pemachophel wrote:In medicine, placebo means to administer something to patient with the belief that that substance should have no physiological effect on the patient's symptoms. However, the patient is told that the substance does/will treat their condition.
Based on this definition, Dharma is most definitely not a placebo. It is a time-tested system of "medicine" with very specific theory, technology, and prescriptive methodology along with a huge history of empirical effect. When you do a practice as specified by one's Teacher and you do it correctly, you get the expected result. The fact that this medicine is mostly taken at the level of mind, does not make it a placebo. It makes it a very effective mind medicine.
Sorry, I'm a retired doctor; so I'm nit-picking about such words used in the wrong way.
Dechen Norbu wrote:I believe he is saying that Buddhadharma is relative. It's conceptual, unlike the fruit of its practice, Sadharma, which is beyond concepts. Buddhadharma is the finger and Sadharma is the moon.
I can, however, relate to what pemachopel said. Using the word placebo doesn't seem the most adequate, but I believe he is pointing to the fact that Buddhadharma is the raft, not the other shore. Once the other shore is reached, the raft can be abandoned. But then again so can medicine once we are cured. Because of that, perhaps we need to go a little further and assume he is talking from a Vajrayana perspective and taking in consideration our enlightened nature. Not being able to realize it, we need a placebo so that we imagine we are attaining enlightenment, when in fact we are just recognizing the sun that already shines above the clouds, our already enlightened nature.
That's what I make of it. I can be wrong, however.
ronnewmexico wrote:Also exists the possibility that so long and extended has been our sickness that we now even forget what exactly a presenting state of health may be....
mistaking all sorts of illnesses of me, delusions of grandeur leading us to think spiritual accomplishment of the greatest sorts....karma no longer applying to us at all...
when truth be told we lie far far from that.
And this resultant state of conceived ultimate state is just that..conceived not real, and to be summarily thrown far away.
A truth in placebo perhaps also found a completely false thing found...is found to be absolute in the trueness of the statement....this is absolutely false. So a true thing is found in placebo. Which could be quite mistaken by some to think....so placebo...it is true as well...ultimately considered.
No it is not. Words are not things as concepts are but the same.
ronnewmexico wrote:This....is stated by another.."There is also the possibility that we were never sick in the first place."
This is then stated...."In the metaphor sickness means being subjected to emotional and cognitive afflictions. "
If the first is true the second is not, if the second is true the first is not....so you do not agree with what another is stating not me.
It is obvious we were subject to emotional and cognitive afflictions.
On the second point.....there is truth found in things stated, but that does not infer that hence all things stated are true.
Confusing that things may be stated as truths with the fact of some things being untrue, as in a red dog being called black may be stated to be truly a false statement does not make the red dog black. WE then arrive at a point of all things taken as ambiguous and gray, when there do exist rights wrongs blacks and whites. It may be true that false statements may be truly stated to be false but also stated that true statements may be truly stated true. Really how things are is not in the description of how things are. Described things may be true or not things are as they are.
So likewise one attesting to being beyond karma is not..... because to be stating such or conducting oneself as such implies one is not.
If control of personal karma is to such a extent...... the circumstance of such contradiction would never occur.
So we confuse knowing with actuality. Truths exist, Descriptions of truths exist also, as true things. but we may not confuse the former with the latter. Discriptions and absolute truths are of differing sorts.
muni wrote:Hello Dechen,
i must say that I read through all posts. Some things I don't understand very well, others better. But it is not because I appreciate kindness, I divide them in likes and dislikes. Or because i am twice nice to someone, others are out of my heart. That should be my own pain in the first place. I think this we wish nobody.
Taking the Bodhisattva vow with the wish all are happy and free and liberated from attachment/aversion, is what i did.
Thank you for yours kindness.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 6 guests