but the only thing we can talk genuinley about is our understanding, and maybe with conversation we can all learn

[Maddie]

11 minutes ago, NaturaNaturans said:

I mean, im no Christ myself, but the only thing we can talk genuinley about is our understanding, and maybe with conversation we can all learn

 

I see. This is my understanding as well, and the reason for that is because as I apply these teachings I see a reduction in suffering. The Buddha said if you apply his teachings you will see a reduction in suffering. This gives me confidence that he knows what he's talking about. 

  Since applying what he has taught has worked so far it gives me reasonable confidence that it is correct and encourages me to continue to apply what the Buddha taught. 

   In regards to conversation, isn't that exactly what we are doing? Aren't we having a conversation about the teachings?

[NaturaNaturans]

5 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

I see. This is my understanding as well, and the reason for that is because as I apply these teachings I see a reduction in suffering. The Buddha said if you apply his teachings you will see a reduction in suffering. This gives me confidence that he knows what he's talking about. 

  Since applying what he has taught has worked so far it gives me reasonable confidence that it is correct and encourages me to continue to apply what the Buddha taught. 

   In regards to conversation, isn't that exactly what we are doing? Aren't we having a conversation about the teachings?

Very fair. Just wonder if termonoligy and concepts like enlightenment for example, my complicate stuff unneccarrily. But by all means, i support that comment and good to hear you find value in it

[Maddie]

14 minutes ago, NaturaNaturans said:

Very fair. Just wonder if termonoligy and concepts like enlightenment for example, my complicate stuff unneccarrily. But by all means, i support that comment and good to hear you find value in it

 

Words are tricky. But I feel like saying "enlightenment" is easier than saying "once one reaches the state where they have completely seen through all delusion and thusly let go of the craving and aversion that come from it, and therefore have ended suffering lol. 

[Maddie]

I think the thing that has surprised me isn't that the topic has drifted from the original post, this is an internet forum after all, these things happen all the time. The thing that has surprised me the most is that a relatively straight forward and rational topic of something that is basically cause and effect has become so controversial on a forum that is dedicated to topic such as this. 

[Master Logray]

4 hours ago, Maddie said:

Luke got it absolutely correct. It's not an insult it's just the condition of everybody who's not enlightened. Simply a technical term.

 

In Buddhism the problem is suffering, which is caused by desire, which is caused by delusion. It's the lowest common denominator problem according to the Buddha. And it affects everybody who's not enlightened.

 

Delusion ---> craving/aversion ---> suffering.

 

If delusion is the condition of everybody, some sort of built-in condition for human, why would we need to be enlightened for this condition?  or even having this conversation.  It is just like we have 4 limbs, and everybody is content with it, until someone says it is possible to have 8 limbs, which is better.  Why creates a need from nowhere and this very action creates desire and in turn, sufferings?   Is it possible to deal with craving/aversion directly?

 

 

[Maddie]

Just now, Master Logray said:

 

If delusion is the condition of everybody, some sort of built-in condition for human, why would we need to be enlightened for this condition?  or even having this conversation.  It is just like we have 4 limbs, and everybody is content with it, until someone says it is possible to have 8 limbs, which is better.  Why creates a need from nowhere and this very action creates desire and in turn, sufferings?   Is it possible to deal with craving/aversion directly?

 

 

 

1. As to why. Because it causes suffering.

 

2. As to dealing with it directly. The Buddha said mindfulness is the direct path to dealing with this directly.

[liminal_luke]

Two blocks from my apartment there's an intersection where a Christian dude often hangs out with a bull horn shouting about Christ.  It's annoying.  When members of the local Buddhist sangha get similarly aggressive and judgmental, I'll complain.  Hasn't happened yet.  Perhaps all that quiet sitting calms the nerves, but so far they seem willing to let me suffer in peace.  Thank the Goddess for small mercies.

[Daniel]

7 hours ago, Maddie said:

 

7 hours ago, Maddie said:

If there's a warning lable on a product that tells you not to eat the product because it's poisonous, the warning label is not an insult, but the product is not harmless either.

 

I see you ignored the 50% of the content of the post to which you replied.  It's the same thing you did to Brad's post.  This confirms what I wrote earlier:

 

19 hours ago, Daniel said:

No one here is going to be honest about criticising buddhism, if they are buddhist. 

 

Cropping out and/or ignoring content in order to shield oneself from criticism is dishonest or delusional.

 

7 hours ago, Maddie said:

After obtaining enlightenment the Buddha explained the problem and the solution.

 

Sure, but if you are deluded you are not in a position to determine if the buddha is correct.  It is certainly irresponsible to preach it if one is deluded and cannot accurately assess its potential for harm.

 

Is the "ego" or "delusion" the problem with this starving baby?  Is the craving for food a problem?  Is the craving to feed the baby a problem?  Is the aversion to allowing it to starve a problem?  Eliminating these cravings and aversions causes harm.

 

 

Edited December 26, 2023 by Daniel

[Maddie]

6 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

I see you ignored the 50% of the content of the post to which you replied.  It's the same thing you did to Brad's post.  This confirms what I wrote earlier:

 

 

Cropping out and/or ignoring content in order to shield oneself from criticism is dishonest or delusional.

 

 

Sure, but if you are deluded you are not in a position to determine if the buddha is correct.  It is certainly irresponsible to preach it if one is deluded and cannot accurately assess its potential for harm.

 

Is the "ego" or "delusion" the problem with this starving baby?  Is the craving for food a problem?  Is the craving to feed the baby a problem?  Is the aversion to allowing it to starve a problem?  Eliminating these cravings and aversions causes harm.

 

 

 

 

It's called keeping focus on the point of the conversation and not being diverted from it by "whataboutism". 

 

[NaturaNaturans]

This turned in to some spiritual warfare stuff

 

[Maddie]

9 minutes ago, NaturaNaturans said:

This turned in to some spiritual warfare stuff

 

I would have not guessed in a million years this topic would get so many people so upset lol 

 

[EFreethought]

Discussing suffering leads to more suffering.

Discussing delusion leads to more delusion.

Discussing bitterness lead to more bitterness.

Yet discussing enlightenment seems to lead to less enlightenment.

 

[Maddie]

29 minutes ago, EFreethought said:

Discussing suffering leads to more suffering.

Discussing delusion leads to more delusion.

Discussing bitterness lead to more bitterness.

Yet discussing enlightenment seems to lead to less enlightenment.

 

 

Knowing suffering leads to less suffering

Knowing delusion leads to less delusion 

Knowing bitterness leads to less bitterness

 

These things will lead to enlightenment