GENIUS FORUMS

David,

A perfectly enlightened Buddha COULD do anything with no attachment whatsoever. But he wouldn't because doing so wound undermine wisdom.

Then, that makes sense. A enlightened being does differentiate between acts. He has a conscience and he has consciousness of wisdom. He could rape a baby with no feelings of attachment but he would choose not to do so because such an act would undermine wisdom.

Some might argue that raping a baby has no consequence in terms of wisdom but I think that such an act does. I do think there is a vast difference between a psychopath and an enlightened being though both could rape a child with no feelings of attachment whatsoever.

Faizi

Matt,

I have watched many hundreds of people die -- very old people and young children and babies. My philosophy on that score can be summed up as "Life is a bitch and then you die."

I think that is pretty much it. I gave birth twice and I did not require medications for that and I had easy births. Dental work is not particularly painful for me. One reason that birth was not a big deal for me is that, because women tell these very horrifying tales of birth, I was expecting to feel this lightening bolt of terrific pain that would bring me to my knees; that the pain would be so great that I would nearly die from it.

So, anything short of that fell considerably short of expectations. Giving birth was just no big deal.

I have no way of knowing but I wonder if death is kind of like that. It used to bother me when I was a kid and people spoke about the sting of death. I figured it must be like a gigantic bug bite or that God must be a wasp -- for real -- not just a WASP.

Because it is unknown, I do not look forward to death but, at fifty three, I know it is not all that far off. Something tells me that it is not that big of a deal. Maybe it is and I will writhe in unspeakable pain in the throes of death.

When I say that life is a bitch and then you die, I mean that we struggle all our lives to survive -- my level, at least -- or to accomplish this or that thing. Then, it's done. Over. Outta here. Pretty meaningless.

You may not want to admit it but on some level you cared about your grandmother or you could not have cried.

I grieve for patients when they die. I admit that. I don't go to their funerals. But I do grieve for them. I admit that I am sentimental. Not so much because I am personally attached to each patient. Just because they are human. I hate to see them suffer.

I can hate it all that I want but suffering is a big part of human existence. It is in our nature to suffer.

This morning I saw one woman whom I call the Duchess of Rockbridge. In her late forties. Unless something drastic happens, she is going to die very soon. Of pancreatitis. Not from drinking. Partially self caused. Partially just caused.

On a recent Thursday, I saw a ninety five year old woman who still lived independently and who still drove -- very fast -- and who still sold Avon cosmetics. She also did volunteer work in the prisons. Picture of health. Ironically, she said, "My daughters call me during the week but they don't call me on Saturday. I reckon I will die on a Saturday."

Sure enough, she died the very next Saturday.

I wonder about crap like that. This woman never came to the doctor. The reason she came on that Thursday was not for anything life threatening. Just a small cyst.

Often, people -- young or old -- unconsciously know when they are dying. I think this woman knew. They give off signals. We often do not recognize those signals until after the fact.

My husband who died definitely signaled it. Most people do.

I will stop.

Death is not an unusual thing. It is usual. We just treat it as unusual.

Faizi

Do you practice compassion in your life?

That's the second really tough question I've been asked in the same day.

My answer is: sometimes.

MKFaizi wrote:You may not want to admit it but on some level you cared about your grandmother or you could not have cried.

Yeah, I cared about her. She was familiar to me and I suppose I was grieving the loss of something familiar. I think familiarity holds our lives together. Everybody strives to keep everything in their lives within the familiar. I think the most tragic thing about Hurricane Katrina is the loss of familiarity that the people are being forced to experience, but maybe it will bring some wisdom to this country through the suffering of the loss of familiarity.

Leyla,

DQ: Do you practice compassion in your life?

LS: That's the second really tough question I've been asked in the same day.

My answer is: sometimes.

What's an example?

-

Marsha,

A perfectly enlightened Buddha COULD do anything with no attachment whatsoever. But he wouldn't because doing so wound undermine wisdom.

Then, that makes sense. A enlightened being does differentiate between acts. He has a conscience and he has consciousness of wisdom. He could rape a baby with no feelings of attachment but he would choose not to do so because such an act would undermine wisdom.

Some might argue that raping a baby has no consequence in terms of wisdom but I think that such an act does.

Why? What are the negative consequences?

The baby is likely to be too unconscious to experience any psychological truama from the act, and even if the Buddha in question goes to jail for his crime and has his moral reputation completely shattered in the eyes of society, he can still preach the truth and inspire people to give up all attachments - can't he?

I do think there is a vast difference between a psychopath and an enlightened being though both could rape a child with no feelings of attachment whatsoever.

Of course, as you know, society regards enlightenment itself to be a form of psychopathy. The enlightened person rejects all human values and emotions, and he is immune to other people's pleas to be empathatic with them. By all the common criteria he is a psychopath, regardless of whether he rapes babies or not. So how do you distinguish the two?

-

DavidQuinn000 wrote:Marsha,

A perfectly enlightened Buddha COULD do anything with no attachment whatsoever. But he wouldn't because doing so wound undermine wisdom.

Then, that makes sense. A enlightened being does differentiate between acts. He has a conscience and he has consciousness of wisdom. He could rape a baby with no feelings of attachment but he would choose not to do so because such an act would undermine wisdom.

Some might argue that raping a baby has no consequence in terms of wisdom but I think that such an act does.

Why? What are the negative consequences?

The baby is likely to be too unconscious to experience any psychological truama from the act, and even if the Buddha in question goes to jail for his crime and has his moral reputation completely shattered in the eyes of society, he can still preach the truth and inspire people to give up all attachments - can't he?

The question if a so-called "perfectly enlightened Buddha" could commit rape or any morally wrong act with unknown consequences or not seems to belong in the same league as where those theologians discussing how many angels can dance on one pinhead. That is: the whole question when asked is completely beside the point and any answer won't really make sense.

Even so, to me it seems obvious that the suggested scenario, like so many other similar violating acts, comes forth out of a repressed desire for power or lust, being committed by people who are completely unaware of their drives and caught in the karmic web like no other. Hard to imagine a Buddha among those. It's like suggesting a Buddha is 'free' to become delusional, which in theory he is. But come on....

This answer too, of course, doesn't make real sense.

Today, it’s “casual wear” day at work.

Everyone was invited to participate.

Most turned up in jeans.

One of the consultants received an urgent contract delivery request. The boss man felt it inappropriate that she deliver these documents wearing jeans and, said so. When the consultant disagreed that there was an issue, he said, “Look, I’m entitled to dominate.”

Turns out he didn’t really believe it – after making somewhat of a scene from which I walked away in disgust.

Women.

David quoted:

Women in dual-income families undertake almost 13 hours of unpaid housework a day compared with 10.7 hours for men.

Hell! That made me laugh. Between the two of them, that's 24 hours of unpaid work they do each day, apart from the time they are both at paid work.

Where do they live? In a 100 room mansion, with 200 acres of gardens, and no slaves?

Diebert wrote:

DQ: The baby is likely to be too unconscious to experience any psychological truama from the act, and even if the Buddha in question goes to jail for his crime and has his moral reputation completely shattered in the eyes of society, he can still preach the truth and inspire people to give up all attachments - can't he?

DvR: The question if a so-called "perfectly enlightened Buddha" could commit rape or any morally wrong act with unknown consequences or not seems to belong in the same league as where those theologians discussing how many angels can dance on one pinhead. That is: the whole question when asked is completely beside the point and any answer won't really make sense.

Even so, to me it seems obvious that the suggested scenario, like so many other similar violating acts, comes forth out of a repressed desire for power or lust, being committed by people who are completely unaware of their drives and caught in the karmic web like no other. Hard to imagine a Buddha among those. It's like suggesting a Buddha is 'free' to become delusional, which in theory he is. But come on....

The point is, a Buddha would have no problems doing something that is "morally reprehensible" if he thought it would sufficiently serve the cause of wisdom - even if it meant going to jail for the rest of his life and losing all credibility in the eyes of society as a result.

But whatever he decided to do - rape babies, steal, murder, undermine society, etc - it wouldn't be delusional. A Buddha is incapable of delusion, by definition.

This answer too, of course, doesn't make real sense.

You mean, it's nonsense?

-

But whatever he decided to do - rape babies, steal, murder, undermine society, etc - it wouldn't be delusional. A Buddha is incapable of delusion, by definition.

Can you give an example of a non-delusional situation in which a Buddha would rape a baby to serve the cause of wisdom?

He might determine that his students are stagnating and undermining their own potential because of their attachment to conventinal thinking - or, even more critically, because of their own devotion to him. He might conclude that he needs to shock them into action.

-

I am trying to work out exactly what stage of development such students would be at.

For instance, with respect to devotion to the Buddha, if he were to rape a baby it would certainly shock me in the opposite direction. I would not, therefore, consider it a wise, non-delusional activity. Yes, you might rid yourself of a devotee, but how has wisdom progressed?

Is a wise Buddha unable to handle the situation of devotees in any other manner?

Looking at it from another angle, let's say I had reached a certain level (?) of non-attachment -- I reckon the only time that fucking a baby could shock me into any positive kind of action would be if I were not already attached to babies for the most part. I mean, it would have to be like an "Oh yeah, that's right, they're only babies" kind of moment. No? Now, how did I get there without someone fucking babies in order for me to arrive in the first place?

Otherwise, the Buddha would have to fuck babies over and over and over again whilst I was bound and gagged until the whole event no longer affected me.

What elements would have to be present for me to necessarily realise an aberrated devotion to the Buddha through the rape of a baby?

I cannot reason any out.

Reckon I'd rather put a bullet in the guy's head.

I grant that it's an extreme example and unlikely to ever be played out. The Buddha in question would have to judge whether the benefits will outweigh the negative consequences of engaging in such a violent act. It would certainly require a unique set of circumstances to make it feasible, but even then, it's hard to imagine him not finding a better way of achieving a similar outcome.

However, it's the principle of the thing which interests me - namely, the perfect willingness to behave in a morally reprehensible manner if needs be. Jesus did this to some extent when he attacked not only the religious leaders of his time, but also marriage, love, and women.

I've always liked Kierkegaard's take on this issue:

When one preaches Christianity in such a way that the echo answers "he is
mad", know then this signifies that there are considerable elements of truth in
his preaching. But perhaps he is not pressing hard enough, either by his oral
preaching or by the preaching of his life.

But when one preaches Christianity in such a way that the echo answers "Away
with that man from the earth, he does not deserve to live", know then that this is
the Christianity of the New Testament.

-

DavidQuinn000 wrote:

Diebert wrote:This answer too, of course, doesn't make real sense.

You mean, it's nonsense?
-

Nonsense in so far as the initial, extreme example was in my opinion nonsense to begin with. The reason in this case is that the nature of the Buddha represents compassion, while regarding all around him as helpless babies. Also regarding all around him as one, any small deed the same as a large deed. His interest for the total well-being of one baby will be seamless with the care for the whole of humanity. He doesn't make calculated moves in efficiency here, making individual sacrifices for the good of the masses. He cannot be else than perfect and enlightened in each move he makes.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:His interest for the total well-being of one baby will be seamless with the care for the whole of humanity. He doesn't make calculated moves in efficiency here, making individual sacrifices for the good of the masses. He cannot be else than perfect and enlightened in each move he makes.

Interesting... but in the real world, moral decisions have to be made on the fly, with limited information. However good your intentions, it seems to me that situations will arise where you could have done something better, in hindsight.

Or maybe the wise thing is to avoid getting into those sorts of (morally ambiguous) situations in the first place?

DHodges wrote: Interesting... but in the real world, moral decisions have to be made on the fly, with limited information. However good your intentions, it seems to me that situations will arise where you could have done something better, in hindsight.

This is why I don't think it can be a calculation, weighing the numbers or all possible effects since one cannot know all the infinite factors involved. So what counts is the situation at that very moment, and the dilemma can only be really solved by being there, living it - just like the solving of a Zen koan: no theoretical answer, the student will answer the master only in the now and they will know.

By the Way, the word compassion as I used it refers more to "the quality of deeply understanding the suffering of others", than something to do with sharing some feeling, let alone some moral code.

I think the difference there is that expressing your understanding of a koan to a zen master is expressing something to someone who already stands in the Infinite, that's why premeditation is useless in that case. I would think that a zen master communicating to the ignorant would be a lot different, since he has the relative randomness of the person's delusions to deal with. The enlightened mind can cut through the chaff and see what someone is really saying about Reality, but the unenlightened can't do this.

Kierkegaard was pretty well just a nutcase caught up in the illusion of the worth of wisdom, which has become a self-love, just like all other things one values. The fact that wisdom is useful and practical to humans has no bearing on reality. Overall, I don’t have much respect for him, although he did say a lot of wise things. The QRS have similar problems. They live the impossible dream of logical perfection. Be wary of the lure of their religious attitude towards wisdom, it only has value for those that can live with its illusion.

There are no circumstances in which a Buddha would rationally rape a baby. None. It is a dud argument. Of course, I do not actually believe in that any true buddha’s have existed. To me it is simply not logically possible for a conscious being to have a budda nature, although they may have buddha-like attributes. The second a buddha performs some action to advance what they believe, then at that instant they fail the test of being a buddha, they are trying to influence people towards what THEY value, in a valueless reality.

Diebert wrote:

DQ: You mean, it's nonsense?

DvR: Nonsense in so far as the initial, extreme example was in my opinion nonsense to begin with. The reason in this case is that the nature of the Buddha represents compassion, while regarding all around him as helpless babies. Also regarding all around him as one, any small deed the same as a large deed. His interest for the total well-being of one baby will be seamless with the care for the whole of humanity He doesn't make calculated moves in efficiency here, making individual sacrifices for the good of the masses. He cannot be else than perfect and enlightened in each move he makes.

The trouble is, life is not that simple. Calculation is necessary because often there are competing interests and the obvious solution just isn't there. A Buddha constantly has to weigh up situations - spontaneously, of course - before deciding how to act. He doesn't stop applying his mind just because he is enlightened.

An example is Gautama Siddharta's dilemma of whether to admit women into the sangha (his monastic community). Here he had a choice between allowing women to participate in the community and practice his teachings, and that of keeping his community masculine-orientated, elitist, lofty and pure. On the one hand, by allowing women in he is acting "compassionately" towards them by giving them every available means to become wise; on the other hand, he knows how easily women can corrupt a spiritual community through a lowering of standards.

So what does he do? Go on gut instinct? Or weigh up all the considerations?

At the insistence of his monks, he eventually went against his better judgement and chose the former course of action. And because of this, Buddhism has become so feminized that, as a spiritual force, it is almost dead. He clearly didn't weigh up the situation enough.

-

David Quinn wrote: The trouble is, life is not that simple. Calculation is necessary because often there are competing interests and the obvious solution just isn't there. A Buddha constantly has to weigh up situations - spontaneously, of course - before deciding how to act. He doesn't stop applying his mind just because he is enlightened.

I have difficulty digesting the idea of 'spontaneous calculating' that you imply. Maybe better call it a higher form of intuition, but such intuition also doesn't give anybody total control over the future. In the end we all have to deal with a manifested universe of probabilities, being a Buddha or not. He is master over his own actions only and should act accordingly.

David Quinn wrote:An example is Gautama Siddharta's dilemma of whether to admit women into the sangha (his monastic community). (...)

Currently I'm in agreement with Jamesh somewhat: there's no reason to equal the historical person named 'Gautama' and the history attached to him with the pure and perfect 'Buddha'.

But even if we would: he took a chance, challenged fate with it and who knows how history would have turned out with another decision. He must have known as well that everything one does becomes undone sooner or later, it's just the way it goes. The more reason it seems to take proper care of the smaller scale events happening in front of us, following our spiritual nature, as opposed to trying to fix a distant complex future with our decisions. Or perhaps the ripple effect of the Buddha takes care of the longer term in its own way.

Jamesh wrote: Be wary of the lure of their religious attitude towards wisdom, it only has value for those that can live with its illusion.

As I understand it, they value wisdom highly. I don't think that is necessarily a 'religious' attitude. Can you choose what you value? If you can, doesn't it make sense that you would want to choose wisely? (If you can't choose, then either you value wisdom or you don't, and nothing can be done about it.)

The second a buddha performs some action to advance what they believe, then at that instant they fail the test of being a buddha, they are trying to influence people towards what THEY value, in a valueless reality.

Reality does not have any inherent values, but by the same token, it is not inherently valueless.
As to what a buddha would or would not do, I would not presume to say.
But if you value wisdom, I don't see anything contradictory in trying to promote wisdom in others.

Thats the smartest thing I heard you say yet D.Hodges

Diebert wrote:

DQ: The trouble is, life is not that simple. Calculation is necessary because often there are competing interests and the obvious solution just isn't there. A Buddha constantly has to weigh up situations - spontaneously, of course - before deciding how to act. He doesn't stop applying his mind just because he is enlightened.

DvR: I have difficulty digesting the idea of 'spontaneous calculating' that you imply. Maybe better call it a higher form of intuition, but such intuition also doesn't give anybody total control over the future. In the end we all have to deal with a manifested universe of probabilities, being a Buddha or not. He is master over his own actions only and should act accordingly.

Sure, even a Buddha can only deal in probabilities in the empirical realm, just like everyone else. But at least he eliminates the possibility of errors arising from sloppy reasoning, emotional outbursts, irrational biases, mental blocks, etc, and ensures that his brain functions at an optimum level.

As for his "spontaneous calculating", this refers to his effortless ability to reason deeply with great insight in any situation. To call this "intuition" would be misleading because there is a strong undercurrent of conscious rationality involved. What people normally call "intuitions" are random insights which are largely generated by blind chance. By constrast, a Buddha's insights are more the result of his fearlessness and lack of mental blocks, which allow his reasoning powers to roam around without hindrance.

DQ: An example is Gautama Siddharta's dilemma of whether to admit women into the sangha (his monastic community). (...)

DvR: Currently I'm in agreement with Jamesh somewhat: there's no reason to equal the historical person named 'Gautama' and the history attached to him with the pure and perfect 'Buddha'.

Agreed. I don't really believe he was a perfect Buddha myself, given what we currently know about him. I simply used his situation as an example of where wise consideration needs to come into play.

But even if we would: he took a chance, challenged fate with it and who knows how history would have turned out with another decision. He must have known as well that everything one does becomes undone sooner or later, it's just the way it goes. The more reason it seems to take proper care of the smaller scale events happening in front of us, following our spiritual nature, as opposed to trying to fix a distant complex future with our decisions. Or perhaps the ripple effect of the Buddha takes care of the longer term in its own way.

True, we can't predict with certainty what will happen in the future and even our best-laid plans can come unstuck. But this doesn't mean that we should behave myopically in the way you are suggesting. We can still work to minimize the possibility for negative consequences to unfold.

For example, if Gautama had made greater efforts to keep his philosophic movement uncompromising, repulsive and pure, he would have given it a greater chance to survive down the ages unscathed. But alas, he didn't.

-

wisdom and all that jazz....


those older folk know
that it's all just a wish-filled
shadow show where
as love matures desire
for your cohort dies.

and god knows how much
he loves his wive!
but when that young girl passes
in a gossamer of perfume
and that fuck me now
look in her eyes...
how he frets for
his consumed youth
and sighs:

"If only I could
hold her in my arms again,
and in that cradle of hunger and fire
remain forever young and unwise...

...what would I care then
for love and its attendant suffering
or wisdom on a soap-box
inspired by the smell of carrion..."