My opinion on attachment to rules

General forum on Mahayana.

My opinion on attachment to rules

Postby xtracorrupt » Sun Nov 04, 2012 2:33 pm

I don't think you should use set of rules you can just lean back on to try and help you deal with situations, I think the only rule you should have should be '' Suffering does not have to exist, and it has no reason for so''. I think you should evaluate every situation individually and try and prevent the most suffering possible

If ur unable to suffer and somebody offers you something, you say yes if you have no reason to reject them, but saying no might hurt there feelings. Only say no if it necessary for prevention of suffering
Existence can be normal.
Ex:a Apple tree is a apple tree
Ex:Michael is Michael, Michael is who Michael is


Existence can be conditioned.
Ex: Apple tree is apple tree if apple tree grows
Ex: Michael is Michael if Michael is a king
Ex: Michael is Michael if Michael is walking
Ex: Michael is Michael if Michael is not walking

Existence can be unconditioned
Ex: Apple is apple tree once apple tree is grown for 50 weeks
Ex: Michael is Michael once Michael is a king
Ex: Michael is content Michael once Michael is walking
Ex: Michael is discontent Michael once Michael is walking.
xtracorrupt
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 6:53 pm

Re: My opinion on attachment to rules

Postby lowlydog » Sun Nov 04, 2012 3:46 pm

Hi xtracorrupt,

Does this mean you are opposed to the precepts? :thinking:
lowlydog
 
Posts: 371
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 10:50 pm

Re: My opinion on attachment to rules

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sun Nov 04, 2012 4:01 pm

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.
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 9297
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: My opinion on attachment to rules

Postby xtracorrupt » Sun Nov 04, 2012 4:18 pm

lowlydog wrote:Hi xtracorrupt,

Does this mean you are opposed to the precepts? :thinking:


No, I am only opposed to the percepts when it is necessary to prevent suffering, when there is no relevance i have no issues.
Existence can be normal.
Ex:a Apple tree is a apple tree
Ex:Michael is Michael, Michael is who Michael is


Existence can be conditioned.
Ex: Apple tree is apple tree if apple tree grows
Ex: Michael is Michael if Michael is a king
Ex: Michael is Michael if Michael is walking
Ex: Michael is Michael if Michael is not walking

Existence can be unconditioned
Ex: Apple is apple tree once apple tree is grown for 50 weeks
Ex: Michael is Michael once Michael is a king
Ex: Michael is content Michael once Michael is walking
Ex: Michael is discontent Michael once Michael is walking.
xtracorrupt
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 6:53 pm

Re: My opinion on attachment to rules

Postby xtracorrupt » Sun Nov 04, 2012 4:25 pm

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.
:namaste:


2nd paragraph: it doesn't have to be this way

3rd: Yes enlightenment is necessary, but you should try and want happiness 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
Existence can be normal.
Ex:a Apple tree is a apple tree
Ex:Michael is Michael, Michael is who Michael is


Existence can be conditioned.
Ex: Apple tree is apple tree if apple tree grows
Ex: Michael is Michael if Michael is a king
Ex: Michael is Michael if Michael is walking
Ex: Michael is Michael if Michael is not walking

Existence can be unconditioned
Ex: Apple is apple tree once apple tree is grown for 50 weeks
Ex: Michael is Michael once Michael is a king
Ex: Michael is content Michael once Michael is walking
Ex: Michael is discontent Michael once Michael is walking.
xtracorrupt
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 6:53 pm

Re: My opinion on attachment to rules

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sun Nov 04, 2012 4:36 pm

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
I don't quite understand what you are saying here. Want to explain it in simpler terms? Maybe English is not your main language?
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 9297
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: My opinion on attachment to rules

Postby JKhedrup » Sun Nov 04, 2012 5:51 pm

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.
A foolish man proclaims his qualifications,
A wise man keeps them secret within.
A straw floats on the surface of water,
But a precious gem placed upon it sinks to the depths
-Sakya Pandita
JKhedrup
 
Posts: 2282
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:28 am
Location: the Netherlands and India

Re: My opinion on attachment to rules

Postby xtracorrupt » Sun Nov 04, 2012 6:45 pm

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.


Yes, I usually encourage guidelines myself because usually they help prevent suffering, but I don't think one should think they are necessary for preventing suffering/ shaping a good will. Its interesting you mention cause and effect, because recently i was investigating connecting actions to future consequences, and thinking of possible consequences from refusal. Im learning about how my ignorance can cause suffering and recently I've been try to keep it all good, prevent as much suffering as I'm able to acknowledge. One of my biggest troubles, is greed for appreciation.
Existence can be normal.
Ex:a Apple tree is a apple tree
Ex:Michael is Michael, Michael is who Michael is


Existence can be conditioned.
Ex: Apple tree is apple tree if apple tree grows
Ex: Michael is Michael if Michael is a king
Ex: Michael is Michael if Michael is walking
Ex: Michael is Michael if Michael is not walking

Existence can be unconditioned
Ex: Apple is apple tree once apple tree is grown for 50 weeks
Ex: Michael is Michael once Michael is a king
Ex: Michael is content Michael once Michael is walking
Ex: Michael is discontent Michael once Michael is walking.
xtracorrupt
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 6:53 pm


Return to Mahāyāna Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Will and 6 guests

>