Maddie

Words are tricky. But I feel like saying "enlightenment" is easier than saying "once one reaches the state where they have completely seen through all delusion and thusly let go of the craving and aversion that come from it, and therefore have ended suffering lol.

I see. This is my understanding as well, and the reason for that is because as I apply these teachings I see a reduction in suffering. The Buddha said if you apply his teachings you will see a reduction in suffering. This gives me confidence that he knows what he's talking about. Since applying what he has taught has worked so far it gives me reasonable confidence that it is correct and encourages me to continue to apply what the Buddha taught. In regards to conversation, isn't that exactly what we are doing? Aren't we having a conversation about the teachings?

What better method would you propose then? Since I am personally not enlightened and therefore in delusion it is necessary for me to grasp onto the teachings of someone that escaped delusion. If I ever reach Nirvana then I suppose I will be qualified to teach from my personal point of view, but until then I study the teachings of the Buddha. If you know a better method I'd be eager to hear it.

I guess I'll try one last time to explain this in the most clinically objective and totally non-emotional way possible. In Buddhism there are what are called the "three poisons", Delusion, Desire, and Aversion. These are some of the most BASIC teachings of Buddhism. So for example if someone gets angry, that is one of the three poisons that cause suffering. The Buddha described the cause of anger (or any other type of aversion or craving) as being a result of not seeing things as they really are, or aka delusion. This is just simple Buddhism. This is not emotional. This is just a fact that the Buddha taught.

So you don't want me to discuss Buddhism anymore? But isn't this a forum for such things to be discussed? I've honestly been surprised at the amount of emotional reaction to analyzing the Buddha's teaching on the false sense of self and how it leads to suffering because to me it was a glorious revelation that has drastically improved my quality of life.

In my time on this forum there's been lots of petty squabbles so I guess this is an accurate sample of reflections on this forum LOL.

The ego AKA The false sense of self is an impermanent delusion according to the Buddha. It's just a fact it's not necessary to get upset over the fact.

I agree that there's some problematic aspects of using ego and self interchangeably but I think when we use ego to talk about the false sense of self that the Buddha was talking about then it works better. I don't like saying the Buddha taught against self because I can't find a single place in the suttas where he did. He did speak a lot about not being attached to a false sense of self which is basically what ego is. That's the main reason I use the term ego a lot is because it helps clarify what we're talking about a little more specifically in my opinion.

It surprises me too considering how chill and open-minded Buddhism is. I think the reason goes back to attachment. There's a sutta where the Buddha is asked where war and conflict comes from and he says it comes from greed and desire and attachment. People desperately want what they're attached to and desperately don't want it to be separated from what they cling to. The more attachment the more emotion. When you tell someone that attachments the problem, it's because of attachment that such a strong emotional reaction arises.

I had a couple of accidental posts from an editing error in the thread "reflecting on tdb" could those be removed please?

Okily dokily. I realize saying something isn't an insult is very insulting. Btw this is what I said: Luke got it absolutely correct. It's not an insult it's just the condition of everybody who's not enlightened. Simply a technical term. In Buddhism the problem is suffering, which is caused by desire, which is caused by delusion. It's the lowest common denominator problem according to the Buddha. And it affects everybody who's not enlightened. Delusion ---> craving/aversion ---> suffering.

Have you ever met or spoken to a living person that you felt was deluded?

If there's a warning lable on a product that tells you not to eat the product because it's poisonous, the warning label is not an insult, but the product is not harmless either. After obtaining enlightenment the Buddha explained the problem and the solution.

And what does the reality of living mean?

How does a person that wakes up from sleeping know they're awake? One knows they're no longer deluded when they achieve Nirvana and they're suffering ends. I've been using the word self and ego synonymously. The Buddha never said there is no self although a lot of people assume that he did. What he said is that the five aggregates are not self. Basically what the Buddha is saying is what you think of as yourself is not that.

Luke got it absolutely correct. It's not an insult it's just the condition of everybody who's not enlightened. Simply a technical term. In Buddhism the problem is suffering, which is caused by desire, which is caused by delusion. It's the lowest common denominator problem according to the Buddha. And it affects everybody who's not enlightened. Delusion ---> craving/aversion ---> suffering.

The Buddha said the ultimate problem is delusion and that the solution is to see through delusion. 😌

Yes.

The reason it cautions about the radial nerve is because we're specifically not supposed to hit it otherwise it would be very painful and could do nerve damage.

ok that makes no sense.

I think a good way to differentiate this would be the example of the Buddha. The Buddha would point out things that people did all the time that were not skillful. This is wisdom. What the Buddha did not do was get angry about unskillful people. This is also wisdom. So maybe if the Buddha were alive today he might say something like "yeah Trump is a dig bat, but I'm not going to loose my peace because of it."

I've heard more than one monk say that it is typical of westerners to think way too highly of themselves and go immediately to very advanced stuff way before they are ready. The same monks were also commenting on how this is unfortunate because a lot of the westerners that do this go nuts, or develop serious health problems.

I doubt that was the case for everything developed in ancient China, I'm sure it depended on what one was developing. I assume Sun Tzu obtained his wisdom through military experience. Confucius probably developed his philosophy by studying philosophy from the scholars. The ancient doctors probably did a lot of trial and error. I don't think everyone that made a system had super powers.

Anyways the only reason I said anything at all is because people could potentially be harmed. Usually if people discuss shooting lighting out of their fingers like Palpitine I just quietly roll my eyes and go about my business. But as a medical professional I felt like I should say something. There is nothing wrong with developing a new system I guess, but it should be done responsibly with trials, testing, and peer reviewed studies first, before it is used on the general public.

You misunderstand. I said I was a professional, I didn't mean to imply that you were. I was attempting to inform you as a professional about these concerns which you seem very dismissive of. You seem to be quite emotionally immature which is not a good selling point for the results of the system you are developing. I wouldn't take financial advice from a poor person and I would not seek to learn inner development from an emotionally immature person.