matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Jan 26, 2015 20:35:36 GMT 1
Nothing is an idea. It is only an idea. Sentient beings like you and me have the habit of believing that things exist, that we exist. But existence is an idea, not a reality. For our mind to believe in existence, it has to believe in non-existence, because things only have meaning in relation to their opposite and other things or ideas. So your mind believes nothing is possible. It believes you can be annihilated. Everytime you say or write that you are on your way to becoming nothing, you frighten your subconscious, because your subconscious believes this is possible. It is not possible. You say you are not afraid, because fear is about knowledge, but "nothing" itself is simply an idea, what you call knowledge. Your english is not that good, or you would know that knowing can mean many different things. Sometimes it means understanding, sometimes it means sex, sometimes it means direct perception, sometimes it means realization, it depends on the context. Instead of knowledge you should say concepts or conceptual, because that is what you are trying to say when you talk about conventional reality. Good and bad are concepts, better or worse, exist or not exist, all these are just ideas, not ultimate reality. If I say Buddha knows ultimate reality, that means he is experiencing it. Ultimate reality is non-conceptual. Your mind is dependent on ideas. Ideas can and do frighten it. When you say you are becoming nothing, you frighten your mind on a deep level. I can tell by the way you behave that this is true. Realizing emptiness is not becoming anything. It is not becoming nothing. It is simply realizing who and what you are, have always been and always will be. If you try to understand this, you will relax a little and find that other people trying to teach you is not a bad thing. It can be a very good thing.  |
|
dan
Senior Member
Posts: 89
|
Post by dan on Jan 26, 2015 22:14:39 GMT 1
csee: "I always hope to explore what is the reason people like Dalai Lama have emotion to teach others Buddhism ."
What you are actually asking is why does His Holiness teach the Buddhadharma.
From Alexander Berzin's page on The Seven-Limb Prayer:
Practitioners pray for the buddhas and bodhisattvas to remain and propagate the Dharma, its wisdom and methods, for the benefit of sentient beings. This is part of the relative aim of bodhicitta. Bodhisattvas fulfill their bodhicitta vow--not their "emotion"--by making the Dharma available. If this were not how it is, there'd be nothing we call Buddhism to learn about.
Your question seems to suggest that words and information in general--but especially in relation to the Dharma--are useless. Yet you, yourself, seek.
|
|
|
|
Post by csee on Jan 27, 2015 9:28:57 GMT 1
Okay, you have given me a long explanation of what you understand. Why is that not trying to teach me? There is no difference. Dear Matt , how can I teach you if I am always in condition of learning ? As I explain to you or others , I am actually exploring my own reason and challenging my own mind ...as I have said you are just a condition to me that never connected to me ....Perhaps is your knowledge had triggered you to have reason to believe I teach you ...but that is not me ....this is not like Mr Dalai Lama , he openly declare himself as a teacher even holding title/s ......sincerely I never have any mind so far to teach anyone , I am just like a mad people talking to myself ............The following is based on teachings I have heard and understood, and was able to confirm with my own experience. Sometimes the experience has come before the understanding. Either way, words can describe experience, but they are not what they describe, they are just an attempt to communicate experience. It does us well to remember that, right? This is my present understanding. If it was possible for anything to become nothing, then certainly everything could become nothing or as you say return to nothing. I have said this before, nothing is a concept. It is a concept that is easy to mistake for what Buddhists say is the ultimate nature of all existence, emptiness, but it is as different from emptiness as duck. You might as well say everyone is naturally returning to the original state of duck. It has as much meaning and is as close to the truth as saying, "all existence returning to natural state of nothingness." Perhaps emptiness can be better understood using the terms existence and non-existence. Emptiness is shorthand for "empty of inherent existence." So the computer I am typing on has conventional existence. The dragon I am imagining in my mind has imaginary existence. Neither of these "objects" have inherent existence. Do they exist? No, not precisely, it is not a question of change precisely, certainly they are impermanent, but lets put that to one side because I am really talking about something different. Do they exist? No, not precisely. Do they not exist? No, not precisely. What you describe is that they exist, but they are becoming nothing, on their way to non-existence. Emptiness is not what they are becoming. Emptiness is what they are right now. The computer and the dragon have neither existence nor non-existence, right now. That is what emptiness means. The computer has conventional existence, there is a conventional agreement, very powerful, that it exists right now, and the dragon has imaginary existence, right now, but neither really exist, neither have inherent existence. Nor do they have non-existence. They are neither something nor nothing, because they have neither existence nor non-existence. Their ultimate nature, what they have always been, can be discovered precisely between these two conceptual poles: existence and non-existence. But it takes time and practice to experience their ultimate nature. You do not believe that practice matters, because you believe that something can become nothing, and this is a natural process. Buddhists are not waiting for things to change, everything is always changing, we practice patiently to realize what everything is right now, and has always been. If we say they (the computer or dragon) exist, we are either speaking about conventional reality, relative truth, or we are deluded. Existence is a concept, all of reality is conceptual this way. If we say they do not exist, that they are nothing, then this is equally delusional. Saying they will become nothing is as incorrect as saying they exist right now. Both are concepts, neither is the true nature. Nothing and something are both equally conceptual. Neither concept is what Buddhists consider ultimate reality. It is not about becoming nothing, which is good because that is as impossible as being something. It is about discovering, realizing your true nature, your ultimate nature, selflessness. This is not what you will become, it is not what you are on your way to becoming, it is what you are and always have been. It is what you always will be, and it is amazing and wonderful to say the least. Even in conventional terms the computer has not always been a computer. It was once just raw materials and ideas. It will not always be a computer. It will change forever. Its true nature is empty. It is empty, was always empty and will always be empty. Whatever conventional reality looks like, whatever the computer becomes, it will be empty. Emptiness is really wonderful to experience. Dear Matt , perhaps you never "heard" me well ....in my current mind , Buddhism is realization of own existence / cause of own existence .......is basically all about own existence ...all about you , all about you realizing your desire to know , your desire to ask , the emotion that you hold on too .....is does not matter whether your neighbor wife should or should not put salt in her cooking ...is does not matter how it would be taste like without salt ......is always you realizing your emotion , not to determine anything as there is no reason for you to know .......whether duck or dragon or sexy Beyonce or sexy 135 years old lady is all condition .......is the pen you use to write , is the car you drive to your destination ........Buddhism is realizing you are " the writing" , you are " the will" ......not about determination of condition .
Is realizing your emotion while seeing your neighbor wife cooking , is your reason to watch her cooking , is your emotion on her cooking ....she / the pan or the food is just condition for you to realize the emotion that you hold . When I talk about emptiness , is just part of my realization of what I am ...is never something I believe and that is the reason I always debating with others is to explore my reason / understanding ..........so how can I teach you on something I do not believe ? Something that I do not know ?
|
|
|
|
Post by csee on Jan 27, 2015 9:31:02 GMT 1
csee: "I always hope to explore what is the reason people like Dalai Lama have emotion to teach others Buddhism ." What you are actually asking is why does His Holiness teach the Buddhadharma. From Alexander Berzin's page on The Seven-Limb Prayer: Practitioners pray for the buddhas and bodhisattvas to remain and propagate the Dharma, its wisdom and methods, for the benefit of sentient beings. This is part of the relative aim of bodhicitta. Bodhisattvas fulfill their bodhicitta vow--not their "emotion"--by making the Dharma available. If this were not how it is, there'd be nothing we call Buddhism to learn about. Your question seems to suggest that words and information in general--but especially in relation to the Dharma--are useless. Yet you, yourself, seek. Dear Dan , your writing include so many terminologies ...I hope you could use simple English to discuss . |
|
dan
Senior Member
Posts: 89
|
Post by dan on Jan 27, 2015 9:42:14 GMT 1
That's not necessary, dear csee.
May you be well.
|
|
|
|
Post by csee on Jan 27, 2015 15:36:43 GMT 1
That's not necessary, dear csee. May you be well. Dear Dan , from my experiences in so many Buddhism website , I notice many member still 'in war" of exchanging knowledge on Buddhism terminologies ....many of them seems have their own interpretation ....and there are many referral on such terminologies and seems to me many are using such terminologies as a guide and referral ......I of the current mind that Buddhism is all about own realization process that one could share by using simple language without involving any terminology to express own reason or understanding.....I hope to directly discuss with Dan ..... |
|
|
|
Post by csee on Jan 27, 2015 23:09:47 GMT 1
Nothing is an idea. It is only an idea. Sentient beings like you and me have the habit of believing that things exist, that we exist. But existence is an idea, not a reality. For our mind to believe in existence, it has to believe in non-existence, because things only have meaning in relation to their opposite and other things or ideas. So your mind believes nothing is possible. It believes you can be annihilated. Everytime you say or write that you are on your way to becoming nothing, you frighten your subconscious, because your subconscious believes this is possible. It is not possible. You say you are not afraid, because fear is about knowledge, but "nothing" itself is simply an idea, what you call knowledge. Your english is not that good, or you would know that knowing can mean many different things. Sometimes it means understanding, sometimes it means sex, sometimes it means direct perception, sometimes it means realization, it depends on the context. Instead of knowledge you should say concepts or conceptual, because that is what you are trying to say when you talk about conventional reality. Good and bad are concepts, better or worse, exist or not exist, all these are just ideas, not ultimate reality. If I say Buddha knows ultimate reality, that means he is experiencing it. Ultimate reality is non-conceptual. Your mind is dependent on ideas. Ideas can and do frighten it. When you say you are becoming nothing, you frighten your mind on a deep level. I can tell by the way you behave that this is true. Realizing emptiness is not becoming anything. It is not becoming nothing. It is simply realizing who and what you are, have always been and always will be. If you try to understand this, you will relax a little and find that other people trying to teach you is not a bad thing. It can be a very good thing. Dear Matt ....perhaps if you could read your writing again , is seems to me is all about ideas / beliefs . I seldom talk about what should " emptiness" be because it is not my current condition , not me perhaps if there is "emptiness" ...still "I" will no longer exist ......
In my current mind ,Emptiness and nothingness are not projection of my current mind ...is not an idea , but it is a reflection of realization leading to agree of a concept introduced to mankind by Siddharta .
As I awaken to my own existence and the process that I travel that causes my existence ...I realized I am same as any living , same as any non-living , same as any door / any leaf / any rubbish /dust etc ....I realized I am constantly alone in my world ...I am still in a process accepting this realization
I realized my attachment of my knowledge had caused me to creates more emotions , more ideas . Dear Matt , I do not recall thinking of " emptiness or nothingness " .......it is not out of "thinking" or believing .....but based on my experiences trying to escape death , trying to overcome the fear of death lead me into a realization of my own existence , my cause of existence .......that later lead me to agree with a concept that was introduced to mankind 2500 years ago ....the Buddhism .
Dear Matt , my current understanding of Buddhism is never from any text or any teaching but it is something fit in my realization so perfectly ....many people told me their version of Buddhism and I respect their choices ........and many people even asking me to stop using "Buddhism' words to describe my understanding .....to me that is no longer a choice , I had realized it .
|
|
matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Jan 28, 2015 19:34:51 GMT 1
Wow, you disagree really good csee. You are a master disagree-er. Buddha did not teach a dogmatic religion. In fact, he went out of his way to discourage dogmatic interpretations of his teachings. He gave a lot of teachings, and a lot of different kinds of teachings clearly intended for different people and different personalities, levels of insight and outlooks. So I have always believed it is fair to say that Buddhism is not what you or I say it is, but what all people who consider themselves Buddhist during all historical periods say it is. To me all Buddhists are correct in their beliefs, somehow. The only exception I can think of are strongly sectarian teachers. Buddha warned his students about the pitfalls of extreme sectarianism, and anyone can see how destructive it is. For me Buddhism is a path to enlightenment that is wonderful to follow, because it works. When I write I rely primarily on my own experience, but it is informed by texts and teachings as well. To me, disagreement is an illusion. We could write constantly for millions of lifetimes and never scratch the surface of what is meant by emptiness. We could contradict each other endlessly and never avoid emptiness. I think you have a habit of intellectual thought that you refer to as realization, but that is not what I call realization, that is what I call a noisy, undisciplined mind. Even the noise in the intellect is empty, which means it can be realized to be clear light, but that takes insight I am not seeing in your writing. I hope you prove me wrong. And I am confident one day you will. In the meantime I have better things to read. |
|
dan
Senior Member
Posts: 89
|
Post by dan on Jan 28, 2015 21:18:30 GMT 1
Csee,
I posted that primarily as a more Dharma-related response to a Dharma-related question. It's clear that you're not at all interested in the Dharma though, so like I said, it's not necessary to discuss with you.
I guess that works for you. For me, your posts primarily illustrate the repetitious and self-deceptive nature of thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by csee on Jan 29, 2015 1:47:18 GMT 1
Wow, you disagree really good csee. You are a master disagree-er. Dear Matt , is never a wish or intention of me to agree or dis-agree , is never a matter of me to agree or dis-agree as I have said you are just a condition in my discovery process ......so regardless what you say , you are a great learning source for me .......
Buddha did not teach a dogmatic religion. In fact, he went out of his way to discourage dogmatic interpretations of his teachings. He gave a lot of teachings, and a lot of different kinds of teachings clearly intended for different people and different personalities, levels of insight and outlooks. So I have always believed it is fair to say that Buddhism is not what you or I say it is, but what all people who consider themselves Buddhist during all historical periods say it is. To me all Buddhists are correct in their beliefs, somehow. The only exception I can think of are strongly sectarian teachers. Buddha warned his students about the pitfalls of extreme sectarianism, and anyone can see how destructive it is. In my current mind , Buddha is the original state of all living or non-living , is nothingness so how could nothingness have emotion to teach ? In my current mind , if you referring " Buddha" as " Siddharta ......I am currently of the reasons to say that perhaps he never had any emotion to teach anyone or anything as realization is not knowledge ....is impossible to teach realization even to Siddharta .
For me Buddhism is a path to enlightenment that is wonderful to follow, because it works. When I write I rely primarily on my own experience, but it is informed by texts and teachings as well. In my current mind , to have " faith" of what should be " Buddhism" will caused longer journey into discovery of own existence ........and with " desire to follow" such faith will lead further into longer journey , suffering or joy is the nature of this path . To me current , Buddhism is a process , a natural process , a process of all living or non-living , the only process of all living or non-living , nothing and no one is out of this natural process .....experiences same as knowledge is just a mind in a particular captured moment .....it is just a condition , if one confused of the condition being the cause ...one will accept the one that write is the pen not the emotion.......awaken to emotion , one realized is always the emotion that write , the pen is just something use to fulfill the desire .........To me, disagreement is an illusion. We could write constantly for millions of lifetimes and never scratch the surface by what is meant by emptiness. We could contradict each other endlessly and never avoid emptiness. I think you have a habit of intellectual thought that you refer to as realization, but that is not what I call realization, that is what I call a noisy, undisciplined mind. Even the noise in the intellect is empty, which means it can be realized to be clear light, but that takes insight I am not seeing in your writing. To me currently , dis-agreement or agreement is never illusion .....but it is just a process of learning .....is never matter to me " to" agree or " to " dis-agree because I could never recall of creating any desire " to" agree or dis-agree.....Dear Matt , as I have said , I never have any faith or holds any understanding or beliefs ....to me currently , Buddhism is a natural process of human awaken and aware , aware and realized , realized and accept , accept and continue aware ...is a circle of discovery process that never ends with only a particular realization .
Awaken to Buddhism , mind will never something to be shaped or controlled ...mind is free , mind is constantly in a process of decreasing not increasing . As one awaken to own existence and the process of Buddhism , as one travel into this path , the mind will gradually and naturally decreased not increased ...I hope you prove me wrong. And I am confident one day you will.In the meantime I have better things to read. No ....as human that still full of emotion, is my desire always trying to prove you right , in the same time to prove me wrong ...I am here challenging my understanding not yours as you are just a condition to me....
Is seems so natural happening to me , people breakaway from me after debating for a while ...I hope you could stay and continue to debate solely for my learning process .
|
|
|
|
Post by csee on Jan 29, 2015 1:56:14 GMT 1
Csee, I posted that primarily as a more Dharma-related response to a Dharma-related question. It's clear that you're not at all interested in the Dharma though, so like I said, it's not necessary to discuss with you. I guess that works for you. For me, your posts primarily illustrate the repetitious and self-deceptive nature of thought.
I just hope others could find reason to understand that I am here learning ...I never ask others to creates emotion to teach me ...if only others could share views ,I could learn from others so to all member here , I am sorry if my writing is rude or hurt your feelings .. |
|
graham
Senior Member
Posts: 96
|
Post by graham on Jul 3, 2015 22:29:59 GMT 1
csee said: "People like Dalai Lama has mis-leading millions of people a round the world by describing that piece of sand and name it as ocean ."
The Dalai Lama is one of the few people I have ever encountered that I believe is not deceiving themselves or others. Your approach seems very deceptive to me, csee, because you always say you are only engaging us for the sake of your own learning, but you do not seem to learn anything, because you constantly repeat the same points you were making when you first posted here a year or two ago. If your questions were sincere, I think you would be influenced by the many answers you have gotten from many people online, but you show no sign of being influenced at all. In other words, if your were sincere you would appear to learn, not just repeat that you are learning, but show signs of it. It is obvious that the possibility of anyone having faith in a Buddhist teacher bothers you a great deal, because you constantly work to undermine that. Is this because you are jealous of the attention and admiration they get, while you do not? Or is there some kind of political agenda at work? If I had to guess, I would say you have a condition known in Western Psychology as the Borderline Personality Disorder that manifests as Passive Aggressive Behavior. Borderline Personality Disorder is a fairly common, but disabling condition, that seems to be an adaptation to prolonged anxiety. People who manifest these symptoms are very disruptive to any community they interact with. You have told us you have often been banned from this kind of forum. That is because your behavior is seen as disruptive to the purpose of the forum. People with BPD cause a lot of conflict at work and at home, because they are always looking for the source of their anxiety outside themselves, and never come to understand that the problem and the solution are within their own heart and mind. Because they can not see or admit the problem is inside themselves, they never take responsibility for it. Consequently, it is considered to be a nearly impossible condition to treat or cure by councilors, psychologists and psychiatrists. It is advised that these mental health professionals only have one or two clients with this condition, because they require a lot of attention and there is rarely any progress in treating them. This is often a cause of burn out for the professional if they have more than one such patient. It is often said that this condition arrises from an absence of trust, on a deep level. This inability to trust works to isolate the individual. If I am deeply suspicious of your motivations, of everyone's motivations, then I can not learn anything from them, because I can not bring myself to trust or validate anything they say, even if I really want to. That is how Borderline Personality Disorders are believed to develop. You seem to want to interact with us, but it has to be on your own terms. You say you want to debate us, but you do not want common terms. We can not quote any teacher or text. You repeat your reasons for these "rules" any chance you get, but never seem to consider our reasons for trying a different approach. You repeat yourself constantly, and refer endlessly to your realizations, and your present understanding that never seems to grow or change. I have known some of the other people here for years, I have watched them progress on their path and grow as individuals. I have seen their understanding deepen, their wisdom develop and their confidence rise. You are static by comparison, you do not appear to be growing or changing in any meaningful way. You are misleading your self, and this means a great deal of what you say to others is inherently deceptive. Please understand I am not angry with you. I feel very patient and calm. The problem you want to address is not with the Dalai Lama or any other Buddha or Buddhist teacher. The problem you want to address, The source of the deception, is inside you. I wish I knew you in person. Everything you say, and the way you say it, always makes perfect sense. Are you a psychologist or do you just read a lot about this stuff? If you're a professional, I think I could genuinely use your help. |
|
matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Jul 4, 2015 18:19:57 GMT 1
Hi Graham, it is great to hear from you. Thanks for the kind words. No, I am not a professional councilor, or have any kind of formal training in that respect. I am an artist and art teacher. I have read a lot about it. My mom was a councilor, actually she undertook this training late in life, after 30 years of teaching primary ed and special reading, and my sister is a councilor, and because of my mom, mostly I have had a lifelong lay interest in psychology, and have read a lot of books and articles. Also, as Rudy has often said, Buddhism is largely psychology, so that has helped my understanding a lot, too.
Am I to understand you are having some personal difficulties? I am really sorry to hear that. Do you have a councilor you can talk to? I thought you were studying psychology? If you are headed in a practice direction, then personal work with a councilor or therapist may be required or at least encouraged. Depends on the program in the US, I think it is different that way in the UK. Anyway, I have seen a councilor during difficult periods in my life 3 times. It helped immensely the last time I did. I think it can be a little hit or miss as far as making a connection with a councilor. It is also pretty expensive.
I was able to help my sister a lot a while back, while she separated from her husband. (they are through that and actually dating again.) She is a family therapist, herself, and has gone through a lot of therapy and counciling and still does, but for whatever reason she started calling me and we had some long conversations that she said helped her a lot. The main thing I focused on was boundaries. We develop and maintain healthy boundaries by recognizing what is our responsibility and what is not. For example, we only have control over our choices, not anyone else's, so to have peace of mind it helps to recognize that and let other's make their own decisions, while we make ours. A lot of times, especially in relationships, we tend to rationalize a perceived need to second guess the other's choices and fret a lot about them. This is usually unnecessary. Anyway, that is often the most pressing issue, a lack of clear boundaries, a tendency to not want to accept responsibility for our own choices, which also makes us second guess those of people we care about personally or professionally.
Anyway, that is not so much a wild guess, as what has probably helped me the most in terms of dealing with others. I hope you are feeling better, and continue to let us know. You can PM me if you feel the need, but like I said I am not a councilor, I would encourage anyone to find one, though.
|
|
matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Jul 11, 2015 22:14:30 GMT 1
So chances are the above comments regarding boundaries have no relevance to your situation, Graham, but it is something that has helped me. So I am just continuing this topic for the sake of clarity, not because I imagine this is helpful to Graham in particular. Rather it seems to be a bit of a blind spot in American culture, and probably somewhat in other societies as well.
I want to make it clear what I mean about accepting responsibility for our choices, because responsibility is a very loaded term, and it has a lot of connotations that can be a off-putting. And this is not the way I am using the word responsibility. I am not saying the we should be responsible, or act in a responsible fashion or own up to our responsibilities or commitments or anything like that. Perhaps we should be perfect people, no doubt the world would be a better place, but I am writing about something different, I am writing about a very practical approach to everyday life.
It is very helpful to peace of mind and healthy relationships, if we are able to establish and maintain in our minds a certain clarity regarding what we have control over and what we do not. We do have control over choices that are available to us. We have control over our own decisions and decision making process, we do not have control over anyone else's.
Perhaps it is easiest to illustrate using negative examples, and by negative I don't mean bad, I mean these are examples where a person is not accepting responsibility for their choices or actions.
Okay, let's say you ask me to go on a day trip with you. I don't really want to go, I have work to do, and I would rather use the day getting caught up, but you have the day off, and have a short vacation in mind, and really want me to go along. So you spend some time talking me into it, promise we will have fun, and finally, somewhat reluctantly, I decide to go. Now in this frame of mind we might have a misreable time even if everything goes well, because I am not in a frame of mind to have fun. Instead, I am regretting my decision and expecting you to "show me a good time." This is not accepting responsibility for my own choice, and it is dooming us both to failure in our attempt to have fun, because you have no control over my thoughts and feelings, no control over my attitude.
Now if something goes wrong, your car get's a flat or we run out of gas, or manage to miss lunch or it rains on us, then these are all going to compound the problem. The problem is I am wanting someone to blame for a decision I made, and since no one has control over that, but me, no one can help me with it. Like wise, no one can rescue me from my lousy attitude, or make me look on the bright side, or make me enjoy the adventure a flat tire and or getting caught in a down-pour might bring.
People do this all the time, especially in relationships. Something about having a mate or partner, in particular, causes people to blur the boundaries that are actually necessary to maintain peace of mind and health in a relationship. People like to feel they are part of a team, and working together, and this in and of itself is very good, but we still need to establish and maintain healthy boundaries. If we are unable to do this, we are going to make ourselves and those around us unhappy.
|
|
matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Jul 11, 2015 22:56:24 GMT 1
A good friend of mine bought his wife a dog. I think part of his mistake was he bought a pure-bred, instead of going to the pound and rescuing a mongrel. Mongrels are always better pets, they are by definition less in-bred, so they have less health and behavior issues. Any biologist should be able to tell you that genetic variation is a good thing, but I digress…
His wife ended up liking the dog and appreciating the gift. The two of them (woman and dog) bonded. Both were a little high strung, I would say, and they were both female, and they competed a bit for dominance, but even so, they got along and developed a real attachment to each other.
My friend did not like the dog. He thought the animal was defective. If it were up to him, they would have gotten rid of the dog somehow, but seeing as his wife wanted to keep it, he never had to decide how. Even so, the fact that he disapproved of the creature meant (in his mind) that he was excused from ever having to feed, water, walk or clean up after her. EVER. This caused some friction in the household as I am sure you can imagine. To me his error was fundamental and obvious. He was not accepting responsibility for the choices he made. He chose the dog, himself--bought her on his own-- and gave her to his wife as a gift.
Even if she had bought the dog or picked her out, there is no reason he could not decide to help with caring for the pet. His disapproval of the animal is completely beside the point. He could, I suppose, decide to kill the dog or give it away or get rid of it somehow, but he knew his wife loved her and so he decided not to. He decided not to. Smart choice, but not accepting responsibility for it meant he had to spend a lot of time rationalizing his decision not to help with her care at all, and blaming his wife for his own decisions.
|
|
matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Jul 11, 2015 23:13:07 GMT 1
So I am not saying a person should not negotiate. Anyone who has been a parent probably understands that relationships involve negotiation. Talk, discuss, argue all you need to, but be clear about what you have control over and what you have no control over. You have control over your own decisions and the choices you make. You have no control over mine or anyone else's. We are all in this boat together, all in the same condition. We have limited control. We can be very content with the control we have in life, if we accept responsibility for it--own up to ourselves-the choices we make.
Understand that we do not have to do anything, but die. Everything else involves making decisions within the real limitations we currently have. Understanding this is, in and of itself, quite liberating. It takes time, but as you practice it, you will find that it definitely is an integral aspect of a peaceful and fulfilling existence.
|
|
matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Jul 12, 2015 0:13:28 GMT 1
This attitude, of accepting responsibility for my decisions and actions has helped me in a lot of ways. It helps me maintain equanimity at home and work. As an artist I occasionally apply for competitive grants or awards. This is something that could easily cause unhappiness, if I was not clear in my own mind what I have control over and what I do not. I am free to do my best with the work and the application, how much time and energy or money I devote to it certainly has limits, but the decisions I make in life help define those limits. Most importantly, once I have mailed the application, my work is done. I have no control over the decision making process of the jurists or committee that have been tasked with those decisions. No control at all. I have learned the habit of feeling good about doing my best, and letting the people who need to choose one of many good applications do theirs. A task well done is its own reward. There really is no profit or reward to be had in second guessing the choice of the jury. You win some you lose some, but the lasting benefits come from always trying and learning.
|
|
|
|
Post by csee on Aug 1, 2016 5:32:35 GMT 1
There are two kinds or levels of compassion, relative and ultimate. You will notice I mentioned that compassion can be expressed as emotion, but this is an early stage, and not the goal or true nature of compassion. This is relative compassion. Also compassion can be understood and talked about, that is also relative compassion. But most of my post dealt with ultimate compassion, which is direct and non-conceptual experience. When I say it is knowing, that means having this direct and non-conceptual experience, and does not mean knowledge the way you are using the term. I have come to believe that everything you write about is conceptual, because you are so eager to disagree with and debate people. That is intellectual energy at work. Non-conceptual realization occurs in profound silence and the experience generally makes people less competitive and less excited about arguing with others and defeating them in debate.
Okay back to you Matt ,
Perhaps I still very far from your realization ... but still I am currently of the mind that compassion is just condition of the mind , there is no "relative or ultimate'... just a condition as one awakening of Buddhism .
and sorry in advance , perhaps I had express to you many times before I have no reason to creates reason to dis-agree or agree as I am here challenging my own mind not others ... others is just condition ........ |
|
