Author Topic: Philosophical Questions of a Beginner  (Read 2750 times)

Offline Hanzze

  • Member
  • Posts: 2083
  • (Johann)
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophical Questions of a Beginner
« Reply #15 on: July 21, 2013, 05:43:43 am »
I am not sure if you are capable to let go of your assuming that anywhere a reference on past deeds was mentioned, but maybe you give it a try. One does only see what one likes to see.

Lets try it again:

"Nothing you can do, that the fruits of your deeds will not ripe except to avoid the causes with this and that effects."

And what are the causes with another effect?

"Now, these three are [further] causes for the origination of actions. Which three? Non-greed is a cause for the origination of actions. Non-aversion is a cause for the origination of actions. Non-delusion is a cause for the origination of actions.

    "Any action performed with non-greed — born of non-greed, caused by non-greed, originating from non-greed: When greed is gone, that action is thus abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising.

    "Any action performed with non-aversion — born of non-aversion, caused by non-aversion, originating from non-aversion: When aversion is gone, that action is thus abandoned, destroyed at the root, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising.

    "Any action performed with non-delusion — born of non-delusion, caused by non-delusion, originating from non-delusion: When delusion is gone, that action is thus abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising.

    "Just as when seeds are not broken, not rotten, not damaged by wind & heat, capable of sprouting, well-buried, planted in well-prepared soil, and a man would burn them with fire and, burning them with fire, would make them into fine ashes. Having made them into fine ashes, he would winnow them before a high wind or wash them away in a swift-flowing stream. Those seeds would thus be destroyed at the root, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising.

    "In the same way, any action performed with non-greed... performed with non-aversion... performed with non-delusion — born of non-delusion, caused by non-delusion, originating from non-delusion: When delusion is gone, that action is thus abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising.

    "These, monks, are three causes for the origination of action."

    A person unknowing:
    the actions performed by him,
    born of greed,
    born of aversion, & born of delusion,
    whether many or few,
    are experienced right here:
    no other ground is found.[1]

    So a monk, knowing,
    sheds
    greed, aversion, & delusion;
    giving rise to clear knowledge, he
    sheds
    all bad destinations.[2]

Offline ground

  • Member
  • Posts: 2029
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophical Questions of a Beginner
« Reply #16 on: July 21, 2013, 05:55:23 am »
...


"Nothing you can do, that the fruits of your deeds will not ripe except to avoid the causes with this and that effects."

...
    So a monk, knowing,
    sheds
    greed, aversion, & delusion;
    giving rise to clear knowledge, he
    sheds
    all bad destinations.[2]

See. That is why it is about sila, samadhi and panna and why your statement
Quote
"Nothing you can do, that the fruits of your deeds will not ripe except to avoid the causes with this and that effects."
is wrong as to past actions and causes that have already happened

and therefore it is said here
Quote
    So a monk, knowing,
    sheds
    greed, aversion, & delusion;
    giving rise to clear knowledge, he
    sheds
    all bad destinations.[2]

and it was said above:
Quote from: ground
As to past deeds knowing necessarily has to eliminate the potentiality of fruits since past moments of greed, past moments of aversion and past moments of delusion cannot be eliminated.

and this knowing is not just the "knowing" as to "causes with this and that effects" which refers to avoidance in present and future but it is the knowing qua elimination of ignorance which eliminates karmic fruition as to past actions.  :fu:
« Last Edit: July 21, 2013, 05:57:28 am by ground »

Offline Amishrockstar

  • Member
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophical Questions of a Beginner
« Reply #17 on: July 21, 2013, 09:22:34 am »
Thank you all for taking the time to read and respond to what I wrote. Of course, some responses were a bit more helpful than others, and some stayed 'on topic' a bit more than others, but, overall, I've been able to take some of the ideas that were shared here and better understand the issues I've raised.

It appears that Buddhists tend to describe things 'as the way they are' rather than search for answers or meaning. The example of the poisoned arrow was given, and I think it's a good parable to tell. I haven't quite come to terms with the idea of letting metaphysical questions 'just be' and move on to more 'practical' aspects of existence. Of course, there are debates about whether metaphysical studies are a waste of time (even among Western philosophers), but maybe there is something to this 'questioning mind' --maybe it shouldn't just be brushed aside.

It sounds as though the basis for morality in Buddhism is in the Buddha and all buddhas (they cannot act any other way once enlightenment is attained), which sounds similar to how Christians ground their understanding of morality in the character and nature of God (He acts according to His nature); although, there is a bit more 'finiteness' to the Buddha (being a man and having multiple other finite lives).

Either way, I'm still thinking through these issues, and I appreciate well-thoughtout responses.

Matthew
 :namaste:



Offline Hanzze

  • Member
  • Posts: 2083
  • (Johann)
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophical Questions of a Beginner
« Reply #18 on: July 21, 2013, 09:24:54 am »
...


"Nothing you can do, that the fruits of your deeds will not ripe except to avoid the causes with this and that effects."

...
    So a monk, knowing,
    sheds
    greed, aversion, & delusion;
    giving rise to clear knowledge, he
    sheds
    all bad destinations.[2]

See. That is why it is about sila, samadhi and panna and why your statement
Quote
"Nothing you can do, that the fruits of your deeds will not ripe except to avoid the causes with this and that effects."
is wrong as to past actions and causes that have already happened

and therefore it is said here
Quote
    So a monk, knowing,
    sheds
    greed, aversion, & delusion;
    giving rise to clear knowledge, he
    sheds
    all bad destinations.[2]

and it was said above:
Quote from: ground
As to past deeds knowing necessarily has to eliminate the potentiality of fruits since past moments of greed, past moments of aversion and past moments of delusion cannot be eliminated.

and this knowing is not just the "knowing" as to "causes with this and that effects" which refers to avoidance in present and future but it is the knowing qua elimination of ignorance which eliminates karmic fruition as to past actions.  :fu:

You do to much brain masturbating, friend Ground and you have lost the capability to read just what is written with time. But nice to share your thought and assuming. Its just a matter of time till one grows to another Don Quichote.

No where was any referring to past, present of future and assuming around this.

Offline Hanzze

  • Member
  • Posts: 2083
  • (Johann)
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophical Questions of a Beginner
« Reply #19 on: July 21, 2013, 09:29:42 am »
Thank you all for taking the time to read and respond to what I wrote. Of course, some responses were a bit more helpful than others, and some stayed 'on topic' a bit more than others, but, overall, I've been able to take some of the ideas that were shared here and better understand the issues I've raised.

It appears that Buddhists tend to describe things 'as the way they are' rather than search for answers or meaning. The example of the poisoned arrow was given, and I think it's a good parable to tell. I haven't quite come to terms with the idea of letting metaphysical questions 'just be' and move on to more 'practical' aspects of existence. Of course, there are debates about whether metaphysical studies are a waste of time (even among Western philosophers), but maybe there is something to this 'questioning mind' --maybe it shouldn't just be brushed aside.

It sounds as though the basis for morality in Buddhism is in the Buddha and all buddhas (they cannot act any other way once enlightenment is attained), which sounds similar to how Christians ground their understanding of morality in the character and nature of God (He acts according to His nature); although, there is a bit more 'finiteness' to the Buddha (being a man and having multiple other finite lives).

Either way, I'm still thinking through these issues, and I appreciate well-thoughtout responses.

Matthew
 :namaste:


Matthew, I don't think that you would get anything else as confusing stuff here. Maybe you like to invest some time and start on place like this: A Self-guided Tour of the Buddha's Teachings

Offline ground

  • Member
  • Posts: 2029
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophical Questions of a Beginner
« Reply #20 on: July 21, 2013, 11:16:16 am »
...


"Nothing you can do, that the fruits of your deeds will not ripe except to avoid the causes with this and that effects."

...
    So a monk, knowing,
    sheds
    greed, aversion, & delusion;
    giving rise to clear knowledge, he
    sheds
    all bad destinations.[2]

See. That is why it is about sila, samadhi and panna and why your statement
Quote
"Nothing you can do, that the fruits of your deeds will not ripe except to avoid the causes with this and that effects."
is wrong as to past actions and causes that have already happened

and therefore it is said here
Quote
    So a monk, knowing,
    sheds
    greed, aversion, & delusion;
    giving rise to clear knowledge, he
    sheds
    all bad destinations.[2]

and it was said above:
Quote from: ground
As to past deeds knowing necessarily has to eliminate the potentiality of fruits since past moments of greed, past moments of aversion and past moments of delusion cannot be eliminated.

and this knowing is not just the "knowing" as to "causes with this and that effects" which refers to avoidance in present and future but it is the knowing qua elimination of ignorance which eliminates karmic fruition as to past actions.  :fu:

You do to much brain masturbating, friend Ground and you have lost the capability to read just what is written with time. But nice to share your thought and assuming. Its just a matter of time till one grows to another Don Quichote.

No where was any referring to past, present of future and assuming around this.

No problem. It is just that your statement
"Nothing you can do, that the fruits of your deeds will not ripe except to avoid the causes with this and that effects."
is wrong if your own religion is taken into account.

Anyway never mind. Just sit.  :fu:

Offline Dharmakara

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4233
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophical Questions of a Beginner
« Reply #21 on: July 21, 2013, 12:01:43 pm »
Of course, there are debates about whether metaphysical studies are a waste of time (even among Western philosophers), but maybe there is something to this 'questioning mind' --maybe it shouldn't just be brushed aside.

The title "vibhajja vada" (one who analyses) is another name for a Buddhist, so the "questioning mind" shouldn't be brushed aside, but engaged.


Offline phetaroi

  • Member
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophical Questions of a Beginner
« Reply #22 on: July 27, 2013, 10:55:33 am »
...
My second question is really more of a statement about a doctrine I'm not comfortable with in Buddhism, and maybe you all have an insight to share. We, as humans, tend to have a deep sense of certain actions being objectively wrong (rape, murder, etc), yet Buddhism teaches that actions are either "skillful" or "unskillful," so how can we live as a Buddhist when we seem to have an inner sense of objective morality? In other words, there seems to be no basis for morality in Buddhism, so there's no objective way to say that rape is wrong --even though we really DO want to say that.

Matthew

 :dharma:

I think your questions are very good ones.

I should first explain that I see myself as someone in the middle -- a person who mixes Buddhist and Christian philosophy with goal of making myself a better person.  In both the first Buddhist book I ever bought (in Thailand, and Theravadan) there are 2 things I remember well -- first, that you don't have to accept everything in Buddhism at any one point in time, simply remained open-minded about things you cannot accept; and second -- and more important here -- that you can be other religions AND be a Buddhist, as well.  No, there isn't perfect alignment in Buddhism and other religions, but perhaps the purposes of Buddhism and other religions are somewhat different. 

I don't see "doing wrong" inherently different in Buddhism or Christianity.  For example, how different really are the Ten Commandments from the five primary Precepts.  Pretty similar, although I would say that the Precepts are more complete.  People like to point out that if you break a Precept you don't go to hell.  But that doesn't make the action more wrong or right, it's just than in Buddhism and Christianity the consequences are different (karmic result versus God result).  If you stop and think of cultural differences between right and wrong in Thailand versus the States, the basics really aren't very different between that basically Theravadan nation and this basically Christian nation. 

I think you need to reexamine the Noble Eightfold Path -- one of Buddhism's most basic statements of belief.  Its loaded with moral principles.

Offline songhill

  • Member
  • Posts: 794
    • View Profile
    • The Zennist
Re: Philosophical Questions of a Beginner
« Reply #23 on: July 27, 2013, 11:35:44 am »
...
My second question is really more of a statement about a doctrine I'm not comfortable with in Buddhism, and maybe you all have an insight to share. We, as humans, tend to have a deep sense of certain actions being objectively wrong (rape, murder, etc), yet Buddhism teaches that actions are either "skillful" or "unskillful," so how can we live as a Buddhist when we seem to have an inner sense of objective morality? In other words, there seems to be no basis for morality in Buddhism, so there's no objective way to say that rape is wrong --even though we really DO want to say that.

Matthew

 :dharma:

I think your questions are very good ones.

I should first explain that I see myself as someone in the middle -- a person who mixes Buddhist and Christian philosophy with goal of making myself a better person.  In both the first Buddhist book I ever bought (in Thailand, and Theravadan) there are 2 things I remember well -- first, that you don't have to accept everything in Buddhism at any one point in time, simply remained open-minded about things you cannot accept; and second -- and more important here -- that you can be other religions AND be a Buddhist, as well.  No, there isn't perfect alignment in Buddhism and other religions, but perhaps the purposes of Buddhism and other religions are somewhat different. 

I don't see "doing wrong" inherently different in Buddhism or Christianity.  For example, how different really are the Ten Commandments from the five primary Precepts.  Pretty similar, although I would say that the Precepts are more complete.  People like to point out that if you break a Precept you don't go to hell.  But that doesn't make the action more wrong or right, it's just than in Buddhism and Christianity the consequences are different (karmic result versus God result).  If you stop and think of cultural differences between right and wrong in Thailand versus the States, the basics really aren't very different between that basically Theravadan nation and this basically Christian nation. 

I think you need to reexamine the Noble Eightfold Path -- one of Buddhism's most basic statements of belief.  Its loaded with moral principles.

The Buddha speaks of two such paths in the Mahacattarisaka Sutta (MN 117, M. iii. 71). The first is mundane; the second is supermundane. When we read right view (and the rest) it "is ariyan, cankerless, supermundane, a component of the Way" it is not the same as right view that is "with cankers that is on the side of merit that ripens into cleaving (to new birth)."

Offline Alexey

  • Member
  • Posts: 343
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophical Questions of a Beginner
« Reply #24 on: July 27, 2013, 11:53:16 am »

The Buddha speaks of two such paths in the Mahacattarisaka Sutta (MN 117, M. iii. 71). The first is mundane; the second is supermundane. When we read right view (and the rest) it "is ariyan, cankerless, supermundane, a component of the Way" it is not the same as right view that is "with cankers that is on the side of merit that ripens into cleaving (to new birth)."

It's still right view.
Until practitioneris is not an Ariyan , not enter the stream, he have no choice.
Some peoples interpret "mundane" as "wrong". There is nothing wrong, there is only right.

Wrong view is the view out of kamma law, a view that there is no good no bad, no this world no other, that after death of the body, nothing remain. A nihilistic-materialistic view.

 :namaste:
You can ask your question) - http://ask.fm/AlekseyKaverin

Suffering - should be understood
Origin of suffering - should be abandoned
Cessation of suffering - should be realised
The way leadding to cessation of suffering - should be developed

Offline former monk john

  • Member
  • Posts: 977
  • My teacher and I in 1995
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophical Questions of a Beginner
« Reply #25 on: July 27, 2013, 11:17:30 pm »
Bingo, Alexey, I hear this, "there is no good, no bad" BS on Buddhist forums quite a bit, it kind of drives, me nuts, that is not what Buddhism is about, It comes from atheist viewpoits before the proponents approached Buddhism IMHO
to me, the signs of a successful practice are happiness and a cessation of suffering, buddhism often gives me this; not all the answers.

Offline Alexey

  • Member
  • Posts: 343
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophical Questions of a Beginner
« Reply #26 on: July 27, 2013, 11:28:32 pm »
Bingo, Alexey, I hear this, "there is no good, no bad" BS on Buddhist forums quite a bit, it kind of drives, me nuts, that is not what Buddhism is about, It comes from atheist viewpoits before the proponents approached Buddhism IMHO
:namaste:

There is 4 teachings that Buddha say to be wrong, and only this-one, the nihilistic-materialistic point of view he say to be a "teaching of fools".
There is some peoples who even say something like that : "There is many wrong suttas/traductions about litteral rebirth, but there is no any right suttas/traduction about refutation of litteral rebirth. " Maybe they think that these suttas was deleted with some bad intentions to misrepresent a "true Buddh-Dhamma" of nihilism-materialism...  :quq:

When there is no refuge under Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha it's difficult to accept the Teaching.
 :dharma:
You can ask your question) - http://ask.fm/AlekseyKaverin

Suffering - should be understood
Origin of suffering - should be abandoned
Cessation of suffering - should be realised
The way leadding to cessation of suffering - should be developed

Offline Spiny Norman

  • Member
  • Posts: 5081
  • Cool baby yeah!
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophical Questions of a Beginner
« Reply #27 on: July 28, 2013, 02:29:54 am »
It comes from atheist viewpoits before the proponents approached Buddhism IMHO

Yes, people get very precious about their "viewpoints".

Offline Alexey

  • Member
  • Posts: 343
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophical Questions of a Beginner
« Reply #28 on: July 28, 2013, 07:14:26 am »

The Buddha speaks of two such paths in the Mahacattarisaka Sutta (MN 117, M. iii. 71). The first is mundane; the second is supermundane. When we read right view (and the rest) it "is ariyan, cankerless, supermundane, a component of the Way" it is not the same as right view that is "with cankers that is on the side of merit that ripens into cleaving (to new birth)."

To addition,

Wholsome intentions are abandoned with arahantship in 2nd jhana. MN78
You can ask your question) - http://ask.fm/AlekseyKaverin

Suffering - should be understood
Origin of suffering - should be abandoned
Cessation of suffering - should be realised
The way leadding to cessation of suffering - should be developed

Offline former monk john

  • Member
  • Posts: 977
  • My teacher and I in 1995
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophical Questions of a Beginner
« Reply #29 on: July 28, 2013, 08:13:27 am »
Wholesome intentions are not abandoned after the second Jhana, but during the second Jhana(while meditating) would be my take on that, I've never met a person that impressed me as being enlightened that didn't seem to have wholesome intentions.

One of the biggest mistakes I see with people reading the scripture is they instantly assume whatever is being said not only applies to meditation but everyday life as well, often, it seems to me this is not the case, the Buddha was speaking about letting go of all attachments(for example) during meditation, not everyday life.(where one might try to get rid of only most attachments)

Take the five agreaggates, the Buddha seems to be saying completely ignore all their input, BUT THIS MEANS DURING MEDITATION, not everyday life, how could you posssibly stop using your eyes to see and still drive a car. I'm not saying the five aggregates are only not your self during meditation. But rather the teachings that the Five aggreagates are MARA the evil one and have to be destroyed, DURING MEDITATION, obviously its the nature of existence and the things we perceive with our senses that are very deceptive and not to be taken seriously in everyday life, but destroying them completely has to be a meditation technique, not advice for everyday living, otherwise we'd have a lot of blind, silent, deaf monks with colostomy bags and catheters being spoon fed, because they'd destroyed MARA, the 5 agreggates.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2013, 08:26:34 am by former monk john »
to me, the signs of a successful practice are happiness and a cessation of suffering, buddhism often gives me this; not all the answers.

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal