"may all beings be happy" context?

[old3bob]

4 minutes ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

 

i don't categorize religious teachings or traditions as superstition.   

i generally seek to understand whatever story, event, lesson, quote, character, being, or description is presented, in the larger context of  what it means within that religion.   

 

Typically i will make the distinction in conversation or discussion between a "physical being" and a "non-physical being."  

 

The Buddha was not big on religious belief.  I'd also say the more important context is beyond academics thus in what it means across the board "metaphysically" or spiritually if that term works better.

[BigSkyDiamond]

15 minutes ago, old3bob said:

Mara or evil has many brothers and sisters, as in liar, cheater, thief,  manipulator of half truths, malice, greed, and on and on, thus I'd say far more than just a tempter.

 

That list is (some of the) things we are tempted by:

lie, cheat, steal, dishonesty, manipulation, greed, malice

 

Each of those is a choice whether and to what extent we engage in those.

 

In Buddha's case (the list in the Thich Nat Than article) he was tempted with:
wealth, power, fame, women, lavish lifestyle. leadership, government authority, business, success, prestige, public recognition.  The battle was to vanquish those temptations.  

 

vanquish =

1. to overcome in battle: subdue completely 

2. to defeat in a conflict or contest

3. to gain mastery over (an emotion, passion, or temptation)

 

Edited August 4 by BigSkyDiamond

[BigSkyDiamond]

1 hour ago, old3bob said:

The Buddha was not big on religious belief.  I'd also say the more important context is beyond academics thus in what it means across the board "metaphysically" or spiritually if that term works better.

 

But the reason we know about Shakyamuni's battle with Mara at all though, is because it comes to us by way of the religious teachings of Buddhism.  So it is understood in that context.  And yes  it does have a broader practical application to daily life, even if someone is not a Buddhist, even if they are living an entirely secular life, even if they are not seeking enlightment or practicing dharma.   Because every person faces and deals with "what is the right thing to do" in this or that situation which they encounter in their daily life.  It is sometimes called conscience. The final sentence (see below in bold) for a secular application could read:

 

Mara is considered the one who distracts people from "doing the right thing."  Mara is considered the negative qualities found in human's egos and psyche. "

 

conscience: the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action.

 

 

Was Shakyamuni a real physical human being?  Yes.  Was Mara and the daughters and the army of demons in physical form?  No.  Did he really see them?   Well, physical humans have dreams and daydreams and visions.  It is a reality that those occur.  But the characters within the vision do not have physical substance.   If you had a dream last night then for  you it is real that you had a dream.  That dream really happened.  You know what you saw, including the characters and what they said and did and your interactions with them.  The dream or vision is real, yes.  Are the characters in the vision or dream physical, no.

 

 

"[There] is a painted mural  in Thailand about Siddhartha's battle with Mara. The story goes that while Siddhartha or Buddha Gautama was meditating trying to reach enlightenment, he was assaulted under the bodhi tree by the demon named Mara, who is often said to be the tempter. Mara used violence, sensory pleasure, and mockery to try to prevent Siddhartha from attaining enlightenment because he was afraid that Siddhartha would. Mara tempted Siddhartha with his daughters but Siddhartha was not moved. So Mara stood up with an army against him and Siddhartha touched the ground and it shook. Mara was defeated by Siddhartha and after the battle, it rained down lotus flowers. In the Buddhist religion, Mara is considered the one who distracts people from practicing Buddhist dharma. Mara is considered the negative qualities found in human's egos and psyche. "

 

from Jess Davis,  “Siddhartha's battle with Mara”

 

Edited August 4 by BigSkyDiamond

[old3bob]

 

a tangent on that:  there is no awareness for humans in the physical without the workings of prana/energy in various forms at various levels including the astral, otherwise a persons body would more or less be in a vegetative state.  It could be said that the physical is the last in line of manifestation.  (that many strongly identify with as being who they  are along with their particular mind with nothing beyond that.

[BigSkyDiamond]

40 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

a tangent on that:  there is no awareness for humans in the physical without the workings of prana/energy in various forms at various levels including the astral, otherwise a persons body would more or less be in a vegetative state.  It could be said that the physical is the last in line of manifestation.  (that many strongly identify with as being who they  are along with their particular mind with nothing beyond that.

 

yes.  i agree.

back of everything physical, is the non-physical which generates the physical.

the non-physical is the source of everything physical.

 

therefore we can change and affect the physical, by working at the level of the non-physical.  Our inner work results in changes in the outer world.

 

Edited August 5 by BigSkyDiamond

[Small Fur]

On 8/3/2025 at 6:21 AM, old3bob said:

 

Has anyone come across context for the big hearted Buddhist saying of, "may all beings be happy" ?  Taken literally or without context it would include all Beings including those that willfully choose and or practice evil? (and which makes them happy)

 

 

 

 

When the Buddha- or any being whose consciousness has dissolved into Emptiness- offers a blessing, it is not for the  fulfillment of psychologically derived states and mundane desires; these are not wishful words welling up from want, but Realization as inspiration bestowed in blessing.

 

And so, the joy spoken of here is deeper — a quiet bliss arising from the formless, known in the seat of shen (the heart) as the stillness of peace, even if called 'happiness'. Its essence does not depend on circumstance, nor is it touched by time. It is offered to all beings, without measure, without exception.

 

This joy then,  is also love — the wisdom within compassion, the radiance of the Tao —

spoken in many tongues, revealed not only through words but through wind, stone, and the hush between all things as created by Tao. Thus, it is more a recognition than a feeling, more a remembrance than a state.

 

Not a thing, but a Way.

Not a possession, but a return.

 

For this is the truth of unconditional love — the grace of noncondition — the beauty of Nothingness when it flowers through the silence of Enlightenment. From this view, you can see that the terms I use — love, peace, joy, emptiness — are fairly interchangeable.

Not because they lack nuance or discernment, but because in the light of Unity, all things are distilled into essence and returned to Emptiness. This is why, when we overanalyze or dissect too many terms, we risk losing the heart — becoming entangled in logic, we fall away from essence.

 

So this Unconditional love as blessing of happiness is just that: prior to, and untouched by, condition. It is what we are — all of us!

 

And the wish for beings to return to this, to realize this, is the very same wish held by all Buddhas, Immortals, and sages throughout time: for all beings to be as we Truly Are. Sometimes this is spoken using small words, like “happiness.” Sometimes in great ones, like “peace.” But regardless of language or scale, what is offered is the same...

 

In true realization, one sees how distinction gives rise to unity, and unity gives rise to distinction. This is the living truth of non-duality —not merely a term, but a direct, transcendent unfolding.

 

The Buddha gave it shape in these words, so that its vibration might echo in the heart.

But its truest form is found not in sound and thought,

but in the stillness where all longing ends,

where everything beloved is already whole;

where happiness is the essence of all Being:

a happiness in the True Being that you already are. <3

[BigSkyDiamond]

it's like the sun shines on everyone

regardless of who they are and what they do

[Nungali]

 

Except  for everyone that lives above the Arctic Circle 

 

 

[old3bob]

7 hours ago, Small Fur said:

 

 

 

 

When the Buddha- or any being whose consciousness has dissolved into Emptiness- offers a blessing, it is not for the  fulfillment of psychologically derived states and mundane desires; these are not wishful words welling up from want, but Realization as inspiration bestowed in blessing.

 

And so, the joy spoken of here is deeper — a quiet bliss arising from the formless, known in the seat of shen (the heart) as the stillness of peace, even if called 'happiness'. Its essence does not depend on circumstance, nor is it touched by time. It is offered to all beings, without measure, without exception.

 

This joy then,  is also love — the wisdom within compassion, the radiance of the Tao —

spoken in many tongues, revealed not only through words but through wind, stone, and the hush between all things as created by Tao. Thus, it is more a recognition than a feeling, more a remembrance than a state.

 

Not a thing, but a Way.

Not a possession, but a return.

 

For this is the truth of unconditional love — the grace of noncondition — the beauty of Nothingness when it flowers through the silence of Enlightenment. From this view, you can see that the terms I use — love, peace, joy, emptiness — are fairly interchangeable.

Not because they lack nuance or discernment, but because in the light of Unity, all things are distilled into essence and returned to Emptiness. This is why, when we overanalyze or dissect too many terms, we risk losing the heart — becoming entangled in logic, we fall away from essence.

 

So this Unconditional love as blessing of happiness is just that: prior to, and untouched by, condition. It is what we are — all of us!

 

And the wish for beings to return to this, to realize this, is the very same wish held by all Buddhas, Immortals, and sages throughout time: for all beings to be as we Truly Are. Sometimes this is spoken using small words, like “happiness.” Sometimes in great ones, like “peace.” But regardless of language or scale, what is offered is the same...

 

In true realization, one sees how distinction gives rise to unity, and unity gives rise to distinction. This is the living truth of non-duality —not merely a term, but a direct, transcendent unfolding.

 

The Buddha gave it shape in these words, so that its vibration might echo in the heart.

But its truest form is found not in sound and thought,

but in the stillness where all longing ends,

where everything beloved is already whole;

where happiness is the essence of all Being:

a happiness in the True Being that you already are. <3

 

that is very lovely, pure and transcendent Small Fur, thank you; but with most of us on Earth still dealing with and being human in the context of various types of suffering with some of it being very horrific and violent that, "happiness" is very far away although right under our noses.  Btw, I'd say it is telling that long term Buddhist monks/nuns and Lamas/teachers are often not in agreement on all the teachings and interpretation's handed down and what they mean, thus the different schools there-in and students having to deal with some difficult conundrums and to whatever degree the "world" first (and or simultaneously) which can not simply be by-passed karma wise.  (but its great that some have made it over the wall and left pointers on how to climb it)

 

 

Edited August 6 by old3bob

[Mark Foote]

On 8/3/2025 at 6:21 AM, old3bob said:

 

Has anyone come across context for the big hearted Buddhist saying of, "may all beings be happy" ?  Taken literally or without context it would include all Beings including those that willfully choose and or practice evil? (and which makes them happy)

 

 

 

The metta chants I believe are a fairly recent addition to Thai Buddhist ceremony, 19th century.  That's my understanding, though a Google search failed to shed any light. The main sutta that is mentioned is from the 5th Nikaya, that is historically of later composition than the first four. Sort of like, John versus the synoptic gospels, John being a later composition with the accent on love.

 

Hope you're happy, 'Bob.

 

 

Edited August 7 by Mark Foote

[BigSkyDiamond]

The whole post is beautiful.  I especially like this part:

 

On 8/5/2025 at 8:57 PM, Small Fur said:

This is why, when we overanalyze or dissect too many terms, we risk losing the heart — becoming entangled in logic, we fall away from essence.

 

So this Unconditional love as blessing of happiness is just that: prior to, and untouched by, condition. It is what we are — all of us!

 

And the wish for beings to return to this, to realize this, is the very same wish held by all Buddhas, Immortals, and sages throughout time: for all beings to be as we Truly Are. Sometimes this is spoken using small words, like “happiness.” Sometimes in great ones, like “peace.” But regardless of language or scale, what is offered is the same

[old3bob]

 

I'd say that "we" is used in a manner of speaking, for there is only one of us in the many of us, thus trillions of separate "we" can not remain so and realize that.  What is the price to be paid well for one it's rather high namely our hard won individual mind as one of those "we".  And who is ready to pay that in full, not many of "us"...which is also in a manner of speaking.  The way of life for renunciate monks and nuns are not for the Dharma's of householders, yet many here who are not renunciates often quote them as if everything they say also applies to them and that they can practice same while living and working as a householder in the world.

 

[Cobie]

 

16 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

The metta chants I believe are a fairly recent addition to Thai Buddhist ceremony, 19th century [my highlighting]

 

 Huh … ? c. 2 millennia later?

 

Quote

The main sutta that is mentioned is from the 5th Nikaya, that is historically of later composition than the first four. 

 

dates?

 

Quote

Sort of like, John versus the synoptic gospels, John being a later composition …

John is more like 2 decennia later (synoptic gospels c. 70-85 AD, John c. 90-100 AD)

 

 

Edited August 8 by Cobie

[BigSkyDiamond]

58 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

I'd say that "we" is used in a manner of speaking, for there is only one of us in the many of us, thus trillions of separate "we" can not remain so and realize that.  What is the price to be paid well for one it's rather high namely our hard won individual mind as one of those "we".  And who is ready to pay that in full, not many of "us"...which is also in a manner of speaking.  The way of life for renunciate monks and nuns are not for the Dharma's of householders, yet many here who are not renunciates often quote them as if everything they say also applies to them and that they can practice same while living and working as a householder in the world.

 

 

my understanding is that we don't lose our individual sense.  that the drop is yes in the ocean, but it also has awareness of itself as a drop.  That would be a great topic for discussion, i'd love to see a thread on that.

 

everything that is taught and learned from the sages in any tradition, yes can be applied and used by the everyday person in their everyday life.  I remember reading that for instance when someone like the Dalai Lama speaks and addresses thousands, that within whatever they are saying and teaching, that it contains message and wisdom for all, from the most advanced monks to the common folk.

 

that is one of the characteristics of the sacred teachings, of holy books, of sages.

that is how and why they continue to be pertinent and treasured to this very day, all these thousands of years later,  practical and applicable.

 

Edited August 8 by BigSkyDiamond

[Cobie]

 

8 minutes ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

my understanding is that we don't lose our individual sense. …

I agree. Even the mystics still have their own self as well as the union with God.

 

 

[Cobie]

 

2 hours ago, old3bob said:

… The way of life for renunciate monks and nuns are not for the Dharma's of householders, yet many here who are not renunciates often quote them as if everything they say also applies to them and that they can practice same while living and working as a householder in the world.

I agree.  I see this a lot in the church I go to: the householders are unaware of what they do not know and start bullying the renunciaties, ‘teaching’ them how they should be (like them ). Historically a lot of the mystics got excommunicated.

 

Edited August 8 by Cobie

[BigSkyDiamond]

2 hours ago, old3bob said:

The way of life for renunciate monks and nuns are not for the Dharma's of householders, yet many here who are not renunciates often quote them as if everything they say also applies to them and that they can practice same while living and working as a householder in the world.

 

specifics? examples?

a couple of times now on this thread you have accused  claimed there is spiritual bypassing (shown below)

what is it that you feel is being avoided, ignored, or not dealt with?  some examples would help me understand.  Thank you.

here is generic definition of spiritual bypassing

"using spiritual ideas and practices to sidestep personal, emotional ‘unfinished business,’ to shore up a shaky sense of self, or to belittle basic needs, feelings, and developmental tasks.”   "The foundation of spiritual bypassing is basically avoidance and repression."   " use spiritual ideas and practices to sidestep or avoid facing unresolved emotional issues, psychological wounds, and unfinished developmental tasks."

 

 

On 8/3/2025 at 12:46 PM, old3bob said:

transcendental by-passing doesn't work for dealing with worlds and its Beings...

On 8/6/2025 at 3:08 AM, old3bob said:

which can not simply be by-passed karma wise

 

 

Edited August 8 by BigSkyDiamond

[old3bob]

41 minutes ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

 

specifics? examples?

a couple of times now on this thread you have accused  claimed there is spiritual bypassing (shown below)

what is it that you feel is being avoided, ignored, or not dealt with?  some examples would help me understand.  Thank you.

here is generic definition of spiritual bypassing

"using spiritual ideas and practices to sidestep personal, emotional ‘unfinished business,’ to shore up a shaky sense of self, or to belittle basic needs, feelings, and developmental tasks.”   "The foundation of spiritual bypassing is basically avoidance and repression."   " use spiritual ideas and practices to sidestep or avoid facing unresolved emotional issues, psychological wounds, and unfinished developmental tasks."

 

 

sounds like you answered your own question with quotes...

 

[old3bob]

1 hour ago, Cobie said:

I agree. Even the mystics still have their own self as well as the union with God.

 

 

that is still duality (far along but not merger)

[old3bob]

1 hour ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

 

my understanding is that we don't lose our individual sense.  that the drop is yes in the ocean, but it also has awareness of itself as a drop.  That would be a great topic for discussion, i'd love to see a thread on that.

 

everything that is taught and learned from the sages in any tradition, yes can be applied and used by the everyday person in their everyday life.  I remember reading that for instance when someone like the Dalai Lama speaks and addresses thousands, that within whatever they are saying and teaching, that it contains message and wisdom for all, from the most advanced monks to the common folk.

 

that is one of the characteristics of the sacred teachings, of holy books, of sages.

that is how and why they continue to be pertinent and treasured to this very day, all these thousands of years later,  practical and applicable.

 

 

for some schools but not all, granted many precepts/dharmas cross over but there are still different paths for renunciates and householders.

 

a good monk/nun  can not be a good married person at the same time or the other way around, that is common sense in human life

Edited August 8 by old3bob

[BigSkyDiamond]

46 minutes ago, old3bob said:

for some schools but not all, granted many precepts/dharmas cross over but there are still different paths for renunciates and householders.

 

a good monk/nun  can not be a good married person at the same time or the other way around, that is common sense in human life

 

the wisdom of the sages meets a person wherever they are at in life.

 

Edited August 8 by BigSkyDiamond

[BigSkyDiamond]

32 minutes ago, old3bob said:

sounds like you answered your own question with quotes...

 

the question asked is for specific examples of what you feel is being ignored, repressed, not dealt with.

 

if an explanation or path or principle or approach is not acceptable to you, then fine.  

but it doesn't mean that the path is bypassing, ignoring, repressing, or not dealing with the problem. 

 

it is just dealing with in a way that may not be acceptable to you.  which is fine.  

 

Edited August 8 by BigSkyDiamond

[Cobie]

 

49 minutes ago, old3bob said:

that is still duality

 

I hope so,  I’m RC.  
 

Quote

(far along but not merger)

RC is dual - no “merging” but staying with God in union as friends. 

 

 

Edited August 8 by Cobie

[old3bob]

47 minutes ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

 

the question asked is for specific examples of what you feel is being ignored, repressed, not dealt with.

 

if an explanation or path or principle or approach is not acceptable to you, then fine.  

but it doesn't mean that the path is bypassing, ignoring, repressing, or not dealing with the problem. 

 

it is just dealing with in a way that may not be acceptable to you.  which is fine.  

 

 

read your own quotes don't harp at me...

[old3bob]

23 minutes ago, Cobie said:

 

I hope so,  I’m RC.  

RC is dual - no “merging” but staying with God in union as friends. 

 

 

for ages such is or can be so but not at end the of the cosmic cycle...thus merger sooner or later in that sense