Buddhism and the Three Poisons

[Encephalon]

Edited July 3, 2009 by Blasto

[enouch]

[yabyum24]

The task is one of transformation. Delusion into wisdom, greed into generosity, Ill-will into compassion. How do we perform this transformation in our actions? Where do we see these virtues institutionalized?

 

Hi Blasto,

Good question and worth a look at. My take is as follows:

Trying to institutionalize virtue or 'transform' the poisons by some esoteric act of will is basically missing the point of Buddha's discovery. It won't work at a political, rational level (except perhaps superficially) as the causes for the poisons remain unseen.

The underlying process must be known and released, then the poisons subside of themselves into the clarity from which they arose.

 

Namaste

[enouch]

Hi Blasto,

Good question and worth a look at. My take is as follows:

Trying to institutionalize virtue or 'transform' the poisons by some esoteric act of will is basically missing the point of Buddha's discovery. It won't work at a political, rational level (except perhaps superficially) as the causes for the poisons remain unseen.

The underlying process must be known and released, then the poisons subside of themselves into the clarity from which they arose.

 

Namaste

 

 

 

Yes, I've heard that many times,the only way to truly transform society is through changing human consciousness.Yet as rational creatures we've changed ourselves many times[just takes so long!] our societies I'm talking about.Race relations,religious tolerance,multicutural education, ecetera all have been impacted by our changing mindsets.Which in turn impact upon our institutions of power,shaping policy.I sometimes wonder if a relative paradise could be constructed if a balance was struck between spiritual,humanistic values and material values.Or are we so hopelessly corrupt that the vision will remain out of reach?

[Ben D]

It is my understanding that the three poisons, greed, anger, and delusion, are synonomous with the three realms. To leave the realm of greed, one should practice morality, to leave the realm of anger, one should practice dhyana meditation, and to leave the realm of delusion, one should attain true understanding, i.e. wisdom. The three poisons/realms have no real nature of their own, for they are merely products of the mortal mind, and when this mind is stilled, conceptual thinking ceases and the non-dual underlying nature (Tao) reveals itself.

 

IOW, to be mortal is to be afflicted by the three poisons, to be purified of the three poisons is to be immortal. So long as the mortal mind deals with reality indirectly through conceptual thinking, then it is afflicted, only when the mind is free from desires and preferences will the Tao that is forever beyond the mind's concept of Tao 'shine forth'.

[contrivedname!]

good topic (on a side note i have no idea why you apologized for posting too much, many of your posts are interesting enough, though you did delete it so i dont know what you were saying)

 

my take is that the three poisons are of one source (read: one obscuration). wanting reality to be something it is not. folks whom allow themselves to get angry on a constant basis; their way of coping seems to be to try and destroy whatever it is that is conflicting with their version of reality. greed seems to be born of desire; desire for more and more and more of what ever your greed (ego) fixates on and isnt a part of your reality. delusion seems to be a coping mechanism for interpreting reality how you want to, esp. in the case of spiritual materialism. sometimes these methods are "successful", by this i mean that some times an angry person is able to destroy what they wanted with their anger, sometimes a persons greed is fulfilled by the constant focus on it (the object(s) of greed), and sometimes someone fools themselves into an "amiable" delusive mind state. though these "successes" would be very impermanent and when the notion of "success" is gone the wheel of samsara keeps on a spinnin

 

so what is inherently wrong with this? the poisons create suffering either of oneself or others and often times both. this perpetuates the cycle of samsara. greed is often self perpetuating, like the symbolism of the person who has a normal sized head and mouth but their neck is so small that they cannot digest the object of their greed which continues the cycle of greed (there is never enough). Anger often fixates on things already past (like my favorite sports team lost, wah, or someone cutting someone off in traffic) and therefore there is no resolution except letting it subside until the next loss or slight to your ego, when it cycles back into style. delusion is sort of like willful ignorance, though it isnt always overt or even recognized, and sometimes is ingrained by society. it is usually a way of coping with extreme mental physical or really any kind of anguish by pretending things are different, though the person probably doesnt think they are "pretending". all of these poisons are inextricably interconnected and one can lead to the other.

 

like Ben said, to be mortal is to be afflicted by these poisons. the question is do you fixate on them and "give into" them? or do you allow them to rise and fall without fixation and see them as a source of contemplation? if you can follow them to their root you may be able to topple the tower of ego or hey maybe even just chip away at the ol' block

 

chris

[Encephalon]

[goldisheavy]

[JustARandomPanda]

I have been thinking over the nature of the mind and it's activities. In doing so for some reason...I don't even remember what sparked the thought...I began wondering how two men could come up with such polar views of one's sense of self (and by extension the world around us).

 

I'm speaking of course of Descartes and his famous maxim, "I think, therefore I am".

 

How very different from the Buddha's conclusion that the I of one's self is illusion.

 

Even weirder..if I understand the Tao right... It would include and encompass both! And neither!! All at the same time!!!

 

Is Philosophy of much use in helping one become more aware of what is and is not? Is it of much use at all for anything other than just mental exercises that lead to nowhere in particular (like the arguments on whose Buddhism is the True Buddhism at e-sangha)? Can there even be such a thing as an Enlightened Philosophy?

Edited July 8, 2009 by SereneBlue

[Josh Young]

Delusion, greed and ill-will?

 

Fascinating stuff.

I've seen it a lot in nature.

Plants sometimes release chemicals that harm competing plants, this is indicative of both greed and ill-will. Should we condemn plants?

 

Many insects, including ants are for all intents and purposes greedy and harbor ill will towards competitors.

 

Since delusion is just a complex form of mistaken belief it could be noted that if you play fetch with a dog and pretend to throw the dog will often be deluded into thinking that you have thrown. The dogs experience and expectations delude it into thinking that the patterns hold true, when in fact they do not.

 

So how can plants, and animals overcome delusion, greed and ill will?

By following the teachings of Buddha?

 

What about a crystal? When it grows it absorbs all of the elements that fit into it that it can find, this is akin to greed. Even the rocks around us cannot escape their natures.

 

I'm speaking of course of Descartes and his famous maxim, "I think, therefore I am".

 

How very different from the Buddha's conclusion that the I of one's self is illusion.

I find them to be identical notions actually.

 

Descarte says that I exists because of thinking, thus it does not exist independently of thought.

 

What is this other than the realization that identity is an illusion as a function of mind/thought?

 

It is self evident and both Buddha and Descartes, and many others, are aware of this.

 

Can there even be such a thing as an Enlightened Philosophy?

Yes if it is a true philosophy and not something passed down. One must understand, not receive, the information. Often the reception of information entails it not being understood. The key to this is the self evident nature of what constitutes the Enlightened Philosophy.

Edited July 8, 2009 by Josh Young