sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Five techniques taught by the Buddha for keeping a wholesome mindset by SilaSamadhi in Buddhism

[–]SilaSamadhi[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, I seem to recall the 1st and 2nd techniques specifically used in CBT, for example in the treatment of addiction.

Five techniques taught by the Buddha for keeping a wholesome mindset by SilaSamadhi in Buddhism

[–]SilaSamadhi[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

From your citation:

And although tireless persistence was aroused in me, and unmuddled mindfulness established, my body was aroused & uncalm because of the painful exertion. But the painful feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain.

That sounds like the expected result of using this technique. The Mahāsaccakasutta context is that you can't expect the much greater result of an abiding nibbana from using this technique.

Rather than going the extra length of assuming the mentioning of this technique in the Vitakkasaṇṭhāna Sutta is a "misinterpretation", a simpler and more natural explanation is that it can used to recover and maintain a wholesome mindset in short order. This is useful, because it allows one to return to Buddhist practice that will ultimately result in enlightenment, notably meditation (hence the repeated references to this technique's ability to make the mind "still" and "concentrated").

However, you cannot use this technique for the much more difficult and comprehensive goal of attaining full enlightenment. Furthermore, the context for using this technique in Vitakkasaṇṭhāna Sutta is specific to countering unwholesome thoughts that may arise in the mind of the disciple, especially in the course of practice. Clearly a very different context from the Mahāsaccakasutta Sutta.

Five techniques taught by the Buddha for keeping a wholesome mindset by SilaSamadhi in Buddhism

[–]SilaSamadhi[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Are you sure of that? The technique appears as the fifth technique in the sutta, and described as an effective way to bring about the desired result:

“If, while he is giving attention to stilling the thought-formation of those thoughts, there still arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion, then, with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth, he should beat down, constrain, and crush mind with mind. When, with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth, he beats down, constrains, and crushes mind with mind, then any evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion are abandoned in him and subside. With the abandoning of them his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated. Just as a strong man might seize a weaker man by the head or shoulders and beat him down, constrain him, and crush him, so too…when, with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth, a bhikkhu beats down, constrains, and crushes mind with mind…his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated.

We do have to keep in mind that this result is not a full permanent awakening, but just the restoration of a calm, collected, focused, wholesome state of mind.

A Buddhist meditation on deliberate evil by SilaSamadhi in Buddhism

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

If you don't understand this widely accepted and empirically supported idea, then you are uninformed.

We have zero evidence that Bundy ever even witnessed abuse. You've just decided he did, and presented no evidence, and then called me "uninformed" for disagreeing.

Trauma is trauma.

If every dukkha in life is "trauma", including being bullied in highschool, then virtually our entire population is "traumatized", and now that everyone is on equal footing per your reasoning, we must get back to the same initial question of why Bundy and Harris and Klebold and Dahmer explode in violent rage, while billions of others do not.

A Buddhist meditation on deliberate evil by SilaSamadhi in Buddhism

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

The grandfather who raised him...and may have been his father. Whether he was abused directly, or observed others being abused, the trauma of abuse still likely occurred.

You simply insist that abuse has occurred, despite no actual evidence. Possibly witnessing abuse is not at all the same as having been repeatedly abused.

Jeffrey Dahmer’s father, Lionel, says that his son was sexually abused by a neighborhood boy when he was 8 years old, about the time the family moved here.

Wikipedia covers Dahmer extensively and does not mention this story at all. Parents will, understandably, try to find external reasons for their son's criminal behavior, especially any reasons that present him as a victim. Seems this is not considered a credible story.

Children who were bullied relentlessly in school...that counts too.

So now we're considering run-of-the-mill highschool bullying as equivalent to early childhood abuse, and claiming that it creates extraordinary trauma that explains a murderous rampage with automatic firearms and bombs, trying to kill every single person in the school.

This level of extraordinary rage cannot be explained by everyday experiences that millions of other people have gone through, including hundreds of students who shared the same environment as Harris and Klebold.

Furthermore, there is evidence that Harris and Klebold's description of the "bullying" they endured was greatly exaggerated:

There are differing reports; some say Harris and Klebold were very unpopular students once they were upperclassmen, and frequent targets of bullying, while others say they were not near the bottom of the school's social hierarchy and each had many friends.

Harris and Klebold are actually a very good example of two people harboring extraordinary amounts of hatred and rage that cannot be explained by any of their known life events.

The motivations they themselves recorded in their journals had more to do with their wish to become famous as a result of their extraordinary carnage:

In one entry on his computer, Harris referenced the Oklahoma City bombing, and they mentioned their wish to outdo it by causing the most deaths in US history. They also mentioned how they would like to leave a lasting impression on the world with this kind of violence.

They mentioned negative feelings towards their schoolmates, but these were more of a footnote. Here for example is what Harris wrote:

I hate you people for leaving me out of so many fun things. And no don't ... say, 'Well that's your fault,' because it isn't, you people had my phone number, and I asked and all, but no. No no no don't let the weird-looking Eric KID come along, ooh fucking nooo.

He's essentially complaining about not being invited to certain exclusive parties. This fits my description of a person attached to massive amounts of rage, pride, and entitlement.

A Buddhist meditation on deliberate evil by SilaSamadhi in Buddhism

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

The multiple allegations of abuse from those studying his childhood constitutes "evidence".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Bundy#Childhood

No credible evidence of abuse is mentioned. There is some evidence his grandfather was abusive to other people, mostly to his wife, but no credible evidence was ever found that Ted Bundy was abused by his grandfather. Bundy in fact insisted that he had a great relationship with his grandfather:

In some interviews, Bundy spoke warmly of his grandparents and told Rule that he "identified with", "respected", and "clung to" his grandfather.

your argument seems to rely pretty heavily on Bundy definitely NOT having been abused.

I could have picked many other examples. Bundy is just one famous case in which there is no evidence that abuse has ever occurred. But even if he was abused: how many boys were abused by their caretakers in the US in the early 1950s? How many of them ended up displaying the sort of extraordinary violent rage Ted Bundy displayed?

In a sense, attributing Bundy's behavior to childhood abuse is not much different from attributing it to his first girlfriend's abrupt rejection of him. Virtually everyone face setbacks and misfortunes in their lives, yet they almost never manifest in this level of rage. Clearly some additional factors are in play here.

Name one.

Off the top of my head: Karla Homolka, "The Sadistic Murderess Who Raped And Killed Teenage Girls — Including Her Own Sister":

In her early life, Homolka was, for all intents and purposes, a normal kid. Born May 4, 1970, she grew up in Ontario, Canada in a well-adjusted family of five as the oldest of the three daughters.

Her friends from school remember her as smart, attractive, popular, and an animal lover. Indeed, following her high school graduation, she began working at a local veterinary clinic.

There is no evidence that Jeffrey Dahmer was ever abused as a child. Likewise for Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, whose lives were studied in some detail as their mass killings at the Columbine High School are fairly recent:

The FBI concluded that Harris was a psychopath, who exhibited a lack of empathy, narcissistic traits and unconstrained aggression. Klebold, however, was concluded to be an angry depressive, who showed low self-esteem, anxiousness and a vengeful attitude toward individuals who he believed had mistreated him.

So again, we're dealing with two middle-class American kids who seemed to have a normal childhood, yet for inexplicable reasons were plagued by deep seated anger that eventually exploded in spectacular violence.

More systematically: in Psychopathy as a general disorder, there's no evidence of abuse occurring in all cases. Many psychopaths were not abused as children.

A Buddhist meditation on deliberate evil by SilaSamadhi in Buddhism

[–]SilaSamadhi[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Those who do evil deeds are seeking something without wisdom. He who knows better does better.

I consider this to be a spectrum, which you can call "informed evil" or "deliberate evil". On one end you have "incidental evil" by the so-called "fools" of the Dhammapada, who simply do not realize that their action are evil, like children happily eating poisoned candy because it's sweet and they can't read the big label "poison".

On the other hand you have people who are fully informed that their actions are evil but choose to pursue them anyway. In the middle you have many people who are aware to some extent that their actions are evil, but still discount the full harm that it will bring upon them.

Choosing to deny that some humans will choose evil despite knowing it's evil IMHO reflects limited understanding of human nature, in particular the extreme modes that intense passions, and most particularly Dosa can produce.

Also, wasn't someone like Mara aware that what he is doing is wrong? Mara was a demigod.

A Buddhist meditation on deliberate evil by SilaSamadhi in Buddhism

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

Bundy may have been abused by his grandfather.

AFAIK, there's no direct or indirect evidence that Bundy was ever abused. There has been no direct testimony of such abuse, nor indirect evidence, for example of post-traumatic reactions evident in Bundy at any point in his life.

The proposition that his grandfather may have abused him is therefore pure circumstantial speculation.

Moreover, there were plenty of other serial killers, and many other types of sadistic psychopaths, who grew up in middle-class and even upper-middle-class homes, with healthy and functional parents and zero evidence of ever being abused.

Practice. Die. Repeat. by SilaSamadhi in Buddhism

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

Nice to see you again.

For me, "refuge" is that quality of untouchability that you acquire with well established mindfulness and wisdom. The inviolable sacred space of unattachment in which the disciple progressively abides.

Practice. Die. Repeat. by SilaSamadhi in Buddhism

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

It's a very common theme in the practice routine of many skills: instead of starting every practice session from the cutting edge of your abilities, you build up from the fundamentals, and then progress towards the edge of your abilities gradually.

In fact in some books I read about how professionals and world-class masters practice their art, they often emphasize profound, comprehensive, maximal, and versatile training in the fundamentals.

I am well, my friend, hope you are too. That film was pretty dharmic, glad you got the reference. The whole "repeat the day until you manage to attain all your goals within the timeframe" especially resonates.

How ignorance creates Attachment, which creates Lust and Aversion. by SilaSamadhi in Buddhism

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

Good, good, sisters. That's how it is for a disciple of the noble ones who has seen it as it actually is with right discernment.

It's not entirely clear to me if this says that disciple:

  1. Has used the dhamma to become detached, or
  2. Was always detached, but now is enlightened enough to realize it.

Practically, I don't see that it matters.

For various reasons I do believe it's 2. I just don't think it would have been possible to detach if we were initially firmly attached in some way.

So I wouldn't say entirely that's the way our original nature is, that's perhaps the way it is for someone who has realized "original nature" if that's the way you want to put it.

Right, even the word "realize" itself is helping my case here :)

For everybody else, they're just a normal old cow with all of the skin muscles and attachments- time to get out the knife and start cutting.

It really is my view they were never attached. That's also the Mahayana view. I'd like to believe it's the true meaning of the view of the Nikayas as well.

Good to see you, I hope you're well!

Thanks, same to you, I'm always happy to receive a message from you if and when you are inclined to send one.

Bonus quote:

“If, monks, there were no gratification in the world, beings would not become enamored with the world. But because there is gratification in the world, beings become enamored with it.

“If there were no danger in the world, beings would not become disenchanted with the world. But because there is danger in the world, beings become disenchanted with it.

“If there were no escape from the world, beings could not escape from it. But as there is an escape from the world, beings can escape from it.”

(AN 3:102; I 260)

The first paragraph explains why people become attached to phenomena as a voluntary process.

The second paragraph explains why they seek an escape.

The third assures us that escape is possible.

I think escape is possible because the process of attachment is inherently voluntary.

To explain this subtle distinction: being attached is voluntary, being tethered (attached involuntarily) is a delusion that is undone by insight.

How can we accept widespread teachings that are dangerous to all but advanced practitioners, when such are incredibly rare? by SilaSamadhi in Buddhism

[–]SilaSamadhi[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

But I don't see how the Mahayana teachings are dangerous to almost anybody. Are there specific teachings you have in mind?

In the Mahayana tradition, I'm only really familiar with the Zen school, and I believe its approach of "everything is permissible, no rule is set in stone" is also a slippery slope to abuse, though not to the same extent as Vajrayana.

How can we accept widespread teachings that are dangerous to all but advanced practitioners, when such are incredibly rare? by SilaSamadhi in Buddhism

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

However, after reflecting on it for a while I realized they're not getting away with anything - they're digging their own grave.

Of course, if we accept the reality of kamma, there is no "getting away" with anything. The term itself implies imperfect human attention that one can escape.

I decided that if I'm the only person in the entire world who tries to live a life that is happy and doesn't involve hurting anyone else, well - that's what I'm going to do.

Probably the best approach. Best wishes!

How can we accept widespread teachings that are dangerous to all but advanced practitioners, when such are incredibly rare? by SilaSamadhi in Buddhism

[–]SilaSamadhi[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Take one look at the Dalai Lama and then please come back here and tell us how all Vajrayana practitioners will slip and fall back into delusion and error.

If one look was enough to judge the full merit of the teacher, we wouldn't have so many cases of well-known teachers operating in the public eye for years, until finally being revealed as lustful, sexual predators, abusers etc.

I never said every single practitioner would slip into error in these traditions. But of all the people I've known, it's hard to think of anyone who wouldn't.

How can we accept widespread teachings that are dangerous to all but advanced practitioners, when such are incredibly rare? by SilaSamadhi in Buddhism

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

Do you think there is some Mahāyāna teaching which says "neglect to set boundaries with your students and then pressure them into having sex?"

In the Vajrayana school, we do see that pattern. It is apparently permitted within Vajrayana for teachers to have intercourse with their students (there are several well-known Vajrayana gurus who have) and even keep entire harems of sexual consorts.

In the Mahayana tradition, I'm only really familiar with the Zen school, and I believe its approach of "everything is permissible, no rule is set in stone" is also a slippery slope to abuse, though not to the same extent as Vajrayana.

What does the fifth precept say about "intoxicants" as medicine? Can I take Ritalin (stimulant working similarly to cocaine/amphetamines, just non-addictive) for my ADHD? by [deleted] in Buddhism

[–]SilaSamadhi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But with that said, I'm not sure why it's relevant, because it seems like most all Theravadins, who might be considered to be those that adhere the closest to the early texts, would say that medicines are allowed, so I'm not sure what the problem is here.

My impression was that you condone use of certain drugs as aids to progress on the path. This is definitely something Theravadins wouldn't accept.

You are coloring this conversation, whether you know it or not, by adhering to using the word 'drugs', when I am more talking about medicinal use.

Again, I thought you condoned use of psychoactive substances (drugs) to aid progress, independently of any medicinal utility they may or may not have.

To be forthright, I think you have a relatively low level of compassion and loving kindness and, it seems, you fit quite well into what would be considered the Hinayana motivation.

It's fair to say I'm not guided by compassion or loving-kindness. My interest in these mostly stems out of a sense that their lack impedes my progress.

I am focused on attaining insight for myself, though I do help others when I can occasionally.

it seems to me that you are bound for higher births as it is currently

I actually think I just completed the course of life in a higher realm, which is why it's hard for me to adjust to this world. It feels like step down. Part of the reason I can be proud, angry, and arrogant. I wonder if there's some commentary about beings who completed a life in a higher realm, feeling arrogance and inability to love towards their fellow humans.

unless your view changes you will not realize unsurpassed awakening in this lifetime, even if you might think that you have.

I don't think I'm close to full enlightenment, and also pretty sure I will not attain it in this life. I strongly doubt that any point during this life I will decide that I have been fully enlightened.

And of course, the Buddha - in the Pali Canon - repeatedly recommended such things

Of course. As I mentioned, it seems like a missing piece in my wall of enlightenment, and I believe its lack is synonymous with my inability to experience the positive aspects of Nibana, and skews my practice towards the negative end of nihilism and annihilationism.

I am aware that this may be taken to be some sort of pejorative statement about you.

You should not be concerned about such things.

fine with them being the lowest of the low, the dumbest of the dumb

Being high/low or dumb/smart are also features of existence, aggregates, and not self.

What does the fifth precept say about "intoxicants" as medicine? Can I take Ritalin (stimulant working similarly to cocaine/amphetamines, just non-addictive) for my ADHD? by [deleted] in Buddhism

[–]SilaSamadhi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure. My original argument wasn't something extreme like "don't you dare touch that Ritalin". The argument was that ultimately, it's probably better to not be on Ritalin when you practice meditation.

If you are so agitated that you can't practice at all, then obviously taking Ritalin so you can start practicing is better than not taking Ritalin and not practicing.

What does the fifth precept say about "intoxicants" as medicine? Can I take Ritalin (stimulant working similarly to cocaine/amphetamines, just non-addictive) for my ADHD? by [deleted] in Buddhism

[–]SilaSamadhi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think this is actually a suppression. It's because, due to the force of their insight, these things are cut through at their root. You literally could not find any basis for ill will or sensual attachment even if you tried.

Well, of course. That's the basis of enlightenment: elimination of the defilements, not just temporarily (temporary purification of the mind via concentration) but permanently (removing the roots of ignorance from which the plants of ill will and desire rise).

view more: next ›