|
Kickle
Wanderer
Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,980
Last seen: 23 minutes, 34 seconds
|
|
Yeah the Buddhists are like the Christians (and the rest of us). Agree some times and disagree others.
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.
Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Practical Buddhism [Re: Kickle]
#21436681 - 03/20/15 05:27 PM (9 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
Translating Buddhism to modern western sensibilities, you can see and possibly appreciate how the four noble truths are together a constellation, which with some insight can be interpreted "agnostically"
It is maybe pretty unfamiliar to hear of agnosticism as consisting in such symbolism as a guide or indicating a "path" though, so it somewhat bends the concept of agnosticism beyond the ways westerners might be used to. For instance, to begin with, it would have nothing to do with propositions about god, or even "propositions" at all...
Suffering as the basis of the world, Samsara, fundamentally arises out of ignorance. This would be the particular consistency of "agnosticism" in buddhism, and this also happens to be a different conception of the world. I am not saying how this translation should occur.
In general overarching theories and rationalizations can miss the "consistency" of this buddhist worldview.
|
HagbardCeline
Student-Teacher-Student-Teacher
Registered: 05/10/03
Posts: 10,028
Loc: Overjoyed, at the bottom ...
Last seen: 2 months, 7 hours
|
Re: Practical Buddhism [Re: Kurt]
#21439351 - 03/21/15 12:34 PM (9 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Yukon Cornelius said:
Quote:
xFrockx said: It isn't about knowing, nirvana is the state of wanting nothing. Not complicated.
If you want nothing how can you hold nirvana as a goal of your spiritual practice?
Nonattachment is extremely paradoxical because it means you are not attached to an ideal or specific state of being, therefore you can't be attached to the goal of spiritual enlightenment or achieve nirvana.
Most buddhists would argue it pertains to "material possessions" but after reading about buddhist teachings it's more subtle than that.
However I'm no expert, my opinion is only as credible as my comprehension of the topic which could be shaky at best.
This concept bothered me when I first learned it but after I thought it about it more, my perspective shifted. First, the idea of nonattachment (or no desire) and it's attainment is means to an end. What I mean by that it the desire to achieve non attachment only exists as long as your other attachments exist. Once all other desires have been eliminated, the desire to not desire is a fulfilled desire.
I think the idea of it being paradoxical is inherent and not something to solve, but as with several other aspects and many shared experiences that have been reported that one reaches a place or understanding where paradoxes make sense and holding two somewhat conflicting ideas at once is possible and prudent.
-------------------- I keep it real because I think it is important that a highly esteemed individual such as myself keep it real lest they experience the dreaded spontaneous non-existance of no longer keeping it real. - Hagbard Celine
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head
Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,859
|
|
Quote:
HagbardCeline said:
Quote:
Yukon Cornelius said:
Quote:
xFrockx said: It isn't about knowing, nirvana is the state of wanting nothing. Not complicated.
If you want nothing how can you hold nirvana as a goal of your spiritual practice?
Nonattachment is extremely paradoxical because it means you are not attached to an ideal or specific state of being, therefore you can't be attached to the goal of spiritual enlightenment or achieve nirvana.
Most buddhists would argue it pertains to "material possessions" but after reading about buddhist teachings it's more subtle than that.
However I'm no expert, my opinion is only as credible as my comprehension of the topic which could be shaky at best.
This concept bothered me when I first learned it but after I thought it about it more, my perspective shifted. First, the idea of nonattachment (or no desire) and it's attainment is means to an end. What I mean by that it the desire to achieve non attachment only exists as long as your other attachments exist. Once all other desires have been eliminated, the desire to not desire is a fulfilled desire.
I think the idea of it being paradoxical is inherent and not something to solve, but as with several other aspects and many shared experiences that have been reported that one reaches a place or understanding where paradoxes make sense and holding two somewhat conflicting ideas at once is possible and prudent.
I think paradox is a very important concept when it comes to say Buddhism, or Taoism. There are many examples of where it comes up, but one of them would be that a realized Bodhisattva who has extinguished desire and attained Nirvana would be able to live in the present moment to an astonishing degree, yet still be able to function in and interact with society. Paradox was, interestingly, also a theme in a book I once read on hunter-gatherers. One example for them is that they have a very wide visual field (much unlike moderns, who have very narrow vision), and yet can pick out an animal that is a mile away and virtually hidden. There are other, even more essential examples.
Paradox is a fascinating and very pertinent subject.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
Edited by DividedQuantum (03/21/15 12:56 PM)
|
HagbardCeline
Student-Teacher-Student-Teacher
Registered: 05/10/03
Posts: 10,028
Loc: Overjoyed, at the bottom ...
Last seen: 2 months, 7 hours
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said:
I think paradox is a very important concept when it comes to say Buddhism, or Taoism. There are many examples of where it comes up, but one of them would be that a realized Bodhisattva who has extinguished desire and attained Nirvana would be able to live in the present moment to an astonishing degree, yet still be able to function in and interact with society. Paradox was, interestingly, also a theme in a book I once read on hunter-gatherers. One example for them is that they have a very wide visual field (much unlike moderns, who have very narrow vision), and yet can pick out an animal that is a mile away and virtually hidden. There are other, even more essential examples.
Paradox is a fascinating and very pertinent subject.
Indeed, my experiences and insights have lead me to a understanding (I try to not think in terms of belief as relayed by R.A.W.) where paradox may be the most fundamental philosophical aspect of the universe. If the universe did come from "nothing", then its foremost nature is paradoxical. If so, then it becomes easier to perceive any of the subsequent paradoxes as entirely true and not contradictory as stated.
-------------------- I keep it real because I think it is important that a highly esteemed individual such as myself keep it real lest they experience the dreaded spontaneous non-existance of no longer keeping it real. - Hagbard Celine
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head
Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,859
|
|
Excellent.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.
Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
|
Thinking of means and ends, and the conflict and ambiguity that meets with them is a good suggestion.
...a paradox does not seem in my bystander's view of its snapping clarity, to present an answer, or what we usually appreciate as analysis...
I would add, that karma is an example of conflict in action or means which is not a theoretical brick wall, but found in its ramifications that are addressed, and then following that, addresses need to be addressed, and so on, in some kind of inward or outward spiral.
I'd say Karma and Samsara are not even "theories" at all, but really more attributed impressions of the consistency in going through that. What stands out to me most, is all these means are suggested on the backbone of meditation practice...
Also, the OP seems to me only to have made theoretical distinctions...
Edited by Kurt (03/23/15 10:25 PM)
|
|