so where does buddhism wisdom leads us to now?
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:What exactly is the illogical part? You always say that, but it seems you cannot even point them out
If there is something you don't understand, we can discuss.
I think Eternal has a point.
He posts so many articles explaining the logic. The arguments may well be illogical, but you should point out the logical fallacies. -
yeah, I understand..Originally posted by paperflower:expression comes freely, i speak only how i feel not taking it personally also. -
good discussion........
-
Since the 4 quadrants picture went down, I went to search and found an even newer version of the 4 quadrants and uploaded it to image-shack, and updated the post. It even has the grids that link up every level of the quadrant together
-
i mean.. so what is it about ken wilber and budhhism with regards to us in simple terms.
the things you post are very deep. try to talk about simple concepts also beside those deep one. -
An extremely short summary - development of one's psychology through various mental qualities affecting the 4 quadrants, developing one's mind to a more encompassing perspective/'identification' away from the narcissistic and prerational levels, and leads to transpersonal and transcendental insights, leading to liberation from all dualistic sufferings, highest bliss of nirvana, realising buddha nature, etc.Originally posted by january:i mean.. so what is it about ken wilber and budhhism with regards to us in simple terms.
the things you post are very deep. try to talk about simple concepts also beside those deep one. -
I found this in the same url http://newworldview.com/library/Helfrich_P_The_Five_Phases_of_Wilber.html, it's unrelated to this topic but nevertheless I think it's interesting.
Bridging Science and Spirit
“Numerous theorists have classified the typical stances that have been taken as to the relation of science and religion. All of these schemes are basically quite similar, moving from warfare, to peaceful coexistence, to mutual influence and exchange, to attempted integration.
“… In Sense and Soul, I give my own classification of the most common stances; here is a brief summary:
“(1) Science denies religion. This is still one of the most common stances among today’s scientists, aggressively represented by such thinkers as Richard Dawkins, Francis Crick, and Steven Pinker. Religion is, pure and simple, either a superstitious relic from the past, or, at best, a survival gimmick that nature uses to reproduce the species.
“(2) Religion denies science. The typical fundamentalist retort is that science is part of the fallen world and thus has no access to real truth. God created the world—and the entire fossil record—in six days, and that is that. The Bible is the literal truth, and so much the worse for science if it disagrees.
“(3) Science and religion deal with different realms of being, and thus can peacefully coexist. This is one of the most sophisticated stances, and it has two versions, strong and weak:
“Strong version: epistemological pluralism —which maintains that reality consists of various dimensions or realms (such as matter, body, mind, soul, and spirit), and that science is dealing mostly with the lower realms of matter and body, and religion is dealing mostly with the higher realms of soul and spirit. In any event, both science and religion are equally part of a ‘big picture’ that makes ample room for both, and their respective contributions can be integrated into this big picture. The traditional Great Chain of Being falls into this category. Representatives of something like this general view include Plotinus, Kant, Schelling, Coomaraswamy, Whitehead, Fritjof Schuon, Huston Smith, and Ian Barbour.
“Weak version: NOMA (‘nonoverlapping magisteria’)—Stephen Jay Gould’s term for the idea that science and religion are dealing with different realms, but these realms cannot be integrated into any sort of big picture since they are fundamentally incommensurate. They are both to be fully honored, but they cannot be fully integrated. By default, this is a very common stance among many scientists, who profess belief in some sort of Spirit, but cannot imagine how that would actually fit with science, so they render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and render unto God what is left over.
“(4) Science itself offers arguments for Spirit’s existence. This stance claims that many scientific facts and discoveries point directly to spiritual realities, and thus science can help us directly reveal God/dess. For example, the Big Bang seems to require some sort of Creator principle; evolution appears to be following an intelligent design; the anthropic principle implies that some sort of creative intelligence is behind cosmic evolution, and so on. This is similar to Scott’s one-way street accommodation, where science is used to enrich religion, but usually not vice versa. It is also similar to what Barbour calls ‘natural theology’ as opposed to ‘a theology of nature’ (in the former, Spirit is found directly from a reading of nature, as with many ecophilosophers; in the latter, a revealed Spirit is used to interpret nature in spiritual terms. Barbour favors the latter, which is part of category 3). This is a very common approach to this topic, and probably the most common among popular writers on the ‘new scientific paradigm which proves or supports mysticism.’
“(5) Science itself is not knowledge of the world but merely one interpretation of the world, and thus it has the same validity—no more, no less—as art and poetry. This is, of course, the typical ‘postmodern’ stance. Whereas the previous approach is the most common among popular writers on the topic of science-and-religion, this approach is the most common among the academic and cultural elite, who are not dedicated to constructing any sort of integration, but in deconstructing anything of worth that anybody else has to say on the issue. There are some truly important issues raised by postmodernists, and I have attempted to strongly include those points in a more integral view (see The Marriage of Sense and Soul, chap. 9). But left to its own devices, postmodernism is something of a dead-end (see One Taste, Nov. 23 entry).
“Now, most theorists offer those kinds of classifications happy that they cover all the bases, a summary of all of that is available. I offered that classification as a summary of everything that has not worked. All of those …are lists of failures, not successes [my emphasis]. More accurately, some of those approaches (especially 3, 4, and 5) have provided key ingredients for what might yet be a truly integrated view, but none of them have sufficiently included the core of religion that I feel must be fully brought to the integrative table, namely: direct spiritual experience. And where some theorists do at least acknowledge spiritual experience (such as Barbour), they are silent as to the revolutions in cognitive science, brain science, and contemplative phenomenology, which taken together point to a much more spectacular integration of science and religion than has heretofore been suggested.
“… If the conception shown in figures 3 and 4 is actually valid, then we will have gone a long way toward integrating a premodern religious view with a modern scientific view. We would have integrated the Great Nest of Being with the differentiations of modernity, one of the immediate gains of which would be a rather seamless integration of the religious and scientific realms and worldviews, in a way that would not violate the canons of either (or so I try to show in the following pages).
“This integral approach would also satisfy the one criterion that we earlier said had not yet been tried, namely, that science (or exterior realities) and religion (or interior realities) would develop, not with one on top of the other, but with both alongside each other (as the Left- and Right-Hand aspects of an ‘all-level, all-quadrant’ approach…). Figure 4 can therefore easily explain the tricky scenario of the meditator hooked to the EEG machine. She is experiencing very real interior, subjective, spiritual realities (Upper-Left quadrant), but these also have very real exterior, objective, empirical correlates (Upper-Right quadrant), which the EEG machine dutifully registers. Science and religion are thus giving us some of the correlative facets—interior and exterior—of spiritual realities, and that is a key ingredient of their integration in a larger and more encompassing view.” Introduction to Volume Eight of The Collected Works of Ken Wilber. -
The gap between spirituality and science today:
-----------
Ø Codifies the Line/Level Fallacy (LLF) to further define the “dignity and disaster of modernity.” The dignity was the differentiation of the “value spheres” of science, art, and morals (i.e., the quadrants). The disaster was the dissociation of the quadrants into hegemony and domination of science over art and morals (i.e., the new “religion” of scientism). Thus, when modernity defined the “Death of God” with its new form of rationality, its spiritual line became arrested at the level of premodern, mythic spirituality. It denied and repressed its own form of rational spirituality and anything higher. In other words, modernity confused the mythic level of spiritual development with the entire spectrum of spiritual development: “… all of science was identified with the [higher] orange level (rationality), and all of spirituality was identified with the [lower] amber level (mythology). Instead, of mythic science and religion, and rational science and religion, there was now only rational science and mythic religion. The former was rational, modern and all good; the latter was prerational, premodern, and all bad, or at least all ridiculous. In that catastrophic confusion, we can see an instance of what might be called the Level/Line Fallacy: the confusing of a level in a line with the line itself.” Integral Spirituality, 2006, p. 224 -
MmM... ur NOW is refering to when ?
Today or the moment when you start the thread? -
You mentioned I should talk about simple concepts..
Besides generally explaining Eight Fold Path just now, I would now like to post on the Four Noble Truths, which was the first discourse of the Dharma he gave to men after his Enlightenment, needless to say this is one of the most important teachings the Buddha gave.
For more info on Eight Fold Path, Four Noble Truths, and other Buddhist teachings, pls refer to All About Buddhism ~ For Non-Buddhists and Buddhists
Author: Dharma Dan, Arhat
(source: http://www.interactivebuddha.com/mctb.html)9. THE FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS
The Four Noble Truths, suffering, its cause, its end, and the path that leads to its end, are fundamental to the teachings of the Buddha. He was fond of summarizing his whole teaching in terms of them. Actually, when asked to be really concise, he would just say the first and third: suffering and the end of suffering. This was what he taught. Like the other little lists here, they have great profundity on many levels and are worth exploring in depth.
TRUTH NUMBER ONE: SUFFERING
The first truth is the truth of suffering. Hey, didn't we just see that in the Three Characteristics? Yes! Isn't that great! We also just saw it in The Three Trainings Revisited. There must have been something important about it for it to start off something called the Four Noble Truths that is not immediately obvious. Why do we practice? Suffering, that's why! It is just that simple. Why do we do anything? Suffering!
Plenty of people balk at this, and say that they do lots of things because of reasons other than suffering. I suppose that to be really correct I should add in ignorance and habit, but these are intimately connected to suffering. This is worth investigating in depth. Perhaps there is something more to this first truth that they may have missed on first inspection, as it is a deep and subtle teaching. Actually, to understand this first truth is to understand the whole of the spiritual path, so take the time to investigate it.
The basic gist of the truth from a relative point of view is that we want things to be other than they are, and this causes pain. We want things that are nice to be permanent, we want to get what we want and avoid what we don't want. We wish bad things would go faster than they do, and these are all contrary to reality. We all die, get sick, have conflicts, and constantly seem to be running around either trying to get something (greed), get away from something (hatred), or tune out from reality all together (delusion). We are never perfectly happy with things just as they are. These are the traditional, relative ways in which suffering is explained, but these definitions can only take us so far.
At the most fundamental level, the level that is the most useful for doing insight practices, we wish desperately that there was some separate, permanent self, and we spend huge amounts of time doing our best to prop up this illusion. In order to do this, we habitually ignore lots of useful information about our reality and give our mental impressions and simplifications of reality much more importance than they are necessarily due. It is this illusion that adds a problematic element to the normal and understandable ways in which we go about trying to be happy. We constantly struggle with reality because we misunderstand it, i.e. because reality misunderstands itself.
“So what's new?” one might say. Good point! It isn't new, is it? This has been the whole of our life! The big question is “Is there some understanding which makes a difference?” Yes, or we wouldn't be bothering with all of this spirituality stuff. Somewhere down in our being there is a little voice that cries, “There is another way!” We can find this other way.
Connecting with the truth of suffering can actually be very motivating for spiritual practice. Most traditional talks on the Buddha's teachings begin with this. More than just being motivating for spiritual practice, tuning into suffering is spiritual practice! Many people start meditating and then get frustrated with how much suffering and pain they experience, never knowing that they are actually starting to understand something. They cling to the ideal that insight practices will produce peace and bliss and yet much of what they find is suffering. They donÂ’t realize that things on the cushion tend to get worse before they get better. Thus, they reject the very truths they must deeply understand to obtain the peace they were looking for and thus get nowhere. They reject their own valid insights that they have obtained through valid practice. I suspect that this is one of the greatest and most common stumbling blocks on the spiritual path.
There is a flip side to suffering which can help, and that is compassion, the wish for there to not be suffering. Wherever there is suffering there is compassion, though most of the time somewhat twisted by the confused logic of the process of ego. More on this in a bit, but it leads directly to the second Noble Truth, the cause of suffering.
TRUTH NUMBER TWO: “DESIRE”
The Second Noble Truth is that the cause of suffering is desire, also rendered as craving or attachment. We want things to be other than they are because we perceive the world through the odd logic of the process of ego, through the illusion of the split of the perceiver and the perceived. We might say, “Of course we want things to be great and not unpleasant! What do you expect?” The problem isn't actually quite in the desire for things to be good and not be bad in the way that we might think; it is, in fact, just a bit subtler than that.
This is a really slippery business, and many people can get all into craving for non-craving and desiring non-attachment. This can be useful if it is done wisely and it is actually all we have to work with. If common sense is ignored, however, desiring non-attachment may produce neurotic, self-righteous, repressed ascetics instead of balanced, kind meditators. A tour of any monastery or spiritual community will likely expose you to clear examples of both sides of this delicate balance. So, don't make too much of a problem out of the fact that it seems that one must desire something in order to seek it. This paradox will resolve itself if we are able to experience reality in this moment clearly.
“Craving,” “attachment,” and “desire” are some of the most dangerous words that can be used to describe something that is actually much more fundamental than these seem to indicate. The Buddha did talk about these conventional forms of suffering, but he also talked about the fundamental suffering that comes from some deep longing for a refuge that involves a separate or permanent self. We imagine that such a self will be a refuge, and so we desire such a self, we try to make certain sensations into such a self, we cling to the fundamental notion that such a self can exist as a stable entity and that this will somehow help. The side effects of this manifest in all sorts of additions to mind states and emotions that are not helpful, but these are side effects and not the root that cause of suffering that the Buddha was pointing to.
As stated earlier, a helpful concept here is compassion, a heart aspect of the practice and reality related to kindness. You see, wherever there is desire there is suffering, and wherever there is suffering there is compassion, the desire for the end of suffering. You can actually experience this. So obviously there is some really close relationship between suffering, desire and compassion. This is heavy but good stuff and worth investigating. -
We might conceive of this as compassion having gotten caught in a loop, the loop of the illusion of duality. This is sort of like a dog’s tail chasing itself. Pain and pleasure, suffering and satisfaction always seem to be “over there.” Thus, when pleasant sensations arise, there is a constant, compassionate, deluded attempt to get over there to the other side of the imagined split. This is fundamental attraction. You would think that we would just stop imagining there is a split, but somehow that is not what happens. We keep perpetuating the sense of a split even as we try to bridge it, and so we suffer. When unpleasant sensations arise, there is an attempt to get away from over there, to widen the imagined split. This will never work, because it doesn’t actually exist, but the way we hold our minds as we try to get away from that side is painful. When boring or unpleasant sensations arise, there is the attempt to tune out all together and forget the whole thing, to try to pretend that the sensations on the other side of the split are not there. This is fundamental ignorance and it perpetuates the process, as it is by ignoring aspects of our sensate reality that the illusion of a split is created in the first place.
These strict definitions of fundamental attraction, aversion and ignorance are very important, particularly for when I discuss the various models of the stages of enlightenment. Given the illusion, it seems that somehow these mental reactions will help in a way that will be permanent. Remember that the only thing that will fundamentally help is to understand the Three Characteristics to the degree that makes the difference, and the Three Characteristics are manifesting right here.
Remember how it was stated above that suffering motivates everything we do? We could also say that everything we do is motivated by compassion, which is part of the fundamentally empty nature of reality. That doesnÂ’t mean that everything we do is skillful; that is a whole different issue.
Compassion is a very good thing, especially when it involves one's self and all beings. It is sort of the flip side of the Second Noble Truth. The whole problem is that “misdirected” compassion, compassion that is filtered through the process of ego and its related habits, can produce enormous suffering and often does. It is easy to think of many examples of people searching for happiness in the strangest of places and by doing the strangest of things. Just pick up any newspaper. The take-home message is to search for happiness where you are actually likely to find it.
We might say that compassion is the ultimate aspect of desire, or think of compassion and desire on a continuum. The more wisdom or understanding of interconnectedness there is behind our intentions and actions, the more they reflect compassion and the more the results will turn out well. The more greed, hatred and delusion or lack of understanding of interconnectedness there is behind our intentions and actions, the more they reflect desire and the more suffering there will likely be.
This is sometimes referred to as the “Law of Karma,” where karma is a word that has to do with our intentions and actions. Some people can get all caught up in specifics of this that cannot possibly be known, like speculating that if we kill a bug we will come back as a bug and be squished. Don't. Cause and effect, also called interdependence, is just too imponderably complex. Just use this general concept to look honestly at what you want, why, and precisely how you know this. Examine what the consequences of what you do and think might be for yourself and everyone, and then take responsibility for those consequences. It's a tall order and an important practice to engage in, but don't get too obsessive about it. Remember the simplicity of the first training, training in kindness, generosity, honesty and clarity, and gain balance and wisdom from the other two trainings as you go.
Sometimes looking into suffering and desire can be overwhelming. Life can sometimes be extremely hard. In these moments, try looking into the heart side of the equation, compassion and kindness. Connect with the part of your heart that just wishes the suffering would end and feel that deeply, especially as it manifests in the body. Just this can be profound practice. There are also lots of other good techniques for cultivating a spaciousness of heart that can bear anything, such as formal loving-kindness practices (see Sharon SalzburgÂ’s excellent Loving-kindness, The Revolutionary Art of Happiness). Finding them and practicing them can make the spiritual path much more bearable and pleasant, and this can make it more likely that we will be able to persevere, gain deep insights, be able to integrate them into our lives, and use them to benefit others.
The take-home message is to take the desire to be happy and free of suffering and use its energy to do skillful things that can actually make this happen, rather than getting caught in old unexamined patterns of searching for happiness where you know you will not find it. The Three Trainings are skillful and can inform the whole of our life. By following them we may come to the end of many forms of suffering and be in a much better position to help others do the same.
TRUTH NUMBER THREE: THE END OF SUFFERING
This brings us nicely to the Third Noble Truth, the end of suffering. Now, as noted before, there are three types of suffering pertaining to the scope of each of the three trainings. Traditionally, the Buddha talked about the end of suffering as relating to mastering the third training and thus becoming highly enlightened. The first point is that it can be done and is done today by meditators like you from many spiritual traditions. Yes, there are enlightened people walking around, and not just a rare few that have spent 20 years in a cave in Tibet. This is really important to understand and have faith in. The other point is that with the end of fundamental desire, which we will render here as the end of compassion and reality being filtered through the odd logic of the process of ego, there is the end of fundamental suffering. That's it. Done is what has to be done. Gone, gone, gone beyond, and all of that. All beings can do it, and there is, to make bit of a mystical joke, no time like the present.
Now, it must be said that the Buddha also praised those who had mastered the other two trainings and thus eliminated what suffering could be eliminated by those methods. Even very enlightened beings can benefit from mastering the concentration states. However, there are some complex and difficult issues related to eliminating all of the ordinary suffering in the world and thus related to mastering the first training, which is an endless undertaking. It is because of this particular issue that such teachings as the Bodhisattva Vow arose, and I will deal with these complexities towards the end of this book.
TRUTH NUMBER FOUR: THE PATH
The Fourth Noble Truth is the Noble Eightfold Path that leads to suffering's final end. Another list! Hopefully you have come to like these little lists by now, and so one more will hopefully be seen as another manageable little guide on how to find the end of suffering. Luckily, we have already seen the whole of the Noble Eightfold Path in other parts of some of the other lists, and it is summarized in the Three Trainings of morality, concentration and wisdom.
The morality section is just broken down into three specifics: skillful action, skillful speech and skillful livelihood. Skillful means conducive to the end of suffering for us and for all other living beings. Be kind, honest, clear and compassionate in your whole life, in your actions, speech and work. Notice that nothing is excluded here. The more of our lives we integrate with the spiritual path, the better. Simple to remember and also a powerful guide.
The concentration section contains three things we saw in the Five Spiritual Faculties and the Seven Factors of Enlightenment: skillful energy, skillful concentration, and skillful mindfulness.
The wisdom section has the two last parts of the path: skillful thought or intention and skillful understanding or wisdom. These two are often rendered in different ways, but the meaning is the same: understand the truth of your experience and aspire to kindness and wisdom in your thoughts and deeds. Again, simple but powerful. -
i think its problems comes from a root.And the root is the human mind..greed is obvious.Another is vanity and the desire for fame and power.it all shows without one knowing.Eg;Person A tries to out talk or put down person B by winning him in a debate.Person B is annoyed or indignant,he tries to talk back.
Person A did it because he wants attention.He wants others to know he is good,he is wise.The desire to have fame and admiration.Humans fought each other ,each claim he is correct,he is right.. -
i think eternal now should explain in terms of simpler concepts first. i realize that you have tendency to post long and difficult to read paragraph.
convince people with simple terms first, then they will be attracted , and willing to move on on read more technical stuff.
i usually just drag through the webpage when i see all the jargons. -
what is all the unlimited consconcious thing and what does finding them lead us to?
persoanlly, i achieve for myself high level of understanding and peacefulness about things without learning all the deep deep level of teachings of buddhism.
i also like to ask eternal .. do you still experience emotions nowadays.. like surprise, fear, embarrasment, nervousness? are you a buddhist in temple or do you work in modern society?
i still experience nervousness and embarrasment, fear but from psychology i can manage them still ok. -
I believe 'THE FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS' is written in such a way that even beginners will be able to understand, that is why I posted it. I do not think that it is difficult to read, so do take your time to read that article, and if there is any part you don't really understand we can discuss.Originally posted by january:i think eternal now should explain in terms of simpler concepts first. i realize that you have tendency to post long and difficult to read paragraph.
convince people with simple terms first, then they will be attracted , and willing to move on on read more technical stuff.
i usually just drag through the webpage when i see all the jargons. -
Sorry for the slow reply. Sgforums was lagging so badly just now so I gave up posting.
To ask about me is irrelevant here.. I am now 17 years old and I am still studying as a student. Anyway surprise is ok (I don't see any reason why a person, even someone enlightened cannot be surprised), fear, I still have fear at times (but generally I don't get feared easily perhaps that's my character), embarrassment.. well, over the years I am no longer as attached to ego, but I guess it still happens at times.. nervousness, sometimes it arises -- but when it arises I very quickly remain mindfulness, awareness, just watching the thoughts and physical sensatoins come and go, all these fear, nervousness and all those feelings just come and go and is allowed to be as they are -- I no longer identify with them but is just there as witnessing, participatory presence, like a mirror that neither rejects or pursues reflections, all appearances arises and passes instantaneously leaving no trace in the mirror, yet the mirror expresses the luminuos clarity of all appearances. The mirror (i.e our Buddha Nature) simply reflects all things as it is and is at one with all things it reflects.Originally posted by january:what is all the unlimited consconcious thing and what does finding them lead us to?
persoanlly, i achieve for myself high level of understanding and peacefulness about things without learning all the deep deep level of teachings of buddhism.
i also like to ask eternal .. do you still experience emotions nowadays.. like surprise, fear, embarrasment, nervousness? are you a buddhist in temple or do you work in modern society?
i still experience nervousness and embarrasment, fear but from psychology i can manage them still ok.
But I think it is irrelevant to ask me about this, because as I said, I am not yet enlightened therefore I cannot represent an enlightened person's character. One who enters deep into non-duality is constantly in a state of fearless samadhi, he experiences no self and no fear. (this is what those enlightened told me from their experience) It is difficult to imagine such a state, but once duality is completely seen through as illusion, the mind/body is completely dropped off (disidentified), there is no longer an 'inside' experiencing the 'outside world' -- one can no longer experience fear due to illusions of self. This does not mean they cannot run for their lives when they need to, but whatever their action is, their action only arises spontaneously out of Prajna, with no dualistic attachment involved. I am of course no where close to that yet. This is about the Deathless, one cannot reach the Deathless state through any means other than the dharma and attaining Insights/Enlightenment to the nature of reality.
It is possible through mundane wisdom, psychology, and shamatha to gain better control over one's emotions, have peacefulness, become a happier person, etc. However that is like treating 'surface problems' -- for example, a weed is growing on the ground, you use a stone to suppress it to stop it from growing. Or you trim it.. or.... (etc) You are developing skills to deal with emotions, and you know how to control them. But this is nevertheless still a limited skill, you can improve it but you'll never reach a point where you can use such wisdom to deal with all kinds of situations. And sometimes even if you put a stone on the grass, it will grow back or some other grasses will grow, because you never treat the problem at the root. You will still experience these negative emotions in many situations, when you lost something you are attached to deeply, or perhaps you know you got cancer and is dying in a few months, just an example. It will be difficult to manage then, because these skills are limited and depends relatively on how identified you are to those things (i.e your neighbour died you may still be ok, but if it happens to your family or yourself you'll be more affected). Anyway as my friend Thusness said, 'growing wisdom' and 'prajna wisdom' is different, though 'growing wisdom' is very important as well.
That is treating the problem on the surface -- the Root of the problem is not uprooted, the root of the problem is ignorance of reality. With this ignorance of reality there will constantly be Dukkha - even when you do not have negative emotions, there will always be subtle dualistic attraction, aversion, and delusions (often translated as 'greed', 'hatred', 'ignorance' but these are not very good translations and are limited to the emotional model, not non dual model) all the time. This is not just a matter of conscious control and management of emotions and mental wellbeing. It sometimes requires a lot of Mindfulness/Awareness practise and ultimately transcendental Insights into the nature of reality.
However, to even talk about emotions is not good enough, though it is true that many negative emotions have their main problem/root in Ignorance of Reality, due to dualistic seeking and aversion and delusion, they still cannot describe the true essence of Buddhism. If going by getting rid of 'greed, hatred, ignorance' and not 'fundamental dualistic attraction, fundamental dualistic aversion, and delusion of duality' as the fundamental thing in Buddhism, then anyone with certain levels of self control can be considered as highly enlightened, which is not the case. It is also possible for fundamental dualistic attraction, aversion and dukkha (suffering) to arise in us all the time without displaying major negative emotion outbreak, in fact to anyone unenlightened this is inevitable.
When Buddhism talks about fundamental attraction, aversion and delusion (a.k.a greed, hatred, ignorance) it is dealing with something much much more fundamental:Source: 31. Models of the Stages of Enlightenment, III -- The Emotional Models and The Theravada Four Path Model, which is a very good read and states the usual dogmas and ignorance that even some Buddhists fall prey to.. regarding shallow understanding of terms such as 'Greed, Hatred, Ignorance' rather than in terms of Reality and Non-Duality
Lastly, in Buddhism though we always talk about Liberation from Suffering, it is equally important to mention the effects of practising Buddhism in Positive terms -- the development of Clarity, Highest Everlasting Unconditioned Bliss and Rapture, Equanimity, Energy, Wisdom, Tranquility, Concentration, etc (also see Seven Factors of Enlightenment, info available on the net and on 'Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha by Dharma Dan)
Anyway I wanted to quote this regarding fundamental attraction and aversion:
...What they are attempting to say is that the sense of the observer, center point, continuous and separate subject, watcher or however you want to describe the sense that there is some Self at the center of all this stuff that so compelling seems to divided into Self and Other is, in fact, just a bunch of sensations, and when these begin to be seen as they are, the sense of how special the center point is begins to lose its grip on perception, which begins to become wider, more inclusive, and more even in its basic treatment of phenomena. Thus, as there doesnÂ’t seem to be so much of a this side and a that side, attempts to get away from that side when it is bad, get to that side when it is good, or just tune out to the whole thing when it is boring diminish at some basic perceptual level, and so the system functions better as it is better at realistically interpreting the information coming into it....
Please re-read 'The Four Noble Truths' to get a better idea of what exactly is fundamental attraction and aversion. -
for 17 year old, u are quite wise.
i dun think its irrelevant to ask you this.
i only learn about mindfulness at 22. -
what do you mean by enlightenment?
Human brain is so small, the amount of data in universe is so large, we are churning our new information everyday, and one human brain but only can see and hear so much out of the large chunk.
To me, enlightement gives a impression a person is all wise but this is impossbile because you have to learn everyday, you will be making mistakes everyday and you have to check you knowledge regularly and new information is coming in everyday and basically, by your death, you will also be learning and making mistakes your knowledge will just be a small amount.
So, there is not really enlightenment or what.
My question to buddhist is this, yes i agree buddhism are good at mindfulness and peacefulness. But life is not only about peacefulness, its also about excitment and laughing. -
Originally posted by january:
The word 'enlightenment' can mean many things. My definition of enlightenment is NOT about becoming enlightened to chemistry, biology, mathematics, what happens at another planet, what is going to happen 100 years from now, when is the next hurricane or earthquake coming. These are best left to other fields, when you are dealing with Non-dual level, use non-dual mysticism. When you are dealing other levels such as physics level you have to use physic laws, mathematical calculations etc. Then there are other fields -- psychology, theology, biology, etc.
what do you mean by enlightenment?
Human brain is so small, the amount of data in universe is so large, we are churning our new information everyday, and one human brain but only can see and hear so much out of the large chunk.
To me, enlightement gives a impression a person is all wise but this is impossbile because you have to learn everyday, you will be making mistakes everyday and you have to check you knowledge regularly and new information is coming in everyday and basically, by your death, you will also be learning and making mistakes your knowledge will just be a small amount.
So, there is not really enlightenment or what.
My definition means enlightened to the ultimate NATURE of Reality -- all reality is Empty-Luminosity, this is the ultimate reality of everything. There is no-thing that is NOT impermanent, no-thing that is not empty, luminous, lack of self, interdependent-co-arisen, conditioned arising, etc etc. Because of this transcendental insights, one is liberated from all sufferings. (Does not mean he will die a painless death -- he will needs medical care, so healthcare and science is still important. Pain =/= sufferings.)
What you are talking about is relative truths and not ultimate reality. And yes, relative truths are never ending, we are always discovering more and more. That is what the conventional mind can perceive at most -- relative truth, interpretations, mental and sense perceptions. (http://www.dreamdatum.com/science-limitation.html)My question to buddhist is this, yes i agree buddhism are good at mindfulness and peacefulness. But life is not only about peacefulness, its also about excitment and laughing.
Yeah of course, Buddha never said that you have to be boring to gain enlightenment.
As for laughing, many enlightened people and masters have great sense of humour. Buddha also had a good sense of humour -- his humour is always funny yet full of wisdom.
I know, I'm not funny, and all these must sound so dry and boring that you think all Buddhists are the same.