What did the Buddah actually achieve?

Originally Posted by BlueSky

Further more does a love for existence imply a lust for it?

You can love and lust as much as you like. The Buddha doesn't forbid it.
He does say that clinging to existence will keep you in the realm of ignorance.

Now here's the kicker for me.

I belief as in I have faith that seeing through the veil of ignorance will remove the ignorance and show the truth as it is.. I fear that that truth is exactly as the Buddha talks about it.
So it isn't so much a choice, or wanting what the Buddha has, as it is something that just is what it is..

With Love
Eelco

Originally Posted by sky123

Go and visit your parents and give them a don't leave it until it's to late

Thank you for the suggestion. I shared the story to explain something about the impermanence of relation ships. Not for counsel on it. Although I do appreciate the sentiment.

With love
Eelco

[sky]

Originally Posted by catsquotl

Thank you for the suggestion. I shared the story to explain something about the impermanence of relation ships. Not for counsel on it. Although I do appreciate the sentiment.

With love
Eelco

I have removed it... You didn't accept it in the same way I meant it, no problem.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by BlueSky

Thanks Gem. In my studies I concluded that his mention of householders was in the context of living like a monk in your home with your family.

There is reasonable likelihood that a monk may not have the emotional coping abilities to sustain family life.

Buddhism to me sets the bar in reference to relationships to be such that my grandson or wife or daughters or even my dog should come across as not being individuals or special and let's face it if "I" was to disappear then so would "you".

Yes, so in the meditative practice we gain insight into the truth of ourselves, as opposed to entertaining ideas about ourselves, not in the sense that there is no idea of self per-se, just that ideas of self are recognised as ideas.

In the Buddhist text an individual is called the 'santana'. In some rights this is an eternal transforming being, but in the other sense it is 'reborn' in every moment. It is said that nothing of it endures from one moment to the next, but characteristics are passed from one moment to the next by process of volition. It basically means everything is new in each moment but is 'informed by the past' so to speak. In a family context which is loving and kind everything is destroyed and recreated momentarily but perpetuated by the right kind of volition. If such a volition is predominant, then conditions enable good results. A family with bitter resentful malicious volitions would be conditions for bad results. So the religoius tenets as far as householders go (which is near enough everyone) is basically the same as tenets for monks, and only the context to which these apply differs. Of course a monastic life with all its silly rules and religious rigour can't be applied to to a householder's life, but the virtue applies universally.

Who would possibly want to be in such a state and for what purpose other than some selfish goal or attainment.
My nature is selfless in that I would give anything for anybody but to lose sense of my individuality at the expense of losing sense of yours is just not something I could imagine or want.

Yes, it's not imaginary not is it based in wants. It's just kammic law as determined by one's volition.

In all honesty I have a powerful brain and an open heart and mind and this is what Buddhism is pointing to...no me....no you....and I just don't want that.

Well, the santana is obviously here, but in that it does not endure, there is no continuous self associated with it, but of course characteristics of persona are similiar to those of the past.

I hope I'm wrong in my accessment but if it was otherwise, I feel that I would know and so would everyone else.

No you are fundamentally right in what you say, and what we call 'self' in the West doesn't actually apply to what is called 'santana' in Buddhism.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by catsquotl

You can love and lust as much as you like. The Buddha doesn't forbid it.
He does say that clinging to existence will keep you in the realm of ignorance.

Now here's the kicker for me.

I belief as in I have faith that seeing through the veil of ignorance will remove the ignorance and show the truth as it is.. I fear that that truth is exactly as the Buddha talks about it.

That's a quotable quote!

So it isn't so much a choice, or wanting what the Buddha has, as it is something that just is what it is..

With Love
Eelco

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by Gem

There is reasonable likelihood that a monk may not have the emotional coping abilities to sustain family life.


Yes, so in the meditative practice we gain insight into the truth of ourselves, as opposed to entertaining ideas about ourselves, not in the sense that there is no idea of self per-se, just that ideas of self are recognised as ideas.

In the Buddhist text an individual is called the 'santana'. In some rights this is an eternal transforming being, but in the other sense it is 'reborn' in every moment. It is said that nothing of it endures from one moment to the next, but characteristics are passed from one moment to the next by process of volition. It basically means everything is new in each moment but is 'informed by the past' so to speak. In a family context which is loving and kind everything is destroyed and recreated momentarily but perpetuated by the right kind of volition. If such a volition is predominant, then conditions enable good results. A family with bitter resentful malicious volitions would be conditions for bad results. So the religoius tenets as far as householders go (which is near enough everyone) is basically the same as tenets for monks, and only the context to which these apply differs. Of course a monastic life with all its silly rules and religious rigour can't be applied to to a householder's life, but the virtue applies universally.



Yes, it's not imaginary not is it based in wants. It's just kammic law as determined by one's volition.


Well, the santana is obviously here, but in that it does not endure, there is no continuous self associated with it, but of course characteristics of persona are similiar to those of the past.


No you are fundamentally right in what you say, and what we call 'self' in the West doesn't actually apply to what is called 'santana' in Buddhism.

See I certainly understand that everything is in flux and in a sense being reborn or different from moment to moment but that does not necessarily mean that the sense I have of me and you is an idea. It's an idea that it's an idea.
With that said I don't cling to any sense of me but nor do I write me off as an idea. I simply don't think about it and I just be me naturally.
I have certainly experienced amazing things that suggest that there is so much that I can't know but yet I seem to know that it's unknowable and yet even that I don't think about.
To me not knowing is my way of expressing the realization that there is no me and there is no no me. There could simply be a changing me and there could be simply be a changing whole of which I am conscious of as me. I don't know.
People who say there is no me IMO may be looking to grasp onto something even if it is nothing.
People who desire to be Enlightened or a Buddha or to see reality or truth as they imagine it is IMO may be looking for a purpose for life, again something to grasp onto.
That's my point, I'm not saying there is or isn't enlightenment or there is or isn't purpose, I'm saying from experience that if you are sincere in such things you will not find them. If you are not sincere or subconsciously needing to see such things as truth, for whatever reason, then you will find whatever you are looking for.
The foundation is empty, unimaginable and Godlike. From it comes this and me, a real sense of me. This me doesn't question the sense of itself nor does it write it off as an idea (whose idea would it be anyway lol). This me lives life and notices traits that are loving, compassionate and selfless without any reason to be so other than a sense that we are all connected and an awe for life and living.
Anyways thanks for your response. I appreciate and enjoy the dialogue

[Elysium]

He achieved not coming back to this hell.

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by catsquotl

Thank you for the suggestion. I shared the story to explain something about the impermanence of relation ships. Not for counsel on it. Although I do appreciate the sentiment.

With love
Eelco

Ironically I know all too well about the impermanent of relationships as my parents shut me out for over 30 years.
What I really learned from it though is that relationships are about bonds we make with one another. I know this because those bonds can also be broken and they were.
I learned from that experience the importance of bonding with others that you love and even though my parents shut me out, they did the best they could. I learned that parents, just because they are parents, doesn't mean they are perfect. And of course I learned not to let the sun go down on your anger so to speak.
I'm telling you this to show you that one can simply see the impermanence in relationships from such an experience or one could see so much more.
We have to be careful to not only see what we want to see IMO of course

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by Elysium

He achieved not coming back to this hell.

How could it be hell if for me it is heaven?

[Elysium]

Originally Posted by BlueSky

How could it be hell if for me it is heaven?

Why would Buddha want to escape heaven?

He never came back to this earth. It's not heaven.