.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
huli
-
Posts
291 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by huli
-
-
I was fortunate once to be in the position to help a scorpion.....one of the big black ones with a body as thick as a finger and if extended stretching to a good six inches in length. It was after a heavy overnight rain in Chiangmai old city an in the early morning I noticed it trying to climb up the wall to escape the water. I managed to get it into a jam-jar and went and released it in the undergrowth some distance away....not much jungle in the city.
The only time I've seen one like that...mostly they are the small brown and white ones...with deadlier stings.
Feelgood factor...8/10 ....(not 10/10 because no really safe place to release it.)
Yes, you can always help, regardless of the type of being. If you can not physically help, you can help mentally through aspirations prayers and dedicating merit on behalf of the particular being.
Jawnie,
Regarding your suggestions to help mentally, I have a hard time understanding how one goes about dedicating merit, and also what are aspirations prayers. May I ask a few questions?
Can a person dedicate merit on behalf of another being simply by resolving to do so?
Can a being be helped by praying, and if so, pray to whom?
Are aspirations only wishes?
Were these ways of helping another being taught by Buddha?
Are they moreso a part of the culture of Buddhism as it is practiced now?
Are they Mahayana practices?
If these two methods are ways that a person can "always help another being", I am very interested in learning more about them.
Thank you for your attention to my questions, if you have the time.
Huli
-
I am afraid this discussion is being reduced to semantics.
Orthodox Buddhist meditation is what many of us mean by "meditation", and especially so in this Buddhist forum.
Others say contemplation, chanting mantra, praying or thinking lofty thoughts is meditation to them.
I think this is co-opting a Buddhist term for their own purposes, to the detriment of Buddhism.
-
1
-
-
Obviously not a Thai fine arts project. It was stunning the way it was. The new bricks stick out like dog's balls, and have no artistic merit what so ever. It used to be one of my favourite places to loose half a day, and you never saw a soul. Now it looks like it's the next major tourist attraction to be touted by TAT
I don't know how long it takes but the bricks do start weathering before too long. I am always amazed how the wall around the moat looks so ancient but I think most of it was recreated around 1970. I bet the Fine Arts folks are involved in this work, a place of that much significance wouldn't be turned over to amateurs.
However, I admit "dog's balls" is kind of a cute saying, and rather fun to imagine.
-
If I may, I would like to try to tie together the current threads on karma and meditation.
Almost 100 posts have contributed to the topic “Is there a Rational Basis to the Idea of Karma?” .
Why should there be karma? Why wouldn’t each new person just be born afresh from a new combination of aggregates?
We know that the human mind has a conscious part and an unconscious part. Consciousness is the part of the human mind that arises in the presence of a body that functions normally. When the body dies, it is gone. I believe this is what Buddha taught, and it is understandable.
Our unconscious mind is that part of our mind hidden from our direct observation. It is huge, and affects us in our perceptions, our attitudes and behavior etc. nearly all the time. Many desires, aversions, and delusions are hidden there. I wonder if this unconscious content doesn’t disappear at death like regular fleeting consciousness, but becomes the content of karma?
This is logical when you consider that Vipassana meditation, is primarily a method for revealing and then dissipating the content of our unconscious. If successful, the unconscious is progressively emptied, and it is reasonable to define a person who emptied it all as a Buddha, with then nothing left to reincarnate. Voila !
It can be observed that our regular consciousness has a constantly changing quality to it. Our unconscious content is considerably more persistent and substantial. Maybe, at death, it has to go somewhere, and this would be a rational basis for karma.
This is just an idea I had, for better or for worse.
I suspect not Huli.
The subconscious mind is the part we may not be aware of in our day to day thoughts.
The subconscious mind is our memory and this houses our "beliefs", "conditioning" and experiences.
Think of the subconscious as a data base of memory.
We don't necessarily remember all that has happened in our lives all at once but tend to dwell in given styles of thinking and on subjects our mind latches onto.
Some of our memories were created many years ago and reside in our memory banks.
Probably due to evolution, the way humans think is as follows.
When we encountrer something new, we must anaylise, decide and act.
Once we've learned a given analysis/decision, when we encounter new events, similar or otherwise, we go back to the memory bank in which our response is stored and automatically act on it.
This maybe a response to a threat or situation, or a fixed belief we already have.
When interacting with others or encountering new thoughts, rather than assessing them, we often compare them to our conditioned beliefs and then accept or reject them.
We don't think, we automatically respond whether the new event is appropriate to the stored response or not.
We have often driven a car but can't remember aspects of it because our thoughts have been elsewhere whilst driving on auto pilot.
Because we are not aware of our subconscious this doesn't mean that there is a hidden being or presence.
It's merely a memory data bank which we aren't always conscious of.
As our memories are stored in our brain, when our body dies and deteriorates, the memories stored in the brain will no longer be.
Body and mind are inseparable.
The Buddha referred to our conscious as a series of processes and that there is nothing solid or permanent inside like a soul or spirit (non self).
Meditation (awareness) of the mind allows us to become aware of our thoughts, our beliefs, our memories and our conditioning.
It allows us to become aware of how we think, and analyse our intentions.
It allows us to become aware of the association of thoughts with corresponding feelings and actions/reactions.
I wouldn't say meditation dissipates our memories, but allows us to be mindful of them and act outside of them.
When we analyse thought we discover that it is of random nature and we are captive by it.
Poise, calm, and equanimity allows us to view all contact, thought, feeling, but not react to it.
We become free of our conditioning and beliefs.
Rocky,
Thank you an interesting response to my post.
I was thinking that the unconscious mind had meaningful content that came from somewhere, perhaps from a karmic influence. I now believe that it is probably more from this life’s experiences.
I note that you agree with me as far as meditation being a method for revealing the content of our unconscious mind. That is, how it allows us to be aware of those usually unconscious thoughts, beliefs, conditioning and memories.
Thanks to your feedback, I now see that I was mistaken to suggest that unconscious content and mechanisms are a rational explanation for karma.
Karma is rather bigger than that.
-
If I may, I would like to try to tie together the current threads on karma and meditation.
Almost 100 posts have contributed to the topic “Is there a Rational Basis to the Idea of Karma?” .
Why should there be karma? Why wouldn’t each new person just be born afresh from a new combination of aggregates?
We know that the human mind has a conscious part and an unconscious part. Consciousness is the part of the human mind that arises in the presence of a body that functions normally. When the body dies, it is gone. I believe this is what Buddha taught, and it is understandable.
Our unconscious mind is that part of our mind hidden from our direct observation. It is huge, and affects us in our perceptions, our attitudes and behavior etc. nearly all the time. Many desires, aversions, and delusions are hidden there. I wonder if this unconscious content doesn’t disappear at death like regular fleeting consciousness, but becomes the content of karma?
This is logical when you consider that Vipassana meditation, is primarily a method for revealing and then dissipating the content of our unconscious. If successful, the unconscious is progressively emptied, and it is reasonable to define a person who emptied it all as a Buddha, with then nothing left to reincarnate. Voila !
It can be observed that our regular consciousness has a constantly changing quality to it. Our unconscious content is considerably more persistent and substantial. Maybe, at death, it has to go somewhere, and this would be a rational basis for karma.
This is just an idea I had, for better or for worse.
-
1
-
-
Oh dear, is this the old "rebirth" debate again in another form?
Well. I don't know the answer....I;m NOT a Buddha anyhow.
But, in my opinion, there is no CONCIOUS SELF that is somehow reborn.....no Ego or Soul that is existing now in life and is reborn after death....a thing that you can conciously know while still alive (i.e. before death).
Beyond that....anything else...I just don't know the answer to the question, "Is there a rebirth of some kind other than a rebirth of a fully concious human "soul"?
And on the concept of "Not Self"....it not mean there is no "Self"....just (my opiniom again) that my "Self" is a perception of mine...an illusion generated by my mind. However, that fact doesn't mean that the illusion of "Self" doesn't seem to be very real to me....even though I can understand it is only an illusion.
But, back to rebirth...the answer for me is...I just don't know the answer.
There are those that contend that we are conscious beings first and foremost, even after the demise of the human body, which is viewed as nothing more than a containing to hold our consciousness and soul. This is the entity which is reborn
Those that believe or "contend" this are not Buddhists, or not real Buddhists anyway, although they may well be Christians, Islamists or Jews, to mention some common religions as examples.
Buddha described consciousness quite differently, it merely arises dependent on conditions, primarily having a body to begin with, and when the body dies, consciousness is over. There is no soul or persistent entity. This is a core Buddhist doctrine.
Granted the concept of rebirth and karma (if not to me, to whom?) muddies the waters, but the Buddhist understanding of consciousness and self is not debatable. In my humble opinion.
-
This sounds just like the direct transmission tradition of Zen, which I consider just another heresy of the Mahayanists.
I don't recall hearing that Buddha ever said such a thing, and he said that he held nothing back.
There is apparently no end to the Buddhist revisionists.
-
Aren't Buddhists divided on the subject of re birth "moment to moment" vs re birth "many lives?
Out of 350 million Buddhists worldwide, how many would you say are out there rejecting the standard version of rebirth? Focusing on moment-to-moment becoming is different from claiming it is the only way of becoming. I think you'll find more Buddhists are agnostic about this than reject it.
I would say a considerable number of Buddhists, coming to Buddhism for a variety of personal reasons, are without knowledge of any depth, having been presented with only one view (Buddhagosas interpretations.).
I would also say many Buddhists have come to Buddhism with preconceived ideas of what it is, and then learn as they go. What they learn is influenced by those they've chosen to teach them.
If you have such an audience, empty of any knowledge other than what is provided, followers will absorb what is taught.
For 1,500 years Buddhists have followed the teachings of a particular scholars translations, largely without question, with the exception of the differences associated with the Buddhist schools.
Contemporary (21st century) scholars are only recently presenting different interpretations.
They are causing the new Sanghas, springing up in the West, to investigate and question.
If the majority aren't rejecting the standard version of re birth, wouldn't that be because they haven't heard of the other option?
Isn't it of benefit that modern scholars findings will encourage individuals to personally investigate interpretations of the Buddhas works, just as he advised, rather than accepting what is presented to them?
Do you believe the Buddhas message was of a metaphysical world?
To me, whether there is re birth to other lives, or moment to moment re birth in this life only, will make no difference to the power of the four enobling truths and eightfold path which offer awakening.
Rebirth as a moment-to-moment phenomena was first proposed in the modern era by Buddhadassa, if I am not mistaken. It was radical in it's time, but has recently been called the original teaching of Buddha by a certain scholar of Pali, namely John Peacock. However, most Buddhists, teachers and lay people, have always and still do, understand rebirth, as life-to-life.
I would propose that both descriptions of rebirth have their own truth. Since Buddhism does teach that consciousness is a succession of mind-moments, it is logical to describe each succeeding mind-moment as a kind of rebirth. It is a bit harder to fathom life-to-life rebirth but, it can not be denied, it was part of Buddha's teaching, so we will keep trying to understand that.
The claim that moment-to-moment rebirth is the correct understanding represents an overcommitment to an opinion, in my view.
Our only challenge is to understand the Noble Truths and follow the Eightfold Path, just like Rocky said.
-
I like to read this forum for interesting Buddhist discussion and dialogue.
Leolibby started his participation in this forum by calling Buddha a coward which I found offensive.
By now suggesting that God-centered revelatory religions are superior to Buddhism, I think he has violated the forum rules and he now seems more and more like a flame poster.
-
1
-
-
My wife and I have an ant problem in our kitchen. We put our sugar bowl inside a cup of water to prevent the ants from getting to it. However, I notice lots of ants floating in the water, dead.
Does it violate the precept not to kill by putting the sugar bowl in a bowl of water? Have we taken life?
You might say, no, the ants have taken their own life by trying to swim to the sugar. But, do ants really understand the risk I have put them in?
Now, this is getting interesting......
It was not your intention to kill, so not a violation.
Graham
By this reasoning, Mr. OP, should you kill the cockroaches in your kitchen, only because you want to have a hygenic and aesthetic home, it would not be your intention to kill either, so go ahead.
Some Buddhist people suggest it is wrong to use pesticides when growing food crops, but that idea is pretty much debunked because of the "intention" caveat.
A person can actively kill them one by one, create circumstances where they will kill themselves, or kill them by the zillions with pesticide. Or go the Jain route. Xangsamhua's comments on this seem to me very apropos.
-
Are we judge-mental, senti-mental or just mental when we hope for everyone to adhere to 'pure' Buddhism?
compart-mental
-
The govt guy did my blueprint and got all the approvals but did not suggest a builder, nor did he offer to, that was up to us to figure out.
-
My wife and I have an ant problem in our kitchen. We put our sugar bowl inside a cup of water to prevent the ants from getting to it. However, I notice lots of ants floating in the water, dead.
Does it violate the precept not to kill by putting the sugar bowl in a bowl of water? Have we taken life?
You might say, no, the ants have taken their own life by trying to swim to the sugar. But, do ants really understand the risk I have put them in?
Now, this is getting interesting......
-
Let's stick to the topic. Some people think of the arahant as the perfect human, perhaps the final stage in human evolution. But it's difficult to see how society as a whole could evolve into arahants. Arahants are essentially unproductive and dependent on others for their daily needs. The only scenario I can come up with is that if the time taken to reach arahantship could be reduced to say 5 or 10 years, society could be structured so that everyone would be allowed to concentrate solely on spiritual endeavours after a certain age, supported by younger, productive members of society.
Right. Arahants being the ideal, the pinnacle of our (or any) evolutionary state. Paradoxically they are unproductive, but also not producing good or bad kamma. Perhaps if there were enough of them they would have to agree to engage in worldly affairs. I mean to do or not would be the same to them. And a 5 to 10 year program would be ideal, but might need lifelong preparatory work starting at school. Carting off retirees to the Arahant training center might not go down well without some practical background. But Buddha did say the liberation of all sentient beings. Perhaps the Bodhisattva ideal would need to be accepted in Theraveda. Can you imagine the last two Bodhisattvas?; "after you old chap." "no no, you first my friend. I insist." "I said it first." "but I have more pansas..."
The idea that Bohdhisattvas are important is so much Mahayana heresy, IMO. Buddha's teaching was for personal awakening and that's all, nothing about stopping short, and all of that.
IMHO, how we can get everyone together to save the world, or how society can be organized for utopia, are two questions that may be fun to ponder, but miss the point. Namely, if one follows the Buddhist Path, one is doing all one can do, and society will be affected for the better by that effort. Such a person will demonstrate compassion and generosity naturally, and voila, the world is changed.
-
Maybe we have different definitions of material... to me, a thought is incorporeal/immaterial-- it has no physical substance or form. It has a bit of energy, but that energy is non physical and formless. Brain activity emits energy, but consciousnessness is a sensation generated by activity in those bio-chemical pathways... like a side-effect of thought. Consciousness is essentially ego. It is evolutionary. The ego is self-preservation. From what I understand of Buddhism, thoughts don't exist in a way, or they deceive.. causality is an illusion. But I'm an athiest-- so I guess I don't belong in this discussion.
Leolibby
If you are pondering whether Buddhism teaches causality, you would be interested in the Law of Dependent Origination, a major Buddhist teaching.
I would also like to say that IMO athiests fit nicely in a Buddhist discussion, but theists not so much!
Keep it up...
-
o if there is an impersonal universal ocean of consciousness then evolution in humans is adapting to access more of it. I mean in evolutionary terms the tiger shark is a far more advanced being than a human. Seven senses, skin that increases its speed in water among other things. Physically comparing a tiger shark to a human is like comparing a ferrari to a morris minor. But the driver of each vehicle (read consciousness) is the opposite.
Also if the universe is holostic and each point contains every other point then indeed we need look no further than this 'fathom long carcass' for any answer or experience. And if consciousness is an aggregate, what does it aggregate from? Do we create it, or have we evolved to access more of it?
Well, we certainly don't create consciousness. I think Buddha said it appears when conditions are right, when a functional body and mind exist.
Have we evolved to access more of it? Not according to Buddha, he said consciousness is one of the 5 aggregates, or parts, of a human being.
Where does consciousness aggregate from? Do you mean where does it come from? This is beyond the scope of Buddhist thought. I believe Buddha said that to seek an answer to such a question will drive a person crazy, or something similar.
Even the idea that the universe is holistic could hardly be considered Buddhist as Buddha was only interested in explaining personal issues, suffering etc.
thanks for the opportunity for dialogue, just my comments, for what they are worth
-
I have tried to consider the word enlightenment as 'to reduce weight' rather than 'to illuminate'. I know its just wordplay but it does seem that the work involves unburdening and reduction as opposed to addition. Letting go rather than aquiring. Is this why merit is not an enlightenment factor? The desire for merit itself being a hinderance?
Enlightenment is not the 100% correct translation, 'awakening' is correct because there is no 'illumination' by a higher authority (Gods, Devas etc.)
'The desire for merit itself being a hinderance?' -Yes, 'meritmaking' is outside the 'Dhana" (Generosity) Teaching of the Buddha.
Do the good job with the best intention and forget the results concerning "karma-points". "Tambun" to buy a good "kamma" is the most misused term in Thai Buddhism, it's a moneymaking machine.
I too find the connection between tamboon and the desire for good karma to be at odds.
I did read somewhere that the first stage of virtue for a lay person is to be compassionate and generous, these two. Not for any selfish reason (like desire for good karma) but because they are conductive to the selfless living that is the Buddhist Path.
Tamboon is supposed to be an opportunity to be generous, that's all, IMO.
-
1
-
-
I can't really see what a Buddhist Philosophy of Evolution would be, unless a person equates karma with evolution.
As far as consciousness goes, didn't Buddha say it is one of the 5 aggregates, and that consciousness is dependent on having an intact body and mind to exist? It is a property of the individual according to Buddha, it seems to me.
In Theravada, consciousness is equated to cognizance, an activity of the mind. In Mahayana, at least in some schools, consciousness underpins mental activity. It may be manifested or unmanifested as phenomena. It may be regarded as the primordial nature of being or as fundamental and total awareness - the "reality body of the Buddha", Dharmakaya (if I understand it right). It seems remarkably close to Brahman.
If I am not mistaken, the Hindu belief is that there exists a universal consciousness, and we are each a part of this or, more correctly, are, as Atman is to Brahman. This is absolutely not a teaching of Buddha, to whom consciousness is only individual and fleeting. As you note, it seems the Mahayana have reverted back towards the Hindu as far as "consciousness" goes.
And Brahman seems remarkably close to God The Father, but Xangsamhua would know more about that.
The overall trend is for most religions to frame a human life in a big comprehensive picture of deities or consciousness, which is probably appealing because it strengthens the individual ego. In Buddhism as I understand it, the only issue is the individual human mind.
-
Almost three years ago, I entered Thailand on a Retirement O-A visa with only a one-way ticket in. I was never asked to produce an open ticket out.
-
I can't really see what a Buddhist Philosophy of Evolution would be, unless a person equates karma with evolution.
As far as consciousness goes, didn't Buddha say it is one of the 5 aggregates, and that consciousness is dependent on having an intact body and mind to exist? It is a property of the individual according to Buddha, it seems to me.
-
Has anyone had any success with the electrical/electronic repellents? Some work by ultra sound other by electro magnetism. Most review I have read rubbished them.
Thanks
Graham
one can imagine the suffering of the cockroach when electrically repelled, even if its life is not taken
the question would be, is this acceptable to your conscience?
-
There is an outdoor stadium behind Kalare Market off Changklan night bazaar area that billed as Kawila-lives-on. It is 400 for a regular night of maybe 7 fights, often with 2 farang Thai fights, which I enjoy most. No bars or bar girls, canned Chang is only beer for sale. Fights are Tuesday and Friday at 9pm, actually 9:30pm. I have been to Tae Pae and Loi Kroh many times, this is the best by far. It is worth checking out.
-
this is a Buddhist Forum, not a Jain Forum
I interpret the first precept to not kill any living creature.
1. I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life.
Pāṇātipātā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.
Abstinence from killing is something many Buddhists have in common with Jains.
Graham
You have tons of cockroaches in your kitchen, and this bothers you, probably because of the hygienic and aesthetic aspects, hence your post. I can understand your wish to never kill any living thing, and there are no doubt some Buddhists or others who similarly wish to abstain 100% from ever killing anything.
You are asking here for tips on how to get rid of bugs in your world without killing them. If you don't want to kill them, why not just love them?
Life is suffering for all conditioned things, including bugs.
-
I found this interesting thought on a Taoist thing - makes me wonder.
The reason that god must beabsolute and this means oneness, omnipotence, omniscience, and
omnipresence. Naturally, anything separate and distinct would not
satisfy this criteria. If there was a god and a world that god created,
then there wold be two things - and god could not be considered
absolute. If there were an absolute god, there could not be anything
separate from god.
Everything is god. We are also god. However, we fail to realize this.
Why? Because we look for god outside of ourselves. We make the mistake
of taking ourselves as the viewer and then seek god as the object of our
examinations. Unfortunately, everything we perceive is tainted by our
subjectivity, and anything that we define ad god “out there”cannot be
god because it is not absolute. All you’ve found is something that
exists in relation to your perceptions.
You are god. The only way to confirm this is to remove the barrier of
subjectivity that prevents you from realizing your essential oneness
with all things.
The reason that god must be
absolute and this means oneness, omnipotence, omniscience, and
omnipresence. Naturally, anything separate and distinct would not
satisfy this criteria. If there was a god and a world that god created,
then there wold be two things - and god could not be considered
absolute. If there were an absolute god, there could not be anything
separate from god.
Everything is god. We are also god. However, we fail to realize this.
Why? Because we look for god outside of ourselves. We make the mistake
of taking ourselves as the viewer and then seek god as the object of our
examinations. Unfortunately, everything we perceive is tainted by our
subjectivity, and anything that we define ad god “out there”cannot be
god because it is not absolute. All you’ve found is something that
exists in relation to your perceptions.
You are god. The only way to confirm this is to remove the barrier of
subjectivity that prevents you from realizing your essential oneness
with all things.
whether there is no god, and no you
or you are one with God
or you are God
it's the same thing, really
all 3 views describe a non-dualistic reality
which is key
Oh dear, is this the old "rebirth" debate again in another form?
What Would A Buddhist Do In This Situation?
in Buddhism
Posted
Hi Xangsamhua
It is always good to hear your ideas, thanks.
I enjoyed the video of John Hagelin. I couldn't help thinking he sounds like an orthodox Hindu, with the Brahman/Atman concept and Universal Mind. To think that the Hindus came up with basically the same explanation thousands of years ago just sitting around pondering. Now, modern physics coming up with the same thing, wow. If two people come up with the same answer, it tends to give that answer credibility in my book.
I do think that "overcoming dualism" is another way of describing the Path and the Goal in Buddhism, and this is the same as accepting the unified field concept.
As you say, in a unified field it is reasonable to believe that thoughts and wishes can be effective within that field. However, even if it is reasonable, it is patently not what happens in this life of ours. Wishes and prayers are not answered, except rarely, and then you never know if it is just coincidence. People pray and wish not to die, and for world peace, but it does not work. Not that I can tell.