Absolute Reality

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Absolute Reality

Post by Dan Rowden »

The 8 fold path is really a bunch of bullshit developed when the Sangha began to emerge. No "Buddhist" ought take it seriously. It's just another form of the exoteric face of religion. I mean, Jesus, it doesn't even mention "right beer". What sort of a guideline for life is that?
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: Absolute Reality

Post by Kunga »

Dan Rowden wrote:The 8 fold path is really a bunch of bullshit developed when the Sangha began to emerge. No "Buddhist" ought take it seriously. It's just another form of the exoteric face of religion. I mean, Jesus, it doesn't even mention "right beer". What sort of a guideline for life is that?
lol

Does this forum have any rules to abide by ?
Should we consider them bullshit ?

What is a Buddhist according to your definition?
Buddha drank the beer of compassion.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Absolute Reality

Post by Dan Rowden »

What does "right" mean in any of those 8 edicts?
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Absolute Reality

Post by jupiviv »

Dan Rowden wrote:What does "right" mean in any of those 8 edicts?
Whatever the enlightened person(Buddha) defines as "right." Other enlightened people will probably agree with him as well.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Absolute Reality

Post by Dan Rowden »

I don't think you're right.
User avatar
Talking Ass
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: Absolute Reality

Post by Talking Ass »

According to Logic---irrefutable, Absolute Logic---the Right beer will always be a bubbly beer. If beer does not have bubbles, it cannot be considered 'right'.
fiat mihi
User avatar
Talking Ass
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: Absolute Reality

Post by Talking Ass »

I think Jupi that you have hit the nail on the head, but unknowingly: 'Enlightenment' is not some pre-established existent state that one enters in to and knows. There can only be enlightened persons of a given place and time and what they say and do may or may not coincide. With that, the term itself is flawed for discourse! One must always say Enlightenment According To Me. At that point it is subjective, a way of being. One has to get out from under the spell of mystification as to 'enlightenment'. Jehu, David, Jupi, Krishnamurti: all are only people who yack about this thing 'enlightenment'. They do not concur.
fiat mihi
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: Absolute Reality

Post by Jehu »

Dan Rowden wrote:What does "right" mean in any of those 8 edicts?
The term "right" here means, "wholesome", that is to say, that view, intention, speech, etc., that leads one toward enlightenment as opposed to those that serve to reinforce our ignorance.
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: Absolute Reality

Post by Jehu »

Talking Ass wrote:But if 'we' have no driving or directing ideas and ideals, just to do what needs doing might just as well be nothing. To say 'my purpose is the relieve suffering in others by teaching them that there is nothing inherent about this existence' muat take a place relationally with those goals and aspirations that 'we' hold.as valuable. We have to first of all define them, and then we have to pursue them. I think this is the problem I have with [whatever this doctrine is]. To be a Buddhiat in the West would.be to adopt a strategy for living within a.structure and modality that was not at all originated in the East and is not Buddhism nor Buddhist. What would a Buddhist define as a goal or an object? Social justice? Good.government? Medical advancement? But all those things and so much more are tied to definitions.of.value and also.goals which are pwculiar to the West. Should not one strive to be a Western practitioner of Buddhist principals if one is going to be anything at all?

Finally, to say 'there.should.be no suffering' is a form.of irreal dreaming. It stands to reason that suffering can be modified or minimized (or not exacerbated perhaps), but a more powerful position is in the way one relates.to.or.deals.with suffering.
I would never say that there should be no suffering, for suffering is the logical outcome of certain kinds of behaviours; particularly with respect to how we think. Still, there is no need for anyone to suffer, for we have it within ourselves to remove the underlying causes. Buddhism, at least in its purest form, is not a philosophical system, though there is a metaphysical doctrine underlying it. Rather, it is a contemplative means of connecting with our true nature, the result of which eliminates the need for any sort of guiding philosophy. Once we have discovered who we truly are, it is our nature alone that guides our every action, for given that all notions of an intrinsically abiding self are wiped away, there is no personal will to get in the way of what needs to be done.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Absolute Reality

Post by Dan Rowden »

Jehu wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:What does "right" mean in any of those 8 edicts?
The term "right" here means, "wholesome", that is to say, that view, intention, speech, etc., that leads one toward enlightenment as opposed to those that serve to reinforce our ignorance.
Sure, that much is obvious, but it still doesn't tell an individual anything beyond that and remains a platitudinous guideline. What is a "right livelihood" that leads to enlightenment and why should I accept any person's answer?

It's a guideline for those in authority to dictate your thoughts and actions. i.e. it's a religious doctrine. It's the 10 Commandments for Buddhists.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: Absolute Reality

Post by Kunga »

Dan Rowden wrote:What is a "right livelihood"
Anything that doesn't entail killing or harming, like selling guns, being a butcher, stealing, any form of dishonesty, etc. It's just common sense to
prevent one from creating bad karma for themselves or others. You can take it or leave it, Buddha never said to believe anything he said , or what anyone says, but if it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.

I imagine there were all kinds of people that needed guidance , the ones that had no common sense and were always in trouble needed it the most.
Then you have those with natural built in morals and common sense....like you.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Absolute Reality

Post by Dan Rowden »

The somewhat obvious issue with that interpretation of things is that people who lack common sense and always get in trouble are not candidates for enlightenment and therefore Buddhism has nothing to offer them - unless it decides to act as a religious force, which is should never have done.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Absolute Reality

Post by jupiviv »

Dan Rowden wrote:What is a "right livelihood" that leads to enlightenment and why should I accept any person's answer?

The enlightened person's livelihood, speech etc. is right, but you have to judge for yourself whether a person is enlightened or not.
people who lack common sense and always get in trouble are not candidates for enlightenment and therefore Buddhism has nothing to offer them - unless it decides to act as a religious force, which is should never have done.

People who can't use reason most probably won't become enlightened, unless they somehow learn to use reason. I don't know why you are complicating a simple matter.
Liberty Sea
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: Absolute Reality

Post by Liberty Sea »

jupiviv wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:What is a "right livelihood" that leads to enlightenment and why should I accept any person's answer?

The enlightened person's livelihood, speech etc. is right, but you have to judge for yourself whether a person is enlightened or not.
Does that mean what you need to do is to determine whether someone is enlightened and then imitate him if he is enlightened according to your definition?
That is not a wise practice.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Absolute Reality

Post by jupiviv »

Liberty Sea wrote:Does that mean what you need to do is to determine whether someone is enlightened and then imitate him if he is enlightened according to your definition?
That is not a wise practice.
You can only judge whether someone else is enlightenment if you know exactly what enlightenment is, and hence are yourself enlightened. Hakuin says somewhere that his master wasn't qualified to "pass" him as enlightened, because he wasn't enlightened himself.
User avatar
Talking Ass
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: Absolute Reality

Post by Talking Ass »

As I would define it, a religion or "one's religion", is one's response in all possible senses (ethics, morals, activities) to one's description of Reality. At the farthest point this would mean defining the nature of theocracy one feels it right to live in and to submit to. New ideas about ecology and care for the whole system are examples of religious ideals in an applied sense. A religious system has at its base a system of apperception. It can be communicated, revealed, explained. If a.system of apperception does not lead to and produce a general system for organizing the individual's and the collective's legal, ethical and moral life,or in any case influencing those who build those social structures, it is about as useless and irrelevant as a donkey in a pair of rhinestone-encrusted cowboy boots sipping bubbleless beer and whistling at the girls.
fiat mihi
User avatar
Talking Ass
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: Absolute Reality

Post by Talking Ass »

I suggest that Jehu's description of Buddhism as a means of knowing the true nature of the self [here are some quotation marks, use them as you see fit: " " " " "] has its reflection in Romanticism. First, one has to be a self and have installed in oneself all that is pertinent to a Self. One has to have been inculcated within a language-system and one has to 'operate it' at quite sophisticated levels BEFORE one turns to notions (or facts) about 'essential self'. Therefore, to entertain this idea is 'romantic' and in some sense distorting.

For if it were possible to 'act' in that way one could.turn an idiot or a retard into an enlightened being. Or to use a.very good example: a feral child. This being did not have installed the stuff that makes human possible and so never attains the state that allows for higher states to exist.
fiat mihi
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: Absolute Reality

Post by Jehu »

Dan Rowden wrote:
Jehu wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:What does "right" mean in any of those 8 edicts?
The term "right" here means, "wholesome", that is to say, that view, intention, speech, etc., that leads one toward enlightenment as opposed to those that serve to reinforce our ignorance.
Sure, that much is obvious, but it still doesn't tell an individual anything beyond that and remains a platitudinous guideline. What is a "right livelihood" that leads to enlightenment and why should I accept any person's answer?

It's a guideline for those in authority to dictate your thoughts and actions. i.e. it's a religious doctrine. It's the 10 Commandments for Buddhists.
Far from being mere guidelines, the elements of the Noble Eightfold Path (the path that leads to the cessation of suffering), like many other formulations within the Buddhadharma, are concise expressions of the essence of the thing under consideration. The formulations are based upon a phenomenological system know traditionally as the “Suchnesses”, wherein each thing has its own unique: form, nature, embodiment, potency, function, primary cause, secondary causes, effect, recompense and complete and fundamental unity.
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: Absolute Reality

Post by Jehu »

Talking Ass wrote:I suggest that Jehu's description of Buddhism as a means of knowing the true nature of the self [here are some quotation marks, use them as you see fit: " " " " "] has its reflection in Romanticism. First, one has to be a self and have installed in oneself all that is pertinent to a Self. One has to have been inculcated within a language-system and one has to 'operate it' at quite sophisticated levels BEFORE one turns to notions (or facts) about 'essential self'. Therefore, to entertain this idea is 'romantic' and in some sense distorting.

For if it were possible to 'act' in that way one could.turn an idiot or a retard into an enlightened being. Or to use a.very good example: a feral child. This being did not have installed the stuff that makes human possible and so never attains the state that allows for higher states to exist.
First, even those with severe mental impairments have a sense of self, though perhaps not so deeply ingrained as in some philosophers. Second, we cannot turn anyone apart from ourself into an enlightened being, and we can only enlighten ourself if we are mentally sound, for it is imperative that we have the capacity to reason truly. You see, it will not due to simply tell someone about their true nature, rather, they must come to the realization for themselves – else it is merely another hypothesis.
Last edited by Jehu on Tue Apr 03, 2012 8:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Absolute Reality

Post by cousinbasil »

Dan Rowden wrote:What does "right" mean in any of those 8 edicts?
I first encountered these eight "rights" in college and thought them immensely helpful, primarily because they weren't edicts. They seemed so much more constructive - more like thou shalts instead of thou shalt nots. They also seemed to me more consistent and complete that the Ten Commandments.

You mention "OctoPath" can be a vector for Authority to manage your life:
It's a guideline for those in authority to dictate your thoughts and actions. i.e. it's a religious doctrine. It's the 10 Commandments for Buddhists
But I submit that if one were committed to the Path, authority would not be necessary. In other words, it is possible to give God and Caesar their respective dues.

It can be said that following the truth naturally results in following the OctoPath. Ignore any of these directives, and one can expect to spend much time, energy, effort, and pain discovering what is meant by "right."
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Absolute Reality

Post by cousinbasil »

Jehu wrote:...and we can only enlighten ourself if we is mentally sound...
Sho 'nuff...

Sorry, Jehu, I couldn't resist.
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: Absolute Reality

Post by Jehu »

cousinbasil wrote:
Jehu wrote:...and we can only enlighten ourself if we is mentally sound...
Sho 'nuff...

Sorry, Jehu, I couldn't resist.
I didn't say anything about having to be literate!
LifeLoveExperience

Re: Absolute Reality

Post by LifeLoveExperience »

"Absolute Reality" is accessible by pure love only.
Any less is blocked from almighty power, because evil would use power to effect evil, which is why Life itself commands love in itself to be and do. I.E.: "go do" = "god", but only when all that is being is of love.

The irony of it is that only pure love gets to access the reality that permits one the access of the more life that be all life.
Any less is "hell", which is what everyone that doesn't promote love is destined to realize as their absolute reality, their "point B, because there is no in-between, no matter how hard one bares down upon one's diaphragm, in attempting to command "god's glories" for selfish and insane reasons .

Your fevered desperate attempts at trying to embrace the more reality, without love, is the great delusion that this human race adheres to, and lives by; somewhat like the idiot little doggy chasing its tail throughout its short eternity, like "the snake that ate its own tail, whilst praying profusely, in hell, that it wasn't, isn't, can't, & didn't".
I pity thee all to hell.

Bottom line in this is that evil cannot embrace love without first destroying the love it is trying to touch.
In other words "evil must turn the love it seeks to embrace into its own excrement before it can eat it.
Evil eats itself, and its own excrement only, because evil knows nothing else, given that everything evil touches, it turns into excrement.
Last edited by LifeLoveExperience on Thu Apr 05, 2012 11:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Absolute Reality

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Have you got an axe to grind sweetheart?
what happened?
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Absolute Reality

Post by Dan Rowden »

LifeLoveExperience wrote:"Absolute Reality" is accessible by pure love only.
Any less is blocked from almighty power, because evil would use power to effect evil, which is why Life itself commands love in itself to be and do. I.E.: "go do" = "god", but only when all that is being is of love.

The irony of it is that only pure love gets to access the reality that permits one the access of the more life that be all life.
Any less is "hell", which is what everyone that doesn't promote love is destined to realize as their absolute reality, their "point B, because there is no in-between, no matter how hard one bares down upon one's diaphragm, in attempting to command "god's glories" for selfish and insane reasons .

Your fevered desperate attempts at trying to embrace the more reality, without love, is the great delusion that this human race adheres to, and lives by; somewhat like the idiot little doggy chasing its tail throughout its short eternity, like "the snake that ate its own tail, whilst praying profusely, in hell, that it wasn't, isn't, can't, & didn't".
I pity thee all to hell.

Bottom line in this is that evil cannot embrace love without first destroying the love it is trying to touch.
In other words "evil must turn the love it seeks to embrace into its own excrement before it can eat it.
Evil eats itself, and its own excrement only, because evil knows nothing else, given that everything evil touches, it turns into excrement.
I'm sorry, but not a word of that made any actual sense. Please define this "love" you speak of. What is it - exactly?
Locked