Feeling and mental perception

[Maddie]

48 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

OK.  If that's true then birth is the enemy.  No one should procreate, and the human race goes extinct.

 

 

If birth is the enemy, then the goal of buddhism is extinction of the human race.

 

I'm glad we cleared that up...

 

Birth isn't the enemy. Suffering is the enemy. Desire causes us to be born into a new body. Being born into a new body leads to suffering.

 If there was no more human race the issue of desire and suffering wouldn't be resolved we would just find different bodies to reincarnate into.

  The important thing is to realize what the actual problem is.

Edited November 17, 2023 by Maddie

[Daniel]

38 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

Birth isn't the enemy. Suffering is the enemy. Desire causes us to be born into a new body. Being born into a new body leads to suffering.

 If there was no more human race the issue of desire and suffering wouldn't be resolved we would just find different bodies to reincarnate into.

 

That pushes extinction to all of existence.  Well done! <---- sarcasm

 

The enemy is not human existence it is all incarnation.  Nihilism at it's finest.  <--- more sarcasm

 

No more trees, no more birds, no more rivers, no more rocks.  All of that goes away.

 

Quote

  The important thing is to realize what the actual problem is.

 

The important thing is to realize the implications of what happens if the teachings of buddhism actually acheive their intended goal, and if everyone practices it.

 

It's total annihilation.  No more incarnations.  I suppose if that's what some people want, that's fine.  They can dissappear into oblivion and never suffer again.

 

Edited November 17, 2023 by Daniel

[liminal_luke]

Years ago, inspired by my dark meditating taoist teacher, I crawled deep inside a cavern crawlspace in Washingtons famed Ape Caves, sat crosslegged, and proceeded to do my thing.  I thought I would be alone but soon two spelunkers came along and shined their flashlight directly on me.  

 

First guy:  I think thats a person up in there.

 

Second guy: No, thats just a bunch of garbage.

Edited November 17, 2023 by liminal_luke

[Maddie]

3 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

That pushes extinction to all of existence.  Well done! <---- sarcasm

 

The enemy is not human existence it is all incarnation.  Nihilism at it's finest.  <--- more sarcasm

 

No more trees, no more birds, no more rivers, no more rocks.  All of that goes away.

 

 

The important thing is to realize the implications of what happens if the teachings of buddhism actually acheive their intended goal, and if everyone practices it.

 

It's total annihilation.  No more incarnations.  I suppose if that's what some people want, that's fine.  They can dissappear into oblivion and never suffer again.

 

 

Don't confuse no more incarnations with annihilation.

[Daniel]

Just now, Maddie said:

 

Don't confuse no more incarnations with annihilation.

 

Don't confuse immaterial existence as lacking all suffering.

[Daniel]

3 minutes ago, Maddie said:

Don't confuse no more incarnations with annihilation.

 

Let's be clear, open, and honest, please.  What you have written confirms that the goal of buddhism is the elimination of every"thing".  Every tree, every bird, every river.  Every dog, every cat, every cow.  Every child, every parent, every song, every work of art.  Goodbye.  Buddhism values none of those things.

 

The ideal in buddhism is the elimination of all of those "things".  Why?  Because they have the potential to cause suffering, and this potential is considered so much worse than the potential for joy that they produce.

 

If incarnation is natural, then buddhism is absolutely unatural.

[Maddie]

3 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

Let's be clear, open, and honest, please.  What you have written confirms that the goal of buddhism is the elimination of every"thing".  Every tree, every bird, every river.  Every dog, every cat, every cow.  Every child, every parent, every song, every work of art.  Goodbye.  Buddhism values none of those things.

 

The ideal in buddhism is the elimination of all of those "things".  Why?  Because they have the potential to cause suffering, and this potential is considered so much worse than the potential for joy that they produce.

 

If incarnation is natural, then buddhism is absolutely unatural.

 

The goal of Buddhism is the elimination of suffering. 

 

Attachment dislikes non-attachment. 

[liminal_luke]

3 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

Let's be clear, open, and honest, please.  What you have written confirms that the goal of buddhism is the elimination of every"thing".  Every tree, every bird, every river.  Every dog, every cat, every cow.  Every child, every parent, every song, every work of art.  Goodbye.  Buddhism values none of those things.

 

 

Have you spent much time with Buddhists?  In my experience, they are some of the most caring people around.  I am sure it happens but its hard to imagine any of the Western sangha members of my acquintance kicking a cat.

[Daniel]

Just now, Maddie said:

The goal of Buddhism is the elimination of suffering. 

 

Is it or is it not trading in suffering in exchange for physical incarnation?

 

Just now, Maddie said:

Attachment dislikes non-attachment. 

 

Not true.  That's a common misconception.  Attachment likes all, including non-attachment.  Attachment is inclusive.  Non-attachement is exclusive.    

[Maddie]

1 minute ago, Daniel said:

 

Is it or is it not trading in suffering in exchange for physical incarnation?

 

 

Not true.  That's a common misconception.  Attachment likes all, including non-attachment.  Attachment is inclusive.  Non-attachement is exclusive.    

 

Physical incarnation is not the cause of suffering, desire is the cause of suffering and incarnation.

[Daniel]

3 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

Have you spent much time with Buddhists?  In my experience, they are some of the most caring people around.  I am sure it happens but its hard to imagine any of the Western sangha members of my acquintance kicking a cat.

 

It's the implications, Luke.  Of course they're not kicking cats.  None the less they are preaching a religion who's stated goal is to eliminate that cat from ever existing in the first place.  It is insidious.

[Maddie]

Just now, Daniel said:

 

It's the implications, Luke.  Of course they're not kicking cats.  None the less they are preaching a religion who's stated goal is to eliminate that cat from ever existing in the first place.  It is insidious.

 

The goal is to eliminate the cat's suffering

[Daniel]

7 minutes ago, Maddie said:

Physical incarnation is not the cause of suffering, desire is the cause of suffering and incarnation.

 

Wait.  That's a flip-flop.

 

2 hours ago, Maddie said:

Birth is considered suffering because it perpetuates our existence in samsara.

 

According to what you wrote, the physical incarnation (birth) is considered suffering because it perpetuates your existence in samsara.  Therefore any perpetuation is the cause. 

 

Physical incarnation is a perpetuation of your existence in samsara.

 

5 minutes ago, Maddie said:

The goal is to eliminate the cat's suffering

 

... by eliminating its physical existence.  And all physical existence.

 

What do you know about non-physical existence?

[Daniel]

And, I think it's important to note:  I asked a simple question about whether or not infants were naturally mindful by default.  This question was dodged and avoided probably because it is yet another disproof of buddhist teachings ( or at least how buddhism is being understood and spoken about here ).

 

But, it's a valid question, and I think its useful on its own outside of any buddhist context relating to feelings, mental perceptions, and the nature of suffering as contrasted with pain.

[Maddie]

8 minutes ago, Daniel said:

And, I think it's important to note:  I asked a simple question about whether or not infants were naturally mindful by default.  This question was dodged and avoided probably because it is yet another disproof of buddhist teachings ( or at least how buddhism is being understood and spoken about here ).

 

 

The Buddha didn't answer questions all the time lol

 

But seriously if you don't like Buddhism, you're under no obligation to practice it. :-)

[Maddie]

24 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

Wait.  That's a flip-flop.

 

 

According to what you wrote, the physical incarnation (birth) is considered suffering because it perpetuates your existence in samsara.  Therefore any perpetuation is the cause. 

 

Physical incarnation is a perpetuation of your existence in samsara.

 

 

... by eliminating its physical existence.  And all physical existence.

 

What do you know about non-physical existence?

 

Maybe this will help.

[Apech]

“How to get triggered by Buddhism without really trying to understand it.”

[Cobie]

 

12 minutes ago, Apech said:

“How to get triggered by Buddhism without really trying to understand it.”

 

Appeal to motive. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive#:~:text=Appeal to motive is a,may be an informal fallacy.

 

Edited November 17, 2023 by Cobie

[Maddie]

What I have found over the years of speaking to various people about Buddhism is that what triggers people about Buddhism more than any other thing is attachment.

 

The suggestion of non-attachment to someone that is very attached is an aversive statement, ie. the addict is separated from his addiction. 

[old3bob]

3 hours ago, Maddie said:

 

Don't confuse no more incarnations with annihilation.

 

I'd also say don't confuse incarnations with suffering since our human karma's must be worked out, like it or not.  I've also heard that our subtle bodies energies alone are not enough to reach enlightenment, being that all their energy combined with the energy from the physical body needs to be firing together.  (thus implying that an incarnation in a subtle body will only reach to a subtle realm but not Self Realization)  

[Daniel]

2 hours ago, Maddie said:

The Buddha didn't answer questions all the time lol

 

Sure.  The buddha would not have been able to answer it because that was almost 2000 years ago.  Modern science of brain development did not exist at the that time.  Just because "the-buddha" would not have answered it, doesn't mean that the question cannot and should not be answered now.

 

 

2 hours ago, Maddie said:

But seriously if you don't like Buddhism, you're under no obligation to practice it. :-)

 

Naturally.  What I don't like is dishonesty and deception.

1. If the goal is to end all suffering which in turn ends all incarnation, then, it is dishonest to deny that this goal is total extinction. 
2. If the goal is to end all suffering which in turn ends all incarnation, then it is deceptive to dodge and change the subject and not to admit it openly. 
3. If the goal is to end all suffering which in turn ends all incarnation, then it is deceptive to only teach about the end of suffering without teaching about end of all incarnation. 

Secret option #4:  It could be that many/most buddhist teachers have not realized the implications of what they are teaching if it is understood literally.  This is ignorant.  It's not their "fault", but it is techhnically ignorant.   Not only have they never been taught the implication, they are being discouraged from using their mind to derive implications.  Implication is a projection, an expectation, which is a cognitive process that requires attachment.  Those who are being trained to detach and are practicing detachment, if the training and practice is successful, they will not be able to do this accomplish this congitive function.  They will have detached from any care or concern from the existence of any one or anything that is not currently in focus in the "now".

 

3 hours ago, Daniel said:

What do you know about non-physical existence?

 

2 hours ago, Maddie said:

 

Maybe this will help.

 

This diagram has absolutely nothing to do with non-physical existence.  It's just another dodge.  

 

54 minutes ago, Apech said:

“How to get triggered by Buddhism without really trying to understand it.”

 

"... without really trying to understand it"  <--- projecting failure on others.

[Daniel]

51 minutes ago, Maddie said:

What I have found over the years of speaking to various people about Buddhism is that what triggers people about Buddhism more than any other thing is attachment.

 

The suggestion of non-attachment to someone that is very attached is an aversive statement, ie. the addict is separated from his addiction. 

 

Since this is not describing me, then it's not relevant.  The reason that I referred back to the original question is that it demonstates there was an intention to discuss feelings and mental perceptions, mindfulness without any negative biases or judgements.

 

There was a geniune desire ( please refrain from judgement ) to discuss detachment and the corresponding concepts in a positive, useful, and friendly manner.  Since the question was dodged and avoided repeatedly, my reaction has nothing to do with non-attachment.  My reaction is to the denial and avoidance ( potentially it's ignorance ) to implications of this practice assuming that it is literally true.

 

Yes, yes, I know that denial and avoidance is supposed to be antithetical to buddhism.

 

Edited November 17, 2023 by Daniel

[Maddie]

1 hour ago, old3bob said:

 

I'd also say don't confuse incarnations with suffering since our human karma's must be worked out, like it or not.  I've also heard that our subtle bodies energies alone are not enough to reach enlightenment, being that all their energy combined with the energy from the physical body needs to be firing together.  (thus implying that an incarnation in a subtle body will only reach to a subtle realm but not Self Realization)  

 

This could be the case but it's not something the Buddha taught. 

 

43 minutes ago, Daniel said:

1. If the goal is to end all suffering which in turn ends all incarnation, then, it is dishonest to deny that this goal is total extinction.

 

The end of incarnation is just the end of incarnation, the Buddha did not say what happens after the death of an enlightened being even though he was asked many times. To assume the next step is extinction is simply a conclusion you came to. 

 

I've been addressing some of your questions, and now I have one of my own. Your tone in discussing Buddhism seems at the very least agitated and what I want to know is why? If you dislike Buddhism for what ever reason why not just ignore it rather than get upset over a topic that you don't even think is correct?

 

 

[Nungali]

4 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

Years ago, inspired by my dark meditating taoist teacher, I crawled deep inside a cavern crawlspace in Washingtons famed Ape Caves, sat crosslegged, and proceeded to do my thing.  I thought I would be alone but soon two spelunkers came along and shined their flashlight directly on me.  

 

First guy:  I think thats a person up in there.

 

Second guy: No, thats just a bunch of garbage.

 

I had an unintentional similar experience  many years back . 'Caving' ; 3 inexperienced dickheads with torches who decided to separate. I sat up the back of a huge cavern  and wondered how dark it would be if I turned my torch off , so I did . Yep... pretty dark  

 

better turn it back on again .... turn it ON again  ???  Press press presssss ...   Oh NOOOOOO  !    I decided my best plan was to just sit tight and wait for someone ... anyone to come along .   Eventually a light started to flash around and a guy and two women entered the cavern   Thank God ! So I called down  " Helloooo " .

 

That gave them a huge  of fright !   'What the hell are you doing uop there in the dark ? " Then I went down to them , explained what happened  and said  " And this bloody torch would not  go back on ! "  and demonstrated .... and of course ...   it worked    .  

[Nungali]

4 hours ago, Maddie said:

 

The goal is to eliminate the cat's suffering

 

I  remember chanting at my friends kargyu karma  temple / house , the residents where ; him, part time , 4 monks , a three legged dog, a one eyed cat and a couple of homeless people .  I asked why they looked after 'strays' and they said  "Because they turned up here . "

 

Its a bit of a pity    ' DD'  ( Daniel Denial ) can not see or has not experienced this part of living Buddhism .  And the monks there enjoyed life  and celebrated in its many aspects  ....  maybe because they had ' detached'  'suffering '  from 'life experiences '  ? 

 

PLEASE dont make DD   DL  ( Dalai Lama )  !