Archived_member14
SPNer
Harry ji,
No. But let me explain.
The Buddha's teachings are to be read as descriptive of the way things are, as against prescription to courses of action. This is because realities are conditioned by other realities and have the nature of rise and fall and therefore not subject to the control of will. And there exists at any given moment, nothing except conditioned mental and physical phenomena. It takes some development of understanding at the level of hearing to realize this. Normally, we would read into the Buddha's words as with every other kind of teaching, the idea of a “me” here, needing to do something in order to get there. But this is due to the influence of self-view or wrong view which is *the* opposite of wisdom or right view.
Ideas such as “constant mental state” are idealistic, and suggestive of something happening to someone over time. On the other hand with right understanding, seeing that moment to moment realities are conditioned and beyond control, therefore no expectations about anything, including whether there is understanding or not. It is due to the influence of self-view that one paints a picture about possible result and has expectations.
“Identifying mental states” also is not correct. It is not about being able to observe, identify, or note. All this gives out the impression that we should be able to focus on individual mental states and constantly. But it is never like this, but about understanding which at some point is at the level of hearing and considering where concepts are the object.
Then you have not understood karma!
What do you understand about for example, seeing? Is it a reality? Does it have a cause, if so, what might that be?
When anger arises, do you understand this in terms of accumulated tendency, if so, at which point did all of it start? How does anger, attachment, ignorance, jealousy or kindness, morality, generosity arise if not due to the presence of the underlying tendency? And how did these tendencies come to be? Are they the product of chemical reactions following upon birth and in the process of growth and decay of the body? What is birth? Is it a coming together of chemical compounds? When an animal comes out of its mother's womb and starts to move and make noise, did the causes and conditions all happen at that very moment, if so what might they be?
If karma has been understood to any extent it will be seen to have a link to the past and also a cause for some future experience. Therefore in considering birth (conception) this will be understood as a resultant consciousness whose cause lies in past volition (karma). And what happens at death is that a new birth must follow. The consciousness now is understood as conditioned by the preceding one in more than one way, which in turn conditions what comes after. There is no reason to think that this mechanism would suddenly stop at death. Moreover how other conditions come to be and play their part, these are all momentary, hence nothing to do with perceptions of the kind involving “me” being who I am in this particular life.
If one insists that everything that happens has its causes within this one life alone, then one will seek explanations in terms of what one remembers to have taken place? And this is not reliable and must in fact mislead, since it invariably involves speculation. But the workings of karma are not for thinking or speculating but to be gradually understood.
The one problem I have with the Hindu conception of Karma is that it is tied to the idea of Soul. This is from self-identification and leads often to a deterministic attitudes involving further self-identification. However, because behind this is an understanding about moral cause and effect, one which is not limited to this life alone, this I consider better than not believing in it at all. Better this than someone who believes in a soul and rejects karma and reincarnation…..
The perception that enlightenment will take an endlessly long time to achieve is based on a realistic assessment of where one is at. This is not putting off anything, but accepting and not being influenced by suggestions promising unrealistic results. *The imperative is always to understand who we are, as reflected in the moment to moment experiences*. It is precisely because one lacks the kind of understanding, that we set a goal and struggle to achieve it. A person with still a great deal of ignorance, attachment, aversion and conceit but who has begun to know this, is freed from the burden of unrealistic expectations. That enlightenment can be achieved within this lifetime alone is one of those wrong perceptions, rejecting this therefore does not amount to postponing, but recognizing wrong as wrong. On the other hand if someone is influenced by the kind of perception but is in fact so full of ignorance, he moves forward knocking everything down but does not know it. This is the person who is thrashing about trying to cross the rushing river and perceives the one who is moving slowly but steadily, as doing nothing.
You'd have to provide some sort of commentary on the discipline you refer to, what exactly is meant by moderation and what is wisdom and why you separate it from understanding. Otherwise they sound like sloganeering and mixing different concepts into one pot. Also it appears that you underestimate the power of ignorance, in fact I don’t think that you understand and are taking it into account even….
What meaning has “truth”, if this is not about wisdom arising to know the present moment reality? What is the point of referring to ‘truthful living’ if all day the intentions underlying the different actions pass away unknown and there is no interest even, in understanding them?
I think as it is even now, that yours is the kind of perception everyone else has. A vague conceptual idea with regard to what is good and what is bad action, such as, drinking alcohol and taking drugs is bad, womanizing is bad, stealing is bad, lying is bad etc. This is thinking in terms of situations and not the understanding which knows the nature of momentary realities. They amount to being simply attempts at convincing oneself to action by way of reason and not by way of understanding. This is why I stress understanding the realities, because once you understand this, you don't need to talk yourself into doing what you think is right, something which does not address the underlying tendencies and is subject to doubt and to wavering.
Come on Harry ji, it is you who has made it into an ideal. I just simply gave you a description of certain principles and you have built a story around it and then choose whether to accept or reject it. And what “reality” are you referring to? I'm sure it is not the reality which I have been talking about which when understood conditions detachment. But this kind of detachment is not as you appear to be suggesting, one which is out of touch with 'reality'. Indeed it is because there is no understanding of reality, that one is involved in the conventional world while mistaking this for reality instead. So really, what I'm pointing at is based on understanding the distinction between reality and concepts, therefore the ability to recognize the conventional world for what it is and not be fooled by it.
Who is the aggressor Harry ji? What prompts your own aggression towards the aggressor? Who is the victim? Is he the person who provoked the aggressor? If my perception of your action towards a situation is that you interfere and are using biased judgement, would I be right to strike at you?
It is almost like one willfully ignores all other possibilities just so that one can cling to a particular scenario as excuse to express one's own aggression. So really, it is never about other people to begin with, but how the stage continues being set as means for acting out our different accumulated tendencies. This is the world of Maya Harry ji.
We all have faced situations in which we get a chance to know someone better whom we previously judged as bad / evil. But after understanding their situation better, we begin to sympathize with them. Why wait for this to happen when instead we can see that we are now too quick to judge? Moreover we only express kindness towards the victim when this in fact is being rather late. The victim is in effect receiving the fruit of his own past deeds. Why not express kindness towards the aggressor who will later on have to face the result of his action? Besides what do you think betters the situation? Showing kindness to the aggressor who may thereby realize his mistake and change, or the victim who will likely only respond with attachment and feel no sympathy whatsoever towards the person who did him wrong?
Probably “worse”.
Again the problem is in your having made my descriptions of the way things are, into an ideal. To have some understanding about the different wholesome and unwholesome realities goes hand in hand with knowing where one is at in relation to these different realities. Far from being a problem, this in fact is the stepping stone to further understanding and increase in goodness. What you appear to be doing is insist that reality be based on what you are, instead of the other way round. This can only lead to a downward spiral as far as I can see.
There were householder disciples of the Buddha who gave until they had nothing left and at the end were looking to get more just so that they could give away that. They of course had high level of understanding, one which knew the value of good deeds and at the same time, the understanding that the future is unknowable. And obviously they were not disturbed, but in fact joyful.
That you and I are not able to do similarly is because we do not possess the level of understanding. And this is what we should accept and move on. What we should not do is define what reality should be just so that we can then feel that we are more than what we actually are.
Then you probably have not understood what wisdom understands and its breadth and scope.
Sorry to hear about your situation and I hope it gets better soon.
But do you see the problem? I have only described reality, but you read it as a prescription and not only that, but as you admit, think to follow it to the full or not at all. This is not what the Middle Way is about. It is understanding things as they are with reference to one's own moment to moment experience. Not overreaching, let alone having an idealistic attitude as you are inclined to have.
Don’t attribute to the kindness what must in fact be the result of some unwholesome tendency of which there was no awareness.
My question was aimed at something else, but never mind about that now.
It appears that you are reading into the above quoted text what you like.
How can you conclude that the verse says that being free of attachment is impossibility when the last two lines suggest the opposite? It is talking about wrong motivations in deciding to become a renunciate, that such persons will be taking their attachments along with them wherever they go. It is not saying that the path of renunciation is not desirable; let alone making the household life an ideal. It talks about the possibility of detachment as a result of understanding but not with an idea of changing one's circumstance.
And what is “detachment from a mental point of view” stand in contrast to? Is there some kind of detachment apart from mental? Brain and what is made to associate with it is of course is a myth, but where does the above talk about using logic?
Many people try to make their religion into one which is an affirmation of life.
I won't even refer to the “cheating states” here, since it is unrelated to any attempt at developing good states. It is pure delusion which is followed upon by wrong thinking.
Why show an interest in religion if this is what you really believe? Any religion will tell you that the nature of kindness for example, is such that it will only increase with its encouragement while at the same time, discouraging its opposite, namely hatred. In other words it takes much development along a certain path involving increase in inclination towards the one and away from the other. Also religion tells you that alcohol and drugs encourage the underlying unwholesome tendencies precisely because it leads to being unmindful and therefore should be avoided. This too after realizing how so much ignorance, attachment, aversion and so on arises as it is, even when we are sober.
And your misunderstanding does not stop here, but you go on to use the conclusion to make a case for the household life, which I must say is very wrong.
From the standpoint of the Middle Way, both those who talk but don't do anything and those who do it, are wrong, insofar as self-view is involved.
The belief behind the proposition that the goal is to find happiness and contentment is incompatible with the one which understands the Truth. This is because; all conditioned existence by their nature, is impermanent and unsatisfactory. The person who understands this does not therefore think that the goal of life is to find happiness and contentment, but seeks instead, only to understand. The Buddha stated somewhere:
Do Good,
Avoid Evil,
Cultivate the Mind.
This to me is what the meaning of life comes down to. Anything that does not match this criterion is from my perspective, unworthy of pursuit.
Moreover someone who understands impermanence and unsatisfactoriness will also understand the other characteristic of experience, namely their insusceptibility to control, in other words, non-self. He will therefore not speak as though he can decide on what to place where with the idea of balancing things.
If you really understood karma, you’d incline towards my position. ;-)
And thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my marathon posts. ;-)
No. But let me explain.
The Buddha's teachings are to be read as descriptive of the way things are, as against prescription to courses of action. This is because realities are conditioned by other realities and have the nature of rise and fall and therefore not subject to the control of will. And there exists at any given moment, nothing except conditioned mental and physical phenomena. It takes some development of understanding at the level of hearing to realize this. Normally, we would read into the Buddha's words as with every other kind of teaching, the idea of a “me” here, needing to do something in order to get there. But this is due to the influence of self-view or wrong view which is *the* opposite of wisdom or right view.
Ideas such as “constant mental state” are idealistic, and suggestive of something happening to someone over time. On the other hand with right understanding, seeing that moment to moment realities are conditioned and beyond control, therefore no expectations about anything, including whether there is understanding or not. It is due to the influence of self-view that one paints a picture about possible result and has expectations.
“Identifying mental states” also is not correct. It is not about being able to observe, identify, or note. All this gives out the impression that we should be able to focus on individual mental states and constantly. But it is never like this, but about understanding which at some point is at the level of hearing and considering where concepts are the object.
Then you have not understood karma!
What do you understand about for example, seeing? Is it a reality? Does it have a cause, if so, what might that be?
When anger arises, do you understand this in terms of accumulated tendency, if so, at which point did all of it start? How does anger, attachment, ignorance, jealousy or kindness, morality, generosity arise if not due to the presence of the underlying tendency? And how did these tendencies come to be? Are they the product of chemical reactions following upon birth and in the process of growth and decay of the body? What is birth? Is it a coming together of chemical compounds? When an animal comes out of its mother's womb and starts to move and make noise, did the causes and conditions all happen at that very moment, if so what might they be?
If karma has been understood to any extent it will be seen to have a link to the past and also a cause for some future experience. Therefore in considering birth (conception) this will be understood as a resultant consciousness whose cause lies in past volition (karma). And what happens at death is that a new birth must follow. The consciousness now is understood as conditioned by the preceding one in more than one way, which in turn conditions what comes after. There is no reason to think that this mechanism would suddenly stop at death. Moreover how other conditions come to be and play their part, these are all momentary, hence nothing to do with perceptions of the kind involving “me” being who I am in this particular life.
If one insists that everything that happens has its causes within this one life alone, then one will seek explanations in terms of what one remembers to have taken place? And this is not reliable and must in fact mislead, since it invariably involves speculation. But the workings of karma are not for thinking or speculating but to be gradually understood.
The one problem I have with the Hindu conception of Karma is that it is tied to the idea of Soul. This is from self-identification and leads often to a deterministic attitudes involving further self-identification. However, because behind this is an understanding about moral cause and effect, one which is not limited to this life alone, this I consider better than not believing in it at all. Better this than someone who believes in a soul and rejects karma and reincarnation…..
The perception that enlightenment will take an endlessly long time to achieve is based on a realistic assessment of where one is at. This is not putting off anything, but accepting and not being influenced by suggestions promising unrealistic results. *The imperative is always to understand who we are, as reflected in the moment to moment experiences*. It is precisely because one lacks the kind of understanding, that we set a goal and struggle to achieve it. A person with still a great deal of ignorance, attachment, aversion and conceit but who has begun to know this, is freed from the burden of unrealistic expectations. That enlightenment can be achieved within this lifetime alone is one of those wrong perceptions, rejecting this therefore does not amount to postponing, but recognizing wrong as wrong. On the other hand if someone is influenced by the kind of perception but is in fact so full of ignorance, he moves forward knocking everything down but does not know it. This is the person who is thrashing about trying to cross the rushing river and perceives the one who is moving slowly but steadily, as doing nothing.
You'd have to provide some sort of commentary on the discipline you refer to, what exactly is meant by moderation and what is wisdom and why you separate it from understanding. Otherwise they sound like sloganeering and mixing different concepts into one pot. Also it appears that you underestimate the power of ignorance, in fact I don’t think that you understand and are taking it into account even….
What meaning has “truth”, if this is not about wisdom arising to know the present moment reality? What is the point of referring to ‘truthful living’ if all day the intentions underlying the different actions pass away unknown and there is no interest even, in understanding them?
I think as it is even now, that yours is the kind of perception everyone else has. A vague conceptual idea with regard to what is good and what is bad action, such as, drinking alcohol and taking drugs is bad, womanizing is bad, stealing is bad, lying is bad etc. This is thinking in terms of situations and not the understanding which knows the nature of momentary realities. They amount to being simply attempts at convincing oneself to action by way of reason and not by way of understanding. This is why I stress understanding the realities, because once you understand this, you don't need to talk yourself into doing what you think is right, something which does not address the underlying tendencies and is subject to doubt and to wavering.
Come on Harry ji, it is you who has made it into an ideal. I just simply gave you a description of certain principles and you have built a story around it and then choose whether to accept or reject it. And what “reality” are you referring to? I'm sure it is not the reality which I have been talking about which when understood conditions detachment. But this kind of detachment is not as you appear to be suggesting, one which is out of touch with 'reality'. Indeed it is because there is no understanding of reality, that one is involved in the conventional world while mistaking this for reality instead. So really, what I'm pointing at is based on understanding the distinction between reality and concepts, therefore the ability to recognize the conventional world for what it is and not be fooled by it.
Who is the aggressor Harry ji? What prompts your own aggression towards the aggressor? Who is the victim? Is he the person who provoked the aggressor? If my perception of your action towards a situation is that you interfere and are using biased judgement, would I be right to strike at you?
It is almost like one willfully ignores all other possibilities just so that one can cling to a particular scenario as excuse to express one's own aggression. So really, it is never about other people to begin with, but how the stage continues being set as means for acting out our different accumulated tendencies. This is the world of Maya Harry ji.
We all have faced situations in which we get a chance to know someone better whom we previously judged as bad / evil. But after understanding their situation better, we begin to sympathize with them. Why wait for this to happen when instead we can see that we are now too quick to judge? Moreover we only express kindness towards the victim when this in fact is being rather late. The victim is in effect receiving the fruit of his own past deeds. Why not express kindness towards the aggressor who will later on have to face the result of his action? Besides what do you think betters the situation? Showing kindness to the aggressor who may thereby realize his mistake and change, or the victim who will likely only respond with attachment and feel no sympathy whatsoever towards the person who did him wrong?
Probably “worse”.
Again the problem is in your having made my descriptions of the way things are, into an ideal. To have some understanding about the different wholesome and unwholesome realities goes hand in hand with knowing where one is at in relation to these different realities. Far from being a problem, this in fact is the stepping stone to further understanding and increase in goodness. What you appear to be doing is insist that reality be based on what you are, instead of the other way round. This can only lead to a downward spiral as far as I can see.
There were householder disciples of the Buddha who gave until they had nothing left and at the end were looking to get more just so that they could give away that. They of course had high level of understanding, one which knew the value of good deeds and at the same time, the understanding that the future is unknowable. And obviously they were not disturbed, but in fact joyful.
That you and I are not able to do similarly is because we do not possess the level of understanding. And this is what we should accept and move on. What we should not do is define what reality should be just so that we can then feel that we are more than what we actually are.
Then you probably have not understood what wisdom understands and its breadth and scope.
Sorry to hear about your situation and I hope it gets better soon.
But do you see the problem? I have only described reality, but you read it as a prescription and not only that, but as you admit, think to follow it to the full or not at all. This is not what the Middle Way is about. It is understanding things as they are with reference to one's own moment to moment experience. Not overreaching, let alone having an idealistic attitude as you are inclined to have.
Don’t attribute to the kindness what must in fact be the result of some unwholesome tendency of which there was no awareness.
My question was aimed at something else, but never mind about that now.
It appears that you are reading into the above quoted text what you like.
How can you conclude that the verse says that being free of attachment is impossibility when the last two lines suggest the opposite? It is talking about wrong motivations in deciding to become a renunciate, that such persons will be taking their attachments along with them wherever they go. It is not saying that the path of renunciation is not desirable; let alone making the household life an ideal. It talks about the possibility of detachment as a result of understanding but not with an idea of changing one's circumstance.
And what is “detachment from a mental point of view” stand in contrast to? Is there some kind of detachment apart from mental? Brain and what is made to associate with it is of course is a myth, but where does the above talk about using logic?
Many people try to make their religion into one which is an affirmation of life.
I won't even refer to the “cheating states” here, since it is unrelated to any attempt at developing good states. It is pure delusion which is followed upon by wrong thinking.
Why show an interest in religion if this is what you really believe? Any religion will tell you that the nature of kindness for example, is such that it will only increase with its encouragement while at the same time, discouraging its opposite, namely hatred. In other words it takes much development along a certain path involving increase in inclination towards the one and away from the other. Also religion tells you that alcohol and drugs encourage the underlying unwholesome tendencies precisely because it leads to being unmindful and therefore should be avoided. This too after realizing how so much ignorance, attachment, aversion and so on arises as it is, even when we are sober.
And your misunderstanding does not stop here, but you go on to use the conclusion to make a case for the household life, which I must say is very wrong.
From the standpoint of the Middle Way, both those who talk but don't do anything and those who do it, are wrong, insofar as self-view is involved.
The belief behind the proposition that the goal is to find happiness and contentment is incompatible with the one which understands the Truth. This is because; all conditioned existence by their nature, is impermanent and unsatisfactory. The person who understands this does not therefore think that the goal of life is to find happiness and contentment, but seeks instead, only to understand. The Buddha stated somewhere:
Do Good,
Avoid Evil,
Cultivate the Mind.
This to me is what the meaning of life comes down to. Anything that does not match this criterion is from my perspective, unworthy of pursuit.
Moreover someone who understands impermanence and unsatisfactoriness will also understand the other characteristic of experience, namely their insusceptibility to control, in other words, non-self. He will therefore not speak as though he can decide on what to place where with the idea of balancing things.
If you really understood karma, you’d incline towards my position. ;-)
And thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my marathon posts. ;-)
, it is self identification that is my meaning of life, anything that furthers this, is in my opinion a good thing, as it is knowing the self, that in my view, will bring me closer to God, and eventual understanding. 
