Like a dog in the forest?

Whether you're exploring Buddhism for the first time or you're already on the path, feel free to ask questions of any kind here.

Re: Like a dog in the forest?

Postby shel » Tue Jul 30, 2013 7:53 pm

Seishin wrote:Sorry Shel, it's difficult to understand what you are trying to say.


Seriously? You seriously don't get the point of the allegory? Please be honest.
shel
 
Posts: 1500
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:38 pm

Re: Like a dog in the forest?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:18 pm

I don't get it either.
"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: 9795
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Like a dog in the forest?

Postby shel » Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:28 pm

Let me spell it out for y'all: a t t a c h m e n t

Attachment to views, to be specific. It's not good, no, not good at all. Better to be wise. :tongue:
shel
 
Posts: 1500
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:38 pm

Re: Like a dog in the forest?

Postby Seishin » Tue Jul 30, 2013 9:45 pm

shel wrote:
Seishin wrote:Sorry Shel, it's difficult to understand what you are trying to say.


Seriously? You seriously don't get the point of the allegory? Please be honest.


I am being honest.
User avatar
Seishin
Former staff member
 
Posts: 1419
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:53 am

Re: Like a dog in the forest?

Postby shel » Tue Jul 30, 2013 9:49 pm

Even after I spelled it out for you guys you don't get it? It's hard to believe that you don't know what attachment to views might be.
shel
 
Posts: 1500
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:38 pm

Re: Like a dog in the forest?

Postby Seishin » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:01 pm

shel wrote:Let me spell it out for y'all: a t t a c h m e n t

Attachment to views, to be specific. It's not good, no, not good at all. Better to be wise. :tongue:


I get that being attached to views is not good, but isn't "Everything is apparently impermanent" also a view? What has been gained from saying "everything is apparently impermanent" instead of "everything is impermanent"? From my point of view (and possibly others reading this) saying "Everything is apparently impermanent" means that there are some things that are not impermanent. It doesn't illustrate attachment to views. It may be clear to you but it's difficult to get subtlety on a forum when the only means of communication is through the written medium. The little story of the world being flat only confused matters, I'm sorry to say.

Gassho,
Seishin
User avatar
Seishin
Former staff member
 
Posts: 1419
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:53 am

Re: Like a dog in the forest?

Postby shel » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:12 pm

Seishin wrote:"Everything is apparently impermanent" means that there are some things that are not impermanent.


Ah, I think that I see the problem now.

apparently |əˈparəntlē, əˈpe(ə)r-|
adverb [ sentence adverb ]
as far as one knows or can see: the child nodded, apparently content with the promise.
• used by speakers or writers to avoid committing themselves to the truth of what they are saying: foreign ministers met but apparently failed to make progress.

Religious people commit themselves to a truth?

commit |kəˈmit|
verb ( commits, committing , committed ) [ with obj. ]
1 carry out or perpetrate (a mistake, crime, or immoral act): he committed an uncharacteristic error.
2 pledge or bind (a person or an organization) to a certain course or policy: they were reluctant to commit themselves to an opinion | the treaty commits each party to defend the other | try it out before you commit to a purchase.
• pledge or set aside (resources) for future use: manufacturers will have to commit substantial funds to developing new engines.
• (be committed to) be in a long-term emotional relationship with (someone).
• (be committed to) be dedicated to (something): we must be committed to peace.
3 send, entrust, or consign, in particular:
• consign (someone) officially to prison, esp. on remand: he was committed to prison for contempt of court.
• send (a person or case) for trial.
• send (someone) to be confined in a psychiatric hospital: he had been committed for treatment.
• (commit something to) transfer something to (a state or place): he composed a letter but didn't commit it to paper | she committed each tiny feature to memory | committed to the flames.
• refer (a legislative bill) to a committee.

Now let's go back to the allegory. In that story the fools bound themselves to the "truth" that the world was flat. They ATTACHED themselves to that truth.

Is it getting any clearer yet?
shel
 
Posts: 1500
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:38 pm

Re: Like a dog in the forest?

Postby Seishin » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:22 pm

According to the Buddha "Everything is impermanent" is a Truth. Saying "Everything is apparently impermanent" doesn't, in my opinion make one less attached, it's still a view. Do you see? Therefore I must ask again, what was gained in saying "Everything is apparently impermanent"?
User avatar
Seishin
Former staff member
 
Posts: 1419
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:53 am

Re: Like a dog in the forest?

Postby shel » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:33 pm

Seishin wrote:According to the Buddha "Everything is impermanent" is a Truth. Saying "Everything is apparently impermanent" doesn't, in my opinion make one less attached, it's still a view.


Curious, you're not saying that we are all equally attached to all of our views, right? Don't you agree that there are varying degrees of attachment?
shel
 
Posts: 1500
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:38 pm

Re: Like a dog in the forest?

Postby Seishin » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:40 pm

shel wrote:
Seishin wrote:According to the Buddha "Everything is impermanent" is a Truth. Saying "Everything is apparently impermanent" doesn't, in my opinion make one less attached, it's still a view.


Curious, you're not saying that we are all equally attached to all of our views, right? Don't you agree that there are varying degrees of attachment?


Of course. Let me put it this way, if I said;

"The first noble truth is apparently dukkha. The second noble truth is apparently the cause of dukkha. The third noble truth is apparently there is an end to dukkha. The fourth noble truth is apparently the path to end dukkha" would you say that I am less attached to the classical four noble truths, or would you say I'm just confusing the issue and not really making much sense?
User avatar
Seishin
Former staff member
 
Posts: 1419
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:53 am

Re: Like a dog in the forest?

Postby shel » Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:03 pm

Seishin wrote:
shel wrote:
Seishin wrote:According to the Buddha "Everything is impermanent" is a Truth. Saying "Everything is apparently impermanent" doesn't, in my opinion make one less attached, it's still a view.


Curious, you're not saying that we are all equally attached to all of our views, right? Don't you agree that there are varying degrees of attachment?


Of course. Let me put it this way, if I said;

"The first noble truth is apparently dukkha. The second noble truth is apparently the cause of dukkha. The third noble truth is apparently there is an end to dukkha. The fourth noble truth is apparently the path to end dukkha" would you say that I am less attached to the classical four noble truths, or would you say I'm just confusing the issue and not really making much sense?


Your language is very awkward. For instance, "the first noble truth is apparently dukkha" could be interpreted to mean that the first noble truth is itself suffering. It would be clearer to say something like "apparently there is suffering," or "there is suffering, apparently," or "apparently life is dukkha," or "life is dukkha, apparently." Let's go with my first revision, "apparently there is suffering." What does that mean? It means that as far as the observer knows or can see there is suffering. That's not the least bit confusing, but I understand that for some it may express an unappealing lack of commitment (see definition above).
shel
 
Posts: 1500
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:38 pm

Re: Like a dog in the forest?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Wed Jul 31, 2013 5:55 am

What you call attachment, others call faith and trust.

I have faith and trust in the Triple Gem, you have doubt and mistrust.

Now, obviously, there are charlatans out there trying to take advantage of peoples innocence and naivety (Buddha knows I've run into my fair share of them), but they are not part of the Triple Gem, they do not teach Dharma, they are not Sangha.

My teachers have not tried to pull the wool over my eyes. Quite the contrary. As a cnsequence of my experiences with them (and the practices they have given me) I have faith and trust in what they teach me. This faith and trust is extended to the Buddha and Dharma too. You see it is not necessary (for me) to reinvent the (Dharma) Wheel every time, nor is it necessary (for me) to stick my hand in the fire and get burnt every single time.

I sincerely hope that you meet a teacher that will help you generate faith and trust, that will help you overcome your doubt and mistrust (qualities that have been developed due to negative past experiences). If you do you, will find that your practice (and the effects of this practice) will develop much more quickly and smoothly.

Until then: good luck with turning over every single stone that exists looking for the truth, you're going to need it! There are a hell of a lot of stones and you have an extraordinrily small amount of time at your disposal.
:namaste:

PS What do you mean by a "religious person". As far as I am concerned taking a practice/teaching/theory, applying it, observing the ourcomes and then judging it based on the outcomes is pretty much scientific.
"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: 9795
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Like a dog in the forest?

Postby muni » Wed Jul 31, 2013 8:03 am

dimeo wrote:I've been struggling with getting this idea of "coemergence" and how true nature of phenomena is emptiness. I would love any tips suggestions for further study.


I have posted this in mind:

Appearance Emptiness Equality

Not to know the equality of appearance emptiness
And get attached to appearances alone is delusion
But to get attached to emptiness alone is delusion too
If you know the equality of appearance emptiness
There's no need to get caught up in or give up phenomena
Those appearances and emptiness
What you must do is to rest in the spaciousness
Of the equality of appearance emptiness
http://www.ktgrinpoche.org/quote/appear ... s-equality

By the way, when the body runs, then for sure the dog body follows. Probably in these moments the teaching of causes and conditions is very beneficially. :smile:
muni
 
Posts: 2945
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Like a dog in the forest?

Postby muni » Wed Jul 31, 2013 8:17 am

I have no any idea by the conversation about dukkha but words of a Master hops here. He said something which sound like this:

"We can be on the beach in protection under an umbrella with a huge ice cream while we watch the waves of ocean. You cannot call this sea exploration".

:namaste:
muni
 
Posts: 2945
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: half baked ideas

Postby muni » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:19 am

dimeo wrote:
I was very interested by this example because the Dali Lama talks how it is about "unfindability" and how phenomena are dependent on conceptuality. I gather this is because perception of appearance is part of the mind itself and not outside the mind. So the existence of the 'snake' is more like an illusion created by the viewer's mistaken perception

An example I read was about how a rainbow, although we can see that it exists and is real, it's not a "thing". A rainbow is the product of various forces interacting: sunlight shining through water droplets in the air. Is this an example of how we typically believe "things" to exist independently and have inherent existence when in fact they do not, and so it's true nature is said to be "empty" in Buddhism?


When I perceive something to exist as a real solid object, the object is "empty" of the identity given by the designated label I use when talking about it. Is this also an example of emptiness (sunyata) and dependent co-arising (pratitya-samutpada)?

I will meditate on these things :meditate:

:smile: :namaste:
I will meditate on these things :meditate:
muni
 
Posts: 2945
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Like a dog in the forest?

Postby shel » Wed Jul 31, 2013 5:00 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:What you call attachment, others call faith and trust.

One problem with the improper use of words and ideas is that it may allow your imagination to run wild. For example...

I have faith and trust in the Triple Gem, you have doubt and mistrust.

Using the word 'appears', as in impermanence is apparently true, doesn't imply doubt or mistrust. It implies an openness. You couldn't understand my allegory, simple as it was, so your confusion should not be a surprise now, but I would encourage you to try understanding. The open hand is far wiser than the closed fist.

What do you mean by a "religious person". As far as I am concerned taking a practice/teaching/theory, applying it, observing the ourcomes and then judging it based on the outcomes is pretty much scientific.

Again I encourage you to use words and ideas correctly. If you start calling yourself a scientist you're bound to confuse people.

I mean a religious person. :tongue:
shel
 
Posts: 1500
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:38 pm

Re: Like a dog in the forest?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Wed Jul 31, 2013 5:27 pm

Using the word 'appears', as in impermanence is apparently true, doesn't imply doubt or mistrust. It implies an openness.
Fair enough.
You couldn't understand my allegory, simple as it was, so your confusion should not be a surprise now, but I would encourage you to try understanding. The open hand is far wiser than the closed fist.
Your allegory was confusing because it was not clear what you were trying to say.
Again I encourage you to use words and ideas correctly. If you start calling yourself a scientist you're bound to confuse people.
Well, I can't see why it would be confusing because I am actually a scientist: a qualified behavioural scientist. And anyway, just so we set things straight:
The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false. Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible in order to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established (when data is sampled or compared to chance).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
So where am I not "using words and ideas correctly"?
"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: 9795
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Like a dog in the forest?

Postby shel » Wed Jul 31, 2013 5:35 pm

gregkavarnos wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
So where am I not "using words and ideas correctly"?


Do you still suffer?
shel
 
Posts: 1500
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:38 pm

Re: Like a dog in the forest?

Postby Seishin » Wed Jul 31, 2013 6:01 pm

I've removed the word "flat" and "spherical" for impermanent/permanent.

shel wrote:Once upon a time there were people believed that the world was permanent. For them that world WAS permanent. There were other people of course, we will call them the wise people, who merely thought "well, sure, the world appears to be permanent," and proceeded accordingly. Fast forward a few centuries. With the advent of new technologies and knowledge about the universe it became apparent that the world was actually impermanent. The wise people though "well, sure, the wold appears to be impermanent," and proceeded accordingly. There were other people of course, we will call them the foolish people, who would not accept that the world was impermanent. For them the world WAS permanent, despite all evidence to the contrary. The foolish people burned the wise people at the stake, and then started a holy war to purge the earth of all unbelievers. Some wise people survived however, because foolish people are easily fooled. Fast forward a few centuries. There was an alien race who visited the earth, and discovering that an asteroid was about to collide with earth and decimate all life they decided to transmigrate all life on earth to another world where they'd be safe. The new world happened to be permanent. When the wise people arrived on the new world they though, "huh, what do you know, this world appears to be permanent," and proceeded accordingly. When the foolish people arrived on the new world they though they were in heaven, because for them, heaven was permanent. THE END.
User avatar
Seishin
Former staff member
 
Posts: 1419
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:53 am

Re: Like a dog in the forest?

Postby shel » Wed Jul 31, 2013 6:10 pm

Seishin wrote:I've removed the word "flat" and "spherical" for impermanent/permanent.

shel wrote:Once upon a time there were people believed that the world was permanent. For them that world WAS permanent. There were other people of course, we will call them the wise people, who merely thought "well, sure, the world appears to be permanent," and proceeded accordingly. Fast forward a few centuries. With the advent of new technologies and knowledge about the universe it became apparent that the world was actually impermanent. The wise people though "well, sure, the wold appears to be impermanent," and proceeded accordingly. There were other people of course, we will call them the foolish people, who would not accept that the world was impermanent. For them the world WAS permanent, despite all evidence to the contrary. The foolish people burned the wise people at the stake, and then started a holy war to purge the earth of all unbelievers. Some wise people survived however, because foolish people are easily fooled. Fast forward a few centuries. There was an alien race who visited the earth, and discovering that an asteroid was about to collide with earth and decimate all life they decided to transmigrate all life on earth to another world where they'd be safe. The new world happened to be permanent. When the wise people arrived on the new world they though, "huh, what do you know, this world appears to be permanent," and proceeded accordingly. When the foolish people arrived on the new world they though they were in heaven, because for them, heaven was permanent. THE END.


Yes, that works better.
shel
 
Posts: 1500
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:38 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Exploring Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

>