I think it makes a huge difference. The literal reincarnation interpretation is both nonsensical and completely unrelatable.movingalways wrote:Ultimately, for me, it doesn't matter whether the realms of existence are metaphorical or actual, what matters to me is to discover the way to bring them to an end.
The full time job makes samsara quite hard to avoid, and the girlfriend makes it impossible to avoid.guest_of_logic wrote:Which delusions remain?
Yes, but I already showed how sentient beings are generally defined in Buddhism by quoting standard literature.guest_of_logic wrote:1. THE FIVE SKANDHAS AND THE TWELVE LINKS OF DEPENDENT ORIGINATION (note: this document is by a temple (the Dieu Phap Temple) associated not with the Tibetan tradition, but with the Mahayana tradition (search for it here if you want to confirm what I say)). Notice in particular this quote: "Actually, all sentient beings have the five aggregates". Notice that? *All* sentient beings, not just humans.
Again, you are defining "sentient beings" for yourself but the article does not mention insects I think?2. The 5 skandhas by Lama Tendar Olaf Hoeyer. Sure, Lamas are part of the Tibetan tradition but that's not to say that this viewpoint is associated with Tibetan Buddhism alone; as Kunga notes, it is interdenominational. Notice in particular this quote: "All sentient beings function in this way" i.e. not just humans, but animals and insects too.
Yes, but that's what I've been saying. All conscious experience, attributed to all sentient creatures. Which is a defined term. In how far individual consciousness is on some arcane level connected to the fabric of time and space is another topic (just in case you wanted to go there).You will notice also, if you research enough, that at times the five skandhas are said to apply not merely to human experience, and not merely to animal experience, but to *experience itself*. In other words, the skandas are fundamental to *everything*. I wonder whether you will be willing to recognize this Buddhist perspective.
Show me some link about the insects first! Although I know some are holding that view, it's not considered general Buddhism. But even if it was, while I'd reject it, at least I could admit I was mistaken about the dominant trends in modern Buddhism.it is impossible to come away from that research with any view other than that Buddhism holds that animals (including insects) are sentient. Seriously, I challenge you to come up with even one reputable link that denies this.
You are quite simply dead wrong on this, Diebert, and it's really quite astounding for one supposedly well-read in Eastern philosophy. Aside from everything I have already put to you, including the direct affirmation of animal sentience in the Animals in Buddhism article on Wikipedia which I've now quoted to you twice, here's my last attempt to force you into accepting this fact. Here are various quotes from several results in the first two pages of a(n Australian) Google search for "animals buddhism sentience":Diebert van Rhijn wrote:But when we strip away all medieval elements, it becomes clear that sentient beings are humans, seemingly exclusively.
And I already demonstrated to you that your assumption (that only humans possess the five skandhas) is false.Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Yes, but I already showed how sentient beings are generally defined in Buddhism by quoting standard literature.
That has nothing to do with the topic at all. Thanks for trying to think though.Kunga wrote:The First Precept does not allow the killing of living beings. This generally refers to all sentient beings which includes all animals and humans. Insects are members of the Animal Kingdom.
In the Vinaya the Buddha is depicted as saying, "A monk should not intentionally deprive a living creature of life, even if it be only an ant" (Vinaya I.97).
l
Huh? It directly addressed the challenge you put to me, which Kunga was kind enough to take up for me: "Show me some link about the insects first!"Diebert van Rhijn wrote:That has nothing to do with the topic at all.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Show me some link about the insects first! Although I know some are holding that view, it's not considered general Buddhism. But even if it was, while I'd reject it, at least I could admit I was mistaken about the dominant trends in modern Buddhism.
you asked for a link regarding if insects are sentient or notDiebert van Rhijn wrote:That has nothing to do with the topic at all.
I would never have guessed that you had not only one of those attachments, but both! Not with your devotion to the cause.Russell wrote:The full time job makes samsara quite hard to avoid, and the girlfriend makes it impossible to avoid.
It's not a sourced statement, it uses the word "generally" without much explanation and it seems to address only the topic of killing animals, not their liberation from all three versions of dukkha. But correct me if I missed something.guest_of_logic wrote:Huh? It directly addressed the challenge you put to me, which Kunga was kind enough to take up for me: "Show me some link about the insects first!"Diebert van Rhijn wrote:That has nothing to do with the topic at all.
You have very poor comprehension. And your arrogance is off the charts.Diebert van Rhijn wrote: correct me if I missed something.
Why, because some of them add a few qualifications about the attributes of animals considered to be sentient? That's pretty minor, Deebs, really, and hardly the show-stopper you seem to want to make it out as.Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Laird, your quotes do not help you much if you'd study them and compare them more.
This is all speculative. I'm not versed enough in Buddhist doctrine to know whether your speculations match it, but given your previous errors, I can't say I trust that they do.Diebert van Rhijn wrote:I'll rephrase my initial point for you: animals do not suffer from illusions about their own nature. However some animals can display some confusion but it's often just because they think they're human :-) Any other confusion and related suffering they might display does not appear to be rooted in a false sense of self on their part.
Don't worry, I will. :-) What you missed is that the challenge was solely to provide "some" link supporting the fact that in Buddhism, insects are considered to be sentient. Kunga did exactly that. So, your complaints that liberation from dukkha is not mentioned, and that it's not a sourced statement, are irrelevant - neither of those were part of the stipulation of the challenge.Diebert van Rhijn wrote:It's not a sourced statement, it uses the word "generally" without much explanation and it seems to address only the topic of killing animals, not their liberation from all three versions of dukkha. But correct me if I missed something.
Rebirth into present kamma, not reincarnation of an entity.Russell wrote: I think it makes a huge difference. The literal reincarnation interpretation is both nonsensical and completely unrelatable.movingalways wrote:
Ultimately, for me, it doesn't matter whether the realms of existence are metaphorical or actual, what matters to me is to discover the way to bring them to an end.
I like this definition: "Any being who possesses a mind that is contaminated by delusions or their imprints. Both `sentient being’ and `living being’ are terms used to distinguish beings whose minds are contaminated by either of these two obstructions from Buddhas, whose minds are completely free from these obstructions" from this glossary.guest_of_logic wrote:This is all speculative. I'm not versed enough in Buddhist doctrine to know whether your speculations match it, but given your previous errors, I can't say I trust that they do.Diebert van Rhijn wrote:I'll rephrase my initial point for you: animals do not suffer from illusions about their own nature. However some animals can display some confusion but it's often just because they think they're human :-) Any other confusion and related suffering they might display does not appear to be rooted in a false sense of self on their part.
You brought up the notion of "reputable" links in that post which I just referred to. And I implied strongly it had to show how much this thinking is part of a "general Buddhism". It's a tall order but I already supplied "Encyclopedia of Buddhism", published by Macmillan Reference, which at least the American Library Association gave its annual recommendation as "Outstanding Reference Source". That kind of thing seemed pretty standard to me and I see no reason to dispute the ability to function as reference and keep digging randomly. I mean we have to have some standards?What you missed is that the challenge was solely to provide "some" link supporting the fact that in Buddhism, insects are considered to be sentient. Kunga did exactly that. So, your complaints that liberation from dukkha is not mentioned, and that it's not a sourced statement, are irrelevant - neither of those were part of the stipulation of the challenge.
The question is what will help you to understand why I'm not including "pain" as central element to dukkha and its causes. Not more than pleasure or farting.Kunga wrote:Maybe this will help you comprehend how animals suffer pain
http://kadampa.org/en/reference/glossar ... terms-p-t/Diebert van Rhijn wrote:I like this definition: "Any being who possesses a mind that is contaminated by delusions or their imprints. Both `sentient being’ and `living being’ are terms used to distinguish beings whose minds are contaminated by either of these two obstructions from Buddhas, whose minds are completely free from these obstructions" from this glossary.
Dukkha = sufferingDiebert van Rhijn wrote:The question is what will help you to understand why I'm not including "pain" as central element to dukkha and its causes. Not more than pleasure or farting.Kunga wrote:Maybe this will help you comprehend how animals suffer pain
Heh, yea I've been involved with both for years now, the job is relatively easy and the girlfriend is low maintenance, making life bearable enough to experiment with the "human realm" in my free time.guest_of_logic wrote:I would never have guessed that you had not only one of those attachments, but both! Not with your devotion to the cause.
I don't know what kamma is, how would you define it?movingalways wrote:Do you still envision rebirth into present kamma with the possibility of appearing as an animal or a ghost nonsensical and completely unrelatable, and if so, why?
Do you think animals suffer or not ? You have a very muddled way of expressing yourself.Diebert van Rhijn wrote:I'll rephrase my initial point for you: animals do not suffer from illusions about their own nature. However some animals can display some confusion but it's often just because they think they're human :-) Any other confusion and related suffering they might display does not appear to be rooted in a false sense of self on their part.
Well, since they have torcher parades maybe people do know, and celebrate. Seems backed by compassionate intent, though.Kunga wrote:Anyways Diebert, you said you don't think animals experience pain....it' seems hard for you to comprehend how horribly they suffer from the hands of despicable humans that have no conscience, and mercilessly torcher them.
Are you kidding ? Their experience with phenomena is one of constant danger and survival....all they experience is impermanence.Cahoot wrote:Animals can be included under the umbrella of ignorance that causes the delusion of mistakenly experiencing phenomena as permanent.
