PandaPirate Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 If everything is one, then why an ethical code? Remember that the "goal" of Buddhist practice is to overcome dukkha (dissatisfaction/suffering). The cultivation of the three branches of the Path are like the medicine that soothes the affliction of dukkha. Wisdom and Mental Discipline helps soothe dukkha on the personal level. Wisdom and Ethical Conduct helps soothe dukkha on an interpersonal level. I thought the "goal" of Buddhism was to reach nirvana? Why is it that you want to overcome suffering? You're correct. The goal of Buddhism is to reach Nirvana. I'm currently taking a required course at school, Intro to Religion, and our module this week just happens to be Buddhism. Dukkha (sanskrit for "suffering") is the First Noble Truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev R Posted June 10, 2012 Author Share Posted June 10, 2012 and Nirvana is the 3rd.- cessation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 ... the three branches of the Path.... What are these again? Are these impermanence, dependent co-arising, and no-self? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev R Posted June 10, 2012 Author Share Posted June 10, 2012 wisdom, ethics/morality, mental discipline Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 wisdom, ethics/morality, mental discipline Alright. But didn't I hear you say once that dependent co-arising is one of three core ideas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VacuumFlux Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 Some plants recognise not only themselves, but near relatives, and will avoid competing for root system space with a plant that is too similar to itself. What an amazing thing. Woah. Thanks for sharing this. Where did you hear of this? Somewhere on the internet? I can't find the original source, but here's a relevant paper where they're trying to figure out which chemicals the plants are secreting in order to recognise each other: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2881236/ What do you mean by a "model of self"? To me, that implies cognitive awareness of self and not self, and plants have no neurological system to do this with. Well, I'm still learning, so I'm still working through all this stuff too. I don't believe models have to be based in cognition. Among the examples to which I turn here is the somatic (rather than cognitive) anticipation demonstrated by things such as callus formation. If this sort of thing (along with things like learned immune responses) are indeed anticipatory, then I think models of some sort are being employed, because anticipation is a form of self-control guided by models. You seem to be using a very different set of connotations for "model" than I am. Like I would not say that the plants have any model of self-and not self, I'd just say that plant secrete chemicals that can be used as identifiers, and plants also "decide" how to grow their roots by the things they find in their environment. I have to be careful with the words I use to describe this process to stop myself from thinking of everything as a conscious act of will on the part of the plant; I keep trying to apply what I know of my own experiences to an organism where that doesn't apply. The anthropomorphic terms are useful shorthand and have a lot of baggage; some of that baggage helps make a point quickly, while other bits of it give an inaccurate impression of what's really going on. The most accurate way for me to describe how a plant grows is entirely passive voice, reduce it to chemistry, but that sounds so dry and gets wordy that I tend to prefer the words that have the connotation of cognition and will. To relate this back to the topic of the thread, I also find it useful to reduce myself to the passive sometimes. Instead of saying "I am mad at this person even though I know I really shouldn't be so upset" I can stop and notice that my biochemistry is off which triggers muscle tension which triggers pain which triggers stress hormones which trigger my brain to think paranoid, negative thoughts. When I depersonalize myself like that, reduce myself to physiological cause and effect, I can stop fighting my emotions as if they exist in and of themselves, and instead take care of my body and take actions that will actually have a useful result. About animals, I certainly get the impression that most mammals have a sense of self. Cats and dogs recognise individuals, they know who they like and don't like, they can hold grudges, and they have a sense of justice and get rather upset when they feel that they are being treated unfairly. Cows, you can never have just one because they get depressed if they're alone (my aunt who lives on a farm tends to buy two, care for them for a while, then slaughter one to feed her family and sell off the other one to someone who's got other cows). I'm not sure if that requires quite the same level of a sense of self that humans have, but they certainly have enough social skills to have some rudimentary sense of society. Birds and reptiles I'm not so sure about, though some birds do seem to have some serious social groupings. I've heard that one of the things you have to get used to if you have a pet tarantula is that, unlike many other pet animals, they have no clue who you are and don't care. They won't have affection for you the same way a mammal would because they don't recognise individuals like that. So I tend to think of insects as more machine-like and less human-like. But if they've got some sort of non-human-like sense of self, I don't know that I'd ever notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 I heard Robert Thurman say that the Four Noble Truths were called "noble" because they would not be true for ordinary people, but would only be true for those who had some level of realization. Only for the noble. http://video.abovetopsecret.com/video1121/The_Four_Noble_Truths_-_Robert_Thurman/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noggy Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 I heard Robert Thurman say that the Four Noble Truths were called "noble" because they would not be true for ordinary people, but would only be true for those who had some level of realization. Only for the noble. http://video.aboveto...Robert_Thurman/ And, of course, everyone thinks that their "realization" is "noble". Good job, Buddhabear 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev R Posted June 10, 2012 Author Share Posted June 10, 2012 one of the root ideas or doctrines, yes. like any doctrine, dependent origination is a tool to guide one's understanding rather than a truth of itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 I heard Robert Thurman say that the Four Noble Truths were called "noble" because they would not be true for ordinary people, but would only be true for those who had some level of realization. Only for the noble. http://video.aboveto...Robert_Thurman/ And, of course, everyone thinks that their "realization" is "noble". Good job, Buddhabear I don't know about that. What do you mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 VacuumFlux I think you and I have profound and growing disagreements. Chemistry is nearly irrelevant to the core of biological considerations in my assessment. It's a sideshow. I think life is a manifestation of a certain kind of organization. If the details of the periodic table were somehow different, I don't believe this would impede the possibility of life. I suppose it's sort of like comparing a water clock to a grandfather clock. The organization which characterizes a clock can be manifested in a near infinite variety of ways. The important thing is the organization, not the material details of manifesting that organization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 A different view of "self".... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev R Posted June 10, 2012 Author Share Posted June 10, 2012 I heard Robert Thurman say that the Four Noble Truths were called "noble" because they would not be true for ordinary people, but would only be true for those who had some level of realization. Only for the noble. http://video.aboveto...Robert_Thurman/ Hmmm. That could be. I think it boils down to the "come and see" attitude of Gautama. We aren't supposed to take it on faith that these statements are true, we must investigate them. Finding them to be true (or even false) through examination would count as some level of realization in my book. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 I would agree that discussion is analytical. What would happen if we discussed the Pacquiao/Bradley fight (a bullshit call in my opinion)? We would break it down and examine each fighter's overall performance, break it down into individual rounds, discuss technical aspects such as punching power, weight gain, hand speed, number of punches thrown, etc. all the while realizing that none of these individual topics was the fight itself. Without breaking it down, what is there to talk about? Right. It's how the mind works. That's how we interpret and try to make a meaning out of things around us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noggy Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 I heard Robert Thurman say that the Four Noble Truths were called "noble" because they would not be true for ordinary people, but would only be true for those who had some level of realization. Only for the noble. http://video.aboveto...Robert_Thurman/ And, of course, everyone thinks that their "realization" is "noble". Good job, Buddhabear I don't know about that. What do you mean? He calls the truths "noble", yes? And of course, only "noble" people realize what he realizes. The rest of us that don't realize, or otherwise disagree, are just not noble enough . As if one persons realization is better than another... especially when they realize a different thing. The noble truths are not noble, nor are they truth. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 I believe what Noggy is trying to say is.... "People are never more sincere than when they assume their own superiority." - Thomas Sowell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 As if one persons realization is better than another... especially when they realize a different thing. The noble truths are not noble, nor are they truth. I think you have misinterpreted this. It is an undeniable fact that some people have more realization - more insight into the nature of reality - than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 As if one persons realization is better than another... especially when they realize a different thing. The noble truths are not noble, nor are they truth. I think you have misinterpreted this. It is an undeniable fact that some people have more realization - more insight into the nature of reality - than others. But does it make them superior? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 I personally find the second an third "noble truths" to be extremely suspect. The first seems fine. But it seems to me that life is co-extensive with "craving". Only the dead have no desires. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 As if one persons realization is better than another... especially when they realize a different thing. The noble truths are not noble, nor are they truth. I think you have misinterpreted this. It is an undeniable fact that some people have more realization - more insight into the nature of reality - than others. But does it make them superior? I never used that word "superior". I suppose it could be said that some have a more superior level of realization than others - if you want to use that word. The actual word for noble is "arya". The word ārya (Pāli: ariya), in the sense "noble" or "exalted", is very frequently used in Buddhist texts to designate a spiritual warrior or hero, which use this term much more often than Hindu or Jain texts. Buddha's Dharma and Vinaya are the ariyassa dhammavinayo. The Four Noble Truths are called the catvāry āryasatyāni (Sanskrit) or cattāri ariyasaccāni (Pali). The Noble Eightfold Path is called the āryamārga (Sanskrit, also āryāṣṭāṅgikamārga) or ariyamagga (Pāli). Buddhists themselves are called ariyapuggalas (Arya persons). In Buddhist texts, the āryas are those who have the Buddhist śīla (Pāli sīla, meaning "virtue") and follow the Buddhist path. Those who despise Buddhism are often called "anāryas". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asanerman Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 Well, I was hungry when I wrote it. Flow is the best word I been able to come up with to describe it, but you can't enter it because you've never been separate from it. But now we are bordering on the stuff that makes people who are otherwise interested get a little nervous. Yes, the mine fields of dualism--regretful, unavoidable it seems. All this "circular" talk spirals downward so fast that most discussions end up in smoke, mirrors, bickering, hurt--and a whole lot of nervousness and suspension. Notice how we shift from that which borders "on the stuff that makes people who are otherwise interested a little nervous " to Eastern (psychological ,theory, doctrine, truth whatever, you chose to call it) ideas, which is all about that which makes people nervous. So what are we otherwise interested in if not that which makes us a little nervous--squeamish? Is it a "goal" which will "overcome dukkha (dissatisfaction/suffering)..dukkha on the personal level?" A “goal” of "interconnectness?" Or another “mode” of reality? A Reality we already Are, yet we can't actually speak directly to unless we “lay it between the lines,”-- in a song, poem or parable or a pithy little phrase or an action (one hand clapping). Is it the goal, the path, that increase healthy states of mind (insight, mindfulness, modesty discretion, confidence, composure, nonattachment, non-aversion impartiality, buoyancy pliancy, adaptability, proficiency, rectitude) and decrease the unhealthy ones--(keep reading I’ve listed some). Is it that that makes of nervous? Is nirvana, the total cessation of mental processes in nibbana, a state more empty than jhana (samadhi if you please), where perceptions and thoughts cease altogether, where there is no experience whatsoever, even of bliss or equanimity? Is that what makes us pause? Tell me, in terms my Western, pragmatic, skeptical, nervous mind can understand, of a path to health where unhealthy factors (delusion, false view, shamelessness, recklessness, egotism, agitation, greed, aversion, envy avarice, worry,, contrition, torpor. perplexity) not only cease altogether but any and all anusayas, the latent tendencies that could potential lead to an unhealthy factor in my mind, be eradicated. (don’t let the duality through you, I’m a bitnervous!) Please tell me that my gradual “dying” is not “a dying at all,“ but a transformation of consciousness where nirvana becomes increasingly profound and that in and through “my” dying, connection is made where no-thing Is and yet Is not--the continuous moment by moment of the Great Not Yet, no past, no present, no future. Van Kaam writes "...experiences such as responsibility, dread, anxiety, despair, freedom, love, wonder or decision cannot be measured or experimented with... They are simply there and can only be explicated in the givenness." Maybe its givennes that makes us more than a little "nervous," not to mention, the praxis of the Already! It need not be that way! Do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asanerman Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 you'll roar eventually Thanks Rev! I am quietly working it out. By nature (or karma) not poetic or given to much metaphor, I have to find other ways of communicating. Deva there are no qualifications, no conditions! The good news is we are all constituented with methods to find our own unique Way! No exceptions! We all have "Noble Hearts." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PandaPirate Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 As if one persons realization is better than another... especially when they realize a different thing. The noble truths are not noble, nor are they truth. I think you have misinterpreted this. It is an undeniable fact that some people have more realization - more insight into the nature of reality - than others. And that statement is a perfect example of such truth, Deva. You are so wise 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RintrahRoars Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 If you guys honestly don't think that cats have egos, you haven't experienced many cats. Would you have chosen the feline as the thing that's sure to have an ego if all cats went about their business with that face? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Deva there are no qualifications, no conditions! The good news is we are all constituented with methods to find our own unique Way! No exceptions! We all have "Noble Hearts." Agree we all have Noble Hearts, but often layered over with the "negative factors" you listed above. I was really talking about my lack of ability to express the dharma in an intelligible way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts