What do I stand to get from Buddhism?

[Dancing David]

I have explained before but it might bear repeating.

I first encountered the dharma in college in 1977, there I read a text book written by Conze(maybe) and was struck by the similarity of the dharma and my own thoughts, except for the fact that I was very pre-pagan at that time and had a lot of mystic beliefs and desires.
The dharma at that time surprised me by being very similar to the 'cognitive-behavioral' model which was very strong at my university.
Behaviorism and the dharma seemed very similar to each other. Conditioned reflexes and thoughts and emotions.
I then went through my intensely pagan era and studied A' Crowley and a lot of occultism.

The idea of buddhism and the thought I had about it were always drifting in and out, but I was very attached to a lot of painful stuff at the time.

My next real exposure to buddhism came when I practiced aikido for five years, not because the aikidojo exposed me to it. Instead there was a lot of meditation before during and after practice. My dojo was a hard knock dojo and had ver6y little discussion of 'ki' and other mystical concepts. I was taught the art of mindful meditation, without and mystic overtones.
Just the statement "Breathe, focus on the passage of air in and out of the nostrils or the movement of the diaphragm. When you find yourself thinking, say in your mind "thinking' and return your focus to your breathing."
that was the sole instruction I ever received.
But at that time through a friend, who is also a western buddhist, but also jewish, I was introduced to Thich Nhat Hahn, as someone to read.
I started with some of his books, which often challenged me greatly. I then began to read a lot about buddhism in general and have continued to do so.

Part of my re-exposure and deeper reading on buddhism came about because of aikido, part came about because I was reading a lot of the history of religious history, asia and the martial arts and part because I was also in group therapy and learning that the way I led my life was very destructive, and particular I became attached to people who were very unhealthy for me. Buddhism answered a lot of the 'what' in my life. As a sage once said in training, “Don’t ask why, ask what”.

A lot of the trainings I went to as a mental health professional were about mental illness and substance abuse, and the crossover between the two.

At one point there began to be trainings about something called Dialectic behavior Therapy for alleged individuals with Borderline Personality Disorder. It is this really weird blend of cognitive behavioral therapy and buddhist practices.

I then got a really cool book about buddhism that is a psychological discussion of the different practices of buddhism. What the buddha taught by Walpola Rahula

I have read many dharma talks but have never attended one. As you will guess almost all of the teaching I have had is from reading, although I enjoy reading transcriptions of dharma talks. I have found the practice of the eight fold path and mindfulness to be very helpful.

As someone who already had extensive training in visualization and the occult I found the straight forward psychology of buddhism to very very refreshing and untainted with the 99% dross to wisdom ratio of occultism. In Buddhism the dross ratio usually runs between 20% to 75%.

I found translations of the Pali canon during the second exposure to the buddha's teachings. But I have only read translations.

As to buddhists I have met in my life there have been quite a few, the first was a coworker from Sri Lanka when I was in college, there have been a number (about five) who were raised in buddhist societies and then about twenty who are western buddhists. The ones from buddhist countries always seem to be rather cheerful and friendly. The western buddhists are not always quite as cheerful but almost always friendly. The thing that I have noticed that they all had in common was that they did not advertise that they were buddhist, it usually just came about in conversation, although one in particular talked a lot about it. I have seen monks in robes in public but have not started conversations with them.

(a)contacts with Buddhists who influenced you into accepting Buddhism, or

The buddhists I have met are people I would like to be like some day but they did not influence me in any way, they are who they are. My reading of Buddhism is what led me to the practice.

(b) accidentally having come across and read the text of the Pali Canon?
{/quote]
I deliberately sought out the Pali canon after reading something called The buddhist bible by Camus.

converts to your peculiar kinds of Buddhism from:

I would never say that I converted to Buddhism. It is more like a car or a roadmap it is a vehicle to get from one place to another.

I want to undertake a theory with you two if you will be honest with me and with yourselves.

That is very ironic, since your motives are opaque and very well, contorted. But hey your apparent duplicity is my perception.

 

[Dancing David]

...Gautama Buddha didn't know much about modern astrophysics...​

That's why you should not take him as the all and only authority for a world-view and a life-philosophy or religion.

If you actualy read what people post, you would already know that "all and only authority for a world-view and a life-philosophy or religion." is not something the buddha taught, the alleged historical buddha taught that there were many paths to wisdom, his is one. But you again display an alomost abrahamic devotion to monotheism.

Anyway, I am learning how to do a poll here on Buddhists to find out what they believe of the Buddhism as believed in and practiced by the elitist Buddhists in traditional Buddhist lands of the Far East

Then you should most likely poll somewhere else, polling is easy, check the box for a poll on the new post page.

-- because some of you just go for the meditation practice, others go all the way to be even more Buddha-crazed than the folks in millennial Buddha-lands.



You mean that you converted to Buddhism from coming to the text of the Pali Canon accidentally like inside a bottle washed ashore in the beach, and reading it? Forgive me, but hahaha?

Hahaha? when scholars of Buddhist scriptures are still working out a systematic hermeneutics to understand Buddhist texts, but getting nowhere save deeper and deeper into abysmal labyrinths? See Buddhist Hermeneutics, a Conference Report.




Search the Pali Canon, or ask the Western Buddhists who sport the title of Bhikkhu and they will tell you that Gautama takes for granted the existence of gods, like the Greek ones, who dwell in the realm of the gods, into this realm traditional Buddhists hope to be reborn into, for it is a domain of continuous partying.

They were part of the landscape, I don't know if they were cleaned from the Pali canon because there is very little mention of them in what i have read. Now in the myths surrounding the buddha they abound, just as jesus never taught about angels in the gospels, but they abound in the myth. It is too bad that the oral teachings of jesus are so fragmented and so very heavily edited.

As for rebirth, that is again not a teaching of the alleged historical budha, anymore than jesus taught that his mother was a virgin.

Some traditional buddhists believe in rebirth in the six realms others don't.

Anyway, here, read this text below from a Western Buddhist scholar.



Yrreg

=========================================

My words may not be soothing, but consider the ideas

The Buddhist non-self, and its implications, living the everyday non-self existence?
http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/ind...ost&pid=500486

[From the Kalama Sutra by Gautama]

01. Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it long ago.
02. Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for many generations.
03. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
04. Do not confirm anything just because it agrees with your scriptures.
05. Do not foolishly make assumptions.
06. Do not abruptly draw conclusions by what you see and hear.
07. Do not be fooled by outward appearances.
08. Do not hold on tightly to any view or idea just because you are comfortable with it.
09. Do not accept as fact anything that you yourself find to be logical.
10. Do not be convinced of anything out of respect and deference to your spiritual teachers.
11. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.​

But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reasons and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

See: http://www.buddhistinformation.com/the_kalama_sutra.htm

 

[yrreg]

You are messing up impermanence with immutability.

The universe is comprised of changing elements and compositions. It had a 'begining' and it might have an end. But since it is in a constant state of flux, where is the permanent?

Matter can be converted to enery and combined or fractioned, if it is not an elementary particle. they can be abosrbed if they are energy and reradiated.

In fact there are even crazy little particles which exist in pairs of opposites for a brief while and then anihilate each other.
Where is the permanent part?

Uh, karma is the consequence of actions, nibbanna is a state of psychology and there is no soul or permenent self.

Impermanence is visible evrywhere we see and look.

Even a single atom of matter is constantly changing. Unless it is at absoloute zero, and becomes Bose-Eistien Condensate. But as soon as it 'warms' up it starts changing again.

Where is the something that is unchanging?


Where is the something unchanging?

Dear Dancing David:

I say that the material universe which for me is the only one is permanent, because matter cannot be destroyed, it can change into energy and vice-versa, then also I add that it can get tired (being poetic but no less true in the idea).

You being a close-minded Buddhist cannot or choose not to see the bigger and complete picture of what is permanence and what impermanence, by messing up permanence with immutability or correlatively impermanence with mutability.

Let me explain to you, otherwise you will keep on droning like so many Buddhists that nothing exists because nothing is permanent, etc., etc., etc., which is the most absurd and insane idea if put into practice instead of being just an attitude of detachment from things which are not lasting in their condition or mode whereby there are desirable.

Here, let me explain to you; but right at the start we must always remember that first every discourse in the universe is between or among humans and to some extent among humans and other life forms, like for example with the pet cat and pet dog at home.

Then every discourse must to be of any use to any participants in the discourse and to be in contact with ultimate reality, which is that reality that exists even though you or we are not engaged in discourse, or you are not thinking of the object that exists even should you be no longer around, or never will or never had been around, like before you were born, or in the scheme of the universe you had been destined never to come into existence as a living and discoursing entity.

Okay here goes:

You and I are talking or engaged in discourse, we must agree to accept the fact that we are both existing even outside our each respective mind, meaning if you don't think of me I am still existing, similarly also in regard to you from my part.

That takes care of our exitence as two parties in discourse. Of course Buddhists are crazy, yes absolutely crazy -- except that they still take the care to behave like sane humans specially in regard to their money in the bank, in their everyday life and activities and behavior; I say crazy because they keep sayting to themselves and to anyone who might give them even just one half of an ear, that they don't exist, meaning their selves don't exist because the self does not exist.

Do you know that there is that non-self Gautama leader of Buddhists of which you and Ryokan are proud to proclaim yourselves to be bearers of the name, Buddhist, who convinced a follower, Bahiya, that he does not exist and therefore not to be worried about getting killed even by wild beasts; so the poor sod accidentally flared up the temper of a bull and got killed by the bull. When the other followers of Gautama told him about the death of that disciple for being uncaring because he did not exist, Gautama praised him to the sky, because he had lived up to his non-existent self. Look up that account of the Bahiya Sutta; and I hope even though your self or you don't exist, at least behave as though you exist like everyone else in your home, family,and neighborhood and act accordingly.

Okay, we have agreed that we both exist, we being engaged in discourse between ourselves.

Now, how do I explain to you that even though we are not permanent as you keep on wrangling about, we are still existing, still around while we live and until we die.

Look up the English dictionary the word permanent and you will find that it means something here today and here tomorrow, like you are here today and you will be here tomorrow at least in your home with your folks, and also it means something like young today and old tomorrow but still around tomorrow as today and until you die. Get it?

So when you say that nothing is permanent therefore it does not exist, you are not conversant with the complete meaning of the word permanent.

Permanent then means always around even though it changes in condition or mode or state of being, like you and I, we are young now but we are changing our youth to more mature years and then old age, and then death at which point we do not anymore exist as living entities but as lifeless tissues which will decay and turn to dust.

So from being a living entity we eventually end up dead and turn to dust, in all that process there is matter and energy, and that is permanent according to what physicists tell us, matter is not created nor destroyed.

In brief, your trouble is that you draw that conclusion that just because nothing remains in the same state, mode, condition, kind of existence, existence or matter/energy is not permanent.

Then also Buddhists, for example you, keep repeating that because we living entities change and even die we don't exist for being again impermanent; pure fallacious pseudo reasoning, because while we live although we change during ou lifetime duration there is always the we, our selves. Proof of that, when someone throws a stone at you and you see him doing it, you duck; then tomorrow you get one day older, and you see the guy again throwing a stone at you, you duck again, because you are still around and the same person, even though one day older.

A lot of arguments from Buddhists is so much fallacies parading as profound insights into life and the universe, but to people who do engage in discourse and know each other to be the same persons today and tomorrow, all such insights from Buddhism are a lot of nonsense.

And that is why all those Buddhists living in sangha continue to eat and micturate, and defecate, and some of them engage in self-gratification or outright love-making with their pupils -- because they exist even though they proclaim that their selves don't exist, in words only of course; again because when they get hungry they eat, horny they seek release any how they can, go to the john when they have to leak or unload.

Yrreg

=========================================

My words may not be soothing, but consider the ideas

The Buddhist non-self, and its implications, living the everyday non-self existence?
http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/ind...ost&pid=500486

[From the Kalama Sutra by Gautama]

01. Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it long ago.
02. Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for many generations.
03. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
04. Do not confirm anything just because it agrees with your scriptures.
05. Do not foolishly make assumptions.
06. Do not abruptly draw conclusions by what you see and hear.
07. Do not be fooled by outward appearances.
08. Do not hold on tightly to any view or idea just because you are comfortable with it.
09. Do not accept as fact anything that you yourself find to be logical.
10. Do not be convinced of anything out of respect and deference to your spiritual teachers.
11. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.​

But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reasons and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

See: http://www.buddhistinformation.com/the_kalama_sutra.htm

 

[yrreg]

Memorial to inanity from an inane teacher.

[This is the kind of posts in regard to Gautama, Buddhism, and Buddhists, that got me thrown out by the mods and admins of the Internet Infidels Discussion Board, and got deleted without notice by the mods and admins of the E-Sangha (Buddhist and Buddhism) Forum. So my posts here will be a continuing memorial to the ideal of free inquiry, free thought, and free speech of this here JREF Forum.]​

Excerpts from the Bahiya Sutra, in translation by American Buddhist monk, Thanissaro Bhikkhu (Geoffrey DeGraff):

"Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how your should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

Through hearing this brief explanation of the Dhamma from the Blessed One, the mind of Bahiya of the Bark-cloth right then and there was released from the effluents through lack of clinging/sustenance. Having exhorted Bahiya of the Bark-cloth with this brief explanation of the Dhamma, the Blessed One left.

Now, not long after the Blessed One's departure, Bahiya -- attacked by a cow with a calf -- lost his life. Then the Blessed One, having gone for alms in Savatthi, after the meal, returning from his alms round with a large number of monks, saw that Bahiya had died. On seeing him, he said to the monks, "Take Bahiya's body and, placing it on a litter and carrying it away, cremate it and build him a memorial. Your companion in the holy life has died."

"As you say, lord," the monks replied. After placing Bahiya's body on a litter, carrying it off, cremating it, and building him a memorial, they went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As they were sitting there, they said to him, "Bahiya's body has been cremated, lord, and his memorial has been built. What is his destination? What is his future state?"

"Monks, Bahiya of the Bark-cloth was wise. He practiced the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma and did not pester me with issues related to the Dhamma. Bahiya of the Bark-cloth, monks, is totally unbound."

Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:

Where water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing:
There the stars do not shine,
the sun is not visible,
the moon does not appear,
darkness is not found.
And when a sage,
a brahman through sagacity,
has known [this] for himself,
then from form & formless,
from bliss & pain,
he is freed.

Addressing Dancing David and Ryokan:

Wait till you have a son or daughter who takes up Buddhism and Gautama's words with utmost conviction as to practice it most faithfully even to the death of biological life, then you can also put up a memorial to him for having attained liberation.

I am angry at Gautama, Buddhism, and Buddhists, just as I am angry at all peoples who are responsible for clitorectomy and high heels (there are more comfortable and anatomically healthy ways for women to posture themselves attractively, without high heels).

What these peoples do to women's bodies, Gautama and company do to the mind and spirit of fellow humans who just want to live, be free, and pursue happiness in life, just like their pet dogs and cats.

Yrreg

=========================================

My words may not be soothing, but consider the ideas

The Buddhist non-self, and its implications, living the everyday non-self existence?
http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/ind...ost&pid=500486

[From the Kalama Sutra by Gautama]

01. Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it long ago.
02. Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for many generations.
03. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
04. Do not confirm anything just because it agrees with your scriptures.
05. Do not foolishly make assumptions.
06. Do not abruptly draw conclusions by what you see and hear.
07. Do not be fooled by outward appearances.
08. Do not hold on tightly to any view or idea just because you are comfortable with it.
09. Do not accept as fact anything that you yourself find to be logical.
10. Do not be convinced of anything out of respect and deference to your spiritual teachers.
11. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.​

But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reasons and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

See: http://www.buddhistinformation.com/the_kalama_sutra.htm

 

[yrreg]

Buddhist hermeneutics of Dancing David.

This is the Buddhist hermeneutics of Dancing David:

When you read something supposedly from the historical Buddha, i.e., Gautama, that cannot gibe with contemporary knowledge, then it must be understood to be not intended by him except for the peoples of his time and clime, and you must assume and presume that he knows better, namely, in fact he knows what we know currently of life and the universe, even more which we don't currently know.​

Addressing Dancing David:

Have you thought out the implications and consequences of this your hermeneutics for Buddhist texts?

Yrreg

=========================================

My words may not be soothing, but consider the ideas

The Buddhist non-self, and its implications, living the everyday non-self existence?
http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/ind...ost&pid=500486

[From the Kalama Sutra by Gautama]

01. Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it long ago.
02. Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for many generations.
03. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
04. Do not confirm anything just because it agrees with your scriptures.
05. Do not foolishly make assumptions.
06. Do not abruptly draw conclusions by what you see and hear.
07. Do not be fooled by outward appearances.
08. Do not hold on tightly to any view or idea just because you are comfortable with it.
09. Do not accept as fact anything that you yourself find to be logical.
10. Do not be convinced of anything out of respect and deference to your spiritual teachers.
11. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.​

But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reasons and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

See: http://www.buddhistinformation.com/the_kalama_sutra.htm

 

[nescafe]

I am angry at Gautama, Buddhism, and Buddhists, just as I am angry at all peoples who are responsible for clitorectomy and high heels (there are more comfortable and anatomically healthy ways for women to posture themselves attractively, without high heels).

What these peoples do to women's bodies, Gautama and company do to the mind and spirit of fellow humans who just want to live, be free, and pursue happiness in life, just like their pet dogs and cats.

This has to be the most inane analogy you have ever made. Congratulations! Now that you have demolished* Buddhsim, I suggest you get rid of the practice of clitoridectomy** by demolishing*** Islam.


[*] If by "demolished" you mean "demolished my strawman version of".
[**]I find that practice abhorrent myself for a wide variety of reasons, including:

• Unlike removing a foreskin (which I do not approve of either), clitoridectomy is usually performed when a child can remember it.
• Can you say Huge Violation of Autonomy and Personal Space?
• They taste much better still attached. Cutting off one of my favourite toys BAD!

[***] Try it in the real world this time. Unlike Buddhism, which is fairly peaceful, certian devout Muslims may express their displeasure at your so-called "debunkings" in a fairly physical fashion. Use caution.

 

[Dancing David]

Dear Dancing David:

I say that the material universe which for me is the only one is permanent, because matter cannot be destroyed, it can change into energy and vice-versa, then also I add that it can get tired (being poetic but no less true in the idea).

You being a close-minded Buddhist cannot or choose not to see the bigger and complete picture of what is permanence and what impermanence, by messing up permanence with immutability or correlatively impermanence with mutability.

I have not said that the universe does not exist, nor have I said that I do not appear to have a body, thoughts, feelings, perceptions and habits.

And impermanance says that things are in flux, and that things change. So I know not of what thoughts you think I have. If a photon is absorbed by an electron and that transmutes the electron to a different quantum shell, then there has been change, if the electron then radiates a photon and jumps to a lower energy shell than it has changed and we can not identify the second photon as being the first.

So there is transformation and there is change.

So where is the permanence.

You do understand what i said about virtual particle pairs didn't you?

Let me explain to you, otherwise you will keep on droning like so many Buddhists that nothing exists

I have never droned that nothing exists, nor do I now state that nothings exists,I have stated that all ios in flux and therefore everything changes. That is what is meant by impermanence. If you catch me saying that nothing exists then i would be suprised.

because nothing is permanent, etc., etc., etc., which is the most absurd and insane idea if put into practice instead of being just an attitude of detachment from things which are not lasting in their condition or mode whereby there are desirable.

I would agree to what that last part said, I have never said that nothing exists, I have said that all things are unique, changing and interdependant.

Here, let me explain to you; but right at the start we must always remember that first every discourse in the universe is between or among humans and to some extent among humans and other life forms, like for example with the pet cat and pet dog at home.

Then every discourse must to be of any use to any participants in the discourse and to be in contact with ultimate reality, which is that reality that exists even though you or we are not engaged in discourse, or you are not thinking of the object that exists even should you be no longer around, or never will or never had been around, like before you were born, or in the scheme of the universe you had been destined never to come into existence as a living and discoursing entity.

Duh, I am a materialist Yrreg, so save your pompous bafoonery for someone else, you are so full of yourself, I doubt you have ever really read what I write. i have never said the universe does not exist, I have never said that the universe is imaginary. So your whole argument to me is based upon a false premise.
I believe that I have a body, thoughts, feelings, emotions, perceptions and habits. I believe that I interact with a physical world that seems to exist. I believe in isotropy and the predictability of interactions, as well as the unpredictable.

Okay here goes:

You and I are talking or engaged in discourse, we must agree to accept the fact that we are both existing even outside our each respective mind, meaning if you don't think of me I am still existing, similarly also in regard to you from my part.

Duh, more argument from a false premise, i believe that you have a body, thoughts, feelings, emotions and habits, I believe that we apparently exist in a physical world.

That takes care of our exitence as two parties in discourse. Of course Buddhists are crazy, yes absolutely crazy -- except that they still take the care to behave like sane humans specially in regard to their money in the bank, in their everyday life and activities and behavior; I say crazy because they keep sayting to themselves and to anyone who might give them even just one half of an ear, that they don't exist, meaning their selves don't exist because the self does not exist.

And again we can repeat the same discourse again if you wish, there are bodies, emotions, thoughts, feelings and habits. there is no self beyond them or above them.

I have never said that those things don't exist Yrreg, so your statement is false, in that all that exists that might be called a self is those five things. there is no more.

The self that does not exist is the atman, soul or transcendential self. The five physical aspects of a body exist, they include the memory and all things a person might associate of 'self' but they are not impermanent and they do not survive death.

Do you know that there is that non-self Gautama leader of Buddhists of which you and Ryokan are proud to proclaim yourselves to be bearers of the name, Buddhist, who convinced a follower, Bahiya, that he does not exist and therefore not to be worried about getting killed even by wild beasts; so the poor sod accidentally flared up the temper of a bull and got killed by the bull. When the other followers of Gautama told him about the death of that disciple for being uncaring because he did not exist, Gautama praised him to the sky, because he had lived up to his non-existent self. Look up that account of the Bahiya Sutta; and I hope even though your self or you don't exist, at least behave as though you exist like everyone else in your home, family,and neighborhood and act accordingly.

And if you cared to do more than recite to yourself, you would know that i am very sceptical of many of the Mahayan myths, in fact i mentioned them in a thread you started about things to be sceptical of in buddhism. But you appar3ently didn't read that thread or understand what i wrote.

So? There are people who call themselves buddhist, they would not agree with me in my beliefs, we are all free to follow the buddha as we see fit. Many buddhists even eat meat, or as I do, kill mice in the house. Although I do prefer to set them free, I don't usualy kill spiders and insects, but I have bug-bombed the house as needed. I would also most likely kill a human to save lives.

I do not belive that buddha was a monkey in a former life either.

Okay, we have agreed that we both exist, we being engaged in discourse between ourselves.

Duh, I am not a solipist either. It sure doesn't appear that I am a brain in a vat.

Now, how do I explain to you that even though we are not permanent as you keep on wrangling about, we are still existing, still around while we live and until we die.

Quite so, I never said otherwise. But there is nothings to a self other than the body, thoughts, feelings, emotions, perceptions and habits.

Look up the English dictionary the word permanent and you will find that it means something here today and here tomorrow, like you are here today and you will be here tomorrow at least in your home with your folks, and also it means something like young today and old tomorrow but still around tomorrow as today and until you die. Get it?

That is a subject of some debate, what you have described is persistance, which is different.
The body i have changes from moment to moment. I assume that yours does as well.

So when you say that nothing is permanent therefore it does not exist, you are not conversant with the complete meaning of the word permanent.

See , there is why you are a ..... yrreg, you exist solely to make me laugh. As you said you are here to explore the humor in buddhism. And there is your fatal bit of ignorance, you are ignoting the FACT that I never said that things don't exist.

I have said that things are impermanent because they are changing. I did not say that things do not exist.

That is why you are ignorant, you ignore what I say and then tell me what I think and say.

Ride pagliacci.

I have never said that things don't exist or that bodies and thier attendant heaps don't exist.

Permanent then means always around even though it changes in condition or mode or state of being, like you and I, we are young now but we are changing our youth to more mature years and then old age, and then death at which point we do not anymore exist as living entities but as lifeless tissues which will decay and turn to dust.

I have a different definition for permanence and it is a semantic argument based upon the time span of permanence. You have a different definition than I do, so you do know the idea of the ship of Piraxis don't you?

So from being a living entity we eventually end up dead and turn to dust, in all that process there is matter and energy, and that is permanent according to what physicists tell us, matter is not created nor destroyed.

And it is mutable and changing, so when the water leaves your body as you urinate, is it still your water or did it change? is the calcium in your bones the same calcium it was when you were born?

There is persistance to the body, but it changes. No disagreement there. The body exists.

In brief, your trouble is that you draw that conclusion that just because nothing remains in the same state, mode, condition, kind of existence, existence or matter/energy is not permanent.

You are such an ignoramus, I have never said such a thing. You so silly Yrreg.

Then also Buddhists, for example you, keep repeating that because we living entities change and even die we don't exist for being again impermanent; pure fallacious pseudo reasoning, because while we live although we change during ou lifetime duration there is always the we, our selves. Proof of that, when someone throws a stone at you and you see him doing it, you duck; then tomorrow you get one day older, and you see the guy again throwing a stone at you, you duck again, because you are still around and the same person, even though one day older.

I have said that we have bodies and the like, the rest is psuedo religous reasoning on your part. You just want to believe it because you appear as a fake scpetic, you don't seem to question your own beliefs, you are only sceptical of the beliefs you don't like. But you are catholic in your dogma that you can tell me what i think and believe, never mind that i disagree about what i believe , you are telling me stuff that i don't believe is what i belive.
......

A lot of arguments from Buddhists is so much fallacies parading as profound insights into life and the universe, but to people who do engage in discourse and know each other to be the same persons today and tomorrow, all such insights from Buddhism are a lot of nonsense.

So you never change or learn, stasis is sad, my body appears to persist. that doesn't mean it doesn't change, are you really the same as you were when you were two?

And that is why all those Buddhists living in sangha continue to eat and micturate, and defecate, and some of them engage in self-gratification or outright love-making with their pupils -- because they exist even though they proclaim that their selves don't exist, in words only of course; again because when they get hungry they eat, horny they seek release any how they can, go to the john when they have to leak or unload.

Duh ....., that would be part of having a body.

Yrreg

=========================================

My words may not be soothing, but consider the ideas

The Buddhist non-self, and its implications, living the everyday non-self existence?
http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/ind...ost&pid=500486

[From the Kalama Sutra by Gautama]

01. Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it long ago.
02. Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for many generations.
03. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
04. Do not confirm anything just because it agrees with your scriptures.
05. Do not foolishly make assumptions.
06. Do not abruptly draw conclusions by what you see and hear.
07. Do not be fooled by outward appearances.
08. Do not hold on tightly to any view or idea just because you are comfortable with it.
09. Do not accept as fact anything that you yourself find to be logical.
10. Do not be convinced of anything out of respect and deference to your spiritual teachers.
11. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.​

But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reasons and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

See: http://www.buddhistinformation.com/the_kalama_sutra.htm

Don't quit your day job Yrreg, you are a lousy psychic, what other thoughts of mine can you predict, will you apply for the challenge?

Thanks for the fish!

 

[Dancing David]

[This is the kind of posts in regard to Gautama, Buddhism, and Buddhists, that got me thrown out by the mods and admins of the Internet Infidels Discussion Board, and got deleted without notice by the mods and admins of the E-Sangha (Buddhist and Buddhism) Forum. So my posts here will be a continuing memorial to the ideal of free inquiry, free thought, and free speech of this here JREF Forum.]​

Excerpts from the Bahiya Sutra, in translation by American Buddhist monk, Thanissaro Bhikkhu (Geoffrey DeGraff):

Addressing Dancing David and Ryokan:

Wait till you have a son or daughter who takes up Buddhism and Gautama's words with utmost conviction as to practice it most faithfully even to the death of biological life, then you can also put up a memorial to him for having attained liberation.

I am angry at Gautama, Buddhism, and Buddhists, just as I am angry at all peoples who are responsible for clitorectomy and high heels (there are more comfortable and anatomically healthy ways for women to posture themselves attractively, without high heels).

What these peoples do to women's bodies, Gautama and company do to the mind and spirit of fellow humans who just want to live, be free, and pursue happiness in life, just like their pet dogs and cats.

Yrreg

=========================================

My words may not be soothing, but consider the ideas

The Buddhist non-self, and its implications, living the everyday non-self existence?
http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/ind...ost&pid=500486

[From the Kalama Sutra by Gautama]

01. Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it long ago.
02. Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for many generations.
03. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
04. Do not confirm anything just because it agrees with your scriptures.
05. Do not foolishly make assumptions.
06. Do not abruptly draw conclusions by what you see and hear.
07. Do not be fooled by outward appearances.
08. Do not hold on tightly to any view or idea just because you are comfortable with it.
09. Do not accept as fact anything that you yourself find to be logical.
10. Do not be convinced of anything out of respect and deference to your spiritual teachers.
11. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.​

But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reasons and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

See: http://www.buddhistinformation.com/the_kalama_sutra.htm

I do not support body mutilation of an involuntary nature, and I certainly don't wear high heels. I shall see what I can find about the story you have stated, I don't know why it would get you banned. Then I shall have to read about it and decide what it might mean.

I personaly find Christianity as an organised religion to be soul crushing to the extreme, but that is my personal belief. And if you feel that way about buddhism than you have my sympathy. But there are many sources of injustice, and you will work for justice in your way and I shall work in mine.

 

[Dancing David]

This is the Buddhist hermeneutics of Dancing David:

When you read something supposedly from the historical Buddha, i.e., Gautama, that cannot gibe with contemporary knowledge, then it must be understood to be not intended by him except for the peoples of his time and clime, and you must assume and presume that he knows better, namely, in fact he knows what we know currently of life and the universe, even more which we don't currently know.​

Addressing Dancing David:

Have you thought out the implications and consequences of this your hermeneutics for Buddhist texts?

Yrreg

=========================================

My words may not be soothing, but consider the ideas

The Buddhist non-self, and its implications, living the everyday non-self existence?
http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/ind...ost&pid=500486

[From the Kalama Sutra by Gautama]

01. Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it long ago.
02. Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for many generations.
03. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
04. Do not confirm anything just because it agrees with your scriptures.
05. Do not foolishly make assumptions.
06. Do not abruptly draw conclusions by what you see and hear.
07. Do not be fooled by outward appearances.
08. Do not hold on tightly to any view or idea just because you are comfortable with it.
09. Do not accept as fact anything that you yourself find to be logical.
10. Do not be convinced of anything out of respect and deference to your spiritual teachers.
11. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.​

But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reasons and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

See: http://www.buddhistinformation.com/the_kalama_sutra.htm

When you read something supposedly from the historical Buddha, i.e., Gautama, that cannot gibe with contemporary knowledge, then it must be understood to be not intended by him except for the peoples of his time and clime, and you must assume and presume that he knows better, namely, in fact he knows what we know currently of life and the universe, even more which we don't currently know.​

Well again your psychic powers are rather poor, don't quit your day job!

I have never stated that the buddha was infallible, and again I have stated that there are many parts of buddhism which I am very sceptical of, I would never presume that the buddha knows better, nor did the alleged historical buddha state that he did.
I would never beleive that the buddha knows more of life than any other nor that he knew things that we can not know.

So WRONG on all counts Yrreg.

You must be really attached to your warped religous view of the universe. You can not find that I stated those things except in your ignorance. My words stand as they have been posted.

I have not made those statements.

Are you feeling okay? I am very suprised that an honest answer to your inquiry is met with such bizzareness.

Oh well, may you and yours be healthy ,safe and loved.

 

[Dancing David]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

permanent

SYLLABICATION: per·ma·nent
PRONUNCIATION: pûrm-nnt
ADJECTIVE: 1. Lasting or remaining without essential change: “the universal human yearning for something permanent, enduring, without shadow of change” (Willa Cather). 2. Not expected to change in status, condition, or place: a permanent address; permanent secretary to the president.
NOUN: Any of several long-lasting hair styles usually achieved by chemical applications which straighten, curl, or wave the hair.
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin permanns, permanent-, present participle of permanre, to endure : per-, throughout; see per– + manre, to remain; see men-3 in Appendix I.

 

[yrreg]

Again, the distinction between permanence and immutability...

Dear Dancing David:

Thanks for your concession that you agree with me over so many things.

But we have disagreement over a number of other things, sad to say so; but that is a fact of life among living folks, only folks in the cemetery don't have disagreements.

I am really sorry for you because you feel that I have misunderstood you in those things that you have now conceded that you have the same positions as I; and the trouble is owing to my misreading of your words as coming from shall we say a hard core Buddhist.

You are a Buddhist for the kind of psychotherapy from Buddhism which works for you. I am happy for you then. I know now that you are not a card carrying Buddhist like Ryokan; you just go for the psycho counseling or therapy. something like Buddhist psychiatry sort of.

But I always think with time and exposure to normal and mentally healthy people who are productive and satisfied with life, or can manage their problems successfully as to live to a decent measure of contentment with life and the universe, I always think that persons like you plagued by adjustment troubles will get over them and lead a normal life -- unless their ailments are not adjustment ones but organic ones, in which case they can use medication or even surgical intervention, for I fear that no Buddhist psychotherapy will help in the long term.


I like you to read what I say about the meanings of the English word permanence as distinct from the English word immutability, which both come from Latin, then also what you bring up from a standard English dictionary the definitions of the word permanence, and tell me do we have any essential or I have any essential difference in meaning of permanence with your dictionary's definitions. I want to confess to you that I did not look up the dictionary for the definitions of permanence, but I just know that permanence in English and in its Latin etymology is distinct from immutability as an English word derived from the Latin word, 'immutabilitas'.

Here below are my paragraphs on permanence as distinct from immutability, below the paragraphs from me in quotation box, you will find in quotation box your dictionary definitions of permanence.

Okay, we have agreed that we both exist, we being engaged in discourse between ourselves.

Now, how do I explain to you that even though we are not permanent as you keep on wrangling about, we are still existing, still around while we live and until we die.

Look up the English dictionary the word permanent and you will find that it means something here today and here tomorrow, like you are here today and you will be here tomorrow at least in your home with your folks, and also it means something like young today and old tomorrow but still around tomorrow as today and until you die. Get it?

So when you say that nothing is permanent therefore it does not exist, you are not conversant with the complete meaning of the word permanent.

Permanent then means always around even though it changes in condition or mode or state of being, like you and I, we are young now but we are changing our youth to more mature years and then old age, and then death at which point we do not anymore exist as living entities but as lifeless tissues which will decay and turn to dust.

So from being a living entity we eventually end up dead and turn to dust, in all that process there is matter and energy, and that is permanent according to what physicists tell us, matter is not created nor destroyed.

In brief, your trouble is that you draw that conclusion that just because nothing remains in the same state, mode, condition, kind of existence, existence or matter/energy is not permanent.

® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

permanent

SYLLABICATION: per·ma·nent
PRONUNCIATION: pûrm-nnt
ADJECTIVE: 1. Lasting or remaining without essential change: “the universal human yearning for something permanent, enduring, without shadow of change” (Willa Cather). 2. Not expected to change in status, condition, or place: a permanent address; permanent secretary to the president.
NOUN: Any of several long-lasting hair styles usually achieved by chemical applications which straighten, curl, or wave the hair.
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin permanens, permanent-, present participle of permanre, to endure : per-, throughout; see per– + manre, to remain; see men-3 in Appendix I.

Okay? Now, allow me to ask you to examine my summation of what I understand of the English word permanence, from my habitual knowledge of English without even looking up English dictionaries: that there are two -- or course there are more, meanings to the word permanence:

1. Something lasting long, indefinitely, even forever; for examples: permanent pacemaker, permanent ink, permanent members, permanent fund.

2. Something that does not change either superficially or into something essentially different; for examples, (a) no superficial change, as in hair with permanent curl or wave; (b) no essential change, as in diamond is permanent forever, i.e., it does not change into another element.​

Do you think you can answer the following questions so that we can know more in details, how we agree or disagree over the meanings of the word permanence, as distinct from the word immutability.

1. Do you agree that there are the above two senses of the word permanence?

2. Do you agree that the opposite of permanence in sense 1. is impermanence, transience, temporality (I am not using any dictionary, just relying on my knowledge of English)?

3. Do you agree that the opposite to permanence in sense 2. is mutability, changeability, fickleness? and one synonym of permanence in sense 2. is immutability?

4. Do you agree that the universe is permanent in sense 1.?

5. Do you agree that the universe is impermanent in sense 2.?

6. Comic relief: Are we getting dizzy now, but still permanent in sense 1. but not in sense 2.?​

In order to locate what points we agree on and what points we are in impasse over our several issues on Buddhism, I will draw up some more questions for you to answer, most probably, with Yes or No.

Watch for those questions in some later post from yours truly; in the meantime I will pursue my curiosity exactly what I stand to get from Buddhism, what Gautama stands to get from his preachment of Buddhism, and what Buddhists stand to get from Buddhism.

I am happy for you, Buddhism has given you psychotherapy, good; but as I always say, if a psycho problem is not organic then there are many other ways and means to obtain therapy, even without anything special except with time and living life in the company of normal and mentally healthy well-adjusted folks.


Yrreg

=========================================

My words may not be soothing, but consider the ideas

The Buddhist non-self, and its implications, living the everyday non-self existence?
http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/ind...ost&pid=500486

[From the Kalama Sutra by Gautama]

01. Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it long ago.
02. Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for many generations.
03. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
04. Do not confirm anything just because it agrees with your scriptures.
05. Do not foolishly make assumptions.
06. Do not abruptly draw conclusions by what you see and hear.
07. Do not be fooled by outward appearances.
08. Do not hold on tightly to any view or idea just because you are comfortable with it.
09. Do not accept as fact anything that you yourself find to be logical.
10. Do not be convinced of anything out of respect and deference to your spiritual teachers.
11. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.​

But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reasons and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

See: http://www.buddhistinformation.com/the_kalama_sutra.htm

 

[Dancing David]

Dear Dancing David:

Thanks for your concession that you agree with me over so many things.

I have always agreed with you over many things, I really feel that you don't read the posts as I write them or that you are engaging in a monolouge.

But we have disagreement over a number of other things, sad to say so; but that is a fact of life among living folks, only folks in the cemetery don't have disagreements.

I am not sure disagreement in not inherent in the uniqueness of all objects.

I am really sorry for you because you feel that I have misunderstood you in those things that you have now conceded that you have the same positions as I; and the trouble is owing to my misreading of your words as coming from shall we say a hard core Buddhist.

It is more that I am not sure you have actualy read the posts.

You are a Buddhist for the kind of psychotherapy from Buddhism which works for you. I am happy for you then. I know now that you are not a card carrying Buddhist like Ryokan; you just go for the psycho counseling or therapy. something like Buddhist psychiatry sort of.

That is a matter of some debate, by most lights I am a buddhist, I take refuge in the dharma, the buddha and the sangha, I try to follow the eight fold path.

I think of myself as a buddhist, it is more than psychotherapy, it is a practice in living, but yes I do view it in a certain light. I follow the practices of living in the eightfold path.

I try to alos follow the precepts although I have not taken a formal vow, I have vowed to myself that i will try to follow them. At least the layman's version.

But it is not like psychiatry at all.

But I always think with time and exposure to normal and mentally healthy people who are productive and satisfied with life, or can manage their problems successfully as to live to a decent measure of contentment with life and the universe, I always think that persons like you plagued by adjustment troubles will get over them and lead a normal life -- unless their ailments are not adjustment ones but organic ones, in which case they can use medication or even surgical intervention, for I fear that no Buddhist psychotherapy will help in the long term.

Uh, gee that is rather Pollyanna of you ( a story about a very positive young woman) , you may feel that but I feel differently as a former mental health professional, psot traumatic stress disorder does usualy resolve over time, nor do unhealthy life styles.

That is why I found buddhism helpful, it gave me the 'what' I could do to change my life.

And your last statement is wrong, it is part of a treatment that is very effective for helping treatment refractory people, who do not benefit from traditional treatments.

Look up 'Linnehan model, Borderline Personality Disorder', although there are other treatments such as the Pearson model.

I think that again the eightfold path isthe vehicle, and the mystic side of mhayana is what it is.

I kind of enjoy it, but I already had a mystic system replete with material.

I like you to read what I say about the meanings of the English word permanence as distinct from the English word immutability, which both come from Latin, then also what you bring up from a standard English dictionary the definitions of the word permanence, and tell me do we have any essential or I have any essential difference in meaning of permanence with your dictionary's definitions. I want to confess to you that I did not look up the dictionary for the definitions of permanence, but I just know that permanence in English and in its Latin etymology is distinct from immutability as an English word derived from the Latin word, 'immutabilitas'.

The common meaning in american english is 'unchanging'

Here below are my paragraphs on permanence as distinct from immutability, below the paragraphs from me in quotation box, you will find in quotation box your dictionary definitions of permanence.

Quoting your favorite source, I did read them the last time. Self reference is a rather poor habit and well boring and unsceptical.

Okay? Now, allow me to ask you to examine my summation of what I understand of the English word permanence, from my habitual knowledge of English without even looking up English dictionaries: that there are two -- or course there are more, meanings to the word permanence:

1. Something lasting long, indefinitely, even forever; for examples: permanent pacemaker, permanent ink, permanent members, permanent fund.

2. Something that does not change either superficially or into something essentially different; for examples, (a) no superficial change, as in hair with permanent curl or wave; (b) no essential change, as in diamond is permanent forever, i.e., it does not change into another element.​

Do you think you can answer the following questions so that we can know more in details, how we agree or disagree over the meanings of the word permanence, as distinct from the word immutability.

1. Do you agree that there are the above two senses of the word permanence?
​

Most likely more language is a shifting set of values that are very heavily culturaly dependant.

The american heritage dictionary uses the common model and therefore the more common usage is listed first.
I am almost certain that Websters would be different.

So "Lasting or remaining without essential change" would be the most common american usage. But hey it is a mutable symbol set that has no meaning in the absolute sense.

2. Do you agree that the opposite of permanence in sense 1. is impermanence, transience, temporality (I am not using any dictionary, just relying on my knowledge of English)?

yes, phase shifts would also be included, any translocation or shift in nature or character would be a change. But there are so many uses of common words that the defintion varies, such as 'permanent marker' does not last for ever.

3. Do you agree that the opposite to permanence in sense 2. is mutability, changeability, fickleness? and one synonym of permanence in sense 2. is immutability?

I would, but again is an uncommon word, and therefore has less idiomatic usage in american english. Mutability implies an ability to change. And since I am not a latin scholar I am not sure of the root derivations and implication.

4. Do you agree that the universe is permanent in sense 1.?

No, it has a begining, from what we can tell, it has had seperate phases in it's early stages and has rather constant changes that occur within, I agree that is has existed, over a very long time period. I would attribute the quality of persistance to it, not permanence.

5. Do you agree that the universe is impermanent in sense 2.?

Yes, it has the qualities of persistance over time, but

No. Because when I ask where is the 'something permanent' I am specificaly using the meaning of 'unchanging in essence'. If a mountain can become smaller overtime then it is not permanent in that sense.

The second sense of permanent comes from many sources, some are advertisin others are usage to denote a longer state of being such as 'permanent adress'.

But those things are not permanent in the sense of
"where is something that is not changing, transitory or in flux?"

6. Comic relief: Are we getting dizzy now, but still permanent in sense 1. but not in sense 2.?

In order to locate what points we agree on and what points we are in impasse over our several issues on Buddhism, I will draw up some more questions for you to answer, most probably, with Yes or No.

Watch for those questions in some later post from yours truly; in the meantime I will pursue my curiosity exactly what I stand to get from Buddhism, what Gautama stands to get from his preachment of Buddhism, and what Buddhists stand to get from Buddhism.

I am happy for you, Buddhism has given you psychotherapy, good; but as I always say, if a psycho problem is not organic then there are many other ways and means to obtain therapy, even without anything special except with time and living life in the company of normal and mentally healthy well-adjusted folks.

I never said that the teachings of the buddha were special, just that they can be helpful to people who find them helpful. which is rather a circular defintion.


Yrreg

=========================================

My words may not be soothing, but consider the ideas

The Buddhist non-self, and its implications, living the everyday non-self existence?
http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/ind...ost&pid=500486

[From the Kalama Sutra by Gautama]

01. Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it long ago.
02. Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for many generations.
03. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
04. Do not confirm anything just because it agrees with your scriptures.
05. Do not foolishly make assumptions.
06. Do not abruptly draw conclusions by what you see and hear.
07. Do not be fooled by outward appearances.
08. Do not hold on tightly to any view or idea just because you are comfortable with it.
09. Do not accept as fact anything that you yourself find to be logical.
10. Do not be convinced of anything out of respect and deference to your spiritual teachers.
11. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.​

But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reasons and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

See: http://www.buddhistinformation.com/the_kalama_sutra.htm[/QUOTE]

Yrreg, I have stated many times that there are many things to be sceptical of in buddhism, but it is not Roman Cathlocism, I do consider myself to be mostly a theravadic buddhist. However there are many points of diagreement that I would have with them.

Inerrancy is not something the buddha taught.

 

[Dancing David]

A sidebar eher,
I read the link to the Bihaya Sutta and it is open to interpretation, but my reading of the sutta is not that Bihaya attained his liberation through death. that is a possible interpretation, but from my reading of similar stories the point as I see it is diagrammed like this.

1. Bihaya wishes to know if it is possible to have enlightenment.

2. Bihaya is told about the buddha.,

3. Bihaya asks the buddha three times to be taught.

4. Bihaya is told an important teaching.

5. Bihaya is allegedly freed and attains enlightenment.

6. Biahaya dies shortly thereafter.

7. The monks foolishly ask what is Bihaya's destinantion.

8. The buddha answers that he was free and therefore unbound.

So my interpretation is that the following lines
"Where water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing:
There the stars do not shine,
the sun is not visible,
the moon does not appear,
darkness is not found.
And when a sage,
a brahman through sagacity,
has known [this] for himself,
then from form & formless,
from bliss & pain,
he is freed. "

Are regarding the living Bihaya and the attainmenat of enlightenment.

This is very similar to other suttas and in fact the 'first teching at the deer park', where Sariputta is told of the dhamma and attains enlightenment. There are at least two other stories where people attain enlightenment and die shortly thereafter and there are numerous stories of those who are already practioners, they just lack the key of annata to attaing liberation.

S9o here is where we will disagree Yrreg:

myself: it is a lesson the liberation is attained in living and that the poem at the end is about living the life of unrestricted action. It is in fact a passage that could have alomost been lifted straight from the Dao de Ching and attributed to Lao Dze. I feel that the import of the story is that liberation was attained and that therefore Bihaya attained enlightenment, even though he died shortly therefter. the state described in the poem is the state of mind of one in nibbanna, it is the concepts, words and restrictions of thoughts and habits and attachment from which the 'brahmin'(one of the down falls of the buddha) has been freed.

But you interpret it differently.

I would say that the key is in the use of the word known in the line
"has known [this] for himself" which would imply the act of a living being. Since it is a well known fact that the dead are unknowing and non-experiencing.

But justas there are christians who focus on the crucifiction and not the message of jesus, so there are those who would interpret the passage to mean death is liberation.

I am sure if you poll buddhists on the meaning of the sutta, they will vary immensly.

Just as there are christians who think of jesus as the good shepard rather than the son of god dying on the cross.

The teaching
"Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how your should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

Is given to the living Bihaya and therefore the interpretation of the poem is to be derived from the teaching, had the buddha given the treaching to the corpse of Biahaya then the poem would be interpreted differently. Ibelieve, perhaps incorrectly that this passage gives the key to the sutta and the interpretation of the poem, and it is given to the living Biahaya, who then attains freedom.

If the passage saying that "the mind of Bahiya of the Bark-cloth right then and there was released from the effluents through lack of clinging/sustenance." came after the death of Bihaya then I would think that death was the iberation fo Bihaya, but it occurs prior to the dath and therefore the interpretation of the poem is meant to apply to the living. And again it is very similar to the teachings of Lao Dzu.

But if the words of the buddha have differnt meaning for you, I can understand in a very limited sense (because you are unique and I can not really understand you completely) why you would find them offensive, I see them as pertaining to the living, you see them as pertaining to death.

 

[Moochie]

Well, we, the silent majority of Buddhists on this board, don't give a rat's.

M.

 

[yrreg]

Too difficult, complicated, a religion to get saved by, if ever possible.

Dear Dancing David:

You say I don't read your posts, but I do; only I try to get the drift of your thoughts and react according to your thoughts; because when people dwell on the text or words only, then they and I will end up with a lot of questions and no answers of what the person is saying.

That is why in human affairs which are the only ones we humans are engaged in and among ourselves and with no other being aside from fellow life forms to some extent which are very close to us, like the pet dogs and cats at home, we also set up judges to impose on us what we mean by our words, meaning what we really had for thoughts we wanted to convey, the intention most specifically; for if everyone is left to himself to explain his words, then he can always maneuver himself out of his original thoughts and intentions, by twisting the words he did utter, using more words, or more correctly further abusing words with more words.

Now, there are just two thoughts from you in the above last post of yours which I like to react to, or maybe three:

1. You say that the universe is not permanent in the sense that it has always existed because it has a beginning. That is one point that I find lacking in imagination with you and people like you who can say that the universe is not permanent because it has a beginning (but I believe we should not use that word permanent or impermanent anymore because it is susceptible to misunderstanding, the better word I suggest should be perpetual, and I will now use the word perpetual to mean something has always existed and will always exist whatever the changes it undergoes whether superficial or essential -- that is if it is all right with you), saying something is not perpetual because it has a beginning like in our present concern the universe, but they don't go beyond the beginning to ask themselves the question what came before the beginning, nothing or something, if nothing then the universe came from nothing? For my own thinking, my universe is larger than your universe which has a beginning, my universe goes beyond the beginning of your universe, meaning it is a universe with a beginning yes, but also including a history beyond time and space, if we would talk about the beginning of time and space as the beginning of the universe. And that is why I say that the universe in my thinking which I maintain should be the thinking of every thinker who does think to the very last implication and consequence of thinking, the universe namely is permanent, to be precise, perpetual, it includes a history before the beginning of your universe. In brief, my universe has always been around even before the beginning of your universe and will be around after the end of your universe; to be briefer, my universe always is, whatever the changes it undergoes.

2. You explain per longum et latum, i.e., far and wide, the death of Bahiya in terms of liberation so that Bahiya finally came to the whatever enlightenment or Nirvana means to you and to Buddha; but the fact is Bahiya died and is dead; tell that to his parents, and console them that Buddha the enlightened one has set up a memorial to him for his steadfastness in following the teachings of Buddha. That is why I have found out at this point in time that all my efforts in talking from a critical mind about Buddhism is owing to the sadism and masochism that is the driving force of Buddha and Buddhism; and I will now start a thread on that topic, Sadism and Masochism in Buddhism.

3. Have you never wondered when you do read your own words about Buddhism and also the words of other Buddhists about this religion that is preached as a remedy to the suffering of mankind, that it is of the utmost complexity and complicate maze-ly labyrinthine, abysmal character? If you are lost in the forest or jungle or marooned in the ocean and found a bottle with a document detailing to you how you are to save yourself, namely, get back to town with life intact or the shore, have you ever wondered how you will ever get back to town or come to shore with the document in the bottle which is Buddhism?


Honestly, the only thing I find of any use for mankind in Buddhism is the Kalama Sutra, which I can see to be a wholesale disclaimer by the guys who confected the Pali Canon, disclaimer like the one the US government requires every pack of cigarettes to carry, "Smoking is dangerous to your health," in effect those guys are telling us from beyond their graves that Buddhism is dangerous to your health: physical, emotional, and mental. And that is why Buddhists here have not so far contributed any posts to my thread on "Buddhism, the most intelligent religion?" to convince members and guests of this forum that yes, Buddhism is the most intelligent religion.


I will now proceed to my new thread which I think is what I should have been doing from the start, because then it will be concerned with acts of people on themselves owing to their embrace of Buddhism, and also Gautama on himself to live his own preachment of Buddhism, namely, do sadism to others and masochism to himself.


Yrreg

=========================================

My words may not be soothing, but consider the ideas

The Buddhist non-self, and its implications, living the everyday non-self existence?
http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/ind...ost&pid=500486

[From the Kalama Sutra by Gautama]

01. Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it long ago.
02. Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for many generations.
03. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
04. Do not confirm anything just because it agrees with your scriptures.
05. Do not foolishly make assumptions.
06. Do not abruptly draw conclusions by what you see and hear.
07. Do not be fooled by outward appearances.
08. Do not hold on tightly to any view or idea just because you are comfortable with it.
09. Do not accept as fact anything that you yourself find to be logical.
10. Do not be convinced of anything out of respect and deference to your spiritual teachers.
11. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reasons and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

See: http://www.buddhistinformation.com/the_kalama_sutra.htm

 

[yrreg]

The trouble is Buddhists here claim to be skeptics.

Well, we, the silent majority of Buddhists on this board, don't give a rat's.

M.

I am not a Buddhist but I give a rat's because the Buddhists here claim to be skeptics, meaning they don't accept anything except on evidence and logic; but they make an exception of their Buddhism.

Now when you ask them whether they can adduce evidence and logic for karma, rebirth, nirvana, they will tell you that Gautama never taught all those stuffs, he was just suggesting a method for people to overcome the stress of life and attain adjustment to life and thereby relief from suffering.

If you read those stuffs in the scriptures supposedly containing Buddha's words, then they will tell you that he never really meant them, except to accommodate to the ignorance of the folks in his time and clime.

But even that relief from suffering, there is neither evidence nor logic in the method they accepted as coming from Gautama to be successful; for example that method does not get rid of the perennial headache of the well-known US Buddhist bhikkhu, i.e., monk, Bhikkhu Bodhi (Bodhi means enlightened or more correctly awakened, but not relieved of a headache).

Read my coming thread on "Sadism and Masochism in Buddhism."


Yrreg

=========================================

My words may not be soothing, but consider the ideas

The Buddhist non-self, and its implications, living the everyday non-self existence?
http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/ind...ost&pid=500486

[From the Kalama Sutra by Gautama]

01. Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it long ago.
02. Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for many generations.
03. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
04. Do not confirm anything just because it agrees with your scriptures.
05. Do not foolishly make assumptions.
06. Do not abruptly draw conclusions by what you see and hear.
07. Do not be fooled by outward appearances.
08. Do not hold on tightly to any view or idea just because you are comfortable with it.
09. Do not accept as fact anything that you yourself find to be logical.
10. Do not be convinced of anything out of respect and deference to your spiritual teachers.
11. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.​

But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reasons and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

See: http://www.buddhistinformation.com/the_kalama_sutra.htm

 

[Dancing David]

Dear Dancing David:

You say I don't read your posts, but I do; only I try to get the drift of your thoughts and react according to your thoughts; because when people dwell on the text or words only, then they and I will end up with a lot of questions and no answers of what the person is saying.

That is why in human affairs which are the only ones we humans are engaged in and among ourselves and with no other being aside from fellow life forms to some extent which are very close to us, like the pet dogs and cats at home, we also set up judges to impose on us what we mean by our words, meaning what we really had for thoughts we wanted to convey, the intention most specifically; for if everyone is left to himself to explain his words, then he can always maneuver himself out of his original thoughts and intentions, by twisting the words he did utter, using more words, or more correctly further abusing words with more words.

Now, there are just two thoughts from you in the above last post of yours which I like to react to, or maybe three:

1. You say that the universe is not permanent in the sense that it has always existed because it has a beginning. That is one point that I find lacking in imagination with you and people like you who can say that the universe is not permanent because it has a beginning (but I believe we should not use that word permanent or impermanent anymore because it is susceptible to misunderstanding, the better word I suggest should be perpetual, and I will now use the word perpetual to mean something has always existed and will always exist whatever the changes it undergoes whether superficial or essential -- that is if it is all right with you), saying something is not perpetual because it has a beginning like in our present concern the universe, but they don't go beyond the beginning to ask themselves the question what came before the beginning, nothing or something, if nothing then the universe came from nothing? For my own thinking, my universe is larger than your universe which has a beginning, my universe goes beyond the beginning of your universe, meaning it is a universe with a beginning yes, but also including a history beyond time and space, if we would talk about the beginning of time and space as the beginning of the universe. And that is why I say that the universe in my thinking which I maintain should be the thinking of every thinker who does think to the very last implication and consequence of thinking, the universe namely is permanent, to be precise, perpetual, it includes a history before the beginning of your universe. In brief, my universe has always been around even before the beginning of your universe and will be around after the end of your universe; to be briefer, my universe always is, whatever the changes it undergoes.

That shows the lack of understanding of the current theory of cosmology. We can't actualy know what the universe was like prior to the big bang event.And as such any statements about the universe prior to the bbe are speculative. We are free to speculate but knowledge is different, currently we can only see one side of the bbe, and I prefer the recursive expansions, but brane theory has some good points as well.
Cetainly one can imagine a framework for the bbe to occur in, but we don't currently have knowledge of it.

2. You explain per longum et latum, i.e., far and wide, the death of Bahiya in terms of liberation so that Bahiya finally came to the whatever enlightenment or Nirvana means to you and to Buddha; but the fact is Bahiya died and is dead; tell that to his parents, and console them that Buddha the enlightened one has set up a memorial to him for his steadfastness in following the teachings of Buddha. That is why I have found out at this point in time that all my efforts in talking from a critical mind about Buddhism is owing to the sadism and masochism that is the driving force of Buddha and Buddhism; and I will now start a thread on that topic, Sadism and Masochism in Buddhism.

As I said the sutta is open to interpretion , all interpretationas are valid, all are equaly false. Your interprwtation is as valid as any.
I don't beleive that any comment was made about the saddness of death.
And the buddha would not give the proverbial dead rat's posterior about steadfastness, you can follow or not.
reliongs are all equally poor at dealing with death. telling someone a bunch of poo about heaven makes little sense, if that heaven is the perfect land or the kingdom of god.

3. Have you never wondered when you do read your own words about Buddhism and also the words of other Buddhists about this religion that is preached as a remedy to the suffering of mankind, that it is of the utmost complexity and complicate maze-ly labyrinthine, abysmal character?

I would say that the eightfold path is rather clear. And if you like other syestems then that is fine. Why you will note that the buddha does not even address Bihaya until he asks three times. You can follow the eightfold path or not.

If you are lost in the forest or jungle or marooned in the ocean and found a bottle with a document detailing to you how you are to save yourself, namely, get back to town with life intact or the shore, have you ever wondered how you will ever get back to town or come to shore with the document in the bottle which is Buddhism?

Depends on which town you want to go to, Xianity and Rock Candy Mountain won't get you anywhere at all, except maybe buggered by a priest.

Honestly, the only thing I find of any use for mankind in Buddhism is the Kalama Sutra, which I can see to be a wholesale disclaimer by the guys who confected the Pali Canon, disclaimer like the one the US government requires every pack of cigarettes to carry, "Smoking is dangerous to your health," in effect those guys are telling us from beyond their graves that Buddhism is dangerous to your health: physical, emotional, and mental. And that is why Buddhists here have not so far contributed any posts to my thread on "Buddhism, the most intelligent religion?" to convince members and guests of this forum that yes, Buddhism is the most intelligent religion.

there might be other reasons , such as a lack of interest in the diacussion, free speech is what it is. I shall write there to express my views.

I will now proceed to my new thread which I think is what I should have been doing from the start, because then it will be concerned with acts of people on themselves owing to their embrace of Buddhism, and also Gautama on himself to live his own preachment of Buddhism, namely, do sadism to others and masochism to himself.


Yrreg

=========================================

My words may not be soothing, but consider the ideas

The Buddhist non-self, and its implications, living the everyday non-self existence?
http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/ind...ost&pid=500486

[From the Kalama Sutra by Gautama]

01. Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it long ago.
02. Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for many generations.
03. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
04. Do not confirm anything just because it agrees with your scriptures.
05. Do not foolishly make assumptions.
06. Do not abruptly draw conclusions by what you see and hear.
07. Do not be fooled by outward appearances.
08. Do not hold on tightly to any view or idea just because you are comfortable with it.
09. Do not accept as fact anything that you yourself find to be logical.
10. Do not be convinced of anything out of respect and deference to your spiritual teachers.
11. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reasons and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

See: http://www.buddhistinformation.com/the_kalama_sutra.htm

And that is why I say that the universe in my thinking which I maintain should be the thinking of every thinker who does think to the very last implication and consequence of thinking

Ever the sceptic eh, and rather less than open minded.

 

[Moochie]

We don't give a rat's because you're just an illusion.

M.

 

[yrreg]

Not me, Yrreg, I am not illusion not delusion, but them Buddhists like Dancing David.

We don't give a rat's because you're just an illusion.

M.

Not me, Yrreg, I am not illusion not delusion; and not even in thought or in attitude, I don't think of myself as illusion or delusion; it's them Buddhists who want to think and talk among themselves that they are illusion before others and delusion to themselves; but otherwise they do and conduct themselves in everyday life just like everyone else -- except the fanatical ones who retire to isolated unnatural abnormal lifestyle in the sangha, that lifestyle that is masochism on themselves, and when they preach such a lifestyle to others to embrace like themselves, sadism on others.

But no amount of thinking and talking among themselves that they are illusion to non-Buddhists and delusion to themselves, no amount of such duplicitous gibberish will get them off the hook when they get a girl pregnant or run over someone on the roads or they themselves get constipation or diarrhea; no they can't get any defense or relief resorting to their conviction and attitude that they all all illusion to rest of society and delusion to themselves.

Smile everyone, when you meet a Buddhist, because you are seeing an entity that can think and talk himself to be illusion to you, and you to him, and he himself delusion to himself, and still in the morning goes about begging from you for food and alms -- all in the name of humility, says Dancing David -- very convenient.

Yrreg

=========================================

My words may not be soothing, but consider the ideas

The Buddhist non-self, and its implications, living the everyday non-self existence?
http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/ind...ost&pid=500486

[From the Kalama Sutra by Gautama]

01. Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it long ago.
02. Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for many generations.
03. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
04. Do not confirm anything just because it agrees with your scriptures.
05. Do not foolishly make assumptions.
06. Do not abruptly draw conclusions by what you see and hear.
07. Do not be fooled by outward appearances.
08. Do not hold on tightly to any view or idea just because you are comfortable with it.
09. Do not accept as fact anything that you yourself find to be logical.
10. Do not be convinced of anything out of respect and deference to your spiritual teachers.
11. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.​

But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reasons and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

See: http://www.buddhistinformation.com/the_kalama_sutra.htm

 

[yrreg]

A Buddhist is a deluded guy holding himself hostage to himself.

As I read the posts here in JREF Forum I heard on radio that a deranged guy is in real time outside my home downtown holding himself hostage by climbing up a giant billboard and resisting all exhortations from the police to get down -- because he is a distraction to people and motorists who have to go about their business for the day.

And in this poor sod I have the perfect analogy in a way of what a Buddhist is, in his thinking and convincing of himself that he is an illusion to people outside himself and a delusion to himself, specially one who lives in the sangha, that is in isolation from society to cultivate the non-self, starting with no wife, no kids, no career, and nothing to look forward to except the extinction that is etymologically Nirvana; and prior to that aspired after extinction, he dwells on emptiness.


Wait, wait, the guy holding hostage of himself to himself, he has shot himself in one arm, to tell the police to leave him alone. I fear that he might get killed owing to the extra fervor of the police to get him down and behind bars, because he is a distraction to people and motorists who do have to live a normal life everyday: errands to do, jobs to report to, kids to bring to school. I have a suggestion for the police, when they finally if ever get that guy down, put him in the sangha that is the safest Sing Sing available locally.

I just told the wife to call up the downtown precinct concerned to just leave the poor sod to his own device, not to give him any attention, and tell folks to just go about their business, not to stop and look and stay on; but useless, now the fire department has arrived also. You see when something like this happens the police and the fire department are so obsessed to do something which will end up with lives lost, hopefully just that of the poor deranged sod; police and fire fighters just cannot resist an itch like this kind of an incident in their butt, they will scratch it until it breeds.

Just like Gautama, he could not resist scratching the itch of suffering which he sees in his butt and nothing else in life, until he came to the baneful conclusion that all life is emptiness and the nearer and finally total extinction you get yourself you to, the better for you and mankind -- no more suffering and no more life, existence.


----------------------------------------

That shows the lack of understanding of the current theory of cosmology. We can't actualy know what the universe was like prior to the big bang event. ... snip snip snip...

Dear Dancing David:

First, I would like to go over that word permanence and impermanence again with you, if you would accommodate.

From the beginning and without looking up the dictionaries I have always understood permanence as in a time context, so that permanence means a thing, anything at all, even a color, endures long even forever; that persistence, endurance in time for me has always been the immediate meaning whenever that word permanence is mentioned.

Did you just look up the first dictionary on hand and read that the common ordinary usual meaning of permanence denotes not time endurance but the feature of unchangeability or resistance to change?

The_American_Heritage
® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

permanent

ADJECTIVE: 1. Lasting or remaining without essential change: “the universal human yearning for something permanent, enduring, without shadow of change” (Willa Cather). 2. Not expected to change in status, condition, or place: a permanent address; permanent secretary to the president.

NOUN: Any of several long-lasting hair styles usually achieved by chemical applications which straighten, curl, or wave the hair.

The meaning found in your dictionary defines permanence not principally in a time context but in a change context; whereas for my own knowledge and use of English, permanence is primarily understood in a time context.

This issue is quite slippery, we can both see that. Tell me, can you look up at least five or more online dictionaries and report to me, aside from that one you had already consulted, whether their primary definition is oriented to a time context or to a change context.

That is why also I am now, at the risk of making myself look so dummy, wondering why Buddhists want to use the word permanent and then negate it, when they can just use the word more direct and thus simpler, namely changeable.

You will say that in fact they don't usually use the word permanent and then negate it, they use regularly the word changeable to express the feature of things that change and not stay the same in time.

Is that what you will tell me?


Anyway, I will just ask you some questions and hope that I will get to know exactly what kind of a Buddhist you are, compared to the Buddhists as should be observing the The Buddhist Inter-traditions Consensus on Commitment and Practice.

1. Last night when you went to bed and this morning when you got up, are you the same identical person your parents or wife and kids know you to be; or prescinding from them, you being a Buddhist maintain at lest within yourself that you are not the same identical person, but a different one from that of some eight hours more or less previously?

2. Do you believe in karma, rebirth, and nirvana, the way the standard Buddhist dictionary explains them? If yes, why? if no, why?

3. Do you really believe that for you Buddhism has helped you in your adjustment to life problems which you could not have effected for yourself without, notwithstanding that you have a good head and know a lot of DIY materials outside Buddhism to do a DIY self-therapy?

4. What do you think of the idea of taking refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha, think about that word refuge? what are you taking refuge from?​

I have other questions for you, later; if you like you can ask me questions also.


If I may, with no malice or ill will to offend, I have the impression very strong from you, that you argue for the sake of arguing to not appear illogical or self-contradictory or mistaken in your thought processes, even though the way I see it the whole world knows that you are grabbing at straws.

I give you the same impression? That makes two of us with the same opinion respectively to each other, no impasse here. Smile.

Yrreg

=========================================

My words may not be soothing, but consider the ideas

The Buddhist non-self, and its implications, living the everyday non-self existence?
http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/ind...ost&pid=500486

[From the Kalama Sutra by Gautama]

01. Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it long ago.
02. Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for many generations.
03. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
04. Do not confirm anything just because it agrees with your scriptures.
05. Do not foolishly make assumptions.
06. Do not abruptly draw conclusions by what you see and hear.
07. Do not be fooled by outward appearances.
08. Do not hold on tightly to any view or idea just because you are comfortable with it.
09. Do not accept as fact anything that you yourself find to be logical.
10. Do not be convinced of anything out of respect and deference to your spiritual teachers.
11. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.​

But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reasons and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

See: http://www.buddhistinformation.com/the_kalama_sutra.htm