Defining sexual misconduct

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: Defining sexual misconduct

Postby xtracorrupt » Sat Nov 17, 2012 1:40 pm

xtracorrupt wrote:That perspective would be dissatisfied but the sentient being causing the action would lose attachment to the dissatisfied perspective as he would be only bringing happiness therefore avoiding attachment to dissatisfaction.
gregkavarnos wrote:Want to rephrase this? It doesn't really make sense.


I think a lot of what your saying involves a lot of assumptions which are wrong because they involve suffering, Also ''it doesn't really makes sense'', how are you able to judge what makes sense and what doesn't? Are you the master of understanding? You have full comprehension of what makes sense and what doesn't? If so, how come there is still suffering? I don't understand how you can have full understanding of what makes sense and what doesn't, but still allow suffering to occur? So are you saying suffering makes sense, suffering is justifiable?? What I ''said'' didn't make sense however because it involves dissatisfaction, in this case it's the perspective being dissatisfied therefore imposing it has need(s) and therefore imposing its need/needs need satisfyng therefore imposing it/their incompletion involves suffering, anyhow any phenomenon involves suffering because it involves belief that something must occur, therefore imposing that we have needs, in this case suffering is coming from the phenomenon that dissatisfaction needs to occur.

Also if someone has bad intention yet causes only goodness, then its not bad intention. Also interesting, how you said causing happiness is capable of being a mistake.

Also, if the Gautama was a complete buddha and new the exact consequences of something, Why would he allow further suffering to occur? Again it seems to me like your making wrong assumptions because they involve suffering.


I am making these assumptions because i have attachment to expressal, sorry
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: Defining sexual misconduct

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sat Nov 17, 2012 3:22 pm

xtracorrupt wrote:I think a lot of what your saying involves a lot of assumptions which are wrong because they involve suffering...
Assumptions? I am a Buddhist. Buddhism says (based on the teachings of the Buddha) that samsara is a state of suffering and then splits suffering up into three categories: the suffering of suffering (dukha-dukha), the suffering of change (viparinama-dukha) and all pervasive suffering (sankhara-dukha). If you wish to assume something different that's fine by me, but do you have any way to prove it?
Also ''it doesn't really makes sense'', how are you able to judge what makes sense and what doesn't? Are you the master of understanding? You have full comprehension of what makes sense and what doesn't? If so, how come there is still suffering? I don't understand how you can have full understanding of what makes sense and what doesn't, but still allow suffering to occur?
Now you are getting irrascible and personal for no reason whatsoever. When I say that it does not make sense, I mean that I am incapable of understanding what you are trying to say here. I am quite capable of judging what I can or cannot understand.
So are you saying suffering makes sense, suffering is justifiable??
It's got nothing to do with justifiable or unjustifiable. Suffering exists as a consequence of ignorance. Suffering is relieved through overcoming ignorance. It is that simple.
What I ''said'' didn't make sense however because it involves dissatisfaction, in this case it's the perspective being dissatisfied therefore imposing it has need(s) and therefore imposing its need/needs need satisfyng therefore imposing it/their incompletion involves suffering, anyhow any phenomenon involves suffering because it involves belief that something must occur, therefore imposing that we have needs, in this case suffering is coming from the phenomenon that dissatisfaction needs to occur.
Again, I have difficulty understanding what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that suffering arises because of, or due to, phenomena?
Also if someone has bad intention yet causes only goodness, then its not bad intention.
The intention is negative, you just said it, if happiness arises mistakenly as a consequence of the action that does not mean the intention automatically becomes positive. Let's say I am super greedy and want a certain object. So I go out and buy every one of this certain object from all the sellers I can find. Now the sellers are happy because they sold their prouct and made a profit, but does this mean that I am automatically not greedy just becuase my action mistakenly brought joy to some people? No. My mind stream is still infused with the negative intention of greed. The act of buying is neither negative or positive of itself, it is conditioned by my intention. If I then feel joy because I have temporarily satisfied my greed, this too will condition the outcome. So...
Also interesting, how you said causing happiness is capable of being a mistake.
You said this, not me.
Also, if the Gautama was a complete buddha and new the exact consequences of something, Why would he allow further suffering to occur?
Do not confound omnicience (capacity to know everything) with omnipotence (capacity to do everything). The Buddha is not omnipotent, otherwise there is no doubt in my mind that he would have put an end to all suffering. That was his goal after all, to teach the path to the ultimate happiness of liberation.
: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: 9794
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Defining sexual misconduct

Postby xtracorrupt » Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:03 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:Assumptions? I am a Buddhist. Buddhism says (based on the teachings of the Buddha) that samsara is a state of suffering and then splits suffering up into three categories: the suffering of suffering (dukha-dukha), the suffering of change (viparinama-dukha) and all pervasive suffering (sankhara-dukha). If you wish to assume something different that's fine by me, but do you have any way to prove it?
Now you are getting irrascible and personal for no reason whatsoever. When I say that it does not make sense, I mean that I am incapable of understanding what you are trying to say here. I am quite capable of judging what I can or cannot understand.
So are you saying suffering makes sense, suffering is justifiable??
It's got nothing to do with justifiable or unjustifiable. Suffering exists as a consequence of ignorance. Suffering is relieved through overcoming ignorance. It is that simple.
What I ''said'' didn't make sense however because it involves dissatisfaction, in this case it's the perspective being dissatisfied therefore imposing it has need(s) and therefore imposing its need/needs need satisfyng therefore imposing it/their incompletion involves suffering, anyhow any phenomenon involves suffering because it involves belief that something must occur, therefore imposing that we have needs, in this case suffering is coming from the phenomenon that dissatisfaction needs to occur.
Again, I have difficulty understanding what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that suffering arises because of, or due to, phenomena?
Also if someone has bad intention yet causes only goodness, then its not bad intention.
The intention is negative, you just said it, if happiness arises mistakenly as a consequence of the action that does not mean the intention automatically becomes positive. Let's say I am super greedy and want a certain object. So I go out and buy every one of this certain object from all the sellers I can find. Now the sellers are happy because they sold their prouct and made a profit, but does this mean that I am automatically not greedy just becuase my action mistakenly brought joy to some people? No. My mind stream is still infused with the negative intention of greed. The act of buying is neither negative or positive of itself, it is conditioned by my intention. If I then feel joy because I have temporarily satisfied my greed, this too will condition the outcome. So...
Also interesting, how you said causing happiness is capable of being a mistake.
You said this, not me.
Also, if the Gautama was a complete buddha and new the exact consequences of something, Why would he allow further suffering to occur?
Do not confound omnicience (capacity to know everything) with omnipotence (capacity to do everything). The Buddha is not omnipotent, otherwise there is no doubt in my mind that he would have put an end to all suffering. That was his goal after all, to teach the path to the ultimate happiness of liberation.
:namaste:


If suffering is a consequence of ignorance, why haven't u overcome ignorance? If you have, you will no longer commit any mistakes correct? However i still see suffering, so why is it still there? Please answer this final question in this paragraph

I pondered over the possibility of happiness being a mistake, but then i expressed that it wouldn't be a mistake because its happiness and happiness is incapable of being a mistake? In the past, there has been suffering from the consequence of mistakes.

How are you able of judging the buddha's goal(doesn't matter to me, but I'm interested why it matters to you, help me please so i can learn)? If the buddha was a real buddha, wouldn't his goal be happiness? Is a buddha not of full dedication? If he is of full dedication, why hasn't the freer of suffering''buddha''(correct me if I'm wrong) achieved the freedom of suffering? Why would the buddha stop ending suffering if that was what he truely wanted?

You never said happiness was a mistake? So you never suffered?

I also never knew you had a full understandment of the Buddhism phenomenon(you being able to judge if your buddhist or not)

Also if your capable of judging what you can see and what you cannot, you must have full perception of suffering, so how come you allow it to happen?

Yes, I am saying that suffering arises from belief in the necessity of the phenomenon, Im saying one should understand phenomenon and concentrate on the single phenomenon of happiness. There is no need to worry because happiness comes naturally/normally and once it has been fully understood there will be no reason to return to suffering. Why would there be a reason to suffer?

Interesting is it not that we are reduced to needing other phenomenon in order to communicate? Which doesn't make sense because we need multiple phenomenon in order to complete one phenomenon, in which I'm talking about communicate, communicating without causing suffering. Which means we failed because we need to ask questions in order to obtain information. You doing a mix of both, I'm hoping your statements are incapable of being lies or causing suffering( same thing obviously, truth = no suffering) and that your questions have only goal to obtain information in order to prevent suffering(they shouldn't be necessary anyways)
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: Defining sexual misconduct

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:48 pm

xtracorrupt wrote:If suffering is a consequence of ignorance, why haven't u overcome ignorance?
If you are a smoker for 50 years and then you suddenly learn that smoking is bad for you, do you think you can give up smoking immediately? If you go from 40 cigarettes a day to 35 is this not progress?
If you have, you will no longer commit any mistakes correct?
If you completely overcome ignorance you become a Buddha.
However i still see suffering, so why is it still there?
Because all beings have not overcome their ignorance.
I pondered over the possibility of happiness being a mistake, but then i expressed that it wouldn't be a mistake because its happiness and happiness is incapable of being a mistake? In the past, there has been suffering from the consequence of mistakes.
Let's get something clear, in samsara all circumstances and actions ultimately lead to suffering when based on attachment, aversion and ignorance. Happy or sad. Mistaken or purposeful. That is the reality of conditioned existence.
How are you able of judging the buddha's goal(doesn't matter to me, but I'm interested why it matters to you, help me please so i can learn)?
Well, Buddha taught the path that leads to awakening, the end of suffering so I gues he wished the suffering experienced by sentient beings to end. Just a wild stab in the dark really!
If the buddha was a real buddha, wouldn't his goal be happiness?
True happiness is born of the equanimity free of the extremes of attachment and aversion. That is what I have been taught.
Is a buddha not of full dedication? If he is of full dedication, why hasn't the freer of suffering''buddha''(correct me if I'm wrong) achieved the freedom of suffering? Why would the buddha stop ending suffering if that was what he truely wanted?
The Buddha is free of suffering. He is NOT (for the second time) omnipotent. YOU are responsible for your suffering thus you are responsible for your liberation. The Buddha pointed out the path, it's up to you to follow it (or not).
Also if your capable of judging what you can see and what you cannot, you must have full perception of suffering, so how come you allow it to happen?
Habit and laziness.
Yes, I am saying that suffering arises from belief in the necessity of the phenomenon, Im saying one should understand phenomenon and concentrate on the single phenomenon of happiness. There is no need to worry because happiness comes naturally/normally and once it has been fully understood there will be no reason to return to suffering. Why would there be a reason to suffer?
Happiness or joy is, like all phenomena, an impermanent state. as such it will lead ultimately to suffering. There is no need to suffer, but immersing oneself in temporary pleasure will not erradicate suffering ONCE AND FOR ALL. Only enlightenment can do this.
Interesting is it not that we are reduced to needing other phenomenon in order to communicate? Which doesn't make sense because we need multiple phenomenon in order to complete one phenomenon, in which I'm talking about communicate, communicating without causing suffering. Which means we failed because we need to ask questions in order to obtain information. You doing a mix of both, I'm hoping your statements are incapable of being lies or causing suffering( same thing obviously, truth = no suffering) and that your questions have only goal to obtain information in order to prevent suffering(they shouldn't be necessary anyways)
That is why the Buddha taught right speech. he understood that speech can cause suffering so he laid down some guidelines so that an activity that we really cannot avoid will not cause so much harm.
: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: 9794
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Defining sexual misconduct

Postby Seishin » Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:48 pm

xtracorrupt,

What you are describing is not what the Buddha teaches us. For a better understanding I reccommend you read this http://www.buddhanet.net/4noble.htm

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

Previous

Return to Exploring Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

>