God in Buddhism

Originally Posted by BigJohn

janielee,

do you pride yourself in causing divisions?

When you thought Altair had the wrong understanding on the last issue, all you had to do is 'kindly' show him the right answer but instead, you added more coals to the fire so as to keep the rift wide.

These kinds of divisions are truly not necessary.

Proverbs 6:16-19

There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.

Titus 3:9-11

But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.



JL

[BigJohn]

Is this the Christian Forum?

Are some of files cross-linked?

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Altair

Are you sure about that, Gem?

Are you responsible for the pain you experienced in birth? Or when you get hit by a random idiot on the road?

INTERESTING QUESTION!

If we are responsible for the pain we experience when we get hit by a random idiot on the road seems to imply predestination.

Does that mean that when I go and have breakfast in the morning, it is already predestined what I will eat?

Which leads to the questions "Who made all of these choices for us?" and how much of our lives are predestined?

[Phaelyn]

Originally Posted by Altair

Are you sure about that, Gem?

Are you responsible for the pain you experienced in birth? Or when you get hit by a random idiot on the road?

Things are much more complex than language or even the awareness can fathom. Scientists say a human being can only be aware of 4 things at one time. So take something like the concept or word "suffering." There are probably millions of different contexts where some form of "suffering" is experienced by a human being and a million different causes as well. So yea the mind putting forth the idea we cause 100% of suffering is obviously wrong. But then our thoughts throw out false things all the time, and occasionally true things, but either way, if we are aware of a thought, that is where our unconscious habitual processes have placed our attention, and the placing of our attention on the thoughts, is usually 100% a subconscious process. imho lol

But then, taking the attention off of the mind stream consciously, requires an awareness, either through the imagination or memory or experience, of the non-mind experience. It can only be imagined or conjured up non-verbally as it is a non-verbal experience.... but a willful self caused non-verbal experience... not one that happens between thoughts automatically.

It's like a teleprompter we are always focused on, when it is running...when something is on the screen....to at will remove our gaze from it, any moment we want, is a skill and that skill requires exercising our aspect of awareness.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Altair

Are you sure about that, Gem?

Are you responsible for the pain you experienced in birth? Or when you get hit by a random idiot on the road?

Well it comes about due to the way I'm defining suffering according to the 'cause' in Buddhist philosophy, which is 'craving'. Craving encompasses advesion and desire. In that sense the sensations which are painful are not in themselves suffering, but our adverse reactions to pain are. The main issue is, we all have our limitations as to 'how much can a koala bear?', so even though it is true that we generate the reactivity ourselves, and we should take responsibility for doing that, it's perfectly understandable that people will reach a threshold at some point, and become overwhelmed and unable to maintain their equanimity of mind.

Some people consider bliss a spiritual experience, others consider it purely a physiological phenomenon.
Calling it ''the Holy Spirit'' or ''Guardian Angel'' makes quite a difference as well, I reckon..

And different paths and 'teachers' do express rather different views if you look closely. Obviously, it's because they are different people. Put a happy person on a year-long retreat or an unhappy sod on the same retreat, they'll have different experiences and come to different conclusions about the experience. Same with tripping, some get a bad trip. Some will say it is all in the brain, even if it's amazing, and others will say it is ''enlightenment''.

What happens is people use similar language, like in many discussions here on SF, but may not necessarily speak about the actual same things or come to the same conclusion.

I think my main point is not coming to a conclusion based on individuated experience, because as you say, one likes it and another doesn't like the same thing. Taking a more generalised perspective, the specifics of experience are not as important as the universal tendency to react to experience. In that sense all individuals react differently, but universally, all individuals react. It's just a matter of self-awareness so that each individual is conscious of their reactions, and the affect such reactivity has on their peace of mind.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by sky123

There are numerous Buddhist Teachings free of charge and available that would help you...

Scholar's who translate the Sutta/Sutras are a excellent source of info:

The idea of desiring enlightenment is fundamentally misguided, not because it is a wrong idea, but because it lacks the deeper nuance of real life. The issue is one of those things that has no answer. It's the sort of question Buddha wouldn't have answered like you should or should not desire enlightenment. It's only a matter of discussion that will never come to a conclusion, and in essence, a matter of self-observation to discover what is true of yourself just as you are now. As the Satipatthana says, it's the observation with understanding, and if the enlightenment is not here now, you simply know, enlightenment is not here now. If it is here, you know it is here - With mere awareness and mere understanding.

[Phaelyn]

Originally Posted by Gem

we generate the reactivity ourselves, and we should take responsibility for doing that,

Maybe say, we allow it to take place, to become phenomenal, but we are not generating it in my understanding.

The way I understand it, our body and it's brain is basically a very, very intelligent robot and this robot or machine or moving super computer is also very intelligently designed. Reactivity and reactions are products of this machine we are merged with. As I said before, these are very complex subjects. This body's design and functions require an intelligence far beyond ours to understand though we can learn little things here and there, but not the whole thing obviously as we have not even cracked any knowledge about where and how conscious awareness comes to be in this machine and what it is exactly.

An example: We walk into the kitchen and see a pile of dirty dishes and pots and pans and we say to ourselves, "sheesh kitchen work is never ending... day after day more dishes to wash... I really can't handle this, somebody else around here needs to do these..." and with this thought stream is a general feeling of discomfort, perhaps some anger, not happy.... resistance to what is. A conflict between what is and what I wish was here instead.

Ok, none of that was created or caused by me. The brain ran a program that is constantly adding data as the body ages, over time, the "programming" and conditioning.... this program starts the minute we become conscious in a human fetus and it does not stop adding information and programming. It "learns" non-stop. Everything we have thought, read, heard, felt and on and on goes into the memory of this data base. Just the other day I read brain scientists found out there is a very complex hierarchically formulated system the brain uses when forming and deciding which thoughts to present to our consciousness. The brain forms a bunch of thoughts and using data from our sensory organs, determines which fit best with what we are currently dealing with and presents them... in nano seconds....to consciousness.... then the last thought we thought also prioritizes what thought comes next....

And then during this whole process, the brain is producing chemicals so that thoughts are "felt." So in my opinion, we normally have nothing to do with the formation of reactivity and should not take responsibility for such.

But what we do have, if learned and practiced, is the potential to transcend these reactions and thoughts so that they do not become phenomenal or produce an effect. This is related to how self aware we are and that comes from many life times and a lot of experience.... so even there, if we are not self aware enough to transcend such things, that is not our fault either.

What we actually are, that is now merged with a body and it's mind, will eventually leave the body and go somewhere else...but this actual me, yes I can transcend the bodies and brains negative habitual patterns sometimes, so as to not let this reaction process or chain of events become phenomenal.

Using the above example of the pile of dirty dishes, I walk into the kitchen in a detached state, I am not identifying with my thoughts or thinking, not submissively accepting them, not letting them define my reality or experience of what is, I see the pile of dirty dishes and perhaps the brain sends me a thought or two.... but I quickly dismiss them as non-sense, as not relative to what is, so I transcend their proposed or projected reality, and instead stay in my happy and peaceful state and I do the dishes with zero actualized reaction and zero resistance. I don't even resist the thoughts that may come as I've learned to keep my attention off whatever non-sense they attempt to make a part of now experience. But then when one is in this highly aware state, thoughts quiet down and rarely come. But yes we are not Buddha's, so our awareness fades and we may find ourselves reacting again, but this only serves to remind us to focus again and wake up. Be more aware of where our attention is, in the thought stream or off of it. The more energy we give the thought stream, the more active it becomes and the more it effects our experience.

Originally Posted by Gem

Taking a more generalized perspective, the specifics of experience are not as important as the universal tendency to react to experience. In that sense all individuals react differently, but universally, all individuals react. It's just a matter of self-awareness so that each individual is conscious of their reactions, and the affect such reactivity has on their peace of mind.

Yes very true to me. That's another way to put it.

[Phaelyn]

Originally Posted by Gem

The idea of desiring enlightenment is fundamentally misguided,

I'd say the main difference there is wanting or desiring something we can get for ourselves, or wanting or desiring something we will never get, not only because we are not completely sure what it is, but also because we are wrong about what it is, so wanting or desiring something we will never get just sets up an endless conflict in us. Wanting or desiring something we know how to get, or knowing where it is found, is fine and good.

Forgot to add there, not only can one not be right about what it is, they also are not using the right method or practice to get to it...so yes that kind of desiring is fruitless but if one actually knows what it is, and where and how it is found, there is nothing wrong there, nothing creating a conflict.

Really, enlightenment is being selfless, so no one can get it anyway, the "self" is ego, if one transcends the self or ego, who is there to be enlightened or seek such a thing? One finds they always were enlightened. The desire is not to get something, it's to stop identifying with things that are not us. Then what we are, is experienced according to how much of ego we have transcended. It's like wearing one of those sleep masks at all times. We get insights and start putting little tiny holes in that sleep mask letting little bits of light in. I desire more light, this will take awhile and I am patient.

Originally Posted by Gem

The idea of desiring enlightenment is fundamentally misguided, not because it is a wrong idea, but because it lacks the deeper nuance of real life. The issue is one of those things that has no answer. It's the sort of question Buddha wouldn't have answered like you should or should not desire enlightenment. It's only a matter of discussion that will never come to a conclusion, and in essence, a matter of self-observation to discover what is true of yourself just as you are now. As the Satipatthana says, it's the observation with understanding, and if the enlightenment is not here now, you simply know, enlightenment is not here now. If it is here, you know it is here - With mere awareness and mere understanding.

It always start with desire, Gem, how could it not. As one practices however, the nuances of this reality come into play.

Even though the Buddha never explicitly said so, there are different stages of realization and then actualization.

I like your emphasis on awareness and understanding (which of course is not intellectual understanding) right now

JL

[sentient]

I have wondered ....Gem

How is your rhythm and tone?

Can you totally let go into the flow or no?

For and against argument?

*