Animals and nirvana

[Pam Seeback]

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?

Russell wrote: I don't know what kamma is, how would you define it?

We've been discussing Buddhist thought throughout this entire thread and you don't know what kamma (karma) is? If you truly don't know of kamma and its relationship to rebirth, then there is no point in my defining it for you.

[Pam Seeback]

Maybe this will help you comprehend how animals suffer pain

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.

It is true, pain is not a central element to dukkha, but it most certainly is included as an element of its suffering nature, as was demonstrated by what happened after the Buddha ate his final meal:

From the Maha-parinibbana Sutta:

And soon after the Blessed One had eaten the meal provided by Cunda the metalworker, a dire sickness fell upon him, even dysentery, and he suffered sharp and deadly pains. But the Blessed One endured them mindfully, clearly comprehending and unperturbed.

22. Then the Blessed One spoke to the Venerable Ananda, saying: "Come, Ananda, let us go to Kusinara." And the Venerable Ananda answered: "So be it, Lord."

23. When he had eaten Cunda's food, I heard,
With fortitude the deadly pains he bore.
From the sukara-maddava a sore
And dreadful sickness came upon the Lord.
But nature's pangs he endured. "Come, let us go
To Kusinara," was his dauntless word.

The illusion of self, which the Buddha had overcome long before his parinibbana, and the pangs of nature which the Buddha did not overcome until his parinibbana, is human dukkha, whereas the pangs of nature only is animal dukkha.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The illusion of self, which the Buddha had overcome long before his parinibbana, and the pangs of nature which the Buddha did not overcome until his parinibbana, is human dukkha, whereas the pangs of nature only is animal dukkha.

Don't forget to mention the great earthquake at his final unbinding! And wrapping his dead body in new linen cloths and a lot of detail in how the bone relics were distributed. As the text hints at when commmenting on the event: "Fabrications are inconstant. What else is there to expect?". And I noticed that text is not very consistent in how to display the Buddha. Sometimes he's just as easily portrayed before his death as some immortal, supernatural being who will live through the end of times and appearing when being invited.

Why not read it simply as another confirmation that the pangs of nature are pangs of nature, not actually dukkha although the ignorant might regard those as his suffering and certainly it will be the reason he starts inquiring into it. In that sense it's part of how he experiences dukkha and is part of the teaching, the first grasps - but not part of how the students ends up understanding it. That is in my view the big difference in orientation.

[Russell Parr]

We've been discussing Buddhist thought throughout this entire thread and you don't know what kamma (karma) is? If you truly don't know of kamma and its relationship to rebirth, then there is no point in my defining it for you.

Sorry, I'm a bit a buddha noob. A quick search on google for "kamma" didn't work out for me, but I am more familiar with karma.

Karma can simply mean that your thoughts and actions directly lead to what mood/state/realm you are reborn into. Again, I'm fine with the realms representing a metaphorical description of various states of consciousness, but that's about it. I know of no means for comprehending any form of conscious existence upon the desolation of the body, but I do know that people desperately clinging onto their own existence leads to absurd, wishful ideas of resurrection and reincarnation.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

but I do know that people desperately clinging onto their own existence leads to absurd, wishful ideas of resurrection and reincarnation.

Agreed... equally absurd is people desperately clinging onto the notion of their own existence thinking it can end with the dissolution of the body.

You seem to believe in a perishable ego-substance that ends, others believe it is reincarnated, the first is equally deluded.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Agreed... equally absurd is people desperately clinging onto the notion of their own existence thinking it can end with the dissolution of the body.

Things can only end because of their beginning: they go hand in hand. But for something to be defined as not to have any beginning it results in becoming meaningless to say it "exists" at all since it can now never exist in contrast to a notion of its former non-existence. Any notion like "their own existence" is therefore certainly something that can end, as notions rise and fall with everything else.

[Russell Parr]

You seem to believe in a perishable ego-substance that ends, others believe it is reincarnated, the first is equally deluded.

And you believe in an eternal, ever lasting ego substance?

[guest_of_logic]

Diebert,

Maybe this will help you comprehend how animals suffer pain :


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDu_yUM8sMo

I couldn't watch more than a couple of minutes of that, even though I've seen much of the footage before. It's horrific.

John, *this* is the type of animal suffering that concerns me, and, as you can see, it is totally avoidable: if nobody consumed animal products, none of this suffering would occur. If you can watch this video and respond, "OK, Laird, I see now that there is much appalling animal suffering that is avoidable, and from here on I will make dietary and other consumer choices so as to play my part in avoiding it", then I will withdraw my accusation of callousness.

My view on animals is that their minds are not contaminated by the type of delusions the Buddha highlights and the teaching on dukkha simply does not apply.

*Sigh*. Again, you're simply totally wrong. Let's go back to the Wikipedia article on dukkha. Here is a quote from its introduction:

"Dukkha is commonly explained according to three different categories:

The obvious physical and mental suffering associated with birth, growing old, illness and dying.
The anxiety or stress of trying to hold onto things that are constantly changing.
A basic unsatisfactoriness pervading all forms of existence, due to the fact that all forms of life are changing, impermanent and without any inner core or substance. On this level, the term indicates a lack of satisfaction, a sense that things never measure up to our expectations or standards."

How about we examine these categories, eh?

Birth, growing old, illness and dying: do these affect animals? Why... yes. Yes, I believe they do.

Anxiety and stress from trying to hold onto things that are constantly changing: does this affect animals? Well, if you've ever seen an animal mourn the loss of one of its friends, you will know that certainly, it does.

The third one applies to animals simply by definition: it reads (emphasis mine) "*all* forms of existences [...] *all* forms of life".

Give it up, Deebs.

[Kelly Jones]

Laird is still entralled by the logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam, I see. When will he start thinking for himself, instead of assuming enlightenment is what others say it is?

[Kelly Jones]

Jupiviv,

KJ: When he speaks of her, it is not her objectively, the biological organism with a personal history "out there in the world", etc., but rather what she means for him, as a psychological phenomenon used in his meditations.

J: Why did a young, fertile woman mean that to him as opposed to, say, a road apple? Obviously there was a biological reason for his loving her.

I think this might be coming out of your own struggles. You write:

Evolution has ensured that humans feel a deep urge to copulate. It's impossible, in my opinion, to get rid of that urge in a single human lifetime,

More on that further below.

There were biological reasons for Kierkegaard being attracted to a young, nubile female like Regina, you say. But considering he was (and is) an unsurpassed master of pseudonymity, that is, of dialectical reasoning, your straightforward, literal interpretation of his behaviour is highly unlikely.

Take these elements into consideration:

- The Banquet. Have you read the speech by the "young man"? As Kierkegaard describes that himself: "he gives a talk in which he proves that erotic love, physical desire, is the most ludicrous of all (its frightful consequences — getting children, plus the fact that a person deceives himself in this lust and merely serves existence)."

- If Regina was merely "nubile", and a purely biological reason the main driver, why wasn't his journal chockas with other such attractions --- all women being the same in this respect.

- 1839 entry into diary, clearly showing his love for Regina - that is, his love of erotic love - was symbolic of a cohesion and repair of his fragmentary purpose and personality:

"You blind god of erotic love! You who see in secret, will you disclose it to me? Will I find what I am seeking here in this world, will I experience the conclusion of all my life's eccentric premises, will I fold you in my arms, or:
Do the Orders say: March on?"

- As a young scholar, he was already studying eroticism. That is, where idealism and psychological attraction to other personalities cross. (Eroticism has relevance to the current flow of this thread, since those who believe non-violence towards animals is an enlightened characteristic are attracted to what they see in animals which specifically reflects themselves, and defend such things because of how they value being treated.) The "Diary of a Seducer", written largely in reaction to the broken engagement, which was such a public scandal in Copenhagen that he felt obliged to write this self-treacherous work to defame himself and protect Regina's reputation, indicates he well understood how similar women were, biologically, yet the litany of "interesting" females interested the seducer precisely for their different personalities. So it wasn't biological mating that drove the seducer, but eroticism (the psychological).

- Yet Kierkegaard was so far elevated beyond sheer animal libido that he despised chasing after females purely because of the "interesting" personality! As Judge Apham, he wrote a letter to the seducer on "The Aesthetic Validity of Marriage", which was published in the same work as the "Diary of a Seducer". This was coming hot on the heels of his rejection of Regina. In it, he explains the moral degradation of seeking variants of "the interesting"; one can easily read "seduction" and "marriage" as --- to put it in Buddhist terms --- metaphors for samsara and nirvana, respectively, since the context of marriage for Kierkegaard was invariably metaphorical for the relationship to God.

- Frequent use of the character of a virtuous, innocent, spirited, adoring female lover in his published works. His authorship was that of a concept auditor, constantly critiquing human beliefs and culture for various errors. The motif was used to illustrate an abstract notion in a way his readers could relate to more easily; a poetic motif expressing noble qualities to contrast with ugly, mindless attitudes like lecherous old men, snivelling back-biting aristocrats, petty-minded dog-like rabble on the streets, and so forth --- very much like objects of moral tales in Jesus' parables. "She" was an emblem of the innocent and trusting lover of God, not motivated by a contract of responsibility or any other reasons, but by love.

Take these many quotes as examples of the metaphor of the innocent lover, from works written in the five years before and after the "divorce"; these examples also show his concern to use the metaphor correctly in maieutic sense:

On the master thief (1834) - a metaphor for the spiritual man in conflict with the human species:

"His girl walks by his side like a guardian angel and helps him in his troubles while the authorities are in pursuit to capture him, and the populace, on the other hand, regards him suspiciously as one who is, after all, a thief, although perhaps an inner voice sometimes speaks in his defense, and at the same time he finds no encouragement and comfort among the other thieves since they are far inferior to him and are dominated by viciousness. The only possible association he can have with them is solely for the purpose of using them to achieve his aims; otherwise he must despise them."

On a walk to Sortebro:

"From this spot I have seen the sea rippled by a soft breeze, seen it play with pebbles; from here I have seen its surface transformed into a massive snow cloud and heard the low bass of the storm begin to sing falsetto; here I have seen, so to speak, the emergence of the world and its destruction — a sight that truly calls for silence. But what is the meaning of this expression, which is so often profaned? How often do we not meet sentimental blondes who, like nymphs in white gowns, with armed eyes* watch such phenomena in order to break out in "silent admiration"? How different from the wholesome, exuberant natural girl who watches such things in manifest innocence. Furthermore, she remains silent and like the Virgin Mary of old hides it deep in her heart. [ *Something Gynther said on a different occasion holds true of them: "People who come with armed eyes but also with armed hearts."] "

1835: "There is also a proverb which says: "One hears the truth from children and the insane." Here it is certainly not a question of having truth according to premises and conclusions, but how often have not the words of a child or an insane person thundered at the man who would not listen to an intellectual genius?"

1837: "But then shouldn't one tell stories? Certainly, mythology and good fairy stories are what the child needs. Or the child is allowed to read them himself and tell them and is then Socratically corrected (gradually correcting by questioning in such a manner that the child is by no means set straight under the coercion of a tutor but seems rather to be correcting others — and anyone who otherwise understands how to handle children will certainly not be in danger of encouraging arrogance). But above all let this be impromptu, not at a set time and place; children should experience early in life that happiness is a fortunate constellation which one should enjoy with gratitude but also know how to discontinue in good time; and above all one should not forget the point of the story. "

1837: "One sets out to find the blue bird, just like the Crown Princess who lets someone else take care of the kingdom while she goes to look for her unhappy lover. What infinite sorrow is implied in her wandering about dressed as a peasant girl and saying to the old woman she meets: "Ich bin nicht allein, meine gute mutter; ich habe ein grosses Gefolge bei mir von Kummer, Sorgen, und Leiden." "

1839: "The other day I heard a conversation between some farm girls and farm lads. One of the fellows, the kind commonly called a ladies' man, asked a very beautiful girl with a strong mark of mysteriousness about her, which Goethe discusses in his römische Elegien: Do you have a sweetheart? — to which she replied. No. Whereupon he answered: "Well, then, you are also a bad girl." "


But I haven't days to waste collecting similar quotes, of which there are countless. I'll wrap up with just one more:

"My eyes rested at times on the pair of lovers looking for a remote spot in the gardens down a narrow path in order to get away from the noise and find themselves, and at times I discovered the opposite, the more distant sailors, as it were, who from far away sought the crowd in order to lose themselves in the crowd."


Buoni viaggietti.

[Dennis Mahar]

Laird is still entralled by the logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam, I see. When will he start thinking for himself, instead of assuming enlightenment is what others say it is?

Tit for tit crap.

The domain 'enlightenment' for human being is the point where the human is jettisoned out of cultural conditioning.
Is 'floating free',
What's available for that human is 'response-ability'.
The task/project is to now craft an individual response to the World. Individuation.
Laird is clearly his 'own crafted response' in relation to what he cares about, for World.

Looking on, 'a sense of wonder' is possible.
Cynicism, complacency is not 'philosophical domain'.
'a sense of wonder' is philosophical domain.

The 3 conditions for human being are Be, Do and Have.
These are the questions Kierkegaard is pondering.
Who to Be,
What to do,
What can I Have in my World to make up the Totality of me in my crafted individual response to the World.

Kierkegaard is not like a football team to barrack for.
Kierkegaard is a profoundly powerful speaker disclosing the being of human being as a possibility.
He is a 'wonderfulness'.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Laird, again you are now pitting your own interpretations and conclusions drawn from an simple introductory page on Buddhism against how certain terms appear to be presented in other pages and notable publications and my own insights presented with reasoning attached. It's not my task to explain Buddhism or determine what is the mainstream (which might not exist). The route I take is the reasonable one and I try to make clear why that is the case following the power of ones own mind, yours and mine, determining what you can find out.

Birth, growing old, illness and dying: do these affect animals? Why... yes. Yes, I believe they do.

But the Buddha is as you know all about teaching the cessation of dukkha. Does he promote the ending of all life as we know it then? Think!

The third one applies to animals simply by definition: it reads (emphasis mine) "*all* forms of existences [...] *all* forms of life".

If you'd continue reading, in the next line this subtle form of suffering arises as a "reaction to the skandhas, the factors constituting the human mind". And to quote from the Encyclopedia of Buddhism again: "The five aggregates of grasping refer to the five things that people cling to in order to think of themselves as independent and enduring beings: the physical body, feelings, perceptions, impulses, and consciousness".

And if you're really really start reading you'd see that these "forms" have no inner core or substance as stated in the same line as you're quoting. They are forms in pure Buddhist sense, formations happening to a consciousness and the "basic unsatisfactoriness" is you and yours alone. With attached karma and that might be the common ground we have in understanding compassion towards nature. It's similar to the Christian notion of "love thy neighbor as thy self". It's about what's near and "familiar", in all the things you are reflected.

The only reason to maintain that sentient beings - which are conscious beings by the Buddhist definition - would still include all other animals or life is to maintain with that the theory of reincarnation. Only through the arcane prism of reincarnation all life works towards liberation and suffers from its very incarnation as sentient (unenlightened) being, reaching for enlightenment, the end of rebirth and sentient existence. There can be little doubt this is a popular idea but I think I've shown enough to maintain that it a) is not expressed that way as part of any core or main Buddhism as defined by various notable sources and b) in those cases where the notion of individually suffering insects and plants is expressed, it appears to be an unreasonable interpretation of a perhaps well once intended idea. For that last one, I guess one has to use reason, ones own insight and some exposure to more philosophy than the Buddhist mazes.

That said, I have to quote in your defense the Encyclopedia of Buddhism again (I do have a copy) with the entry on Dukkha: according to Buddhist teachings, suffering is an inescapable characteristic of all life and cannot be alleviated except through enlightenment. This seems close to what you're maintaining. But I see such statements always through the prism of Buddhism itself: that the characteristics of life equals form (rūpa) for which you have to grasp at least the notions of sense organs. This is the difference between subject (truth-based) and object (illusion-based) interpretations. It's up to the Buddhist student to decide which road he takes with the base teachings. This is why it can only be alleviated, as the quote says, through enlightenment and awakening. In your interpretation that would sound like a doom scenario for insects and elephant grass, amongst other things.

[Dennis Mahar]

The Buddha talked on many levels depending on the 'listening' capacity of the audience which contributes to confusion and 'thicket of views'.

Along came Nagarjuna who cleared it up.

first there are trees (conventional reality)
then there are no trees (ultimate reality/emptiness)
then there are trees.

Nagarjuna granted complete authority to conventional reality and the understanding of it.

This is It.
It is what It is and It isn't what It isn't.

You still have to generate a lifestyle or craft a response.

The so called traditional winning formula 'chop wood, carry water' is on the menu as a response-ability.

There are no 'the answers' on the question of Being,
ambiguity,
You have to craft a response.

[Pam Seeback]

Diebert: Does he promote the ending of all life as we know it then? Think!

Is that not the logical conclusion if humans pursue enlightenment as it is placed forward on this board? End of (attachment to) women = end of human being.

[Kunga]

How can there be THE END when there is no beginning ?

[guest_of_logic]

Deebs,

I have lost patience for this exchange, not to mention that I have other commitments that prevent me continuing. Too, it is frustrating that you do not accept facts. I will simply sum them up in this post, and leave it at that.

In Buddhism, animals, including insects, are considered to be:
* sentient
* conscious (this is not really separate from the previous item, because sentience entails consciousness)
* comprised of the five skandhas
* subject to suffering/dukkha.

I have offered many resources to demonstrate this to you. I cannot help (although it is tedious) that you choose to deny them.

Furthermore, Buddhism teaches literal reincarnation. I know that you and the house philosophy deny this too, but it is fact. This is, as you seem to understand in your last post, how the suffering of birth, death, illness, etc are ended: the enlightened being no longer reincarnates.

Thanks (I think!) for the dialogue.

Laird

[Diebert van Rhijn]

literal reincarnation ... is, as you seem to understand in your last post, how the suffering of birth, death, illness, etc are ended: the enlightened being no longer reincarnates.

And then it ceases to be sentient being according to all doctrine. If only you could wrap your mind around that instead of reciting blindly. That's not the compassion you had in mind.

Funny thing is you ignore my very mainstream quote about dukkha which cannot be alleviated except through enlightenment. Which goes against all you wanted to defend. Which contains exactly the thing you do not understand: I'm talking about dukkha and its cessation ("I have taught one thing and one thing only, dukkha and the cessation of dukkha" -- Buddha). It doesn't matter how many times animals have to die and rebirth to enter the human realm with a chance on that cessation. The suffering I was addressing was the suffering that can be alleviated. Suffering as feature of life is of no consequence to liberation and not of any consequence when it comes to compassion. As every living thing has to destroy life to keep living; any compassion remains limited to what is familiar to him at a given moment.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Diebert: Does he promote the ending of all life as we know it then? Think!

Is that not the logical conclusion if humans pursue enlightenment as it is placed forward on this board? End of (attachment to) women = end of human being.

A buddhist certainly would admit enlightement results in the end of "sentient being". That's how he defines it: the sentient being as fabrication factory. Buddha being no "sentient being".

How "this board" places this I wouldn't know. Perhaps it boils down to seeing possibilites beyond being some animal, human or "consciousness".

[Leyla Shen]

I think you have constructed so many straw men that you'd make a killing in the scarecrow business, Diebert!

To Laird, you wrote:

Suffering as feature of life is of no consequence to liberation and not of any consequence when it comes to compassion. As every living thing has to destroy life to keep living; any compassion remains limited to what is familiar to him at a given moment.

Laird qualified from beginning to end the kind of suffering he was talking about with the term unnecessary suffering.

I don't believe you once recognised the actuality of that.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Leyla, you're making shit up now in your desperate quest to find some error with my posts. There might be a few but not the one you think here.

Laird didn't qualify anything in his initial opposition but I did qualify it with "in the way suffering here is understood" referring to my reply to Pam and continued to qualify it with some precision. But he kept changing his stance ending with literal reincarnation as necessary element which he earlier still doubted.

Laird also wrote "all life other than ourselves has the same moral basis as ourselves". Do you recognize the actuality of that too? LOL

[Pam Seeback]

Diebert: Does he promote the ending of all life as we know it then? Think!

Is that not the logical conclusion if humans pursue enlightenment as it is placed forward on this board? End of (attachment to) women = end of human being.

A buddhist certainly would admit enlightement results in the end of "sentient being". That's how he defines it: the sentient being as fabrication factory. Buddha being no "sentient being".

How "this board" places this I wouldn't know. Perhaps it boils down to seeing possibilites beyond being some animal, human or "consciousness".

Thank you, thank you, thank you, there it is in a nutshell...end of sentience is the ultimate goal. What lies beyond sentience, no one knows.

Diebert, for you, a cyber bear-hug.

[Leyla Shen]

Try to remember the beginning of the "discussion". I know it might be hard, a lot of mystification has occurred since then thanks to you!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Try to remember the beginning of the "discussion". I know it might be hard, a lot of mystification has occurred since then thanks to you!

Well, click and notice that Laird challenges my statement on my understanding of suffering as Buddhist notion. That's where our discussion begins. I've no idea what is meant with "unnecessary suffering" and how it could be defined properly. And I wasn't involved in such discussion. Hey, that makes it a straw woman you just made!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Thank you, thank you, thank you, there it is in a nutshell...end of sentience is the ultimate goal. What lies beyond sentience, no one knows.

Not so fast with the hugs! Because I did say sentient being. And I'm not sure about ultimate goals either, one cannot just ignore causality or desire the end of desire.

[Pam Seeback]

Thank you, thank you, thank you, there it is in a nutshell...end of sentience is the ultimate goal. What lies beyond sentience, no one knows.

Not so fast with the hugs! Because I did say sentient being. And I'm not sure about ultimate goals either, one cannot just ignore causality or desire the end of desire.

I have never said that one should ignore causality, one is caused to end sentience, as is one is caused to move beyond sentience. I never said the way to end sentience is to desire the end of desire. What I said was that it may begin as such, but that as wisdom grows, one also outgrows this beginning futile desire. I'll amend my statement to say that the ultimate goal in the sentient realm is to end sentience by way of the transcendent chain of causality already identified by me of the Buddha's teaching of patiloma, or the way/path of transcendent dependent origination.

As for the animal realm, I stick by my logic that animals are sentient beings and by the logic of transcendent dependent origination that the end of sentience includes them as well.

How 'bout a handshake?