Feeling and mental perception

[Cobie]

 

20 minutes ago, Maddie said:

... the Buddha did not say what happens after the death of an enlightened being …

Hmm …

 

[Nungali]

4 hours 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 ).

 

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.

 

I think its important to note that you first said  'nevermind' ... yet you could 'never mind'  an hour later you just HAD to come back and start up another one of your 'logical arguments'  .

 

Not to mention your own proclivity to not being able to stop 'gnawing a bone' ... and  choosing yourself which questions and which people you will respond to .

 

Now look at the silly mess you in ... trying to prove Buddhists want to eliminate all people, animals, pets, plants the whole environment 

 

WTF  DD  ? 

 

Yeah, it might be a fun intellectual argument  ... but Id say, get out in the world and experience it beyond your armchair , if you really have an interest in it beyond trying to argue it out of existence .

[Nungali]

6 hours ago, Apech said:

 

Never jump in a dark cave - you could hit your head.

 

I think someone just did that .

[Cobie]

.

Edited November 17, 2023 by Cobie

[Apech]

2 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

I think someone just did that .

 

Are you projecting your own failures onto others.

[Apech]

2 hours ago, Cobie said:

 

 

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

 

 

Well I just had to read the thread.

[Nungali]

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

 

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

 

Wow !  How did you come to that conclusion from that statement  ???

 

he didnt project failure on to you   , he projected a lack of even TRYING to understand it in the first place on to YOU   ( and not 'others' ... dont try to make yourself a plural to gain validity . ) .

[Nungali]

4 hours ago, 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.

 

Now it looks like YOU are 'dodging questions'  :  Luke asked you

 

" Have you spent much time with Buddhists? "

 

 

[Daniel]

44 minutes ago, Maddie said:

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?

 

I'm not in the least agitated.  That is just a projection of a fault onto me.  The answer to your question of "why?" has 2 parts:

 

1)  If you do not know what happens after the end of incarnation, then, it could be much much worse than what is happening as an incarnated being.  I think this is important.  Any responsible practioner should share this sort of ambiguity with the one they are counseling:  "Here is a perscription to end your suffering, but, after it is gone I don't know what is going to happen to you.  Hopefully it is good or at least better than your current situation, but, you should be aware, that no one actually knows.  Buddha was asked many times and never answered."

 

Anything less than this ^^ is irresponsible and reckless.

 

2)  Any intelligent mature person should be capable of discussing what it means to end all incarnation for every"thing".  Whether or not buddha answered it or not is irelevant.  If it literally cannot be discussed due to a cognitive problem, I think that is significant.  What produces this cognitive deficency?  Is it a consequence of being trained in buddhism and practicing buddhism? 

 

This ^^ is of specific concern because unlike the previous problem where the "after-life" lacking incarnation is unknown, it could be better or it could be worse, this is a cognitive regression here and now.  It is an undisclosed loss of function.  If this buddhist practice of detachment is producing a significant loss in cognitive function, I think that's important.  Just like any other responsible professional consultant, someone promoting a practice to others should be knowledgable of the potential for harm and disclose it. 

 

Perhaps a good analog is "cross-fit" where there is significant risk, but there was a time when the adherents would rarely if ever disclose them.

 

To be clear, I do not think it always produces this deficency, and even further, I am not convinced that the practice actually causes any deficiency at all.  That is why am phrasing my objections in the form of questions with question marks.  They are questions.  It is more likely, in my view, that it is simply common, "garden-variety" religious adherence which prohibits the adherent from being objective about the implications of their own beloved religion.  In some ways this is like the "problem of evil" in my own religious community.  Or other implications in Christianity which the religious adherent cannot tolerate nor speak about, so they ignore or deomize the one making the objection.  It just so happens that this specific religion, buddhism, is supposed to prevent these sorts of denials, and avoidance, and illogical religious doctrine.  Although, it could be, in addition to the religious adherence, there is an actual cognitive deficency being promoted and practiced without full disclosure.

 

So, there's 3 reasons for my public objections:

1. If it is literally true that incarnations, all of them cease, then this could be a disaster for the individual and many others.  I think there is good reason to discuss it, yet, I have never met a buddhist wiiling to do so for various reasons, and none of those reasons are good.
2. If buddhism is actually intending to prevent denial, avoidance, and religious doctrine, then pointing out the denial, avoidance, and religious doctrine of the buddhist themself should be welcome and useful. 
3. It could be that there is at least one undisclosed cognitive loss of function produced by buddhist practice by trading one problem for another.  If so, it would be good to analyze this; determine the factors which contribute to it; develop methods to prevent it, or, at least disclose it as a potential unintended side-effect.

[Nungali]

1 hour ago, Maddie said:

 

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

 

 

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. 

 

Indeed !    I have always liked this passage from the Gnostic Mass , requiem  version ,  its not Buddhist , as such,  but perhaps after the death of an enlightened being  even incarnation may not end  ...  ( it might be good for some to remember the idea of a Bodhisattva  or a Rosicrucian - one who 'defrays advancement ' or 'comes back' to help others ) ;

 

 

"  Unto them from whose eyes the veil of life hath fallen may there be granted the accomplishment of their true Wills; whether they will absorption in the Infinite, or to be united with their chosen and preferred, or to be in contemplation, or to be at peace, or to achieve the labour and heroism of incarnation on this planet or another, or in any Star, or aught else, unto them may there be granted the accomplishment of their wills.  "

 

 

 

 

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?

 

Lets hope this question is not 'avoided'    

 

 

 

Edited November 17, 2023 by Nungali

[Maddie]

1 minute ago, Daniel said:

 

I'm not in the least agitated.  That is just a projection of a fault onto me.  The answer to your question of "why?" has 2 parts:

 

1)  If you do not know what happens after the end of incarnation, then, it could be much much worse than what is happening as an incarnated being.  I think this is important.  Any responsible practioner should share this sort of ambiguity with the one they are counseling:  "Here is a perscription to end your suffering, but, after it is gone I don't know what is going to happen to you.  Hopefully it is good or at least better than your current situation, but, you should be aware, that no one actually knows.  Buddha was asked many times and never answered."

 

Anything less than this ^^ is irresponsible and reckless.

 

2)  Any intelligent mature person should be capable of discussing what it means to end all incarnation for every"thing".  Whether or not buddha answered it or not is irelevant.  If it literally cannot be discussed due to a cognitive problem, I think that is significant.  What produces this cognitive deficency?  Is it a consequence of being trained in buddhism and practicing buddhism? 

 

This ^^ is of specific concern because unlike the previous problem where the "after-life" lacking incarnation is unknown, it could be better or it could be worse, this is a cognitive regression here and now.  It is an undisclosed loss of function.  If this buddhist practice of detachment is producing a significant loss in cognitive function, I think that's important.  Just like any other responsible professional consultant, someone promoting a practice to others should be knowledgable of the potential for harm and disclose it. 

 

Perhaps a good analog is "cross-fit" where there is significant risk, but there was a time when the adherents would rarely if ever disclose them.

 

To be clear, I do not think it always produces this deficency, and even further, I am not convinced that the practice actually causes any deficiency at all.  That is why am phrasing my objections in the form of questions with question marks.  They are questions.  It is more likely, in my view, that it is simply common, "garden-variety" religious adherence which prohibits the adherent from being objective about the implications of their own beloved religion.  In some ways this is like the "problem of evil" in my own religious community.  Or other implications in Christianity which the religious adherent cannot tolerate nor speak about, so they ignore or deomize the one making the objection.  It just so happens that this specific religion, buddhism, is supposed to prevent these sorts of denials, and avoidance, and illogical religious doctrine.  Although, it could be, in addition to the religious adherence, there is an actual cognitive deficency being promoted and practiced without full disclosure.

 

So, there's 3 reasons for my public objections:

1. If it is literally true that incarnations, all of them cease, then this could be a disaster for the individual and many others.  I think there is good reason to discuss it, yet, I have never met a buddhist wiiling to do so for various reasons, and none of those reasons are good.
2. If buddhism is actually intending to prevent denial, avoidance, and religious doctrine, then pointing out the denial, avoidance, and religious doctrine of the buddhist themself should be welcome and useful. 
3. It could be that there is at least one undisclosed cognitive loss of function produced by buddhist practice by trading one problem for another.  If so, it would be good to analyze this; determine the factors which contribute to it; develop methods to prevent it, or, at least disclose it as a potential unintended side-effect.

 

The third noble truth: there is an end to suffering 😌

[Daniel]

1 minute ago, Maddie said:

The third noble truth: there is an end to suffering 😌

 

You asked a question, I answered it.  2 minutes later, you're reciting buddhist doctrine as if you didn't read anything I wrote.

 

Typical.

[Nungali]

30 minutes ago, Cobie said:

 

In my estimation Daniel is more virtuous than the Dalai Lama, in my estimation  most people are more virtuous than the Dalai Lama.

 

DL being gross 

 

 

”The Dalai Lama has apologized for kissing a young boy on the lips and asking him to "suck my tongue" 
https://www.npr.org/2023/04/10/1168962589/dalai-lama-apologizes-tongue-kiss#:~:text=Hourly News-,Dalai Lama apologizes for asking young boy to 'suck my,on social media%2C sparking outrage.   
 

 

 

 

 

Ummm ... it was a joke . 

 

if you like I can post a long rave about the exposure of  Tibetan Buddhism and how effed up it can be , but that is from a past social aspect and a modern political one , not philosophical or theological . About how many young boys have been abused , how many serfs where abused ( yes surfs, up to 1950 ! )  Dalai lama links to CIA and how many monks get looked after in USA due to those links much more than USA citizens   etc etc .

 

So I do know about the 'other side'  ... and as you yourself no doubt realize ...all sorts of corruption are  pretty much across the board for all big organized religions .

Edited November 17, 2023 by Nungali

[Nungali]

24 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Are you projecting your own failures onto others.

 

Of course . Next time I go caving I shall take more caution and wear the proper  helmet .

[liminal_luke]

I think some people are turned off from Buddhism, at least as it´s often presented, because they delight in the particularity of things.  There´s a kind of spirituality that seeks to honor and respect the unique essence - the separate self, if you will - of each living thing.  Any philosophy or doctrine which appears to smush things together into an undifferentiated sameness is, from this point of view, a little bit evil.  

 

I live in Mexico and enjoy how different it is from the United States where I was born.  In many ways, the world is getting smaller and one place is getting to be more like another.  But I hope that Mexico doesn´t lose it´s special character in a global nondual soup.

[Apech]

5 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

I think some people are turned off from Buddhism, at least as it´s often presented, because they delight in the particularity of things.  There´s a kind of spirituality that seeks to honor and respect the unique essence - the separate self, if you will - of each living thing.  Any philosophy or doctrine which appears to smush things together into an undifferentiated sameness is, from this point of view, a little bit evil.  

 

I live in Mexico and enjoy how different it is from the United States where I was born.  In many ways, the world is getting smaller and one place is getting to be more like another.  But I hope that Mexico doesn´t lose it´s special character in a global nondual soup.

 

When despair grows in me
and I wake in the night at the least sound
in fear of what my life and my children's lives may be,
I go and lie down where the wood drake
rests in his beauty on the water, and the great heron feeds.
I come into the peace of wild things
who do not tax their lives with forethought
of grief. I come into the presence of still water.
And I feel above me the day-blind stars
waiting for their light. For a time
I rest in the grace of the world, and am free.

 

 

[Nungali]

( see below )

Edited November 17, 2023 by Nungali

[Nungali]

9 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

I think some people are turned off from Buddhism, at least as it´s often presented, because they delight in the particularity of things.  There´s a kind of spirituality that seeks to honor and respect the unique essence - the separate self, if you will - of each living thing.  Any philosophy or doctrine which appears to smush things together into an undifferentiated sameness is, from this point of view, a little bit evil.  

 

I live in Mexico and enjoy how different it is from the United States where I was born.  In many ways, the world is getting smaller and one place is getting to be more like another.  But I hope that Mexico doesn´t lose it´s special character in a global nondual soup.

 

 

Without  cultural diversity humanity could be in danger of becoming a mono culture  ... and we know how unhealthy that can get !

[Cobie]

 

41 minutes ago, Maddie said:

… there is an end to suffering 

Have you reached it?

 

[Maddie]

Just now, Cobie said:

 

Have you reached it?

 

 

No lol

[Cobie]

May I ask how old you are?

 

 

[Maddie]

49 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

You asked a question, I answered it.  2 minutes later, you're reciting buddhist doctrine as if you didn't read anything I wrote.

 

Typical.

 

No you misunderstand. I'm tired of debating you so I'm going to stop. My suffering has ended. 😇

[Maddie]

Just now, Cobie said:

May I ask how old you are?

 

 

 

No lol

[Cobie]

I wish all the Buddhists good luck on their path.  
 

 

Edited November 17, 2023 by Cobie

[Apech]

4 minutes ago, Cobie said:

May I ask how old you are?

 

 

you never ask how old I am!