lowlydog wrote:Hi xtracorrupt,
Does this mean you are opposed to the precepts?
gregkavarnos wrote:I agree 100%. One merely has to be aware of the fact that the suffering of suffering (dukkha-dukkha) can be alleviated temporarily at a relative level through relative happiness and joy. Relative joy and happiness will mask the symptoms of dukkha-dukkha but then merely lead to the suffering of change (viparinama dukkha) ie will increase suffering. And relative joy an happiness does nothing to overcome the basic all pervasive suffering (sankhara dukkha) which is the suffering which keeps the wheel of samsara in motion.
So, for example, we feel suffering due to our clinging to this notion that the skhanda comprimise a stable and unchanging self which is the centre of the universe and must be protected at any cost. In order to dull this suffering we down a couple of bottles of beer with our mates. We feel light and happy, we laugh, we joke around and have good time. Then the party ends. We wake up with a headache, everybody is to blame. We wish the party never ended. We struggle through work or school, waiting for the next bout of fun. We contact our friends again so that we can meet up and get wasted together. The weather turns bad. Some of our friends can't make it to the party. We cancel the party and start to look for the next thing that will make us temporarily forget our suffering etc...
So quite obviously, suffering must be overcome permanently via enlightenment, because it is quite clear that anything else will just tie us back into the cycle of birth, suffering and death.
I don't quite understand what you are saying here. Want to explain it in simpler terms? Maybe English is not your main language?xtracorrupt wrote:3rd: Yes enlightenment is necessary, but you should try and want suffering not just for ur benefit, but because after you've gotten rid of all your suffering, you should have only reason to prevent suffering of other sentient beings, in my opinion starting with humans as out of my current perspective i believe humans to be the most rightful creatures as they are the only ones who i have seen capable of eliminating suffer completely. We should understand that everything that follows a principle/principles is a sentient being and is capable of experiencing suffering as it would not be able to fulfill its principle/principles. This is why I believe sacrifice of another less rightful sentient being in order to prevent suffering of a more rightful sentient being is ok, but should not be necessary. Example: humans consuming animals/cells
JKhedrup wrote:I think there is a place for rules in Buddhism.
The three higher trainings in ethics, concentration and wisdom are essential for enlightenment in both the Mahayana and Theravada presentations.
Ethics is explained in terms of the ethics of avoiding the 10 non-virtues (rules). Then we have bodhisattva vows (rules) and lay and monastic vows (rules). There are also special vows in the tantric systems.
Why did Lord Buddha set forth so many rules - was he a tyrant? Of course not.
Lord Buddha taught the karma- cause and effect. From a negative action we experience a suffering result and from a positive action we achieve a happy result. These rules are to steer us away from negative actions and guide us towards positive ones, so that we can decrease our suffering and increase our happiness.
With the protection of the vows, we accumulate less negativity. With less negativity, we have less obstacles to spiritual practice, less obstacles to liberation.