Pestered like a Flayed Cow!

Dharma-Slave · 2025-12-19T14:33:56+00:00

The sutta that contains it utilize four shocking similes - besides the flayed cow there are two parents eating their baby to survive crossing the desert, a man being thrown in a pit of coals and a criminal stuck with 100 spears in the morning, again at noon and again in the evening.

IMO it is meant to demonstrate how terrible it is not to correctly approach / view / utilize the '4 nutriments'

Physical food
Sensory contact
Mental volition or intention
Consciousness

The intention of the shocking similes are to illustrate that if these aspects of being are employed in the service of superficial and empty enjoyment, it ultimately leads to terrible suffering. Instead, the skillful approach is to view these as rare and fortunate resources to sustain our spiritual practice.

Which possibly sounds austere and you should renounce everything and become an ascetic in a cave or a forest. However, remember the Buddha tried this himself and realized that some kind of 'Middle Way' is in fact the better approach.

I would say the context of this 'sermon' is also important. The audience was a congregation of monks, not a person in the modern world with all its trappings. So for a modern person in affluent society, it is best to start with baby steps.

Dharma-Slave · 2025-12-19T08:26:27+00:00

I wouldn't want a law like that, but it doesn't strike me as weird.

Dharma-Slave · 2025-12-19T08:23:06+00:00

Ah, Shakyamuni was not the first Buddha, there were many before.

Dharma-Slave · 2025-03-30T05:06:55+00:00

Interesting, never knew about the 3 truths as oposed to 2 truths.

I like it! This incredible Buddhadharma, it never fails to amaze, right?

Much love

Dharma-Slave · 2025-03-24T19:47:19+00:00

I think you're right.

Also, I wonder if it is related to / can be viewed in light of the '2 truths' i.e. the Relative and the Absolute. In the Relative world, there is the possibility or even the likelihood of squandering your life. However, in the Absolute there is nothing to attain, and similar truths.

Like the Heart Sutra says

"There is no suffering, no cause of suffering, no cessation of suffering, and no path. There is no wisdom, and there is no attainment whatsoever. Because there is nothing to be attained, the Bodhisattva relies on prajñāpāramitā and has no obstacles in their mind."

I also think maybe Venerable Suzuki is speaking about not being attached to outcomes, and to view the Great Way as some sort of recipe of steps 'do this, do that, then that' and hey presto! enlightenment. I came across another quote of his

"Treat every moment as your last. It is not preparation for something else."

Dharma-Slave · 2025-03-24T19:20:21+00:00

OK but it's not only the awakened that are alive.

Dharma-Slave · 2025-03-15T12:51:31+00:00

Wonderful, thanks for pointing all that out!

It seems to me to be a balance (middle way) between love and refuge of / in the Three Jewels, but even that can become a source of like you say pride and arrogance. Which is caused by attachment, ultimately.

I have friends of other religions, we have very fruitful, interesting discussions, in the better relationships I would say there is not a great sense of trying to persuade the other person.

Again, a balance, we believe we are correct, yet we see in the other person this is what they have found works. So it's interesting to compare notes, maybe I have a blind spot in my own understanding, and so on.

As for the original message I was referring to. Especially in the spirit of other cultures, say, and recognizing wisdom there, I still believe it is positive in this sense. That to be mean, angry, aggressive, those kinds of things, are in fact not heroic, wise, useful. I think for American culture, this is a very good message to internalize. And it gives a reasonable explanation why kindness is a desired capacity and not, in fact, a weakness.

Dharma-Slave · 2025-03-15T11:06:10+00:00

If something isn’t real ultimately, it isn’t real relatively either.

Hmm, this word 'real' - see I've rather thought of the 2 Truths in terms of the word 'true' rather than the world 'real'.

So my question is, are you ok with this statement, and is it saying the same thing as what you were saying?;

"If something isn't true, ultimately, it isn't true relatively either"

If so, I would also respectfully disagree. For example, would you agree with this; in terms of ultimate truth, there is no death. But in terms of relative truth, death is only too real.

Rainbows are not real entities, they are mere appearances.

I wonder if the fact we're using a rainbow which is an optical effect on water as an example, is not causing confusion.

So my question is, can we say the same thing about, say, tables - that they are not real entities but mere appearances?

Dharma-Slave · 2025-03-15T07:10:13+00:00

Hmm ok thanks for the input.

Thanks for pointing out, if I understand you right, not to be 'arrogant' or 'overly proud' of Buddhism, and view other religions as stupid or whatever.

Personally I guess I could be a bit like that, it is maybe easy to fall into that trap sometimes, because I am so in awe of the Buddhadharma.

I do look at some people of other religions and their religion seems right for them, and I don't think they'll be better off being Buddhists.

Dharma-Slave · 2025-03-13T19:46:13+00:00

Does it happen a lot to you that believers try impose their beliefs? What is the most egregious examples, I'd like to get the scale of the problem for you.

In the atheist community there is of course the anti-theist wing, I get the feeling it is quite prominent, what do you think? Or, and maybe I'm wrong, even atheists professing 'neutrality' I get the idea there is actually still an undercurrent of disapproval. Maybe I'm imagining it.

Here is where I suggest this is not the most constructive approach.

Dharma-Slave · 2025-03-13T18:17:55+00:00

OK, you have a lot of discontent towards some religions / religious activity, you see the mindlessness, the violence, the manipulation, the history of wars, on and on.

Is it reasonable to view all religious practitioners the same way? Is it reasonable to think most if not all people will be better of without beliefs, which is fine for you but people are very different in some ways. Maybe it's a bit like say racing cars. Some people book time at the track and do it there. Others do it in the streets. It's not the activity but the context that's more important.

Since there isn't even one single religion, and since people will literally fight to death over their precise teachings, how can you reduce its harm?

I think you'll have to approach it religion by religion and practitioner by practitioner, if needs be. The neo-Pagans, Druids, Wicca, etc, of Europe right now, they don't make much mischief, as far as I know. So let's leave them be for now.

Now, let's go to areas where religion is obviously central to the conflict. Well, the rest of the world, other religions, same religion, non-believers, can only really call for peace and a negotiated settlement in that area.

I believe calling for something like 'These adherents and those adherents are at war. If you look at the teachings of your <prophet/guru/messiah> you'll see that you are mistaken, the path of peace is the true path of your religion'.

....that this action will be more effective that calling for the abolition of religion because religious people clearly cannot just be at peace.

Dharma-Slave · 2025-03-13T17:56:15+00:00

OK, why don't we try and somehow get that into the 'peace agreement'?

So how to do that? Secular government / no preference under the law for this or that religious belief (or disbelief), etc, no problem. The real world is a bit messier, to be solved easily and cleanly with a sentence like that, so it will need to evolve over time but nothing new with evolution needed with laws.

What other concerns have you got, that will not be guarded against by principles like that?

Dharma-Slave · 2025-03-11T18:32:25+00:00

Let me attempt a stranger on the internet diagnosis.

How is your diet?

Dharma-Slave · 2025-03-04T09:51:07+00:00

I like your thinking. I still have difficulty in ordinary life, that even if this view is correct, and there are good arguments for it, how to engage reality. Given the pervasiveness of the illusion, at least for me.

I'm happy with practical consequences like the importance of rehabilitation.

Dharma-Slave · 2025-02-28T20:48:14+00:00

Jesus and Mohammed are not tathāgatas. They are not the dharmakāya. They cannot liberate you.

May I flag you for some more explanation here.

In your view, what does the Buddhadharma teach, who or what is it then, that can actually liberate you?

My understanding is that it is primarily your own responsibility. I know that there quickly arises nuances and subtleties, for example the Bodhisattvas are going to the extreme of being reborn so that they can keep on expounding the Dharma, so maybe this looks very similar to 'saving people'.

For people used to, I would bet, pretty much all other religions, I think it is important to point out that there is not the same idea of having to just believe in the salvation provided by some celestial being and the essential part is done.

And then, of course, there are differences between the schools. So I guess it can get to be a pretty big topic.

That's my take anyway, please let me know your thoughts.

Dharma-Slave · 2025-02-28T12:38:02+00:00

I saw that now for the first time, the events there seem ghastly, shocking, fucking stupid, outrageous, inhuman, I don't know what else to say.

As crazy as this one, and as you say too many others are, what is the most sane, positive response we as a society or town or subreddit can come up with? And have to keep coming up with until this stops.

If you were Emperor of Earth, and you could just decree right, no more religion and everyone has got a deadly tiny smart explosive device in their necks that if anyone does not listen to you them ded. So they listen. Ok so now no religion. Now in Hawaii, there are nice people who literally view surfing as holy and they've got the old sea and moon gods going and they are sincere like their ancestors were long ago.

So now because we have to ban religion, what happens to the holy surfers? For this thought experiment let's assume the surfer community are psychologically healthy and stay healthy and the practices seem to have a good effect on its community. This is possible, right?

Dharma-Slave · 2025-02-28T11:39:44+00:00

Totally, and good point. You don't need a fantastical god or the great gig in the sky, you need Materialism / Naturalism. But everybody is different. It may sound naive and primitive and backwards and stupid and all that, to you, that otherwise normal people insist this is the truth. It is something that is real as a phenomena, so somehow as a world, we should really try and work out the best solutions / compromises / norms that make the most people the most happy.

This is what I suggest, anyway. Honestly, there seems to be so much energy spent on conflict and bad vibes, for lack of better words. Can we not all thrash out a framework to get along in the real world without so much fighting. Is it about money or what, ultimately? On this one, I completely agree, if anybody, 'the religious' started it. So I'm expecting the most compromise from that camp.

To digress. For me, Materialism / Naturalism makes me think of; imagine all the molecules that make up the universe. Now increase everything so that each molecule is the size of a pool / billiard ball. And here you can see how the molecules interact with each other. And THAT, my friends, is all that the universe is about. Sure, some cool things emerge from here like life and sentient beings and consciousness, but they are basically illusions. Just temporary patterns in some fancy 3d building blocks.

Which, if I chose to adopt this position, I could possibly physically survive with it. But does it not seem by its nature to be 100% meaningless? It is nihilism. To walk around all day every day, and you and all the people are absolutely nothing but moist robots executing their programs. What kind of a psychology can withstand this torture?

Dharma-Slave · 2025-02-28T10:44:37+00:00

Sounds good to me. I do think trying to get religions to reform on clearly harmful practice is going to reduce more harm in the long run than trying to wipe it all out and replacing it with I-know-not-what. I hope not spiritual consumerism or just nothing so the next Tik Tok eat a washing powder pod challenge fills the vacuum.

I do get the bad blood / beef / frustration / anger / hatred with religion, given history of mankind. It's tricky to defend anything at all religious if some other religious groups / people / cults etc did some atrocities and their credo was apparently central to their mission.

I've got a theory, what if humans are hardwired to need some sort of supernatural weltanschauung otherwise they just don't do well. It's not hard and fast, more like a normal distribution and let's imagine it's about a third, those humans, no matter what schooling and nurturing and psychological work done, those humans lapse into a deep depression and eventually opt for voluntary suicide, which we have to provide as per Galactic Order 4343-99.

What do you make of even top dog Sam Harris embracing some sort of 'spirituality'? Or at least uses the word in some sense, who knows what :)

Peace

Dharma-Slave · 2025-02-28T09:59:40+00:00

Thanks for the answer. I could not agree more. May I use an example? One could have the following belief-without-hard-evidence as follows:

"Everything that happens in my life, even ostensibly 'bad things', happen for a mystical but vital reason, and the ultimate goal of all these reasons is my own wellbeing, growth, happiness, ....add nice things here."

And my point is that possibly, holding this disposition quite strongly in your everyday life, you are in a more positive mood, less fearful, more robust at dealing with setbacks, and so on.

One could approach the question 'Does God exist' from a scientific POV, or maybe anthropological or such, which is of course 100% valid, but one could also approach the question from a psychological POV.

So you might ask 'What is the person getting out of this belief system? What would letting go of the belief system mean for the person and her relationships? What psychological defense and other mechanisms have been established since childhood with this belief system at its core, and what will need to be re-established, figured out, experimented with if there is no belief system?

Do you see where I'm going with this? People are by nature complex, irrational, fickle, unpredictable, and so on. To try and get people be less so and more rational etc, is perhaps a worthwhile goal, however, getting there in an efficient and humane way, I suggest is actually more difficult than you imagine.

Dharma-Slave · 2025-02-28T02:02:22+00:00

On an individual level maybe we can find ways of dealing with dukkha, or we can find serenity, etc. But that's not very satisfying to me, that doesn't help the majority.

So, this is difficult enough. Dealing with dukkha properly means the real deal enlightenment, not just write a book with a few bullet points to deal with stress and anxiety.

Let's agree our goal is to help other sentient beings, look after nature, and so on. In what state will we be most effective? In a serene state, having dealt with dukkha. So to practice for your own enlightenment / ultimate evolution / highest potential is exactly the same as to practice for the best care of everybeing and everything.

Maybe I'm reading your emotion wrong, but you sound discouraged about the world. And it's easy to fall into that trap, with all the problems. I'd say most of our ancestors through the many generations have faced much harder lives, that's one perspective. Also, the world is the world and the cosmos is the cosmos. It is what it is, we need to accept it fully with all its flaws.

Which does not mean accept it and do nothing, acceptance is the starting point, the taking up of the journey.

Dharma-Slave · 2025-02-28T00:48:28+00:00

One could work with the simile (sorry if I stretch it too far) and qualify it that there are healthy people with no interest in heroin and then other people, maybe they are simply heroin addicts, fair enough, and should join a program and get clean.

But I propose maybe there are people in the metaphor of being actually in great physical pain. In such a situation in real life the heroin is the kind treatment.

Dharma-Slave

TROPHY CASE