is the essence of Buddhist belief and practice intending the actual escape from Nature? what would you say?

I would say the essence of Buddha's teaching was the goal of attaining human perfection, integrity in thought and action and compassion for all living beings.

I would say that you should define nature, what it means to you and what exactly was taught by Buddha that entails an "escape" from it.

You do realize, I am sure, that nibbana and samsara ARE aspects of nature. Correct?
If not, please explain to me why they are not.

I would say the essence of Buddha's teaching was the goal of attaining human perfection, integrity in thought and action and compassion for all living beings.

me:::i shudder when i hear of 'perfection'. as soon asyou posit perfect and aim for it, then inevitably you begin seeng 'IMperfect' everywhere, and end up in an isolated spot sat stone still wit eyes shut....for long, and longer and longer periods!

I would say that you should define nature, what it means to you and what exactly was taught by Buddha that entails an "escape" from it.

me:::I will try. Nature is how it IS. it is intelligent. to some human eyes, with an intellectual/philosophical bent it has been translated to b mute, and red in tooth and claw. From tere is te supposed need to ethe escape from it or put it right or have some god put it right.....But for me it is Intelligent. As Taoists say ...it is Way and unfathomable, nd its better to go WITH, rather than against. ie.., try sawing wood against the grain and it can get tough to do. try swimming against the current.....etc
I see Nature as cyclic, or better spiralic. and the NEED if for death as well a life to keep dynamic balance

You do realize, I am sure, that nibbana and samsara ARE aspects of nature. Correct?

me:::it would be very iteresting if you could elaboate what you mean when you say that?

If not, please explain to me why they are not.
well i will wait for you to elaborate a bit, if you will, before i give you my view

me:::I will try. Nature is how it IS. it is intelligent. to some human eyes, with an intellectual/philosophical bent it has been translated to b mute, and red in tooth and claw. From tere is te supposed need to ethe escape from it or put it right or have some god put it right.....But for me it is Intelligent. As Taoists say ...it is Way and unfathomable, nd its better to go WITH, rather than against. ie.., try sawing wood against the grain and it can get tough to do. try swimming against the current.....etc
I see Nature as cyclic, or better spiralic. and the NEED if for death as well a life to keep dynamic balance


Are you sure you are not equating "nature" to "reality"?

Are you sure you are not equating "nature" to "reality"?

please define the difference

I couldn't analytically and finitely define the difference between the two; sometimes, it seems it is possible to use the two terms interchangeably.

But I know from other discussions with you that you have a particular understanding of nature -- in terms of the dualism nature vs. society (culture).

I don't really know how to approach this here most succintly ... but due to that particular dualism, you also have a particular view of nature, a view that may not be in accord with what some others understand by nature.

This is complex.

just read a good example that relates to what you said, and my position.....in http://www.observer.co.uk titled 'Green Farm in £1m fight to survive'

(tryt read it)...summarized, tis farm is te last bastion of wild life haven. and is under threat from planners who want to make profit builing, airports, roads, bal flkin bbla

IS the latter 'culture' 'society' 'nature'..or is it total ignoreance, a cancer. a mindset that is totally cut off from itself. yes...we couldargue that tat too is 'natrual' as is a cancer that invades the body, but surely we dont WELCOME IT do we? we want to try and live more inelligently than tat dont we? this doesn't mean nature is versus culture....is more culture seeks to eradicate Nature.....as in its own way of being. its intelligence of sustainable being, which includes human activity and intelliegnce too, as we are talkng a farm here....not a jungle as such

anyways. read it and tel me your response, and if it relates to what is being said in your eyes

Duendy,


I haven't read the article, and I don't need to, for now, I know of similar cases.

I'll just say this:

In comparison to one's former, non-religious life, Buddhism seems plain, simple and tough, once you start to geting to know it better. Similar goes for other religions as well.

If one's norm of life is to be "interesting", to do a lot of things, to experience as much as you can, to have many things, many friends, be to many places, to not commit to anything or anyone etc., then upon investigating into an established religion may reveal this religion as "unnatural", "plain", "boring", "suffocating", "demeaning", "demanding", "oppressive", "aggressive", "trying to escape reality or nature" and more other negative attributes.

Whatever assessment or evaluation we make, it is based on a comparison. A comparison of two philosophies, of two worldviews. In this comparison, one of the philosophies or worldviews always ends up being the "better" one, the "righter" one, the "worthier" one.

You asked, "Is the essence of Buddhist belief and practice intending the actual escape from Nature?"

From the Buddhist perspective, one should not strive to escape anything, but embrace it, and then let it go, that is, let go of the attachment one has for it.

But if one argues from the position of consumerism, empiric science, or an idealistic worldview, to name just a few, Buddhism is likely to seem nihilistic, escapistic and a sheer drudgery under the pretense of happiness.

If you want to find arguments against something, you can surely find plenty. But the question is whether these arguments are justified, or whether they are just your assumptions.

Listen to this talk about assumptions (http://media.bswa.org/audio/mp3/Brahmavamso_2004_04_30.mp3), from this site (http://www.bswa.org/modules/mydownloads/viewcat.php?cid=4), maybe it will aid you to better understand your stance on Buddhism.

I would say Buddhism is neutral on the subject of nature, unlike Taoism. It is more concerned with a transformation of consciousness. This would have an effect on nature, but I think that's secondary.

I would say Buddhism is neutral on the subject of nature, unlike Taoism. It is more concerned with a transformation of consciousness. This would have an effect on nature, but I think that's secondary.

when you think about it, consciousness is all the time in transformation....one minute i am bored, the not, then angy then not, sad, giggly, lusty, ,,,,and on and on

what i noticed with tem buddhists i communicated with was how dishonest they were whhilst pretending otherwise. hypocritcal....after one had seriously abused me verbaly, he latr when on how detached h was from anger bla bla

let us remember, Buddhism is a monk thang. tat's how it begins. geared for the life on a monastry with its mechanical drill, just like christian monasteries......and both try and sublimate what thy see as gross natrual feelings into 'higher states' what is meant by 'transformation of conaciousess' in their book

as you say. with the Toists its different. thoughhhh i have to say. i actuallybecame a member of tis Tao forum. as soon, the instant i mentioned bot psychedelic experience i was 'politely' thrown off/censored....weretheyt true Taoists? not in my book......but looked at without becoming A 'Taoist' lookin at the bones of the Te Te Cing for example. it is al about cyclic transofrmationsof Nature and bodymind....a whole phenomena that simply cannot be pinned down with A name/label......that to me is closerthan this escape from life and death trip the Bs are on

Are you saying that the variety of emotions and states of consciousness are the natural thing, and that in Buddhism describing a method of transforming consciousness that seems to promote supressing these emotions, it is going against nature?

I think it's a misconception to think that suppression of emotions is the Buddhist path. As you can see, even self-proclaimed Buddhists indulge in emotional outbursts when they feel like it. But you see, controlling emotions is a temporary thing. Buddhism promotes a temporary suspension, or at least questioning awareness, of natural responses in order to achieve the higher purpose. Once that purpose is achieved, the method is discarded, and the emotions will arise without the interference of the deliberative mind. So, in the end, it's not emotion that is controlled, but the source of emotions that is transformed.

Are you saying that the variety of emotions and states of consciousness are the natural thing, and that in Buddhism describing a method of transforming consciousness that seems to promote supressing these emotions, it is going against nature?

me:::it is going against te way of how you feel. this feeling may be complex, overwhelming, messy etc. my way---what i recommend is ultimately freedom. and ecstatic exploration of feeling, emotion. rathr than sublimation. from my intuition about Buddhist philosophy it is a wanting to go beyond attachment to emotions, such as desire and so on via meditation......to me this is against Nature as such but is going aginst the grain of how one IS, which is dynamic. also i have trouble with all their emphasis on practiced meditation

I think it's a misconception to think that suppression of emotions is the Buddhist path. As you can see, even self-proclaimed Buddhists indulge in emotional outbursts when they feel like it.

me:::i am aware of that--i was there. but they DENY it. they are hypocrites who denounce your freedom of expression, then freely express but imply they are 'better' than you!

But you see, controlling emotions is a temporary thing. Buddhism promotes a temporary suspension, or at least questioning awareness, of natural responses in order to achieve the higher purpose. Once that purpose is achieved, the method is discarded, and the emotions will arise without the interference of the deliberative mind. So, in the end, it's not emotion that is controlled, but the source of emotions that is transformed.

exactly. so theyare seeking a goal of perfection, as they see it. and in tat is cope for much self-aggrndizment and elitism, and gangsteerism, and abuse

I guess it's a danger of any established religious system to become what it seeks to transcend. I can only say that Buddhists are people, too, and they can easily turn the medicine into the illness. Look at the 1960's. In the midst of a cultural revolution, they needed their gurus to follow just as sure as any fascist, in their case, it could have been Bob Dylan or Jimi. They hang over the edge, but refuse to leap. In the end they follow the old ways of hero worship and the comfort being a follower.

I think the Buddhist goal of enlightenment is a psychedelic state, just like a child, only it doesn't go away after 6 or 12 hours.

a psychedelic state where the subject preceives no opposites, nothing is dead and nothing is alive, nothing is good and nothing is bad, nothing is male, nor is female, no love and no hate, he or she is at the centre where all dualities cross, a void of bliss so to say

this is just my idea, I'm no buddhist priest

a psychedelic state where the subject preceives no opposites, nothing is dead and nothing is alive, nothing is good and nothing is bad, nothing is male, nor is female, no love and no hate, he or she is at the centre where all dualities cross, a void of bliss so to say

this is just my idea, I'm no buddhist priest

well lets look at that then. just say that what they want. can you imagine that? they then may claim that in order to really click with it you need to dive in and pracitce

but rather ue logic first, and intuition/...my very favourite Buddha quotewhere i would say 'bye bye' to him is where he advises one must find out for oneself....not allow another interpretaion to over power your integrity........so in that spirit i am not telling you nuthin. i am explianing my view

i couldn't even cpnceive of the actuality of not experincing opposites....obviously you get sad and you get happy. tose are just ords. what you really are is a dynamic living process wit shifting feelings. from there to abstract a goal of not-that...or beyond-that is where a concept becoems a kind of insidious attractor. you then want out of 'this' the shiting emotional you and environemnt to a dreamy state where you wont be affected by what you fear
if say it was thought te nrvana state to be chieved was like a non-stop psychedelic trip. how awful that would be. the whole point of ecstaic expression is that it lives...it reaches a climax and then it recedes gently. to want a constant state of anything is stasis. imagine being happy all te time. how wouldyou KNOW>>>>it WAShappy less you KNEW not that/sadness?...life death, dark light, wet dry...and so on. such is lifedeath. death's in flife and life in eath, a continuum

shiting emotional you and environemnt to a dreamy state where you wont be affected by what you fear
No, no, it's about becoming what you feared and what you adored.
Becoming the Kali that in her divine dance creates, nourishes and destroys.
And when one lives not in the present day, but realising the eternal quality of the moment,
the dual perception of time, emotion, etc. disappears.
There is no sadness, because nothing is lost,
and there is no more happiness because everything already is.


the whole point of ecstatic expression is that it lives...it reaches a climax and then it recedes gently
the rapture moment is that of the realisation, the transition from samsara to nirvanic bliss,
everything beyond that is eternal and with no distinction between what extasy or misery is, because there are no more such categories, no happiness, no sadness..

just like after a child is born he/she is no longer concerned with the problems and qualities of the mother's womb, it's another world with another set of rules, another reality

just like after a child is born he/she is no longer concerned with the problems and qualities of the mother's womb, it's another world with another set of rules, another reality

I thought about this when I was younger.

I had always been told that we were put here to learn lessons for the next life.

I started to wonder why we needed to learn things that weren't applicable in the next life.

I started to wonder why I was to spend a lifetime with this personality, only to lose the traits that define my personality upon death.

It was from there I began to learn that religion was bunk.

It was from there I began to learn that religion was bunk.
Because many make the mistake and read the symbols and metaphors literally, i.e., as if they were talking by an actual afterlife, physical immortality or somethig. If mythology is read like science, history or fact, it is then misinterpreted. Most things stand in place if you can see the metaphor and understand its' meaning, know what function mythology and rituals had, still can have. It's a psychological tool used for the transformation of consciousness and world perception of the individual and mythology (particulary the powerful archetypal symbols) awoken in rituals and also tales is the media in which this information is transmitted.

Reincarnation takes place while you're physically alive and there have to be many deaths and rebirths during the life, because only birth can conquer death and not of the old thing again, but of something new. A state of stagnation at some point becomes a psychological death for the individual, a constant flow of rebirths or reincarnations is needed.

That's the reason why we have so many depressed people around looking for the help of psychiatrists, people who have massive issues with the world around, their psyche hasn't been matured by mythology and rituals, they are children battling their childhood demons locked in mother-father-child conflict.
So either they mature themselves within the dream by creating their own personal mythology or the doctor does it for them.
But the psychiatrist only puts people back operational in the society,
it's the path the human him- or herself has to make that can make him a psychologically and mentally strong and mature individual past the problems of the society, outside and past the realm of its' problems.

And nowaday society as a whole has massive issues exactly because it has abandoned mythology, whole societies have become immature weaklings, and so now it is again for the individual to get past it and bring fire from the gods back down to Earth.

Mythology and rituals is a thousand of years hardened psychological scalpel and ambrosia in one designed specially for this purpose - transformation of human consciousness.

Duendy,



well lets look at that then. just say that what they want. can you imagine that? they then may claim that in order to really click with it you need to dive in and pracitce

but rather ue logic first, and intuition/...my very favourite Buddha quotewhere i would say 'bye bye' to him is where he advises one must find out for oneself....not allow another interpretaion to over power your integrity........

so in that spirit i am not telling you nuthin. i am explianing my view

Why are you explaining your view?



i couldn't even cpnceive of the actuality of not experincing opposites....obviously you get sad and you get happy. tose are just ords. what you really are is a dynamic living process wit shifting feelings. from there to abstract a goal of not-that...or beyond-that is where a concept becoems a kind of insidious attractor.

you then want out of 'this' the shiting emotional you and environemnt to a dreamy state where you wont be affected by what you fear

It seems that you assume that we cannot but feel the way we feel, and are left over to our mental and emotional states as if we had no influence over them.




Are you saying that the variety of emotions and states of consciousness are the natural thing, and that in Buddhism describing a method of transforming consciousness that seems to promote supressing these emotions, it is going against nature?

me:::it is going against te way of how you feel. this feeling may be complex, overwhelming, messy etc. my way---what i recommend is ultimately freedom.

Freedom from what?



and ecstatic exploration of feeling, emotion. rathr than sublimation. from my intuition about Buddhist philosophy it is a wanting to go beyond attachment to emotions, such as desire and so on via meditation......to me this is against Nature as such but is going aginst the grain of how one IS, which is dynamic.

Do you think that this attachment to emotions is conducive to happiness?



also i have trouble with all their emphasis on practiced meditation

Why? And what trouble exactly?




I think it's a misconception to think that suppression of emotions is the Buddhist path. As you can see, even self-proclaimed Buddhists indulge in emotional outbursts when they feel like it.

me:::i am aware of that--i was there. but they DENY it. they are hypocrites who denounce your freedom of expression, then freely express but imply they are 'better' than you!

Who is like that?
Does HH Dalai Lama "imply" he is "better" than you? Or is this implication your doing?




But you see, controlling emotions is a temporary thing. Buddhism promotes a temporary suspension, or at least questioning awareness, of natural responses in order to achieve the higher purpose. Once that purpose is achieved, the method is discarded, and the emotions will arise without the interference of the deliberative mind. So, in the end, it's not emotion that is controlled, but the source of emotions that is transformed.

exactly. so theyare seeking a goal of perfection, as they see it. and in tat is cope for much self-aggrndizment and elitism, and gangsteerism, and abuse

What do you mean? What self-aggrandizement, elitism, gangsterism, abuse? Explain.

Private note to Avatar (since he turned off the PM option):

Avatar, do you ever sleep?

sometimes :) I like to dream

You do realize, I am sure, that nibbana and samsara ARE aspects of nature. Correct?


Yes they are, but nibbana is only the highest goal in theravada. In Mahayana the goal is buddha hood. Or realisation of the buddha nature within us.


is the essence of Buddhist belief and practice intending the actual escape from Nature? what would you say?

Well, I suppose nature in buddhism is seen as ulimately not real, it is subject to change, impermenant and momentary. Real is defined as only that which does not change - Not real is all that is subject to change, but this does not mean nature has no existence whatsoever, just no inherent existence. Therefore us and nature (being subject to change) lack inherent existence.

In mayahana, the buddha is seen as transcending the impermanent and changing world. Buddha is immortal and omnipresent (lotus sutra, mahaparinirvana sutra). In this case with the goal of life being to achieve budhda hood, the goal is to transcend nature, or move from the not real to the real, or from the impermanent to the changless.

In theravada, as I understand it, there is never any transcendance of nature, and I believe that, in some schools, even enlightened beings, nirvana and buddha are still seen as being subject to change and impermanent.

so I gues it depends on which particlaur school of buddhism you want to discuss. They range from devotional practices in worlds filled with buddhas and devas to philosophies bordering on nihilism.
__________________________________________________ __________
EDIT -
please see this thread fo rexplanation of different schools;
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=49279
__________________________________________________ __________
I guess it depends on how you define nature as well. I have heard it defined as "everything in reality", now does that mean everything in unchanging reality (which could mean buddha), or only everything in the impermanent (subjective) reality.

Duendy,




Why are you explaining your view?

me::cause i feel it's aninteresting view i want to share. i havebeen aware over theyears how many have gone 'to the East' for sme kind of answer--have been thru phases of this meself. butare ignoreant of the duality that is in rthese beliefs. tis is what ilike to explore

It seems that you assume that we cannot but feel the way we feel, and are left over to our mental and emotional states as if we had no influence over them.

me::if you are 'sad' you=sad. why do you want to influence it?

Freedom from what?

me::from authority telling you how you must feel. guilting you tat your natrual self is bad and needs purifying through their means

Do you think that this attachment to emotions is conducive to happiness?

me::you canna be happy all the time anyhow. to even ask 'can you become disattachedto emotion' implies that there is twoseparate processes 'you' and 'emotions'.....tis is the subtle duality i mean. itis between a conceptual idealim of a 'higher self' vs the body. in patriarchal ideology, the body is always connevted with eemotions!

Why? And what trouble exactly?

me:::it is too interiorized. it is carrying on te propaganda throug the actual tradition. te sat stting there to try to sublimate and eventually get to a state byond suffering. as if that were even possible. i have no problem with just sitting tho. much less pretentious

Who is like that?
Does HH Dalai Lama "imply" he is "better" than you? Or is this implication your doing?

me:: the buddhists i had contact with. i am also not into the Dalai Lama. have heard his manner is very different on his home turf. whether the accounts are true. dont know.

What do you mean? What self-aggrandizement, elitism, gangsterism, abuse? Explain.

whaich is what i witness and suffered with thegangsta buddhists i had dealings with. they acted like a gang. ganging up. if i tried to talk with one who seemed airly more openminded, up popped anoter telling him in type not to talk to me....childish stuff like that

a person who says (s)he's a buddhist is only that - a person who says (s)he's a buddhist
same goes for christians, muslins, etc. - stating does not equal being

a person who says (s)he's a buddhist is only that - a person who says (s)he's a buddhist
same goes for christians, muslins, etc. - stating does not equal being
which is?

State your question more clearly. Is who?

State your question more clearly. Is who?
what is difference form someone stating they are Buddhist and BEING one?

stating does not equal being
stating may be being
if I stated I were a german it wouldn't make me a german, but it would give someone more reasons to assume that I'm a german, nothing more
it's basic logic

stating does not equal being
stating may be being

me::if i had said to any of the Buddhists 'youare not Buddhist you are meely STATING you are' i wouoda got even MORE abuse than i did already!

if I stated I were a german it wouldn't make me a german, but it would give someone more reasons to assume that I'm a german, nothing more
it's basic logic
so whatis a REAL Buddhist then in your opinion?

one who has taken the path advised by a buddha to achieve nirvanic bliss

one who has taken the path advised by a buddha to achieve nirvanic bliss
okayyyy. that is precisely what each of those Buddhists claimed

stating does not equal being

stating does not equal being
ohhhh puleeeze, dont go all zen on me

zen? it's basic logic
I suggest you try out a course in critical thinking,
your local university should have one, listeners are usually welcome (if for a small fee), talk with the prof.

zen? it's basic logic

me:::oh. relly

I suggest you try out a course in critical thinking,

me:: patronizer. i can think critically ta. and yourself?

your local university should have one, listeners are usually welcome (if for a small fee), talk with the prof.

not even if you pain sunshine

now. where hae we got to? you aint convinced me of nowt cewpt you can patronizequite well. those Buddhists i mentioned could too. so...whats new?

so...whats new?
You probably have a medical condition. Braindamage I presume. Sorry to know, good luck in curing it! :) Consider my advice after/if you get well.

You probably have a medical condition. Braindamage I presume. Sorry to know, good luck in curing it! :) Consider my advice after/if you get well.

hehehe...well done Avatar, and join the Buddha club. that abuse you have spewed my way is exactly part of the abuse i got from
m ze buddhists i have been mentionin

'brain damage' hey?...i seeee. so, it's like tis: IF someone does not agree with me, and/or i dont understand whee they are coming from. ori just simple knpow that i am absoultely right, then hey presto, THEY must be brain damaged. wuuuu now that's critical thinkin init

compare your worldview with the present secual wordlview where peopl are 'diagnosed' with 'mental illness'--ie., 'biological disease' if their behaviour is not deemed to conform with the demnds of the culture. ie., they claim that your brain is damged and needs fixing with their medication. or you lot itis meditation and the shit you read

what you should learn from this young man is that itis very offensive indeed to accuse someone of having brain damage!.....such blind absurd ad hoc judgements does zilch for your cause.

chill out, duendy boy, I'm not a buddhist, seek your fleas elsewhere
and it was not about agreeing or disagreeing, but about logic and critical thinking

chill out,

me::haha funny guy. he calls someone braindamaged gets a natrual reaction and then says chill

duendy boy,

me::I am not the boy. you are the boy.

I'm not a buddhist, seek your fleas elsewhere

me::who you trying to kid.....?

and it was not about agreeing or disagreeing, but about logic and critical thinking
so where is it then???

one who has taken the path advised by a buddha to achieve nirvanic bliss

There is no path advised by a Buddha.

Isn't there? Not directly of course, but the teachings are that how to reach buddhahood. At least that is my impression.

Isn't there? Not directly of course, but the teachings are that how to reach buddhahood. At least that is my impression.
WELL you've got THAT right ...bitch!

actually it is a contradiction. thats why teres so many screwed up buddhists

Calm down, duendy boy, a little chillout will do you good.
Everything is fine, take a deep breath, count to five.

Calm down, duendy boy, a little chillout will do you good.
Everything is fine, take a deep breath, count to five.
actually avatar...boy, i was completely calm when i posted that reply to you.

duendy,




me::cause i feel it's aninteresting view i want to share. i havebeen aware over theyears how many have gone 'to the East' for sme kind of answer--have been thru phases of this meself. butare ignoreant of the duality that is in rthese beliefs. tis is what ilike to explore

This duality exists only if you insist on keeping your "Western" mind, conditioned to think of itself in terms of "personality" or "ego", yet still try to understand "Eastern" thought. It won't work.
This duality is ot inherent to "Eastern" thought per se.



me::if you are 'sad' you=sad. why do you want to influence it?

Because maybe, I am causing myself suffering, by being sad as a result of ignorance, fear, depression, mine or another's ill will or conceit.
Generally, nobody wants to suffer, and we try to avid suffering or eliminate it.

For example, I was sad and angry for a long time that I have brown eyes. People who were close to me all cherished blue eyes, and said that brown eyes are so common, and that I am nothing special, since I have brown eyes. And that, since I have brown eyes, and am thus nothing special, I should not hope to ever be loved by a man.

Yes, this may sound stupid, but if you are a 10-year old girl who is fed such prejudice, you will be deeply hurt by it. And you won't know how to stand up against it without causing yourself more aggravation and without filling yourself up with resentment and anger.

Now, the question is, how to rationally refute that prejudice.



Freedom from what?

me::from authority telling you how you must feel. guilting you tat your natrual self is bad and needs purifying through their means

Please. If anything, Western culture is brutal at this. Statistically based psychology posits a "norm", and then you are expected to confirm to it, or you are branded as "abnormal". It is modern consumerist Western culture that constantly tells you "You are not good enough as you are!"



Do you think that this attachment to emotions is conducive to happiness?

me::you canna be happy all the time anyhow. to even ask 'can you become disattachedto emotion' implies that there is twoseparate processes 'you' and 'emotions'.....

But they are separate. You are not your emotions.



tis is the subtle duality i mean. itis between a conceptual idealim of a 'higher self' vs the body. in patriarchal ideology, the body is always connevted with eemotions!

I don't think so at all.
The mind, as far as I understand Buddhism, is just a container of thoughts, whatever they are, memories or perceptions. You are not your mind. The thoughts that you have -- they are not you, and you don't own them. If anything, you are just harboring them, literally.



me:::it is too interiorized. it is carrying on te propaganda throug the actual tradition. te sat stting there to try to sublimate and eventually get to a state byond suffering. as if that were even possible. i have no problem with just sitting tho. much less pretentious

I'm not an expert on Buddhism, so I am only giving you my opinion. But from as much as I have read and listened to, it seems I understad it. Don't take my words to be any kind of official authority on Buddhism though. I'm just telling you things as they work for me.

So ... as far as I understand, we don't practice or meditate so as to get something out of it. There is no goal to meditation.

We practice because we suffer.

And as we practice, our mind turns around, so to speak.

But as soon as you sit down with a particular goal, things will go haywire and you'll become angry and nervous.
As soon as you sit down in order to "sublimate emotions and eventually get to a state of no suffering" -- you have set yourself up for disappointment.



Who is like that?
Does HH Dalai Lama "imply" he is "better" than you? Or is this implication your doing?

me:: the buddhists i had contact with.

Are you determined to let it be that way, and leave it at that, and let those people be your only source of information on Buddhism?



i am also not into the Dalai Lama. have heard his manner is very different on his home turf. whether the accounts are true. dont know.

So you have nothing but assumptions to go with?



whaich is what i witness and suffered with thegangsta buddhists i had dealings with. they acted like a gang. ganging up. if i tried to talk with one who seemed airly more openminded, up popped anoter telling him in type not to talk to me....childish stuff like that

You can be bigger than that. You don't have to be shut down by that.



what is difference form someone stating they are Buddhist and BEING one?

Heh. Some Buddhists will tell you "There are no Buddhists!"
The term "Buddhist" is just a practical necessity so that the people who are of a certain inclination can be informed about things concerning them.



me::if i had said to any of the Buddhists 'youare not Buddhist you are meely STATING you are' i wouoda got even MORE abuse than i did already!

What kind of abuse?
Were they deriding you verbally, or did they go at you physically or threatened to do so?



okayyyy. that is precisely what each of those Buddhists claimed

Do not let the object of your examination define itself. You are being passive in your analysis, taking that someone is something just because they say so.




I suggest you try out a course in critical thinking,

me:: patronizer. i can think critically ta. and yourself?

Avatar made a perfectly reasonable suggestion.



hehehe...well done Avatar, and join the Buddha club. that abuse you have spewed my way is exactly part of the abuse i got from
m ze buddhists i have been mentionin

It is your own pride that offends you.



'brain damage' hey?...i seeee. so, it's like tis: IF someone does not agree with me, and/or i dont understand whee they are coming from. ori just simple knpow that i am absoultely right, then hey presto, THEY must be brain damaged. wuuuu now that's critical thinkin init

compare your worldview with the present secual wordlview where peopl are 'diagnosed' with 'mental illness'--ie., 'biological disease' if their behaviour is not deemed to conform with the demnds of the culture. ie., they claim that your brain is damged and needs fixing with their medication. or you lot itis meditation and the shit you read

what you should learn from this young man is that itis very offensive indeed to accuse someone of having brain damage!.....such blind absurd ad hoc judgements does zilch for your cause.

He did not accuse you of brain damage. He said:

"You probably have a medical condition. Braindamage I presume."

He used the words "probably" and "I presume". This is not an accusation, it is a presumption.

There is no path advised by a Buddha.

There is the middle path ...

actually it is a contradiction. thats why teres so many screwed up buddhists

Duendy, I'm afraid you are suffering from the paralysis of analysis.

duendy,





This duality exists only if you insist on keeping your "Western" mind, conditioned to think of itself in terms of "personality" or "ego", yet still try to understand "Eastern" thought. It won't work.
This duality is not inherent to "Eastern" thought per se.

me:: i AM an ego. i AM a personality. a personality--te term comes of course from Greek 'persona' maning 'mask'......i have different masks for different occasions, and new ones too. i am not ashamed of alltis. but all te Eastern propaganda makes one feel ashamed. which is what i mean about guilting your natrual being.
And i never said that only Eastern beliefs harbour dualistic notion. thoug tey certainly do



Because maybe, I am causing myself suffering, by being sad as a result of ignorance, fear, depression, mine or another's ill will or conceit.

me::when you are sad, or whateve emotion you are feeling. wat ever feeling is being felt. we ARE that feeling. there is no little person separate from it. thoug of coure we do sometimes try andget out of what we feel, and thiw can excacerbate it. but really to be against your actual feeling is conflict. think about it

Generally, nobody wants to suffer, and we try to avid suffering or eliminate it.

me::completely agree there. i certainly dont wanna suffer. yet some pople into S&M do.....! for thier pleasure!
i note Buddhism makes a big thing about 'all is suffering' though. and then offers
its 'cure'

For example, I was sad and angry for a long time that I have brown eyes. People who were close to me all cherished blue eyes, and said that brown eyes are so common, and that I am nothing special, since I have brown eyes. And that, since I have brown eyes, and am thus nothing special, I should not hope to ever be loved by a man.

me::i have brown hazel eyes too. some blue eyes seem too piercing to me. luuuuurve brown eyes hehe

Yes, this may sound stupid, but if you are a 10-year old girl who is fed such prejudice, you will be deeply hurt by it. And you won't know how to stand up against it without causing yourself more aggravation and without filling yourself up with resentment and anger.

me:::some pople feel ashamed by actually feeling. so say someone hurts you. usually as a child you may cry, but te oldee ya get you get proud so hold te pain in. i say..learn to get in touch wit feeling. they is you. what makes us human

Now, the question is, how to rationally refute that prejudice.




Please. If anything, Western culture is brutal at this. Statistically based psychology posits a "norm", and then you are expected to confirm to it, or you are branded as "abnormal". It is modern consumerist Western culture that constantly tells you "You are not good enough as you are!"

me::which DERIVES for ITS religious and philosophical indoctrination. our ntrual being isNEVER good enough for them. in te secual world tis tranlates that unless you re a child wit serous frowned studious brow, and 'good attentin span' for teir inhdoctrinting utterly deadening drivl, ten you are 'biologically diseased'. that's how eveil it's become!




But they are separate. You are not your emotions.

me::i am saying we are. we are not an 'emotion' because what we are is always shifting as such. but to claim i am differnt from my joy is dualistic. you could never really hae fun could you. as is te case for many adults, sady.




I don't think so at all.
The mind, as far as I understand Buddhism, is just a container of thoughts, whatever they are, memories or perceptions. You are not your mind. The thoughts that you have -- they are not you, and you don't own them. If anything, you are just harboring them, literally.
me::yes. they demonize thought itself, and claim tem for their power over you. hathappened to old Buddha claiming not to believe another's interpretation. which is what thqt is.




I'm not an expert on Buddhism, so I am only giving you my opinion. But from as much as I have read and listened to, it seems I understad it. Don't take my words to be any kind of official authority on Buddhism though. I'm just telling you things as they work for me.

me::fine. ditto.

So ... as far as I understand, we don't practice or meditate so as to get something out of it. There is no goal to meditation.

me::tat is what they SAY. but it seems dosgy to me. so i just sit when i sit etc








We practice becaus suffer .

me::better to BE sufferng. it passes

And as we practice, our mind turns around, so to speak.

But as soon as you sit down with a particular goal, things will go haywire and you'll become angry and nervous.
As soon as you sit down in order to "sublimate emotions and eventually get to a state of no suffering" -- you have set yourself up for disappointment.




Are you determined to let it be that way, and leave it at that, and let those people be your only source of information on Buddhism?

me:: i am not worrying about it. i am just giving my view about it



So you have nothing but assumptions to go with?

me::i try and pay attention to feelings, and what people say



You can be bigger than that. You don't have to be shut down by that.




Heh. Some Buddhists will tell you "There are no Buddhists!"
The term "Buddhist" is just a practical necessity so that the people who are of a certain inclination can be informed about things concerning them.




What kind of abuse?
Were they deriding you verbally, or did they go at you physically or threatened to do so?
me::stuff like avatar said. which i feel is abusive. i can see through it, but some people are more vulnerable and believe tese self important idiots as an authority




Do not let the object of your examination define itself. You are being passive in your analysis, taking that someone is something just because they say so.




Avatar made a perfectly reasonable suggestion.

me::he is an abusive shit, and childish and full of himself. period



It is your own pride that offends you.

me: no. itwas avatar that offended me!



He did not accuse you of brain damage. He said:

"You probably have a medical condition. Braindamage I presume."

He used the words "probably" and "I presume". This is not an accusation, it is a presumption.
thats your interpetation. i dont agree wid it

duendy,



me:: i AM an ego. i AM a personality.

Then you better stay away from Buddhism, and any theism as well.



a personality--te term comes of course from Greek 'persona' maning 'mask'......i have different masks for different occasions, and new ones too. i am not ashamed of alltis. but all te Eastern propaganda makes one feel ashamed. which is what i mean about guilting your natrual being.

It seems easy to make you feel ashamed and offended.



me::when you are sad, or whateve emotion you are feeling. wat ever feeling is being felt. we ARE that feeling. there is no little person separate from it. thoug of coure we do sometimes try andget out of what we feel, and thiw can excacerbate it. but really to be against your actual feeling is conflict. think about it

It seems you have made feelings into your god ...



i note Buddhism makes a big thing about 'all is suffering' though. and then offers
its 'cure'

This is not true. Not once have I see a Buddhist text claim that "all is suffering".
I suggest you read this: Life isn't just suffering (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/lifeisnt.html) by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.



me:::some pople feel ashamed by actually feeling. so say someone hurts you. usually as a child you may cry, but te oldee ya get you get proud so hold te pain in. i say..learn to get in touch wit feeling. they is you. what makes us human

I think you are very romantic and idealistic.



Now, the question is, how to rationally refute that prejudice.

And this point, you completely missed.



But they are separate. You are not your emotions.

me::i am saying we are. we are not an 'emotion' because what we are is always shifting as such. but to claim i am differnt from my joy is dualistic. you could never really hae fun could you. as is te case for many adults, sady.

Okay, so you are your emotions.
But this doesn't mean that I am my emotions, or that some other person is his emotions. Maybe we experience themselves differently than you.



me::yes. they demonize thought itself, and claim tem for their power over you.

?



me::tat is what they SAY. but it seems dosgy to me. so i just sit when i sit etc

So they say that, yes. So what?




It is your own pride that offends you.

me: no. itwas avatar that offended me!

Dhammapada 1:

3. The hatred of those who harbor such ill feelings as, "He reviled me, assaulted me, vanquished me and robbed me," is never appeased.


4. The hatred of those who do not harbor such ill feelings as, "He reviled me, assaulted me, vanquished me and robbed me," is easily pacified.


5. Through hatred, hatreds are never appeased; through non-hatred are hatreds always appeased -- and this is a law eternal.


6. Most people never realize that all of us here shall one day perish. But those who do realize that truth settle their quarrels peacefully.

no. itwas avatar that offended me!
You offend yourself, duendy boy. Your perception of the world around you, in you and through you.
As for me, my wish is not to offend anyone, my only wish is to play and join in with the natural dance of Kali. And I am honest during that play.
A clear mind can not be offended. You receive only an impulse, emotion you create yourself and for yourself.
Take a deep breath, count to five, know your mind, be its master not the slave.

duendy,




Then you better stay away from Buddhism, and any theism as well.

me::good advice



It seems easy to make you feel ashamed and offended.

me::what? trhat a belief yatem would claim that my feelings are needing calming down or transcendin or whatever teir book says? no, i just am seeing through it and talk about my view




It seems you have made feelings into your god ...

me:hah.......well that is quit ironic. if we are talking 'god', from i hav learnt , he classical Dionysians took a psychedelic sacrament which theybelieved WAS god/Dionysos/god of Nature, etc etc, and...thatthey beCAME hir.......the ecstatic experience ISa deeper dimensional OF feeling. does that mean i do that?...not really..but i can understand that view. you can feelpossessed...the actual term that ws translated from the ancient Greek for 'entheuiasm'




This is not true. Not once have I see a Buddhist text claim that "all is suffering".

me::ok

I suggest you read this: Life isn't just suffering (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/lifeisnt.html) by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.




I think you are very romantic and idealistic.

me::i tink you are naive and stuck on the Dalai Lama, whih in itself is fairly romantic...very actually!



And this point, you completely missed.




Okay, so you are your emotions.
But this doesn't mean that I am my emotions, or that some other person is his emotions. Maybe we experience themselves differently than you.

me:maybe



?




So they say that, yes. So what?

me::sorry cant snip my quotes. some reponses i cannot remember



Dhammapada 1:

3. The hatred of those who harbor such ill feelings as, "He reviled me, assaulted me, vanquished me and robbed me," is never appeased.


4. The hatred of those who do not harbor such ill feelings as, "He reviled me, assaulted me, vanquished me and robbed me," is easily pacified.


5. Through hatred, hatreds are never appeased; through non-hatred are hatreds always appeased -- and this is a law eternal.


6. Most people never realize that all of us here shall one day perish. But those who do realize that truth settle their quarrels peacefully.

yes. someones view...........

You offend yourself, duendy boy.

me::your doing it now. does calling me 'duendy boy' make you feel big or something?

Your perception of the world around you, in you and through you.

me::how do you know what the perception of the world around me is?

As for me, my wish is not to offend anyone, my only wish is to play and join in with the natural dance of Kali. And I am honest during that play.

me::well ...'honesty' can be very callous if no sensitivity is applies. callin smeone, or implying someone is braindamaged is not cool.

A clear mind can not be offended. You receive only an impulse, emotion you create yourself and for yourself.

me:tthats what ypu tell yourself is it? no, to offend is YOU offending.

Take a deep breath, count to five, know your mind, be its master not the slave.

do YOU want braindamage...haha

:your doing it now. does calling me 'duendy boy' make you feel big or something?
No, it is yourself, who sees being a boy as something undesired.
As for me, I like that phrase since seeing "Clockwork Orange" long ago.

how do you know what the perception of the world around me is?
By your responses. Of course I presume you're not making a theatre.

thats what ypu tell yourself is it?
No, that's what I know.

do YOU want braindamage...haha
Is it yours to offer?

so....your a wannabe zen master hey?
try this:

sorry is the hardest word

sorry is the hardest word
My pleasure to please you!
I am sorry for your mind being in such a state that it insulted itself reacting to nothing, but my little, playful words.
Feel better? :)

duendy,




I suggest you read this: Life isn't just suffering by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

Have you read this?




I think you are very romantic and idealistic.

me::i tink you are naive and stuck on the Dalai Lama, whih in itself is fairly romantic...very actually!

Look. I think that your view, as it is, is modern and can survive only if life is relatively easy for you. But think about people who actually work to sustain themselves, people who work hard in fields from dawn to dusk, or indigenuous people who hunt and gather for a living. From that perspective, your view is very romantic and idealistic.
I'm not saying that my life is that hard, but if I would cling to my emotions as much, if I'd feel offended and intruded into as easily as you do, my life would be hell.




me::sorry cant snip my quotes.

YES, YOU CAN SNIP QUOTES, AND I HAVE TOLD YOU SO MORE THAN ONCE.

I can see that you are replying via an advanced reply with quote window. If your system allows you to do that, then it also allows you to post parts of quoted text.

Here's what you can do:

Do you have a mouse? Can you copy-paste?

With the mouse, mark the post you are replying to. If you are running Windows, press ctrl+c or right-click and choose "copy".

Then scroll down to the bottom of the thread. There, you will find a "Quick Reply" window. Click into it with the mouse, and click ctrl+v (that is, press they key "control", hold it, and then press the key "c", then let go both), or right-click on the mouse and choose "paste". This will copy-paste the marked post.

If the "Quick Reply" window doesn't show, then in the same line (it's a grey oblong field and on the right it says "Quick Reply") click the + sign, this will open it.

Once you are in the "Quick Reply" window, you can freely delete and type.

Be sure to delete the [ QUOTE] tag in the upper left corner of the "Quick Reply" window, as well as the [ /QUOTE] tag in the lower right corner of said window.


Okay? If you still don't know what to do, or if what I told you doesn't work, then describe what you have done, and what happened.

My pleasure to please you!
I am sorry for your mind being in such a state that it insulted itself reacting to nothing, but my little, playful words.
Feel better? :)
sorry is the hardest word

duendy,





Have you read this?

me::dont need to, i already know



Look. I think that your view, as it is, is modern and can survive only if life is relatively easy for you. But think about people who actually work to sustain themselves, people who work hard in fields from dawn to dusk, or indigenuous people who hunt and gather for a living. From that perspective, your view is very romantic and idealistic.

me::how do you know how hard or easy my life is? dont make presumptions. i dont about yours. only that you keep accusing me of being romantic and idealistic yet yo follow an old dude from the romantic climes of Tibet, and believe he is te reincarnation of whomever and etc etc. all tat IS idealisitc and romantic. accept dont project

I'm not saying that my life is that hard, but if I would cling to my emotions as much, if I'd feel offended and intruded into as easily as you do, my life would be hell.

me::dont undermine how i may feel offended when someone else offends me. you worry about your own feelings. i can take care of mine on my own thanks.





YES, YOU CAN SNIP QUOTES, AND I HAVE TOLD YOU SO MORE THAN ONCE.
m::dont fukin shout. and dont fukin tell me what to do

I can see that you are replying via an advanced reply with quote window. If your system allows you to do that, then it also allows you to post parts of quoted text.

me::look lady. please. if i wanna lessons how to use a computer i will let you know. ok?

Here's what you can do:

Do you have a mouse? Can you copy-paste?

With the mouse, mark the post you are replying to. If you are running Windows, press ctrl+c or right-click and choose "copy".

Then scroll down to the bottom of the thread. There, you will find a "Quick Reply" window. Click into it with the mouse, and click ctrl+v (that is, press they key "control", hold it, and then press the key "c", then let go both), or right-click on the mouse and choose "paste". This will copy-paste the marked post.

If the "Quick Reply" window doesn't show, then in the same line (it's a grey oblong field and on the right it says "Quick Reply") click the + sign, this will open it.

Once you are in the "Quick Reply" window, you can freely delete and type.

Be sure to delete the [ QUOTE] tag in the upper left corner of the "Quick Reply" window, as well as the [ /QUOTE] tag in the lower right corner of said window.


Okay? If you still don't know what to do, or if what I told you doesn't work, then describe what you have done, and what happened.
ok. read before that free unwanted lesson. stick to te subject!

I give up.

I give up.
on what? trying to turn me onto Buddhism?
snippin and pastin?
or both?

Braindamage I presume. Clearly a medical condition, water. ;)

Braindamage I presume. Clearly a medical condition, water. ;)
me::for those with any insight.
as i said, right from the beginning, these followers gang up, judge, abuse people, and then disown their OWN behaviour

And as I said before: seek your fleas elsewhere. ;)
I'm not a buddhist, just a guy who's interested in mythologies. So your follower argument is flawed.
For instance, I know about christianity more than most christians do, but that doesn't make me a christian.

Duendy,


I am certainly not trying to "turn you onto Buddhism" (now here's a thought!).

You have asked some questions, and I have happened to know some answers to them, so I joined this discussion.

It would be nice and practical if you'd learn to post properly. Many people have asked you that before. It is often difficult to read your posts, as your replies are intermingled with the post you quoted, and some things also get lost.

But I won't argue with you anymore.

And as I said before: seek your fleas elsewhere. ;)

me::not heard tat saying before. wherem does it come from, and what does it mean?
you DO keep sayin it quite a lot






I'm not a buddhist, just a guy who's interested in mythologies.

me::same here. whats yer favourite? do you hve one? didn't you mention Kali? how serious do you follow her?

So your follower argument is flawed.
me::well you do seem childish. am i wrong about that too?

For instance, I know about christianity more than most christians do, but that doesn't make me a christian.
.........i would like to know what you know about christianity. did Jesus exist? what does te resurrection man?....tis is exciting for me. i have never met anyone before who knows SO much about Christianity (yes. sarcasm, but i'm still intrested)

Duendy,


I am certainly not trying to "turn you onto Buddhism" (now here's a thought!).
me::coulda fooled me

You have asked some questions, and I have happened to know some answers to them, so I joined this discussion.
me::and you are very welcome water. i kinda like your style

It would be nice and practical if you'd learn to post properly. Many people have asked you that before. It is often difficult to read your posts, as your replies are intermingled with the post you quoted, and some things also get lost.
me::well i am sorry about tat. but i feel you are making it an isue. many others dontcomplain. only some who use it as ad hominem when they cant tink what to say about the subect matter. i persnally like different styles of reponse. more diverse. less conformist

But I won't argue with you anymore.
we weren't arguing. though you DID lose your temper bout me composition...naughty girl

me::not heard tat saying before. wherem does it come from, and what does it mean?
you DO keep sayin it quite a lot
There is another one too: Every wolf suffers fleas, t'is easy enough to scratch.

same here. whats yer favourite? do you hve one? didn't you mention Kali? how serious do you follow her?

I have no favourite one, they're all the same when one looks under the hood - same functions, same heroes under many names. The Sandinavian ones are the most interesting to read though (for me).
And I follow no gods, they're just metaphors that describe some dynamic of the universe.
They are there to find them in yourself and get past them to a higher level of awareness/consciousness.

well you do seem childish. am i wrong about that too?
No, you are not. Children enjoy living in another quality than the adults.

did Jesus exist?
Yes, but not as the christian church tells it.

what does te resurrection man?
Spiritual rebirth.

This is a thread about buddhism though, christianity is for the religion section of this forum.

we weren't arguing. though you DID lose your temper bout me composition...naughty girl

You yet have to see me lose my temper.

You yet have to see me lose my temper.
whats it? bigger caps and in red??

There is another one too: Every wolf suffers fleas, t'is easy enough to scratch.
me::i have one: you have weird sayings, like an Arab

I have no favourite one, they're all the same when one looks under the hood - same functions, same heroes under many names.
me:that to me sounds likethe 'perennial philosophy' which tends to try mould all myths into one meaning. i am not a fan of it.

The Sandinavian ones are the most interesting to read though (for me).
me::right

And I follow no gods, they're just metaphors that describe some dynamic of the universe.
They are there to find them in yourself and get past them to a higher level of awareness/consciousness.

No, you are not. Children enjoy living in another quality than the adults.

me::being a child and being 'childISH' are two differnt things

Yes, but not as the christian church tells it.

Spiritual rebirth.

This is a thread about buddhism though, christianity is for the religion section of this forum.
i know. its a shame init?

whats it? bigger caps and in red??

He he. Khhh.

i thought buddhism was a system of personal development. a system of personal development which goal is the enhancement of life. this is no more an escapism than a seed taking root in the most nourishing soil.

There is the middle path ...

Explain please.

I think the essence of Buddhism to fulfill all of your desires

What do I mean? A man with many cravings has many notions that he "does not have"

Where as a man who is completely desireless has the notion that he "has everything"

So fulfill all of your desires by fulfilling one root desire you have

A man who is completely desireless will achieve the greatest happiness because he will always think he has everything he wants

The essence of Buddhism is to achieve unceasing bliss

Well said, VitalOne!

I think the essence of Buddhism to fulfill all of your desires

me::how do you mean?

What do I mean? A man with many cravings has many notions that he "does not have"

me:dont undersand that

Where as a man who is completely desireless has the notion that he "has everything"

me::i can understand that in that say a man who is desperate for bing bling will neverbe satisfied wit a simple rockin chair on a porch, and birds singin

So fulfill all of your desires by fulfilling one root desire you have

me::root desire.....?

A man who is completely desireless will achieve the greatest happiness because he will always think he has everything he wants

me::well it sounds...er good? ..on paper but isit realistic to assume one can be actually desire-less?....one can see that it would help not to want so much consumer goosds one gets into mad debt and the misery of al that, yeah. but to be desireless seems prepostrrous. for urel even the ascetic buddhist monk sat sittin meditatin desires what that can give him........and what if he desires sex. isthat bad?

The essence of Buddhism is to achieve unceasing bliss
yes. which is a DESIRE to achieve unceaaing bliss. and unceasing bliss is an impossibility. for you can only know bliss when you have its opposite/ you cant attain static reality. if you really think about it, it is a horrible idea!

and unceasing bliss is an impossibility
It's not if you are one with all the existance. And it's possible, just requires a lot of psychological work and the ego has to be destroyed, so human becomes not more wanting than a raindrop.

dont undersand that
That's your problem, duendy boy.
And you're too deep sunken in your own individuality and ego to understand atm.

Cheers!

yes. which is a DESIRE to achieve unceaaing bliss. and unceasing bliss is an impossibility. for you can only know bliss when you have its opposite/ you cant attain static reality. if you really think about it, it is a horrible idea!

Nah, you don't get it. It's not pleasure nor pain. You're thinking of pleasure, in which unceasing pleasure is an impossibility. Pleasure and pain are caused by material nature. They're different sensations caused by chemical reactions. This is why you DETACH from the material nature, so you experience your natural state.

It's more of a...you know when you're relaxed, carefree, have no worries, it's like that state (only better)

It's not if you are one with all the existance. And it's possible, just requires a lot of psychological work and the ego has to be destroyed, so human becomes not more wanting than a raindrop.

me::so you expect me to buy you got everlasting bliss huh? see how long THAT idea lasts kiddo!

That's your problem, duendy boy.
And you're too deep sunken in your own individuality and ego to understand atm.

Cheers!

you are one arrogant yout

so you expect me to buy you got everlasting bliss huh? see how long THAT idea lasts kiddo!
Don't worry, duendy boy, I sell nothing and I couldn't care less about the state of your mind and what you think or don't think about me.


you are one arrogant yout
Just having a good time, that's all.

Cheers!

p.s. Not everlasting, eternal, there's a difference. Buddhism does not speak of an everlasting bliss, but about the eternal quality of the moment.

Don't worry, duendy boy, I sell nothing and I couldn't care less about the state of your mind and what you think or don't think about me.

me::good. it is good you respect your individuality. seriously

Just having a good time, that's all.

me::i am all for that. i am glad you are

Cheers!

me:hehe..your very welcome

p.s. Not everlasting, eternal, there's a difference. Buddhism does not speak of an everlasting bliss, but about the eternal quality of the moment.

i like that better. tough this will mean terror. terror must be included. for it is awesome too....dont mean terrorism mind

i like that better. tough this will mean terror. terror must be included. for it is awesome too....dont mean terrorism mind
Of course, terror, death, malice, it's all a part of the sublime dance of Kali.
Those all are aspects of this universe and aspects of yourself as a part of this universe.
In buddhism you become what you feared and what you desired.
If one is prepared to dissolve into nothingness and has no problems with that, sister Death is welcomed as an old friend.

I think the essence of Buddhism to fulfill all of your desires

What do I mean? A man with many cravings has many notions that he "does not have"

Where as a man who is completely desireless has the notion that he "has everything"

So fulfill all of your desires by fulfilling one root desire you have

A man who is completely desireless will achieve the greatest happiness because he will always think he has everything he wants

The essence of Buddhism is to achieve unceasing bliss


"The definition of a wealthy man is one who knows he has enough"

Tao te ching - Lao Tze

not escape from nature, to connect with nature (look deeper into its philosophies) not like the daoist beliefs, but to actually rise above nature onto a higher plain, but simultaniously stay intune with it but detatch the mind.

forget about all the BS teachings religions and society need to keep their Buddha happy and focus on the thoughtless-silence of meditation that will sooner or later make you realize that YOU ARE THE BUDDHA.

"The definition of a wealthy man is one who knows he has enough"

Tao te ching - Lao Tze

The definition of a wealthy man has nothing to do with what he has.

The definition of real wealth is the person who is content and complete with what he IS and not with what he has ... be it enough or not.

The definition of a wealthy man has nothing to do with what he has.

The definition of real wealth is the person who is content and complete with what he IS and not with what he has ... be it enough or not.


look deeper into the quote and you will find it includes what you just said there,


you are what you have,


peace

you are what you have,

You are your caries.
You are your wife.
You are your house.
You are your pants.
You are your katana.
You are your gangrene.

...

You are what you want to be.

and often what you dont want to be.

and often what you dont want to be.

How come?
How is it possible that one often is not what one wants to be?

How come?
How is it possible that one often is not what one wants to be?
say your sad yu may say to yourself 'i mustn't be sad'...so ten your in a contradiction of --i Am sad: i must't be sad.....same with other emotions and feelings.......tyhe brain educatedly reinforced in left-brain abstractionism tortures itself trying to be what its not ......what should be instead of what is

so........does this mean, next time i am sad i MUSTN@T have the thought i mustn't be sad?

no. tht tought is part of the process, maybe. it's just when it starts BULLYING and takin over so much so it stops tears and letting out breath!

say your sad yu may say to yourself 'i mustn't be sad'...so ten your in a contradiction of --i Am sad: i must't be sad.....same with other emotions and feelings.......tyhe brain educatedly reinforced in left-brain abstractionism tortures itself trying to be what its not ......what should be instead of what is

so........does this mean, next time i am sad i MUSTN@T have the thought i mustn't be sad?

no. tht tought is part of the process, maybe. it's just when it starts BULLYING and takin over so much so it stops tears and letting out breath!

I think this is just the problem of
1. identification -- the problem of "Which thoughts (or states) do you identify with?"
and
2. agenda over reality.

With clarity of mind, both can be done away with.

I think this is just the problem of
1. identification -- the problem of "Which thoughts (or states) do you identify with?"
and
2. agenda over reality.

With clarity of mind, both can be done away with.
this is where we dis-agree. for the Buddhist way as usually put foreward is to
transcend bodily emotion....to sublimate into states of 'bliss' etc. but i am saying that emotional expression is VERy important. it makes us human.
for me Buddhism tat argues for transcending pain is of a similar mindset to bio-psychiatry which also commnicates a social shame to actuall feel things in a raw deep way and thus recommends or coereces drugging feeling away
i, on te other hand want to encourage emotions and feelings, because they are more in tune with bodily awaress. are bodily awareness

I think this is just the problem of
1. identification -- the problem of "Which thoughts (or states) do you identify with?"
and
2. agenda over reality.

With clarity of mind, both can be done away with.
but you are saying that you are something you dont want to be.
you say i need something to be something else.
you say i need clarity of mind to be free from problems 1 & 2


How come?
How is it possible that one often is not what one wants to be?
how come? well, i geuss because we are not perfect. we are work in progress and if there is life, a healthy life, there will be growth towards a better state of existence, a more satisfactory state, which is that little bit more perfect.


How is it possible that one often is not what one wants to be?
potential to change is potential to be something else. life desires its most satisfactory state of existence and so the possibility of being something that one does not want to be is born (often).

this is where we dis-agree. for the Buddhist way as usually put foreward is to
transcend bodily emotion....to sublimate into states of 'bliss' etc. but i am saying that emotional expression is VERy important. it makes us human.
for me Buddhism tat argues for transcending pain is of a similar mindset to bio-psychiatry which also commnicates a social shame to actuall feel things in a raw deep way and thus recommends or coereces drugging feeling away
i, on te other hand want to encourage emotions and feelings, because they are more in tune with bodily awaress. are bodily awareness

I'm sorry. I don't see how this relates to what I said.

Ellion,





I think this is just the problem of
1. identification -- the problem of "Which thoughts (or states) do you identify with?"
and
2. agenda over reality.

With clarity of mind, both can be done away with.

but you are saying that you are something you dont want to be.
you say i need something to be something else.

*If* I had the problem of identification, then I'd say "I am something I don't want to be".



you say i need clarity of mind to be free from problems 1 & 2

Yes.

is the essence of Buddhist belief and practice intending the actual escape from Nature? what would you say?
I think while Buddha believed in 'escaping' from society to integrate with the nature. That is what he practised.

But he realised that humans will live in societies and be governs by it, so he showed them how to live in the society peacefully, while still being in touch with nature.