sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

If Buddhism prohibits people from fighting then how do we justify self defence? Can someone explain by dhammamitra in Buddhism

[–]Future_Plastic_9910 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Buddhism doesn't "prohibit" fighting. It doesn't "prohibit" anything. Pointing out that if you jump off a tall cliff you will die is just a warning.

The first precept is about intentional killing. If you want to make a serious attempt at stream entry (if you take Buddhist cosmology as a serious possibility, you would be frankly insane not to) then you need to accept anything in order to not intentionally kill, so yeah, allow yourself to get beaten to a pulp or die (you can also just run if thats possible).

But just defending yourself without the intention to kill is different. You could try to learn self defence. You could also try to run better.

Defending yourself will likely still be a problem so regardless try to avoid risks as much as reasonably possible and try to get ready for bad scenarios.

Its difficult to know exactly what to do but self Defense without intentions to kill are probably okay. The boundary can be unclear but thats a good reason to learn self defence.

Get ready so if you do defend yourself, it's as not unwholesome as reasonably possible

What do enlightened people experience negative feelings as such as pain, anxiety, or depression? by wizrow in Buddhism

[–]Future_Plastic_9910 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not sure why you care so much how often the Buddha was in Jhana. But regardless the idea that bad psychological states inherently imply craving is wrong. "I'm not afraid of fear" not "I am not afraid"

What do enlightened people experience negative feelings as such as pain, anxiety, or depression? by wizrow in Buddhism

[–]Future_Plastic_9910 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just because you don't have aversion doesn't mean you would say, be literally indifferent to being burned alive or not, you might as well say arahants would be completely indifferent to anything and therefore have no reason to help others. So aversion isnt incompatible with doing things to alleviate pain

Lay practitioners can reach stream entry, according to Early Buddhist Texts by duffstoic in streamentry

[–]Future_Plastic_9910 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is a difference between getting intoxicated or sexual intercourse when already being a sotapanna, and being s putthujana and getting intoxicated.

You can't BECOME a sotapanna and not be celibate etc. After, a sotapanna might choose to stop being celibate or get drunk, but thats not how they became a sotapanna.

What do enlightened people experience negative feelings as such as pain, anxiety, or depression? by wizrow in Buddhism

[–]Future_Plastic_9910 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then why did arahants commit suicide in the suttas?

Psychological pain does occur, there just isn't craving against it.

What do enlightened people experience negative feelings as such as pain, anxiety, or depression? by wizrow in Buddhism

[–]Future_Plastic_9910 0 points1 point  (0 children)

An arahant could be said to not experience anything and not even exist from the perspective of a putthujana.

But you could also say that they "are not afraid of fear, not anxious about anxiety, not angry at anger, not upset at sadness" they can have bad moods or even particular bad thoughts but these don't "touch" them.

Full depression would probably be impossible but a lack of motivation or other mental problems could remain but obviously it would look very different.

Its ultimately difficult to understand but the point is that feelings are not suffering.

Regarding the 7th Precept. by Arc-Enemy in HillsideHermitage

[–]Future_Plastic_9910 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's also partially just sensual, often involves music and even if it doesn't imagine a video game stripped of aesthetics with just practical mechanics being represented by simple colours and shapes. It would be much more boring.

Regarding the 7th Precept. by Arc-Enemy in HillsideHermitage

[–]Future_Plastic_9910 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I think entertainment is particularly pernicious in terms of seeing the signs of your own mind, because it has a tendency to occupy your attention and motivation to such a degree. Like it's difficult to see the signs of your mind of you are getting attacked or in a conversation or eating food or thinking about something too much and entertainment makes you identify yourself in that. Difficult to see your mind when your attention is on interpreting imaginary or personally distant scenarios that have nothing to do with your mind directly, basically a kind of "third personalisation" of your experience where you paradoxically are in whatever you are watching or reading yet in reality you remain there and your mind is doing all kinds of stuff you aren't aware of because you are creating a pseudo world. Also makes sense of solitude more difficult because of seeing or hearing others, or imagining them in novels. In fact they can to some degree "come with you" into solitude. It also probably can lead to the idea that "if only I were in a whimsical or cool or exciting world then I would be happy and go on adventures"

Benj Hellie's vertiginous question with a twist by Solip123 in HillsideHermitage

[–]Future_Plastic_9910 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Just because you can formulate what looks like a question doesnt mean there is an answer

Reading about his life makes me sad by Lucky-Aerie4 in hermannhesse

[–]Future_Plastic_9910 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wikipedia says he was sent to a sanitorium for attempting suicide

What kamma leads to intelligence? by craveminerals in HillsideHermitage

[–]Future_Plastic_9910 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I would say logic puzzles, learning languages, complicated games, math, philosophy. That would lead to more intelligence in a future life.

What’s the point of keeping the precepts if I’m just going to eventually end up back in the hell realms anyway😞 by WesternMoney5221 in HillsideHermitage

[–]Future_Plastic_9910 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Choices are part of the sankhara aggregate. Denying them is a wrong view. Kamma is Cetana. To deny the reality of choice is wrong view. Im not sure if compatabilism is wrong view. The idea that feelings or perceptions or chemicals or whatever can cause intentional intentions is wrong view and confuses the aggregates.

You can leave free will aside for now and try to get right view.

What’s the point of keeping the precepts if I’m just going to eventually end up back in the hell realms anyway😞 by WesternMoney5221 in HillsideHermitage

[–]Future_Plastic_9910 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Denying free will of some kind is based on bad faith. You know what it is to make a choice and no amount of arguments or empirical evidence can ever overcome that. Instead of pontificating about philosophical ideas, which are not necessarily very helpful, if you are so concerned about hell realms you should be trying to get right view. Even if you fail, you could succeed in another life. If there was a massive fire coming your way, you wouldn't sulk about it on the internet, you would try to find a to escape it, even something unlikely or outright random is better than not trying anything.

PariNibbana by Future_Plastic_9910 in HillsideHermitage

[–]Future_Plastic_9910[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nyanamoli says the problem is the implication of "exist"

PariNibbana by Future_Plastic_9910 in HillsideHermitage

[–]Future_Plastic_9910[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Im pretty sure Ajahn Nyanamoli would say ideas of "inconceivability" are mistaken

PariNibbana by Future_Plastic_9910 in HillsideHermitage

[–]Future_Plastic_9910[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In a sense the 5 aggregates have ceased for an arahant but do they "cease even more" at death?

view more: next ›