Is the essence of Buddhist philosophy meaning the Escape From Nature?

Discussion in 'Eastern Philosophy' started by duendy, Oct 9, 2005.

  1. duendy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,585
    is the essence of Buddhist belief and practice intending the actual escape from Nature? what would you say?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,433
    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.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. duendy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,585
    well i will wait for you to elaborate a bit, if you will, before i give you my view
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,442
    Are you sure you are not equating "nature" to "reality"?
     
  8. duendy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,585
    please define the difference
     
  9. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,442
    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.
     
  10. duendy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,585
    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
     
  11. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,442
    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, from this site, maybe it will aid you to better understand your stance on Buddhism.
     
  12. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    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.
     
  13. duendy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,585
    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
     
  14. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    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.
     
  15. duendy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,585
    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
     
  16. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    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.
     
  17. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    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.
     
  18. Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,083
    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
     
  19. duendy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,585
    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
     
  20. Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,083
    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 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
     
  21. Russ723 Relatively Hairless Ape Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    158
    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.
     
  22. Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,083
    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.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2005
  23. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,442
    Duendy,


    Why are you explaining your view?


    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.


    Freedom from what?


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


    Why? And what trouble exactly?


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


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

Share This Page