Happy New Year!

[Vmarco]

 

 

Now, if one of the most self-absorbed people I know could suddenly come out himself and become so uncharacteristically selfless (Brother if you're reading this, I love you, but you know it's true), then how is it that you can't? Perhaps it's because you don't see real suffering? Perhaps you should stop musing about suffering and compassion, philosophically masturbating over the notion, and instead get your hands dirty and actually lend a helping hand to those in need? Which is more important, feeding someone who is hungry food or shoving a philosophical ideology down their throat?

Aaron

 

Suffering is amazingly simple,...suffering is a consequence of the desire for things to be other than they are,...everything perceived through sentient beingness is other than the way things are.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

Happy Ne--- WAIT! I'll get back to you when china's caught up. or what is it the other way around?

 

 

Yeah, speaking of which...

 

 

When does china observe the new year?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"A man in a moving truck asked the old man 'What are the people in this town like?'

The old man asked back 'What were the people in the town you left like?'

The man in the truck said 'oispdf -089js slkjdf sldfj 0wer 09iwer poisf98s'

'They're the same here' the wise man told him."

[Aaron]

Suffering is amazingly simple,...suffering is a consequence of the desire for things to be other than they are,...everything perceived through sentient beingness is other than the way things are.

 

Suffering is the response to negative things that are happening to you. A buddha who has a toothache still has a toothache, the fact he is a buddha doesn't relieve him of that suffering. What you fail to recognize is that the truth is not that suffering is gone, but that you see through suffering, you understand the nature of suffering. Suffering is not a consequence of desire, but a natural part of the dualistic world we live in, it is only when we can perceive the non-dualistic nature of existence that we understand suffering as it really is. You haven't reached that point, so you are still placing your faith in those teachers who have told you the "truth".

 

My suggestion, examine these things for yourself. Abandon the notion of Buddha, Buddhism, the short path, and instead examine them with an open and clear mind and see what you find. In the end you'll see, almost certainly, that enlightenment doesn't remove suffering, it only allows one to see through it.

 

Also, Aaron believes that any dialogue that is spoken with malice, intentionally demeans people for personal gratification, and causes people to suffer unnecessarily is not compassionate.

 

Aaron

Edited January 2, 2013 by Aaron

[skydog]

"When you meet the Buddha kill the Buddha"

 

"I woke up after dreaming yesterday thinking what the hell was all that deep thinking about spiritual concepts and philosophy all about"

[Apech]

Suffering is the response to negative things that are happening to you. A buddha who has a toothache still has a toothache, the fact he is a buddha doesn't relieve him of that suffering. What you fail to recognize is that the truth is not that suffering is gone, but that you see through suffering, you understand the nature of suffering. Suffering is not a consequence of desire, but a natural part of the dualistic world we live in, it is only when we can perceive the non-dualistic nature of existence that we understand suffering as it really is. You haven't reached that point, so you are still placing your faith in those teachers who have told you the "truth".

 

....

 

Excuse me for butting in here but that (the bolded sentence) doesn't make sense at all. Suffering is part of a dualistic world ... but we perceive the non-dualist nature of existence on enlightenment.

 

If enlightenment includes, as it must do, seeing things as they really are ... according to you 'non dualistic' then the suffering which is part of dualism (according to you) should be removed ... no?

 

Of course the classic Buddhist analysis would be that suffering is exactly that which arises through ignorance (of how things are) and craving for things ... this generates the samsaric view ... and is, being based on ignorance, a mistaken view. So the suffering that beings experience is unnecessary and the basis of compassion is knowing that this is so ... that beings suffer and they don't need to. Compassion is not a feeling or sentiment it is an understanding ... an understanding of youself and others and their relation to reality.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Apech

[Aaron]

Excuse me for butting in here but that (the bolded sentence) doesn't make sense at all. Suffering is part of a dualistic world ... but we perceive the non-dualist nature of existence on enlightenment.

 

If enlightenment includes, as it must do, seeing things as they really are ... according to you 'non dualistic' then the suffering which is part of dualism (according to you) should be removed ... no?

 

Of course the classic Buddhist analysis would be that suffering is exactly that which arises through ignorance (of how things are) and craving for things ... this generates the samsaric view ... and is, being based on ignorance, a mistaken view. So the suffering that beings experience is unnecessary and the basis of compassion is knowing that this is so ... that beings suffer and they don't need to. Compassion is not a feeling or sentiment it is an understanding ... an understanding of youself and others and their relation to reality.

 

Very good point, but remember that experiencing non-dualism, doesn't remove one from dualism. Even understanding that dualism is an "illusion" and I use that term loosely, doesn't mean that we are free from the dualistic world. So, before enlightenment you chop wood and carry water, after enlightenment you chop wood and carry water. The world is still here, whether we see through the illusion or not, it's just you see through it and find the root cause. So being rid of attachments, doesn't mean you are rid of attachments, attachments (even transitory) are still here, we only see the true nature of attachments. This is what confuses most people and it's part of the entanglement of misleading notions (imo) that cause many to believe achieving enlightenment will remove all suffering, it doesn't.

 

Now many advanced practitioners can manage pain, show little emotion due to loss of someone else, etc., but this isn't because they have no "attachments", or don't feel these things, it's because they understand the nature of these attachments and are able to address them as they "really" are. Life is only illusionary in the sense that there is more to it than just life. There is the infinity, tao, non-dualism, whatever you want to call it, and when one experiences that, they are able to see these things with clarity. So before enlightenment you chop wood and carry water, after enlightenment you chop wood and carry water. Enlightenment doesn't free you from the burden of living, it only grants clarity as to the nature of living.

 

Aaron

 

edit- And note, enlightened people do not know everything, they just gain a special awareness to the nature of things. You understand that death is not something to be mourned, but you don't understand how to perform brain surgery (or build a rocket). Enlightenment does not bring all-knowing, just a clarity of understanding. With that said, enlightened people make mistakes, say stupid things, and have physical ailments, just like everyone else. Placing enlightenment on a pedestal is a mistake, for the mentally unbalanced can reach enlightenment and their perception can be skewed. In other words, don't accept everything someone says without question (me included). Think for yourself, rather than have others think for you.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Aaron

[Vmarco]

Suffering is the response to negative things that are happening to you. A buddha who has a toothache still has a toothache, the fact he is a buddha doesn't relieve him of that suffering. What you fail to recognize is that the truth is not that suffering is gone, but that you see through suffering, you understand the nature of suffering. Suffering is not a consequence of desire, but a natural part of the dualistic world we live in, it is only when we can perceive the non-dualistic nature of existence that we understand suffering as it really is. You haven't reached that point, so you are still placing your faith in those teachers who have told you the "truth".

 

My suggestion, examine these things for yourself. Abandon the notion of Buddha, Buddhism, the short path, and instead examine them with an open and clear mind and see what you find. In the end you'll see, almost certainly, that enlightenment doesn't remove suffering, it only allows one to see through it.

 

Also, Aaron believes that any dialogue that is spoken with malice, intentionally demeans people for personal gratification, and causes people to suffer unnecessarily is not compassionate.

 

Aaron

 

What is to Aaron a delusion, is to a Bodhisattva liberation.

 

In the intro to the Heart Attack Sutra, it says,..."What the Heart Sutra does (the Heart Sutra was dictated by the Bodhisattva of Compassion) is to cut through, deconstruct, and demolish all our usual conceptual frameworks, all our ridid ideas, all our belief systems (like those Aaron wrote above), all our reference points, including any with regard to our spiritual path....it pulls the rug out from underneath our feet and does not leave anything intact that we can think of, nor even a lot of things that we cannot even think of,...the Heart Sutra is hazardous to your samsaric sanity." Karl Brunnholzl.

 

Aaron's relative point of view about suffering is meaningless from the point of view truth. Because he relies on beliefs and teachers, he assumes everyone does. That is the nature of sheeple,...they believe what their 6 senses tell them.

 

As René Descartes articulated, "All that I have tried to understand to the present time has been affected by my senses; now I know these senses are deceivers, and it is prudent to be distrustful after one has been deceived once."

 

Aaron does not...."Recognize that everything you see and think is a falsehood, an illusion, a veil over the truth." Lao-zu

[Vmarco]

Excuse me for butting in here but that (the bolded sentence) doesn't make sense at all. Suffering is part of a dualistic world ... but we perceive the non-dualist nature of existence on enlightenment.

 

 

 

That bolded statement, is the 4 Noble Truths in a nutshell...

 

suffering is a consequence of the desire for things to be other than they are,...everything perceived through sentient beingness is other than the way things are.

 

Yes,...I would agree that Seeing Things The Way They Are would be inclusive to enlightenment. To attempt to define that Way Which Things Really Are through the Way things Are Not is likely impossible. To realize the Way Things Really Are is synonymous with understanding Emptiness, Dependent Origination, 4 Noble Truths, etc.

 

The film 'The Dalai Lama on the 4 Noble Truths' would be helpful.

http://www.mandalabooks.com/Four-Noble-Truths-The-His-Holiness-the-XIV-Dalai-Lama

[Apech]

@ Aaron ... viewing things with the flame of craving ... 'wanting' as the driving factor is samsara, when this flame is extinguished this is nirvana ... this is Hinayana view. Mahayana view is that both samsara and nirvana are both empty and inseparable ... this is the non-dualist view ... you can't have a non-dual view which is dualist or it simply wouldn't be non-dual.

 

@ Vmarco ... I agree basically with what you are saying in your post. Not sure what HDL vid will add but may watch it if I have the time.

[Protector]

[Aaron]

What is to Aaron a delusion, is to a Bodhisattva liberation.

 

In the intro to the Heart Attack Sutra, it says,..."What the Heart Sutra does (the Heart Sutra was dictated by the Bodhisattva of Compassion) is to cut through, deconstruct, and demolish all our usual conceptual frameworks, all our ridid ideas, all our belief systems (like those Aaron wrote above), all our reference points, including any with regard to our spiritual path....it pulls the rug out from underneath our feet and does not leave anything intact that we can think of, nor even a lot of things that we cannot even think of,...the Heart Sutra is hazardous to your samsaric sanity." Karl Brunnholzl.

 

Aaron's relative point of view about suffering is meaningless from the point of view truth. Because he relies on beliefs and teachers, he assumes everyone does. That is the nature of sheeple,...they believe what their 6 senses tell them.

 

As René Descartes articulated, "All that I have tried to understand to the present time has been affected by my senses; now I know these senses are deceivers, and it is prudent to be distrustful after one has been deceived once."

 

Aaron does not...."Recognize that everything you see and think is a falsehood, an illusion, a veil over the truth." Lao-zu

 

Umm... I'm not sure who you are trying to convince, but no one thinks I'm like that. In fact I'm the one that encourages people to think for themselves, not have people (like you) tell them how to think. That's the difference between you and I. I want them to think for themselves, you want them to think according to your religious ideology. Ahh.. work calls...

 

Aaron

[Aaron]

@ Aaron ... viewing things with the flame of craving ... 'wanting' as the driving factor is samsara, when this flame is extinguished this is nirvana ... this is Hinayana view. Mahayana view is that both samsara and nirvana are both empty and inseparable ... this is the non-dualist view ... you can't have a non-dual view which is dualist or it simply wouldn't be non-dual.

 

@ Vmarco ... I agree basically with what you are saying in your post. Not sure what HDL vid will add but may watch it if I have the time.

 

Hello Apech,

 

And what I'm saying is that you can't have dualism without non-dualism, the thing most people don't understand is that they are both the same thing. The only thing that changes is your perception of them. The reason people say dualism is an illusion is because they tend to forget that, although transient and illusory in the sense of what we perceive it to be, it is real and there. Just like love and hate are the same thing, so are dualism and non-dualism, they are existence, just how we choose to define it. In reality defining it changes nothing, it really just confuses things more. Exist and don't worry about non-dualism and dualism and things become much simpler.

 

Aaron