Positive thinking

Haha and so you use a picture of yourself as avatar? That's a pretty bold move, btw.

lol yeah well it could be seen as quality control. It gives an impression of 'noob' etc which is useful when entering the den.

I wonder if you will feel the same way about your avatar later on when you're swollen up and full of a child, liquids and hormones and stuff.

 

Good luck, noob. ;)

Lol at the bhuddists having a fall out.

It's called "suffering", or so I've heard. ;-P

  On 4/6/2013 at 5:40 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 4/6/2013 at 5:38 AM, murphythecat8 said:

 

  On 4/6/2013 at 5:35 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 4/6/2013 at 5:05 AM, murphythecat8 said:

 

  On 4/6/2013 at 4:45 AM, goDel said:

It could be my ridiculous me, but this sounds - somehow - similar to what I experience when using techniques which are described in Michael Hall's "Mind Lines". It's a book about NLP techniques to change beliefs. Although it presents itself as techniques for changing beliefs of others, I think it's mostly useful in an egocentric way. It's pretty effective in the sense that it helps to move to a completely lucid belief system. At least, that's what I kind of get from your post. That ideal state you describe seems close to what I describe as a completely lucid belief system, or consciousness, if you will.

 

To the extent that I'm actually resonating with you here, I think it is interesting to see that there are more ways to reach that point than just the orthodox meditation route. There might be a sort of intellectual brute force route which paradoxically can have similar results. But the entire argument hinges on the similarity of my and your notion of being lucid, I guess.

yeah, men. you sound like a really smart guy, any one who like to be cultivated should at least understand intelectually buddhism. its not a beleif system. its a logical approach to what could be consciousness.

so you can sort of study it, just like you would study platon.

btw, even in platon, you will find resonance in buddhism. most of intelligent people think like buddha, up to a extent. and thats the key, up to the extent. after thinking about this sentence, this is not valid at all, but people I consider smart

nobody in here can say that they dont not suffer at least a little every day. and the body would say that suffering is a problem that can be cause. sort of, but seriously, when we start saying sentence like that, it DESTROYS all the subtilituies, and then becomes NEW age religinon

 

Murphy, no offense but you are depressing the fuck out of everyone.

 

Also you need to work on concision in your communication skills brah.

 

 

 

With deepest respect and admiration,

 

LimpyLoo

you definitely depress me everytime you express a thought towards me boy.

 

As you said earlier: that is your own fault innit.

No matter what a person says to you, you are responsible to the answer you give him. and the way your answered me before, you seem to have some issue of your own.

 

 

 

  On 4/6/2013 at 6:43 AM, rixxx said:

 

  On 4/6/2013 at 5:19 AM, goDel said:

 

 

 

yeah, mmm, Buddhism is great but ultimately it is a religion (yeah I know 'it's more a philosophy' but bitch please come on) as such I think it's always best to be aware of this -Chimera seems to have the right idea about it.

I understand the Buddhist teachings, but in my view there are actually scientifically proven ways of improving your cognitive way of thinking. If you are a well adjusted person in your morals than buddhist teachings is fairly obvious... but than that's just my opinion on the matter.

hi

buddhism is not a religion. there is nothing about it that refer to a religion.

you understand the buddhist teaching? you cannot understand it cognitively, therefore please explain to me what do you understand and up to which extent.

what buddhist teaching are obvious too you?

I highly suggest you inform yourself on the philosophy, at least if you want to talk about buddhism in a informed way.

you have to be able to define religion to say whether buddhism is or isn't one. most people in asia practice buddhism as a religion, but academics and westerners usually consider it a philosophy.

  On 4/6/2013 at 7:47 AM, goDel said:

I wonder if you will feel the same way about your avatar later on when you're swollen up and full of a child, liquids and hormones and stuff.

 

Good luck, noob. ;)

 

Buddhism is a religion as it is practiced in most forms throughout the world. Even though the components of mental understanding and practices in regard to that do not carry an inherent religious message, taking refuge in Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, taking Bodhisattva Vows etc, constitute a religion.

 

The difference is that the religious aspects are there for the sake of practicing compassion, and alleviating people who are incapable of the more or less agnostic deeper understandings, and thus can only look at Buddhas as superhuman and beyond ordinary humanity.

 

The really big difference is the way it explicitly denounces itself as an ultimate way or even a reliable tool beyond a certain point. A tibetan teacher explained that "In the end, you are liberated from buddhism as well".

 

Meanwhile, in the far east, the synthesis with ancient chinese virtues have resulted in something vastly unusual from the western definitions of religion, as all the idols and aims at some lofty transcendence are destroyed in the process. It is more of a philosophical naturalistic "way of life" or conduct centered on nondualism.

 

Even the statements of karma and rebirth are interpreted differently depending on which form you adhere to. In Zen, it is interpreted that rebirth is something that happens when you believe that you are the same person as you were a few moments ago, and believe that there is something inside you that is unchanging and unrelated to circumstance. The end of rebirth is thus the end of maintaining that illusion. Some of these statements and conclusions more closely resemble a scientific method of observation rather than religious tenets.

 

But I would still maintain that you cannot really argue against someone who labels buddhism a religion. You have to actively dismiss many valid forms of Buddhism in order to make that argument.

 

Earlier, Murphy the cat said that Buddhism argues that you are nothing but your conscience/consciousness. It does not. According to the original teachings, not even consciousness has a self-nature or belongs to a self. A self-nature is something unchanging and separate, to which you can say "be like this" and it will be like that. As the Buddha recognized no such thing, he argued that these are not the self and suffering arises when you interpret these as your self. The analogy he made is that if someone chops down a tree, you should not be alarmed because it does not belong to you, and you should treat not only the body, but anything percievable at all, in the same way.

 

The best way to describe it in terms of meditation practice, is like looking down into a tunnel and finding that there is no real basis for what I label as "me" or "mine", it's just mental fluctuation. At the end of the tunnel there's no bottom for that "I", it's just empty space. This can sound nihilistic or frightening on an intellectual level, but as an intimate realization it is a great reliever of stress.

Edited April 6, 2013 by chimera slot mom

The way buddhism is practiced for example in Pure Land Buddhism I'd say that's pretty religious. When you step over the line of abstract philosophical concepts to veneration of historical or mythical persons and supposed supernatural levels of existence I'd say you're in the realm of religion.

 

Also if you can't understand Buddhism cognitively then it's not philosophy. From wikipedia:

    Quote

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected withreality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.^[1][2] Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.^[3]

 

Notice the part about "rational argument"? If you cannot arrive at Buddhist concepts by reason then it's not philosophy.

I'm all for positive thinking, but is it necessary to utilize a religion or belief system to do that? I'm also keen on the ideas behind Taoism, but I would make a horrible Taoist, so I don't strive for it and only try to enjoy my human experience without trying to "better" myself through a belief system. Those constructs have had no desirable effect in my life, including the idea that I'm not a "good person" without following that thought paradigm.

  On 4/6/2013 at 4:07 PM, OneToThirtySix said:

I'm all for positive thinking, but is it necessary to utilize a religion or belief system to do that? I'm also keen on the ideas behind Taoism, but I would make a horrible Taoist, so I don't strive for it and only try to enjoy my human experience without trying to "better" myself through a belief system. Those constructs have had no desirable effect in my life, including the idea that I'm not a "good person" without following that thought paradigm.

 

 

yeah this is basically the point Im getting to.

 

With all things, the key is to have balance and to not be too emotionally involved (always be open to criticisms, this will of course allow for progress so is therefore a healthy state to be in)

 

Murphythecat you seem to act in a way which a religious believer would...lol.

 

There are obvious points in buddhist teachings - being happy within yourself (including not 'wanting' things- this seems especially true in Western society) finding peace within yourself and what is in your environment etc.

 

Chimera has really hit the nail on the head with most of the Buddhist posts made in this thread, probably because he is open to discussion, he's a pretty well rounded fellow though.

Actually Im surprised the route this thread has taken, I really didn't see that religion would be involved at all.

 

I guess I really did grow up in an atheist household, in an openly skeptic city.

  On 4/6/2013 at 3:45 PM, chimera slot mom said:

Earlier, Murphy the cat said that Buddhism argues that you are nothing but your conscience/consciousness. It does not. According to the original teachings, not even consciousness has a self-nature or belongs to a self. A self-nature is something unchanging and separate, to which you can say "be like this" and it will be like that. As the Buddha recognized no such thing, he argued that these are not the self and suffering arises when you interpret these as your self. The analogy he made is that if someone chops down a tree, you should not be alarmed because it does not belong to you, and you should treat not only the body, but anything percievable at all, in the same way.

hey, I agree with mostly everythign you say. however, please explain to me how buddhism is a religion. I do not beleive in a god. the buddhist theories try to explain reality. anyways, even the term religion doesnt mean much anyways. fine, its a religion, but really it is completely different from the islam or bible, thats for sure. even buddha is not a messiah, hes just a guy, that says that you can help yourself. I am not a worshipper of buddha, hes not a god or anything, merely a state of being.

 

Everything comes form the consciousness, but yeah, you are not your consciousness either, so you were right to take back what I said. I said that because I think its easier to understand for people that we are merely a consciousness. the truth is exactly that, we are not, but our consciousness beleive itself, thats why we are here, me and you and everybody in here in this world. We really beleive that our feelings is is direct relation of a self. we beleive in a self, but theres not. now, I dont like to say those things, because I have not yet experienced such direct experience/understanding, theerfore I just repeat something that I have heard, which imo is not really smart.

 

I really like when the buddha says: if you think that you are the one who experience good feelings, when good feeling passes,then what are you? and when you feel unhappy, what you are is unhappy? this defines you? try to find whats unhappy, then youll see that unhapiness comes from YOU, your mind, nothing else. again, I am not a buddha, so I still suffer bucketloads, and I just reapeat what I have not experienced. I do however experience much happier state of being since I understand and try to apply the buddhism concept.

you have to be moraly perfect, clean of any unkind, evil toughts. each time we hate someone, it hurts ourselves in a way that I just can begin to understand.

 

we are controlled by our mind that beleive that in order to be happy, it needs to be filled with sensual pleasure and we dont realize how much suffering we create to ourselve in acheiving this very task to try to be happy.

 

 

 

  On 4/6/2013 at 3:52 PM, mokz said:

The way buddhism is practiced for example in Pure Land Buddhism I'd say that's pretty religious. When you step over the line of abstract philosophical concepts to veneration of historical or mythical persons and supposed supernatural levels of existence I'd say you're in the realm of religion.

 

Also if you can't understand Buddhism cognitively then it's not philosophy. From wikipedia:

    Quote

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected withreality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.^[1][2] Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.^[3]

 

Notice the part about "rational argument"? If you cannot arrive at Buddhist concepts by reason then it's not philosophy.

I have said that ultimately, you cannot understand the philosophy. up to a point, cognitive reflexion is a part of the problem, so yeah after a while, you have to realize, not understand the philosophical concept. but at the beginning, you can understand a lot of concept, which are undenialibly logic and rational and that can be studies for a long time before even attempting to do it. Its a totally logical theory about reality.

BTW, the einstein theory of relativity is EXACTLY what the buddha was preaching 2000 years ago. the relative theory is in total correlation with buddha theory of reality. The quantic science is also HIGLY close to the buddha teachings.

saying that buddhism is a religion is not adequate for my definition of religion.

I am super critic toward buddhism, and can accept different ideas. I am open to discussion, but I will adress false understanding of the buddhism, when I see something that is not what the buddha said, right.

 

I understand that its hard to accept the supernatural power like reading in other people minds and almost telepathic powers, but you know what, thats as far as they go as for talking about superpower. The rest, you may not beleive it, but it is logical. anyone who says its not logical, please give me some informed opinion about the logic of buddha that you think is not right, I would love to know.

Edited April 6, 2013 by murphythecat8

  On 4/6/2013 at 5:29 PM, rixxx said:

 

  On 4/6/2013 at 4:07 PM, OneToThirtySix said:

I'm all for positive thinking, but is it necessary to utilize a religion or belief system to do that? I'm also keen on the ideas behind Taoism, but I would make a horrible Taoist, so I don't strive for it and only try to enjoy my human experience without trying to "better" myself through a belief system. Those constructs have had no desirable effect in my life, including the idea that I'm not a "good person" without following that thought paradigm.

 

 

yeah this is basically the point Im getting to.

 

With all things, the key is to have balance and to not be too emotionally involved (always be open to criticisms, this will of course allow for progress so is therefore a healthy state to be in)

 

Murphythecat you seem to act in a way which a religious believer would...lol.

 

There are obvious points in buddhist teachings - being happy within yourself (including not 'wanting' things- this seems especially true in Western society) finding peace within yourself and what is in your environment etc.

 

Chimera has really hit the nail on the head with most of the Buddhist posts made in this thread, probably because he is open to discussion, he's a pretty well rounded fellow though.

lol, yeah I know, I am now a religious person, therefore I realize that I sound like a blind follower, all kind and pragmatic, but thats how I realize that tyhis is how I need to talk to people to make me feel at all time good about myself, never attacking people, just saying what I think without any atatchment to it. my english might make me sound a bit retard lol.

 

anyways, its obvious that you are probably already on a path of trying to be happy in your life as you pointed out in your other last posts. positive thinking really is the key. If you appreciate everything in existence, really everything in existence, and think that everything is beautiful and not accept yourself in hating people, or not caring for people or animals, if you dont kill, steal, or insult people, well you will be pretty much in line with the buddha and I doubt anyone dont agree with those facts.

 

Even for me, I dont think that at 20 years old, I could have beleive in any religion, and would have said that fuck it, buddha is a religion. Its just that for me, it explains it all, in such a way to defies my self, but theres something in me that just know that theres something PROFOUNDLY important to realize in buddhism. but hey, enough said :)., I will not ever talk about buddhism in here, thats not the place at all!

Sorry to hijack this thread again...

  On 4/6/2013 at 8:59 PM, murphythecat8 said:

hey, I agree with mostly everythign you say. however, please explain to me how buddhism is a religion. I do not beleive in a god. the buddhist theories try to explain reality. anyways, even the term religion doesnt mean much anyways. fine, its a religion, but really it is completely different from the islam or bible, thats for sure. even buddha is not a messiah, hes just a guy, that says that you can help yourself. I am not a worshipper of buddha, hes not a god or anything, merely a state of being.

A religion does not have to be monotheistic or rely on a savior. I explained why I thought it was a religion. Mainly because of mahayana sects such as Pure Land, which relies on other-power (tariki) as opposed to self-power (joriki).

 

Another thing that strongly influences the religious sense is the bodhisattva vow to keep being reborn to save beings from suffering. This is very difficult to relate in this context, because some teach that saving all beings means to recognize that there is no being to be saved, i.e no separate being. But it also means that self-sacrifice for the well-being of others is the very meaning of Buddha. This thing gets kinda circular and messy at some points.

 

This is why I agree with your statement that some aspects are not cognizable, and they are that for the same reason that birds do not sing in minor or major; the flux of existence cannot be fully percievable and compartmentalized by the rational intellect.

 

Lastly, many buddhists believe in heavens and hells, gods and devils, ghosts etc.

 

Some sects, like Zen, argue that heavens are pleasant conditions, hells are terrible conditions, gods are people with good fortune and devils are evil people. But not every sect has that opinion. They offer sacrifices and pay homages to certain spirits, and other religious practices.

 

The key difference is that every Buddhist sect recognizes that even gods and angels are in need of liberation.

    Quote

Everything comes form the consciousness, but yeah, you are not your consciousness either, so you were right to take back what I said.

I am not trying to discount any of your understanding of Buddhism here, I just like to provide my view of the teachings. The way I see it, it is very difficult to use the word consciousness in a buddhist context, because consciousness is not used in the blanket term way it is used in the west. Rather, consciousness is divided in 8 layers of vijnanas and only the basic store-house, the alaya-vijnana, would be termed as a source for occurences. But this is not really the same as the consciousness that percieves senses or a self.

 

Of course, many would claim that "everything is mind", and that would be very similar to your statement.

    Quote

theerfore I just repeat something that I have heard, which imo is not really smart.

I don't think that's such a bad thing, I am also trying to speak on the teachings as I understand them, you could probably find a source to every statement of mine apart from my individual interpretations. I wouldn't like to provide a personal slant on it unless when it is obvious that I am doing that.

    Quote

again, I am not a buddha, so I still suffer bucketloads, and I just reapeat what I have not experienced. I do however experience much happier state of being since I understand and try to apply the buddhism concept.

you have to be moraly perfect, clean of any unkind, evil toughts. each time we hate someone, it hurts ourselves in a way that I just can begin to understand.

It is a mahayana teaching, especially in Ch'an and Zen, that everybody is already a Buddha and the mind itself is Buddha. It is the mental defilements that prevent that realization, but these are not necessarily what one would ordinarily define as defilements. Another teaching, that I like personally, is that you do not have to be morally perfect since only a "stone buddha" would be that. The goal is to be a living buddha, one who is free regardless of circumstance and does not grasp at the future or the past. This will automatically settle the defilements.

 

Lin-Chi is one of my favourite Zen masters, and he put it this way in one passage:

    Quote

The true student of the Way clings neither to Buddha, nor to Bodhisattvas, nor to Arhats; he clings not to anything that passes as supreme in the Three Worlds. He keeps his distance, stands alone and free, and is not bothered by things. Though heaven and earth be turned upside down, he will not be bewildered. Though all the Buddhas of the ten directions appear before him, he will not care. And if the three deepest hells suddenly gape before him, he will not be afraid.

 

Why not? Because he sees everything as empty [of intrinsic and unchanging self-existence]. If there is change, there is also existence. Without change, there is nothing.

These hells would include one's own mental defilements, and the Buddhas would include one's moral perfection. Edited April 7, 2013 by chimera slot mom

hi, no problem, I see that you want to bring what you think of buddhism. I like that you do, and you sem to be pretty much informed, and thats great, I dont ffel insulted at all, you are super polite and respectful, I hope you feel the same!

 

okay. some of the thing you say here is not to be seen in the buddha teaching. I do not follow any other persons word but the buddha because he is the only one that is suppose to be englightened. Only a enlightened buddha is to be trusted, but im entering really delicate matter, and I can only talk for me. I do not trust any other teachers anymore. I usd to follow venerable Robina for 2 year, and well it blocked me in my developpment. her understanding was somewhat really far imo of the buddha words.

 

the buddha words are quite always the same thing over and over. the four noble truth, and the eighfold path. nothing more really, but merely trying to explain a bit better what he means.

 

I have a BIG problem with this:

"It is a mahayana teaching, especially in Ch'an and Zen, that everybody is already a Buddha and the mind itself is Buddha. It is the mental defilements that prevent that realization, but these are not necessarily what one would ordinarily define as defilements. Another teaching, that I like personally, is that you do not have to be morally perfect since only a "stone buddha" would be that. The goal is to be a living buddha, one who is free regardless of circumstance and does not grasp at the future or the past. This will automatically settle the defilements."

 

1- a buddha mind is a mind that do not suffer. therefore, yes we all have the potential of being buddha, but so far, we are not.

2-I personnally have a big problem with that:

"Another teaching, that I like personally, is that you do not have to be morally perfect since only a "stone buddha" would be that"

the buddha could not have said that. I have never seen his definition of morality, he rather say that you have to follow the eightfold path. and those eightfold path will lead you to perfect morality. you cannot be a buddha and still have unskilful thought. you cannot actually really have a thought, as we do with our mind, when your a buddha. you cannot cling to any intelectual though when your a buddha. and any morality issue you could have, when enlightment, is a non sense.

3-I do not agree with this:

"The goal is to be a living buddha, one who is free regardless of circumstance and does not grasp at the future or the past. This will automatically settle the defilements."

This means that So, as long as youdo not grasp, your englihtened? enghlightment is not that easy. Its not just about not grasping. this is just the beginning. men, I cant believe I need to say that really. how can englihtment be acheived by merely not grasping. Not grasping is a concept in itself that is impermanent. Not grasping is a concept that in itself is impermanenet, how can that be the road to enlghtment?

 

"the mind itseltf is buddha". I dont understand what that means really. The mind, and beleive me, I know what is the mind definition from a buddhist point of view, cannot be buddha. Buddha is free from the mind, liberated from the mind, apparently. How can the mind be buddha. buddha is free from it.

 

another problem, the last one :): "the way I see it, it is very difficult to use the word consciousness in a buddhist context, because consciousness is not used in the blanket term way it is used in the west. Rather, consciousness is divided in 8 layers of vijnanas and only the basic store-house, the alaya-vijnana, would be termed as a source for occurences. But this is not really the same as the consciousness that percieves senses or a self."

from what I have read, those 8 layers of vijnanas are more of a concept that is complicated for me to understand, I much prefer the explanation of the consciousness from the buddha whihc is. Just to repeat, I'm lost when it comes to all these definition and it does not help me to understand at all, but what the buddha says here is enough for me to understand what he means:

"

"And these kamma-formations, O monks, what is their source and origin, from what are they born, what gives existence to them? Kamma-formations have ignorance as their source and origin, they are born of ignorance and ignorance gives existence to them.

"Thus, O monks, through ignorance conditioned are kamma-formations; through the kamma-formations conditioned is consciousness; through consciousness conditioned is mind-and-body; through mind-and-body conditioned are the six sense-bases; through the six sense-bases conditioned is sense-impression; through sense-impression conditioned is feeling, through feeling conditioned is craving; through craving conditioned is clinging; through clinging conditioned is becoming; through becoming conditioned is birth; through birth conditioned are decay and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair. Thus arises this whole mass of suffering."

 

 

All you need to know and understand, which took me years to understand, and I still know I have only understood a glimpse, is to be know in the four noble truth and the eighfold path. just those things are to be understood really clearly. once its understood,

everything after that, all the definitions, all the different theories, explications, traditions just brings more understanding, intelectual understading that doesnt lead to enlgihtment at all or to less suffering I feel.

 

I hope you didnt stop reading half thru!

Edited April 7, 2013 by murphythecat8

 

"Buddhism is... one of the few religions that doesn't say 'if you're not a Buddhist you go to hell.' You can be a Buddhist Catholic, a Buddhist Protestant, you can be anything you want, because Buddhism is not as much a religion as it is a way of life.

 

"Life is a miraculous activity and we should all strive to become better people and find ways to help those around us. Let’s continue to make this world a better place."

 

- Steven Seagal (Shinto Priest, off-season Buddhist Monk and global spokesperson for Hair in a Can ®)

I hate to admit it but I have to agree with Seagal on this one. Buddhism isn't a religion to me, it's a roadmap out of the mental hell of just being human.

 

A lot of people seem to understand the principles and teachings of the Buddha, but just out of curiosity has anyone experienced the things it points to on a non-cognitive level? If so, is it really worth dedicating a massive chunk of your life to?

I think Buddhism serves as a religion for some and as simply a resource for others.

Edited April 7, 2013 by LimpyLoo

The problem with Buddhism is that those who preach it in the west are often hypocritical, take Steven Segal for example, that quote would be honest if it didnt came from a drunk who abuses women.

 

Also if Buddhism is a religion or not should be irrelevant, what matters is what it preaches and it seems to me that Buddhism is a pretty peaceful religion and can be helpful to those who find themselves in dark places (take note that i know nothing about Buddhism).

Edited April 7, 2013 by Deer

  On 4/7/2013 at 5:02 AM, westhead said:

I hate to admit it but I have to agree with Seagal on this one. Buddhism isn't a religion to me, it's a roadmap out of the mental hell of just being human.

 

A lot of people seem to understand the principles and teachings of the Buddha, but just out of curiosity has anyone experienced the things it points to on a non-cognitive level? If so, is it really worth dedicating a massive chunk of your life to?

hi. its been three years Im a buddhist.

I used to be not a addict, because I was only smoking weed, but a chronic weed smoker, smoking a couple of times everyday. I used to not go to school, insulting to my GF's, my family, my friends. not all the time, but I used to be a normal person you know, that get mad, and feally frustrated to the point of being aggressive toward my own self, like hitting shit, breaking stuf I loved. now, bear with me, I was not always like that, but I had a lot of issues, like evrybody I guess. I was sometime unhappy, sometime sad, ect. I am a thinker, meaingn that all my life, the philosophical question was realy of a concern. life didnt made sense, we do we suffer! why so much cruelty in the world, its so terrible, ect. When I was seventeen, I try to kill myself. now im 25 years old.

I have practised for the 2 first year only morality. meaning loving everyone, not judging, forget my ego as much as I can.

Now when I am on a bus, my ego is not really here, I do not suffer from it anymore, still a bit, but less and less everyday.

Now, for about 6 month now to a year, it happened like normally, like the normal process, I started to realize a lot of things in my life, mmy relation to people ect

do you need buddhism? I dont know. I see my girlfriend, an she is already for advance on the path without even knowing it. I used to hate people, she never did. I used to be aggressive, she never was. I used to judge people by their appearance, searching the negative in them, them faults ect. she never really did.

I really needed guidance, really really needed guidance, and any religion would have done the same thing because most of them preach morality right.

It is not that hard to practise, its a blast.

one of the three first thing to know is that:

1- the first libaration comes from discerning froms. we all do right

2- second liberation, you can have your own opinion, you are free of your thoughts

3- everything you see around you is beautiful

4- once everwhere you see, you do not think anything negative, you will stiop discerning froms.

 

so if you are at the number 3 stage, all you have to do is try to love everything that comes to you, everyone that passes your way, ect. it is not easy, and seriously so liberating.

I do not get involve with my own thoughts aymore. I know that they are controllable, and that they are not me, merely a conditioned process.

in a heartbeat, buddhism is a really hedonistic philosophy, if you are not happy all the time, you have a BIG problem ;)!!!!!

Edited April 7, 2013 by murphythecat8

i'd participate in this discussion but i'm so far down the path i no longer discern forums

im sorry, im out of this "discussion".

  On 4/7/2013 at 5:02 AM, westhead said:

A lot of people seem to understand the principles and teachings of the Buddha, but just out of curiosity has anyone experienced the things it points to on a non-cognitive level? If so, is it really worth dedicating a massive chunk of your life to?

It's kind of taboo to talk about it. To some degree, yes. And yes, it is worth it. It does what it says on the tin. The question is whether one is ready to give up what's necessary to go there, and you really have to think there's something fucked up with life as you know it in order to do that. So if, like another poster mentioned, you don't agree that life is suffering, you won't even bother.

 

But the truth of dukkha, suffering, is literally the first thing you encounter as you practice. It can be terribly boring, stressful and even painful to sit and watch your mind. Many beginners think that they're doing it wrong because of this and give up on meditation.

  On 4/7/2013 at 3:14 AM, murphythecat8 said:

okay. some of the thing you say here is not to be seen in the buddha teaching. I do not follow any other persons word but the buddha because he is the only one that is suppose to be englightened. Only a enlightened buddha is to be trusted, but im entering really delicate matter, and I can only talk for me. I do not trust any other teachers anymore. I usd to follow venerable Robina for 2 year, and well it blocked me in my developpment. her understanding was somewhat really far imo of the buddha words.

I understand your feelings on the matter. Some teachers are incompetent, some put "golden chains" on you, and some even sexually abuse their students. This kind of stuff doesn't just happen among western proponents of Buddhism. It is a really serious matter, and it's unfortunate that it happens.

 

I understand that you are coming from a Theravada viewpoint, while I am speaking mainly from a Mahayana perspective. I have studied the Pali Canon literature, but like I've said, I've mainly practiced and studied Zen. I am not going to try to prove you wrong but I want to provide my viewpoint in reference to your concerns on my statements.

 

What interests me isn't the "small vehicle" of Theravada or the "great vehicle" of Mahayana, but the One Vehicle, that which is the source of, and defines, both. This is really the bare-bones core, the nuts and bolts of Buddhism, and is exemplified in the Lankavatara Sutra:

  Lankavatara Sutra said:

The Blessed One said, "The recognition of the one vehicle is obtained when there is no rising of discrimination by doing away with the notion of grasped and grasping and by abiding in the reality of suchness."

  murphythecat8 said:

I have a BIG problem with this:

"It is a mahayana teaching, especially in Ch'an and Zen, that everybody is already a Buddha and the mind itself is Buddha. It is the mental defilements that prevent that realization, but these are not necessarily what one would ordinarily define as defilements. Another teaching, that I like personally, is that you do not have to be morally perfect since only a "stone buddha" would be that. The goal is to be a living buddha, one who is free regardless of circumstance and does not grasp at the future or the past. This will automatically settle the defilements."

The discrimination of defilement produces a false dichotomy of there being freedom apart from bondage, liberation apart from suffering, holiness apart from filth, and induces grasping. Grasping is the source of suffering and feeds into further discrimination. This is a really subtle and difficult aspect of Zen teaching, but grasping for freedom, and of eradicating defilements, produces the precisely opposite effect of what is intended by the original teachings. In short, it only produces further karma, as one strives for cessation and Nirvana, which is an oxymoron. Cessation cannot be brought about by the ego.

 

Meanwhile, the cessation of that grasping, including the discrimination of defilement, moral perfection or imperfection, will automatically bring about the realization that both are aspects of one wholeness, and that will eradicate one's karma as one is no longer inspired to seek further in the world for fleeting and unsatisfactory conditions - which are the source of moral misconduct and were previously only enticing because one did not recognize that wholeness, and the suffering involved in that seeking. So the idea of not pursuing moral perfection sounds counterproductive, but it isn't.

 

Otherwise there would be no meaning to the claim that one lets go of a lesser happiness for the sake of a greater happiness, and the idea of liberation would be false, imaginary and only involve circumstancial examples of moral refinement.

    Quote

1- a buddha mind is a mind that do not suffer. therefore, yes we all have the potential of being buddha, but so far, we are not.

 

[...]

 

you cannot be a buddha and still have unskilful thought. you cannot actually really have a thought, as we do with our mind, when your a buddha. you cannot cling to any intelectual though when your a buddha. and any morality issue you could have, when enlightment, is a non sense.

The problem is that delusion and enlightenment are aspects of one wholeness, the world of sunyata or suchness/emptiness.

  Ryokan said:

Where beauty is, then there is ugliness;

where right is, also there is wrong.

Knowledge and ignorance are interdependent;

delusion and enlightenment condition each other.

Since olden times it has been so.

How could it be otherwise now?

Wanting to get rid of one and grab the other

is merely realizing a scene of stupidity.

    Quote

"the mind itseltf is buddha". I dont understand what that means really. The mind, and beleive me, I know what is the mind definition from a buddhist point of view, cannot be buddha. Buddha is free from the mind, liberated from the mind, apparently. How can the mind be buddha. buddha is free from it.

Well, first of all, from the Pali Canon:

  Anguratta Nikaya said:

Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements.

 

Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements.

There cannot be a Buddha where there are no sentient beings. If sentient beings had no issues, the Buddhas would be out of work a long time ago.

 

In the same way, you cannot actualize the mind of enlightenment outside of the mind of delusion, and there exists no delusion apart from enlightenment.

 

It is discrimination that prevents this realization. So while one cannot use the Mind to find Buddha, there is no Buddha outside of Mind. The teaching of "Mind is Buddha" is a mnemonic intended to eradicate both Mind and Buddha, which are discriminations of there being either a Mind (something coming into birth, becoming fabricated) or a Buddha (something going out of birth, becoming unborn, unfabricated):

    Quote

A monk asked Baso, Why do you teach that Mind is Buddha?

Baso replied, To stop a baby's crying.

The monk asked, What is it like when the baby stops crying?

Baso answered, No Mind, no Buddha.

    Quote

This means that So, as long as youdo not grasp, your englihtened? enghlightment is not that easy. Its not just about not grasping. this is just the beginning. men, I cant believe I need to say that really. how can englihtment be acheived by merely not grasping. Not grasping is a concept in itself that is impermanent. Not grasping is a concept that in itself is impermanenet, how can that be the road to enlghtment?

Non-grasping, non-cultivation and non-discrimination are not concepts. They are the cessation of concepts within the world of concepts, non-thought in the midst of thought, Buddha in the midst of suffering. To exist in the world of forms, yet not be confused for a moment by the world of forms. To grasp at enlightenment will only create karma.

 

This is what is meant by the claim that enlightenment can only exist in the world of delusion. This means cessation of both attachment and aversion to the world of forms and sensations, as is described in the original Pali Canon. To be seduced by the world is attachment. To want to get rid of the world is aversion.

 

So, to my understanding, not grasping is not an impermanent concept or just the beginning. It is the whole nuts and bolts to the whole thing. It just reaches greater dimensions, and that is the difficulty of the practice.

Edited April 7, 2013 by chimera slot mom