Dennis Mahar wrote:You can't have the form without the empty
When attachments grow or would be maintained, the hurt would still be experienced as sympathetic reaction. When the objects of attachment are gone and not maintained through ritual or serious remembrance (or clinging, reliving) the ties often weaken to the degree of not invoking strong feelings anymore ( but it might still be absorbed subconsciously, mind you).SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Kunga wrote: So.....you have no feelings anymore ?
Have you ever had a pet dog or cat ?
Didn't you feed then and love them ?
On this note, you or anyone in Aus might have heard, or it will probably be on the news soon, a friend of mine from school who aspired to be a commercial airline pilot died in a "fiery explosion" after taking off in solo training yesterday in Victoria. I must have sat with this guy thousands of time over years. I clung (is that a word?) to exactly zero emotions, no attachment to any feelings of loss or delusion. How do you think I felt about the death of a dog?
That may be true in general, but I can safely say any relationship, no matter how often maintained (such as girlfriend), would do little, if anything, to affect me emotionally if it were severed even by death- for the very good reason that emotional attachment is based in egotism and a sense of self vaguely clung to through fragile memory. In other words, everyone's going to weaken, decay, and die, probably much quicker than expected, as shown it could be tomorrow, no point having a teary about things passing in obedience to 'destiny' (transience).Diebert van Rhijn wrote: When attachments grow or would be maintained, the hurt would still be experienced as sympathetic reaction. When the objects of attachment are gone and not maintained through ritual or serious remembrance (or clinging, reliving) the ties often weaken to the degree of not invoking strong feelings anymore ( but it might still be absorbed subconsciously, mind you).
SeekerOfWisdom wrote:That may be true in general, but I can safely say any relationship, no matter how often maintained (such as girlfriend), would do little, if anything, to affect me emotionally if it were severed even by death- for the very good reason that emotional attachment is based in egotism and a sense of self vaguely clung to through fragile memory.Diebert van Rhijn wrote: When attachments grow or would be maintained, the hurt would still be experienced as sympathetic reaction. When the objects of attachment are gone and not maintained through ritual or serious remembrance (or clinging, reliving) the ties often weaken to the degree of not invoking strong feelings anymore ( but it might still be absorbed subconsciously, mind you).
Yes, you know all that. But close relationships with things that are more complex than forks and spoons do require a bit more engagement from us. Practically this turns out to be some kind of sympathetic linkage, the ability to walk in the other being's shoes for a bit and "feel for them". If you remove that factor, communication will become hard or even impossible as we need to read "minds" a bit before analyzing all the words, at least in "real", fast life. Especially with pets and other animals! This bond will have consequences by pure causality but it's hard to say how deeply that will affect each and every individual. But just knowing how transitional things are will not always matter. You can't beat the causality of the bonding experience.SeekerOfWisdom wrote: I can safely say any relationship, no matter how often maintained (such as girlfriend), would do little, if anything, to affect me emotionally if it were severed even by death- for the very good reason that emotional attachment is based in egotism and a sense of self vaguely clung to through fragile memory. In other words, everyone's going to weaken, decay, and die, probably much quicker than expected, as shown it could be tomorrow, no point having a teary about things passing in obedience to 'destiny' (transience).
They will need to read each other minds if they have to agree on a starting point and time! :) Otherwise the mind reader will always win.Leyla Shen wrote:Lol
For the life of me (and I do mean that literally) I cannot grasp how having the wisdom of causality lessens or eliminates sympathetic suffering, as a matter of fact, for me, it only intensified the feeling-connectivity that was already present in my pre-causal-aware consciousness. In other words, reasoning the things of God, for me, put out the fire of not knowing the truth of God's nature, but this dousing of mental ignorance in no way doused the fire of feeling the effects/affects of having been caused to have a body, and by 'being caused to have a body', I am referring to the Universal or Omnipresent Body of Flesh.Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Yes, you know all that. But close relationships with things that are more complex than forks and spoons do require a bit more engagement from us. Practically this turns out to be some kind of sympathetic linkage, the ability to walk in the other being's shoes for a bit and "feel for them". If you remove that factor, communication will become hard or even impossible as we need to read "minds" a bit before analyzing all the words, at least in "real", fast life. Especially with pets and other animals! This bond will have consequences by pure causality but it's hard to say how deeply that will affect each and every individual. But just knowing how transitional things are will not always matter. You can't beat the causality of the bonding experience.SeekerOfWisdom wrote: I can safely say any relationship, no matter how often maintained (such as girlfriend), would do little, if anything, to affect me emotionally if it were severed even by death- for the very good reason that emotional attachment is based in egotism and a sense of self vaguely clung to through fragile memory. In other words, everyone's going to weaken, decay, and die, probably much quicker than expected, as shown it could be tomorrow, no point having a teary about things passing in obedience to 'destiny' (transience).
I understand animal nature in human being and its consequences, i.e. behaving like a sloth or a horny chimpanzee so that being fully engaged in causality remains at bay but what is absent from your response, which was present in the wiki snippet, is the effects/affects of flesh consciousness on the actual animal kingdom: the lions, the zebras, the spiders, the flies, the rats, the cockroaches, etc. The author may be way off base in his or her interpretation of the Buddha's teachings, i.e., the idea of soul transmigration, but how is he or she an animal by virtue of feeling compassion for animal consciousness?David Quinn wrote:If it was a retort, it was a very mild one. In truth, one cannot have enough contempt for the trashing of the Buddha's wisdom as expressed in that entry. It is like watching someone paint a moustache on the Mona Lisa.movingalways wrote:This is wisdom's voice, a dismissive retort?David Quinn wrote:Only an animal could write that wiki entry.
The path taught by the Buddha was primarily about mental development, involving not only intelligent investigation into the nature of reality, but also developing a profound grasp of human psychological realities. One can only enter into enlightenment on the back of an intelligent awareness of one's own psychology and thinking through the consequences of one's thoughts and actions. The Buddhist realms of existence (i.e. the animal realms, the hell realms, the god realms, the human realm, etc) need to be understood in this light.
As the Buddha himself said, hardly anyone on this earth is lucky enough to be born into the human realm - that is to say, hardly anyone becomes entrenched enough in that youthful, vibrant mentality full of curiosity, intelligence, open-mindedness, passion, rationality, and love of truth, to be able to make a proper run at enlightenment. It is a very rare and precious attainment! Most people either degenerate contentedly into animals by the time they are young adults, losing interest in just about everything, or else they slide screaming into the fires of hell. Either way, nirvana is forever lost to them.
But if you listen to the above entry, everything is hunk-dory. Everyone is already in the human realms! We're all close to Buddhahood, no matter how dull-minded, irrational and hateful we are. This sort of nonsense only serves to turn Buddhism into a circus. It is not unlike watching those god-awful Christian fundamentalists make a total hash of the profound teachings of the Gospels and turning Jesus into a comic figure.
People often like to project a soul into their cars, even giving them (female or pet) names in the process. So what's next? Are we going to theorize that we could one day be reborn as a car?
movingalways wrote:Are you denying there is a difference between being a wild animal that suffers the affects of climate and predation and being like a wild animal that suffers the affects of intellectual ignorance?
If nirvana means consciousness then it is lost to anything that isn't conscious. All animals apart from humans appear to be totally unconscious to me. I don't think animals suffer, since suffering requires some level of consciousness.Also, do you truly believe that nirvana is forever lost to animal consciousness, either actual or metaphorical? If so, how is your view different than the Christian view of eternal damnation in a 'place' called hell?
jupiviv wrote:All animals apart from humans appear to be totally unconscious to me. I don't think animals suffer, since suffering requires some level of consciousness. And even if animals were conscious and were suffering, why would an enlightened person have to empathise with them?
David Quinn wrote:The path taught by the Buddha was primarily about mental development, involving not only intelligent investigation into the nature of reality, but also developing a profound grasp of human psychological realities. One can only enter into enlightenment on the back of an intelligent awareness of one's own psychology and thinking through the consequences of one's thoughts and actions.
That's certainly a belief that warms the heart of the procrastinator.Kunga wrote:There are MANY paths to Enlightenment...
So according to you any kind of pain experienced by any living organism is suffering? I guess you think that dust particles don't suffer when we animals stomp on them with our feet, or when they are carried far away from their homes during a strong breeze. If so, then you are heartless and insensitive to the untold pain and death of trillions of dust particles all over the universe.Kunga wrote:YOU are unconscious if you think animals don't suffer.
He was against that because it was needless and ritualistic, not because it made animals suffer.He also was extremely against the Hindu practice of slaughtering animals for religious practices....as he KNEW how horribly the animals suffered and died needlessly.....to be sacrificed to all the various "gods".
What I am suggesting is that compassion for all sentient beings, every degree of pain included, co-exists with wisdom of causality. How is this not sound reasoning?jupiviv: And even if animals were conscious and were suffering, why would an enlightened person have to empathise with them? What you're suggesting is we should suffer because other beings are suffering, which isn't rational. If anything we should refrain from suffering so that we can figure out with a clear mind how best to deal with the situation. The compassion of that comes with enlightenment is radically different to worldly compassion, which boils down to bonding with others in order to feel good about oneself and/or improve one's status in society.
It is certainly the case that a sage is compassionate towards all beings, including those with animal-consciousness, so that is not the issue. Rather, the issue is one of twisting and diminishing great spiritual teachings in order to make them fit one's pet pleasures.movingalways wrote:I understand animal nature in human being and its consequences, i.e. behaving like a sloth or a horny chimpanzee so that being fully engaged in causality remains at bay but what is absent from your response, which was present in the wiki snippet, is the effects/affects of flesh consciousness on the actual animal kingdom: the lions, the zebras, the spiders, the flies, the rats, the cockroaches, etc. The author may be way off base in his or her interpretation of the Buddha's teachings, i.e., the idea of soul transmigration, but how is he or she an animal by virtue of feeling compassion for animal consciousness?
Are you denying there is a difference between being a wild animal that suffers the affects of climate and predation and being like a wild animal that suffers the affects of intellectual ignorance?
If such a person can be reborn as a human, then all is not lost. He has a chance. But undergoing such a rebirth is very difficult for anyone who has settled into animal-consciousness, just as it is very difficult for a comfortable, middle-aged person to rekindle the idealism of his youth.Also, do you truly believe that nirvana is forever lost to animal consciousness, either actual or metaphorical?
You mean, apart from the fact that the Christian place is pure fiction? Look, life isn't fair. Most people are handed the rough end of the stick - they are born, the suffer many privations, many hells, and then they die, never to be seen again. It offends our sense of justice, but that's just how it is.If so, how is your view different than the Christian view of eternal damnation in a 'place' called hell?
movingalways wrote:What I am suggesting is that compassion for all sentient beings, every degree of pain included, co-exists with wisdom of causality. How is this not sound reasoning?
Unless there's the need to impress the other gender and/or bullshit the impression competition :)David Quinn wrote: For example, wild animals don't make ugly spectacles of themselves every time they open their mouths.
(:Diebert van Rhijn wrote:They will need to read each other minds if they have to agree on a starting point and time! :) Otherwise the mind reader will always win.Leyla Shen wrote:Lol
PS what does the hare say?
Are you saying that instinctual, low conscious reactions are then the only means to experience "genuine reality"? I think you're introducing "raw sensual data" again somehow, perhaps the peripheral or even autonomic nervous system as some mechanism that provides "realities" or "truth" to us instead of just sensory experiences. If there's a clearing up in this area I'd say it's a side-effect of quitening the mind by letting it work naturally instead like some bloke hammering his head against the walls (a.k.a. ignorance).Leyla Shen wrote:But one who is egoistic has extracted spontaneous instinct from the world as an object of thought... his grand and deluded detachment.. severed from the only means by which he may intimately and genuinely experience reality
jupiviv wrote:So according to you any kind of pain experienced by any living organism is suffering? I guess you think that dust particles don't suffer
No...you are wrong. It was because of all the suffering it caused those sentient beings. That's why he forbade his monks to dig in the soil.jupiviv wrote:He was against that because it was needless and ritualistic, not because it made animals suffer.
