|1 year ago :: Apr 10, 2012 - 9:32AM #21|
By escaping samsara, you escape dukkha. As I understand it samsara is fundamentally an attachment to life. "The Way" that you escape samsara and the dukkha results from the Buddhist perspective is by following the Eightfold Path. The mindful practice of the Eightfold Path brings enlightment-nirvana which is the opposite of dukkha.
Our fellow sentient human being, Dio is imperfect, as we all are until we attain enlightment. He is suffering as we all are until we attain enlightment-nirvana. And he is not the only one who tends to drift off topic. I also drift off topic with him. Just because he drifts off topic does not mean that I should drift off topic with him. It is a lack of mindfullness on my part, the mindfullness to stay on topic. Because he drifts off topic does not mean that I should drift off topic with him. I do not know what his beliefs are, he has chosen not to reveal them in his profile. I also do not know the reason that he has chosen not to do so, or wether or not his beliefs are what is causing him to go off topic.
Then the mistake that I have is that without craving there is no reason to be compassionate from the Buddhist perspective.
Now there are some Buddhists that will argue that the enlightened being still suffers. I can't tell you for sure because I am not an enlightened being but...if....a being would extinguish his craving, thus his suffering, why would he suffer? Where I personally THINK this idea comes from is that many who haven't yet made it to the far shore of awakening are declared awakened by a political process. And they still suffer, thus the statement that "enlightened beings still suffer".
It would seem illogical that if enligtenment or perhaps complete and full enlightment aka nirvana aka the cessation of all cravings then how could a Buddha who is a sentient being who has reached this goal suffer? Of course it could be that it is an craving to be logical and its opposite craving to avoid logic, the craving to be reasonable, and its opposite to the craving to avoid being unreasonable that is the problem of those crappy ol western Buddhists.
It seems to me that the longtime approach the "ultimate" cure that Buddhism takes is to avoid "living-life". If you escape the "cycle of life" the "cycle of birth and rebirth" then you will not "suffer".
There are some monks in Tibet, Burma and Viet Nam that might agree with you. Again I would offer that this is an incorrect understanding of dukkha. As long as you cling you will experience dukkha. Your attachment may shift from say...dissatisfaction with someone calling you names to the worry that as happy as you seem at the moment, you may not be happy tomorrow. That is the nature of dukkha. But it isn't cyclical. Dukka is always present in the unawakened. Craving for this....and that....and on and on. We are taught craving at an early age and it is quite addictive, sort of like getting you ass kissed. (Sorry about the GI language)
Well it is interesting to know that some Eastern Buddhist monks might aggee with this Western Non-Buddhist who is not a monk. I would think that it is safe to say that there are also some Eastern Buddhists who are not monks who would also agree with me a Western Non-Buddhist.
Sorry to spend so much time on dukkha, it's cause and the extinguishing of dukkha but to Buddhists it is the central point. From there it all falls in place quite naturally. Compassion requires tranquility, non-attachment and wisdom. With awakening true compassion arises naturally.
What we see in day to day living is contrived compassion. A mental fabrication of how things really are or more importan...how we FEEL they should be. A tsunami hits Japan. We see people lose their STUFF and figure this material loss must be the cause of their suffering so we send a check. My aren't we compassionate people! A tornado hits in the Midwest and we repeat the process. We see starving in Africa and we post a post on B-net urging people to send a check and care just as much as we do about the little children. And we think we are compassionate. Do those checks help? We don't really know and often don't take the time to wonder about the process. We are attached to the idea of our compassion and how good that makes us feel. My guess is that every one of us posting today on B-net is guilty of this. Is the primary goal of the Salvation Army to help people or promote Christianity? The kettles get filled each Christmas. Little children and their parents, quite puffed up with their sense of compassion drop their offerings. Is this true compassion or contrived? True compassion would be going down to the local equivalent skid row and helping a bum extinguish his clinging and turn his life around. Now that is a huge project. Take it from someone who has tried and failed a few times. Anyway, that was my point and where I was headed. I sort of drifted around. I hope this makes sense to you. If not we can center in specifically in where it fails to make sense.
Wishing you small tranquil days,
When a natural disaster occurs I have no compassion if a person loses an Ipod, Playstation 3 or other such things. However I do have compassion if they lose their house or farm or their fishing boat or similar things that people crave in order to just survive and not to suffer. It is my craving to help relive people from the suffering caused by such natural disasters to donate money to charities.
I do not know what is the "primary" goal of Salavtion Army? It may be to promote Christianity or it may not. I do not donate to any religious based charity. I do not know if there is or is not any Buddist Charitable organizations. But if there are I also would not be able to know if their primary goal was to promote Buddhism. I donate to Secular Non-Relious Charties.
I might agree that is is better to go down to a local skid row to help a person who has a more craving to drugs or alcohol then for food or other things, to help him or her to turn their lives around. And while it is true that there are times that you will fail that does not mean that you should stop trying. Just as you should not stop donating to charties even though they may fail to turn around the lives of people.
And so far as I am converned so what if a person feels good when they donate their time or their money to charites?
What counts to me is the effectiveness. How practical are they in reducing dukkha.
HAVE A THINKING DAY MAY REASON GUIDE YOU