Maddie

3 minutes ago, NaturaNaturans said:

I dont know about you, but I love these nuggets of beauty. Therefore, I decided to make a thread where we can share what ressonates strongly with ourselves. Ill begin with one of the better known parables of the bible:

 

Luke 15:11-32

New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition

 

The Parable of the Prodigal and His Brother

 

11 Then Jesus[a] said, “There was a man who had two sons. 12 The younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of the wealth that will belong to me.’ So he divided his assets between them. 13 A few days later the younger son gathered all he had and traveled to a distant region, and there he squandered his wealth in dissolute living. 14 When he had spent everything, a severe famine took place throughout that region, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of that region, who sent him to his fields to feed the pigs. 16 He would gladly have filled his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, and no one gave him anything. 17 But when he came to his senses he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired hands have bread enough and to spare, but here I am dying of hunger! 18 I will get up and go to my father, and I will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me like one of your hired hands.” ’ 20 So he set off and went to his father. But while he was still far off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion; he ran and put his arms around him and kissed him.21 Then the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’[c] 22 But the father said to his slaves, ‘Quickly, bring out a robe—the best one—and put it on him; put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23 And get the fatted calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate, 

 

24 for this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found!’ And they began to celebrate.

25 “Now his elder son was in the field, and as he came and approached the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 He called one of the slaves and asked what was going on. 27 He replied, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fatted calf because he has got him back safe and sound.’ 28 Then he became angry and refused to go in. His father came out and began to plead with him. 29 But he answered his father, ‘Listen! For all these years I have been working like a slave for you, and I have never disobeyed your command, yet you have never given me even a young goat so that I might celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours came back, who has devoured your assets with prostitutes, you killed the fatted calf for him!’ 31 Then the father[d] said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. 32 But we had to celebrate and rejoice, because this brother of yours was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found.’ ”

Honestly I think this story is messed up because it shows that if you do what you are supposed to do you get nothing for it, but if you goof off it pays. 

2 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

But Schrodinger was a hum dinger.

Wait are you THE cat?!  Simultaneously dead and alive?

1 minute ago, snowymountains said:

 

He didn't, he worked on black body radiation which was an important step, a prerequisite. The first model of quantum mechanics was by Bohr and Bohr only.

When he gave a lecture one could say it was very Bohr-ing 🤭

Just now, snowymountains said:

 

Transcending the ego needs a definition, eg why isn't empathy transcending the ego?

Empathy doesn't mean that someone doesn't have a self or ego ( the terminology becomes a bit of salad because each theory of personality structure uses a different term for this and have slightly different definitions )

I believe that the technical term from a Buddhist point of view would be to realize that none of the five aggregates are the self. 

4 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

 

This is common.

 

Many of these meditation practices are actually great ( some are dangerous ) and it's great to have a spiritual practice and spiritual goals.

 

Entering Jhanas is not a therapeutic goal nor is experiencing the various stages of insight ( first levels make therapy more effective though ) nor are spiritual experiences ( though it's important not to confuse these with symptoms and psychoeducation can help a lot here ).

 

All these are out of scope for therapy and it's wonderful to work on these things.

 

Imo the line is crossed for techniques on so-called negative emotions, interpreting and acting on bodily sensations, behavioural adjustments, cognitive restructurings etc, therapy/counselling is the right place for these. And when someone faces a crisis, again, therapy/counselling.

 

Each to their own.

 

Psychoeducation is also very important, the problem with statements like "without an ego one sees the truth" is that this statement ignores that the only known condition under which there is no organised ego ( in the psychodynamic sense ) is ... psychosis, so likely unknowingly these statements are actually horrible advice. So ego-psychology too is better explored in therapy/counselling.

I think its also important to differentiate theory and practice. While the Buddha did supposedly say that ultimate peace come from transcending the ego, he also said to not just take his word for things on face value but rather  to see if the things he said are actually true.

I have never seen anyone that I know of that has completely transcended ego. That being the case I can't be completely sure that in reality this is even actually possible. Maybe the Buddha had a "shoot for the stars and maybe at least you'll hit the moon" type of approach, but I don't think it is reasonable to put 100% confidence in something if we are not even sure if it is obtainable. I'd rather have the humble cottage that I do have than chase the mirage of a mansion potentially forever. 

Just now, Salvijus said:

 

Just because my answers fly over your head, doesn't mean they missed the point. 

Maybe one day I will ascend to your level of comprehension :-) 

Just now, Salvijus said:

I mean what was wrong with my answer? I answered your question why animals don't see realistas it is even if we have established that they are mindful. What more do you want. 

You're completely missing the point. It's ok don't worry about it. 

Just now, Salvijus said:

 

Mmm. What do you mean? 

Never mind lol

3 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

 

Not mindful of their own conditioning tho. That's the main difference. A human being has a potential to become aware of their own conditioning through the practice of meditation and that enables them to see reality without these filters/conditionings. 

Do you not understand how hypothetical thought experiments work? 

44 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

In my (admittedly limited) experience, hard-core traditional Buddhist teachers are very clear that Buddhism isn´t therapy.  It´s the Buddhist hobbyists that push that equivalence.

I initially approached Buddhism as therapy partially because I could not afford therapy, and in retrospect probably because I had come out of a cult that thought spirituality was the only therapy that was needed. This is not a good way to think. 

Just now, Salvijus said:

The one who sees reality without conditioning. In this case both animals are not witnessing the truth of reality. 

Why are they not seeing reality if we have established they are both mindful? 

2 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

Only a human being can see reality beyond any sort of conditioning. 

How do you know this is true? Does it not sound like something a human being would say? 

1 minute ago, Salvijus said:

 

Both of them are seeing reality through the filters of their survival conditioning. Their minds are conditioned in a certain way. 

 

Only a human being can see reality beyond any sort of conditioning. And witness the truth of all reality unfiltered, unprejudice, unpainted with their projections.

This is a hypothetical. So who's truth is "the truth"?

1 minute ago, Salvijus said:

 

Mindfulness as a practice is not the truth. 

 

Mindfulness as your ability to perceive reality without any filters is the truth. 

So if we were to have a conscious and mindful lion cub and a conscious and mindful gazelle. Which one's truth about the lion is "the truth" then? 

Just now, Salvijus said:

 

In this particular context yes. 

Is there another context where it is not "the truth" ? 

Just now, Salvijus said:

 

In that sense mindfulness and the truth are the same. When you're mindfulness is 100%, you perceive reality as it is. 

 

Ok so to be clear you are saying that mindfulness is also "the truth" ? 

Just now, Salvijus said:

 

When you perceive reality without the filters of ego. You perceive the Truth. 

 

How is that not a direct answer? 

What you are describing is mindfulness. You said that mindfulness was the means to the end, not the end. You said the end was "the truth". You keep telling me what the means to the truth is, and not what the truth is. 

I'm asking about the destination (which you claim to know), not the vehicle. 

2 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

 

"Perception of reality without any filters of the ego. "

 

That's a clean answer. 

You keep giving me different labels for mindfulness which you already established is the means to the truth. You are repeating yourself and not answering the question as to what truth is.

5 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

 

Mostly yes, that's my experience as well, there is some malpractice though and the degree can dependent on the lineage, again in my experience.

 

Monasteries typically work with psychiatric clinics btw when their staff needs help, they ( rightfully so ) do not depend on the Suttas for that, so they clearly do not see Buddhism as therapy.

 

The hobbyists which are "self-ordained" do most of the damage, agreed.

I don't believe you can even ordain as a monk if you have mental health problems. I think this is one of the questions they ask you to see if you qualify. 

7 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

 

"Perception of reality without mental defilements or mental filters" that would be one way of saying it. 

 

You just restated mindfulness with different terminology, and you already established that mindfulness is the path to the truth. My question was what is the truth according to you?

Just now, Salvijus said:

 

Yes mindfulness is the means to the end. The the end itself. 

So you have told me what the means to the "truth" is, but not what the "truth" is. 

2 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

 

Observing reality without conceptualizing it leads to truth. Because now you truly see things for what they are.

Would this not be the means to the end and not the end in and of itself?

7 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

 

Honesty would be another word for it. 

 

Vipassana would be a buddhist word for it. "Seeing things as they are" not as you think they are. 

So your saying mindfulness is the truth then?

1 minute ago, Salvijus said:

Any spirituality that focuses on truth. 

What is "the truth" according to Salvijus? 

2 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

These are false dichotomies which keep people away from "the truth"(TM) 😂

What could possibly go wrong?