Maddie

The Dao Bums
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    5,683

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    90

Posts posted by Maddie

  1. Posted

    1 minute ago, idquest said:

     

    Did Buddha teach further what to do with them? Like, discarding them or dissolving them like modern teachers teach?

     

    Yes, he taught to see them for what they actually are (mindfulness) and realize these things are not the self. This is what he taught the eightfold path for. 

    • Like 2

  2. Posted · Edited by Maddie

    4 minutes ago, Sir Darius the Clairvoyent said:

    I could ofc do my own research, but would you like to expand on anatta?

     

    The term Anatta in India means "self" or "soul", basically an unchanging essence. The Buddha taught that there are five aggregates that we tend to assume are us, but in reality are not. They are physical form such as the body, feeling meaning the six senses making contact with objects and our perception of them as being good, bad, or neutral. Perception which is our recognition of classification of objects based mainly on past experiences. Volition which is the decision making part of the mind, and consciousness which is our awareness of these other experiences. The Buddha taught that these five things were commonly assumed to be the self but are not. 

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  3. Posted

    37 minutes ago, Sir Darius the Clairvoyent said:

    So, the term comes from Latin meaning I. Egoic means being selfish. And then we have Freud who said something about the id, ego and superego. I have a sense that the way the term is used in an eastern context, don’t correspond to any of these, correct?

     

    So what is it in a «spiritual» context? What is the original term used that we translated into ego?

     

    If we are going to use "ego" in the way the Buddha meant anatta then it is the misunderstanding of the five aggregates as being the self when they are not.  

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 2

  5. Posted · Edited by Maddie

    2 minutes ago, Apech said:


    Not just actions but intentions also.

     

     

     

    Yes. Technically it would only be intentions, because if while you are asleep if you roll over and squash a lady bug that is an action but there is no ill intent at all, even thought its technically an action,  so therefore no karma. 

  6. Posted

    3 minutes ago, ChiDragon said:

    Karma can also be used to describe a fate or destiny, or the good or bad emanations that someone or something generates. For example, someone might say "This place has bad karma".

     

    Yes karma is both cause and effect. One makes karma with ones actions, and the karma made in turn conditions future actions. 

    • Like 1

  7. Posted

    19 minutes ago, ChiDragon said:

    I agree! Karma by itself shouldn't be differentiated it is good or bad. IMO It is the effect that determines it is good or bad.

     

    There actually are some cases where I will use the term "bad karma" but these are where someone else is actively being harmed with ill intent. 

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  9. Posted

    3 hours ago, Apech said:

     

    The energy body and physical body are closely interlinked.  Is this not so?

     

    I guess there are two questions really, one about porn and one about masturbation itself.  As I am (still) a Buddhist I tend also to think in terms of the lay vow regarding sexual misconduct.  In the Tibetan texts I read which are Gampopa's Jewelled ornament of Liberation and Patrul Rinpoche's Words of my Perfect Teacher - the guidance is oddly unhelpful.  I have always felt this about this precept and suppose it is because mostly these things are written for monks where obviously there's a prohibition on any sex.

     

     

     

    So I guess the real question is more about the mind and desire than the actual visual images themselves. 

    • Like 3

  10. Posted · Edited by Maddie

    12 hours ago, ralis said:

     

    Assigned at birth? Sex is determined at conception which is a biological fact. 

     

    Reducing biological energetics to a few ancient terms misses the point of the real force of nature. It’s beyond the physical and includes the physical. 

     

     

     

    Assigned male at birth is more about gender than sex. It is the assumption (usually correct but not always) that one's sex and gender will be aligned. 

    • Like 2

  12. Posted

    1 hour ago, Apech said:

     

    As I said to ralis I was only stating my view.

     

    Of course many things are harmful energetically, drinking alcohol for instance, but people still do them.  Also some forms of pornography involve exploitation of women in particular and so on.  Which, I think, can create harmful energetic presence even for the viewer.  Feel free to disagree.

     

     

     

    That's definitely messed up and wrong no doubt, but I was curious about the energetic aspect. 

  14. Posted

    3 hours ago, Sir Darius the Clairvoyent said:

    I have a sense it is. And the forum seems to agree. Not that I lay around a lot, but how about frequent one night stands? Mastrubation?

     

    Define bad. In what sense do you mean is it bad for you? As in it can be addictive? 

  23. Posted

    4 minutes ago, Daniel said:

     

    I want to, but, I don't know how without influencing the answers in a negative way.  

     

    tran·scend·ence

    /tran(t)ˈsendəns/

    noun

    existence or experience beyond the normal or physical level.

    "the possibility of spiritual transcendence in the modern world"

     

    tran·scend

    /tran(t)ˈsend/

    verb

    gerund or present participle: transcending

    be or go beyond the range or limits of (something abstract, typically a conceptual field or division).

    "this was an issue transcending the tech space and reaching other corners of society"

     

    one is a verb, the other is a noun, but it's the same word. Therefore it's really meaningless. 

    • Like 2

  24. Posted

    13 minutes ago, Daniel said:

    @Maddie,

     

    Please, why should I define this word for you?  That doesn't feel right to me.  You get to choose what the word means to you.  That's why it's your answer. 

     

    For those that don't know what the word means, using context, is best.  That way the individual is choosing what is significant to them.  They are choosing their words, their definitions.  Otherwise I'm telling them, and everyone else who reads this thread that they MUST adopt MY definition.   I don't like that idea. 

     

    Furthermore, in my experience, those who belly-ache over definitions rarely have good intentions regarding communicating with me.  

     

     

     

    If you don't want to answer I'll just let it go