Hmmm...just wondering
how does one undo all attachments to oneself or to others when all it takes is the will and determination to make it happen?
if so, then why need become a monk or nun?...all these attachments have always been with us, so why do we still pursue such...(forgive me) symbolic acts?
especially those who are not monks or nuns...they are able to let go and gain attachments easily
u considering to become monk is it?
Nope,
since all of us have the ability to let go and gain attachments, why do we still turn to religion, become monk or nuns when all it takes is the will to do so?
To me, it is extremely pointless to pursue symbolic acts
i prefer meaningful actions and thoughts
To each his or her own.
With or without religion, i believe that what is most important is we must allow ourselves to have a good heart.
Originally posted by Mr Milo:
Hmmm...just wondering
how does one undo all attachments to oneself or to others when all it takes is the will and determination to make it happen?
Do you have lust?
Do you have anger?
Do you have greed?
Do you have attachment to your own idea?
Do you have pride?
Do you envy?
If you still have any of this, It means that you still have attachment to a self, an object etc.
Originally posted by Isis:
Do you have lust?Do you have anger?
Do you have greed?
Do you have attachment to your own idea?
Do you have pride?
Do you envy?
If you still have any of this, It means that you still have attachment to a self, an object etc.
Yah, of course i do
but the point is they come and go
Originally posted by Mr Milo:Yah, of course i do
but the point is they come and go
But how do you will it?
Originally posted by Fantagf:To each his or her own.
With or without religion, i believe that what is most important is we must allow ourselves to have a good heart.
And yes i must agreed with you on this.
Compassion also has to come with action and with wisdom.
Originally posted by Mr Milo:
Hmmm...just wondering
how does one undo all attachments to oneself or to others when all it takes is the will and determination to make it happen?
if so, then why need become a monk or nun?...all these attachments have always been with us, so why do we still pursue such...(forgive me) symbolic acts?
especially those who are not monks or nuns...they are able to let go and gain attachments easily
Hi Mr Milo ,
i would like to say you are mistaken abt Monk and nun
In Buddhism there is no "calling upon " to be a monk or nun
ascetism entails a higher level of discipline and expectation from the community of the Buddhist at large
Although i agree people in the past run to the monastery due to relationship problem with bgr ..but nowadays people understand that the monks and nuns are to guide us when we are "part-time" in our practice
its never a form of escapism in Buddhism to be a monk becos monkhood or nunhood is a very tough life than in the secular world
Waking up 4am to chant and going to bed at 930pm require alot of discipline and concentrate on the path of practice as the offering of the lay community is not given as granted ..
Originally posted by bohiruci:Hi Mr Milo ,
i would like to say you are mistaken abt Monk and nun
In Buddhism there is no "calling upon " to be a monk or nun
ascetism entails a higher level of discipline and expectation from the community of the Buddhist at large
Although i agree people in the past run to the monastery due to relationship problem with bgr ..but nowadays people understand that the monks and nuns are to guide us when we are "part-time" in our practice
its never a form of escapism in Buddhism to be a monk becos monkhood or nunhood is a very tough life than in the secular world
Waking up 4am to chant and going to bed at 930pm require alot of discipline and concentrate on the path of practice as the offering of the lay community is not given as granted ..
since life so tough liao.......still got people go become monk or nun...funny leh...
sometimes it is real hard to let go of attachments cos u know exactly how to turn the situation around yet the outcome might not be what you want
if let go, u will realize sometime later the outcome u want has materialised and by that time u already have something equal to it
how to think or react to it?
this has turned into a sandwich situation......
Originally posted by Mr Milo:since life so tough liao.......still got people go become monk or nun...funny leh...
sometimes it is real hard to let go of attachments cos u know exactly how to turn the situation around yet the outcome might not be what you want
if let go, u will realize sometime later the outcome u want has materialised and by that time u already have something equal to it
how to think or react to it?
this has turned into a sandwich situation......
Chu jiao chu jiao [leaving the household to enter the Masses house ,to help others on the path of realisation
one unrealised layman ask another abt what is realisation is the same as 8 blind man describing the elephant .All give the wrong answerr
by the way this parables is from the Jataka Tales
I guess you concerned with temporal happiness .Permanent Happiness comes only when you realised and awakened that Life is Suffering
No I dun hide the fact that there is happy moments but Life is still Suffering if you see that you birth ,old age ,sickness and death and reborn and reborn and reborn again and again
let me try to answer your question ...
Yes ,we give up of attachment we have a feeling of loss
but if we give up that thing for someone ,isnt that a wonderful idea that we no longer need to be sad if that thing decay,broken and gone ?
to renounce and be a monk is not an easy decision, esp when the monk has to observe 200 plus precepts in the monastic order. the monk also have to study the teachings and meditation.
renunciation does not only mean to give up your present lifestyle but also to renounce your cravings and desires as well. but the real purpose of renunciation is to achieve enlightenment and seek an end to being reborn again.
The wise would not renounce the wrold lar, but would renoucne all the rubbish - in other words be awake to the fact tht one is conditioned, eg, one is not born a Chinese or indian or ..... but one is brought up to be a Chinese or Indian or ...
When one transcends the idea of what is good, what is bad and takes the middle way or approach and is acceptin of what is - one is never split within - one abides to what is.
As for monkhood - my person opinion is it is cowardice - esacpism. One cannot cope with what is and one shuts oneself out.
One hour of meditation is good enough if the other 23 hours one lives meditatively or one responds to living meditatively, the test whether one is deluding oneself or one is being really spiritual or religious or call it whatever one wants to is this: eg is - in a coffeeshop if a assistant is rude or serves ... late or in a bus someone is using profane language - does one react or does one allow and understand and flows. If one gets upset or angry and reactive - then know lar - the meditation ended when the ritual(s) ended!
When one cannot relate to existence one is merely stuck with rituals.
Eg, being a Christian is wise but wearing a badge and uttering that i m a Christian is not. The latter is a prison the former is being free. The same goes for Hinduism, Islam and ......
Being what? Being kind, being ..., being loving, being rude. that is to live religiously
Lest it is miscontstrued - i m merely offering views that may not resonate with some readers here. It is ok, just lump it.
As for attachments one does not have to be detached. As slong as one does not get identified with one does or sees. or expereinces. it is the identification that causes attachment.
A suggestion is - partake of what one does expereince but being awake and alert to the doing or the expereince or .. one is already inwardly detached.
Eg when i say I - if my I includes, my job, my religion, my scriptures, my friends, my spouse then one is bound to be attached. However if the I partakes of ... but when it done or expereince over - one remains I in one's essence of being. one is free!
Originally posted by bohiruci:
Chu jiao chu jiao [leaving the household to enter the Masses house ,to help others on the path of realisation
one unrealised layman ask another abt what is realisation is the same as 8 blind man describing the elephant .All give the wrong answerr
by the way this parables is from the Jataka Tales
I guess you concerned with temporal happiness .Permanent Happiness comes only when you realised and awakened that Life is Suffering
No I dun hide the fact that there is happy moments but Life is still Suffering if you see that you birth ,old age ,sickness and death and reborn and reborn and reborn again and again
let me try to answer your question ...
Yes ,we give up of attachment we have a feeling of loss
but if we give up that thing for someone ,isnt that a wonderful idea that we no longer need to be sad if that thing decay,broken and gone ?
Yes, i am concerned about temporal happiness
And after 1 day thinking through it, i have to agree and accept one will experience loss and will no longer feel sad if it is gone or broken, ect
it took me tons of self-persusasion to let go and see the new path ahead of me
thank you for your advice (/me offers ice milo to bohiruci)
Originally posted by Fugazzi:The wise would not renounce the wrold lar, but would renoucne all the rubbish - in other words be awake to the fact tht one is conditioned, eg, one is not born a Chinese or indian or ..... but one is brought up to be a Chinese or Indian or ...
When one transcends the idea of what is good, what is bad and takes the middle way or approach and is acceptin of what is - one is never split within - one abides to what is.
As for monkhood - my person opinion is it is cowardice - esacpism. One cannot cope with what is and one shuts oneself out.
One hour of meditation is good enough if the other 23 hours one lives meditatively or one responds to living meditatively, the test whether one is deluding oneself or one is being really spiritual or religious or call it whatever one wants to is this: eg is - in a coffeeshop if a assistant is rude or serves ... late or in a bus someone is using profane language - does one react or does one allow and understand and flows. If one gets upset or angry and reactive - then know lar - the meditation ended when the ritual(s) ended!
When one cannot relate to existence one is merely stuck with rituals.
Eg, being a Christian is wise but wearing a badge and uttering that i m a Christian is not. The latter is a prison the former is being free. The same goes for Hinduism, Islam and ......
Being what? Being kind, being ..., being loving, being rude. that is to live religiously
Lest it is miscontstrued - i m merely offering views that may not resonate with some readers here. It is ok, just lump it.
Monkhood is definitely not cowardice, but rather it needs more courage than any other ordinary people to actually renounce their worldly life to pursue something much more meaningful, to seek spiritual truth and liberation for oneself and others.
Rather than escaping the world, monks usually are actively involved in helping lay people on their problems and teaching them the Dharma.
Originally posted by Fugazzi:As for attachments one does not have to be detached. As slong as one does not get identified with one does or sees. or expereinces. it is the identification that causes attachment.
A suggestion is - partake of what one does expereince but being awake and alert to the doing or the expereince or .. one is already inwardly detached.
Eg when i say I - if my I includes, my job, my religion, my scriptures, my friends, my spouse then one is bound to be attached. However if the I partakes of ... but when it done or expereince over - one remains I in one's essence of being. one is free!
Nice sharing. Do you read stuff like Eckhart Tolle?
I do agree with u tthat monks help out - the question is whether he (the monk/nun) is free of all the trappings of organized religion,habits, rituals, traditions and so on so forth .... and only then can he/she free others. If i purport to help someone but in the end make him/her dependent on scriptures, ian any form of religion - I may have set to help him but in reality I never helped him/her.
The centre of one'self' is always the awareness of the unself (ego-disidentification) so as long as one is UNself conscious one does not need a path, cos there is no path. An inward journety into oneself has to come of one's volition and no amount of cajoling or persuasion would suffice. As long there is the self - there is no such thing as being free. Eg this cliched phrase - love oneself. what is often overlooked is love whom ?- love the ego-based persona (masks) or love the indivdual (the indivisible being). When one is cognizant to the pitfalls of confusiing and misintrepreting self and and when one is willing to undersatand, accept then the likelihood of transformation is possible. Otherwise, it is a dog just trying to cathc its tail. Pruning the branches of a tree is chaning the form. In fact, it is giving strength to the roots to sprout more which is merely superficial/. However , cutting the roots is a transformation. It is a new flowering of the very depth of one's being!
So for me the courage is not to be a monk or nun but rather be able ( the ability) to fulfil one's role eg as a father, brother, sister, professsor , driver .... and yet come home to one's being, one's essential being - unaccumulating expereinces, roles ... and one is always free, that is, one partakes of the world in many ways, roles, responsibilities, sharing and yet one is inwardly detached.
Of course, u are free to intrepret and be what u are as it resonates with u.
Eckhart Tolle - yes.
PS _ When i mention 'home' - it is one's being and what is one being? kind, compassionate, loving ..... of course, it presupposes one is attuned to the vertical dimension. Hence, in my preivous posting i mentioned I that is unself which has not attachments but yet partakes of ... The 'I" that defines oneself with roles, identities, scriptiures, family ... is still attachement. The wise would see the folly of it and understand that detachment does not mean moving into a temple, church, or to be alone but rather being able to be in the world and yet not be of it.
Originally posted by Mr Milo:
Nope,
since all of us have the ability to let go and gain attachments, why do we still turn to religion, become monk or nuns when all it takes is the will to do so?
To me, it is extremely pointless to pursue symbolic acts
i prefer meaningful actions and thoughts
Superficially, I'll call monkhood a life style change, one choose the path of life one choose to take! Quite simply, I do not enjoy the way I'm living, I want to empower myself and take direction of my life.
If one can disengage himself enough to practice at home, so be it. However, if one chooses to be free of the shackles and entanglements, and wishes to simpler and less complicated life so as to focus and practise Buddhism. One enter the Sangha or go to mountain and lead an ascetic life.
Originally posted by Fugazzi:I do agree with u tthat monks help out - the question is whether he (the monk/nun) is free of all the trappings of organized religion,habits, rituals, traditions and so on so forth .... and only then can he/she free others. If i purport to help someone but in the end make him/her dependent on scriptures, ian any form of religion - I may have set to help him but in reality I never helped him/her.
The centre of one'self' is always the awareness of the unself (ego-disidentification) so as long as one is UNself conscious one does not need a path, cos there is no path. An inward journety into oneself has to come of one's volition and no amount of cajoling or persuasion would suffice. As long there is the self - there is no such thing as being free. Eg this cliched phrase - love oneself. what is often overlooked is love whom ?- love the ego-based persona (masks) or love the indivdual (the indivisible being). When one is cognizant to the pitfalls of confusiing and misintrepreting self and and when one is willing to undersatand, accept then the likelihood of transformation is possible. Otherwise, it is a dog just trying to cathc its tail. Pruning the branches of a tree is chaning the form. In fact, it is giving strength to the roots to sprout more which is merely superficial/. However , cutting the roots is a transformation. It is a new flowering of the very depth of one's being!
So for me the courage is not to be a monk or nun but rather be able ( the ability) to fulfil one's role eg as a father, brother, sister, professsor , driver .... and yet come home to one's being, one's essential being - unaccumulating expereinces, roles ... and one is always free, that is, one partakes of the world in many ways, roles, responsibilities, sharing and yet one is inwardly detached.
Of course, u are free to intrepret and be what u are as it resonates with u.
Eckhart Tolle - yes.
PS _ When i mention 'home' - it is one's being and what is one being? kind, compassionate, loving ..... of course, it presupposes one is attuned to the vertical dimension. Hence, in my preivous posting i mentioned I that is unself which has not attachments but yet partakes of ... The 'I" that defines oneself with roles, identities, scriptiures, family ... is still attachement. The wise would see the folly of it and understand that detachment does not mean moving into a temple, church, or to be alone but rather being able to be in the world and yet not be of it.
I have to agree with you. Conditionings cannot ultimately liberate a person, so I am not drawn to things like rituals, etc. But I do admit that some people find them useful to certain extents. They are just skillful means. As for monkhood: if it truly helps one's spiritual development and help others, why not, I know of monks who became far more useful to society and could devote more time to their own practice and the work of spreading dharma after renunciation. But again I am not suggesting it is necessary, since many enlightened persons I personally know and met are lay-men.
Scriptures actually help in one's spiritual development, only if there is misunderstanding of scripture without proper guidance that one falls into error. However the scripture is just a pointer, what is important is to practice what the scripture says and realise them for ourselves.
Regarding the I AM/Beingness you talked about, very often it is understood that beingness is in the experience of "I AM", even without the words and label of "I AM", the 'pure sense of existence', the presence still IS. It is a state of resting in Beingness.
But in Buddhism, it is also possible to experience everything, every moment the unmanifested.
The key also lies in 'You' but it is to "see" that there is no 'You' instead. It is to 'see' that there is never any do-er standing in the midst of phenomenal arising. There is just mere happening due to emptiness nature, never an 'I' doing anything. When the 'I' subsides, symbols, labels and the entire layer of conceptual realm goes with it. What is left without a 'doer' is a mere happening.
And seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting and smelling and not only that, everything appears as purely spontaneous manifestation. A whole Presence of the manifold. :)
Also see our moderator's Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment
Originally posted by Mr Milo:Yes, i am concerned about temporal happiness
And after 1 day thinking through it, i have to agree and accept one will experience loss and will no longer feel sad if it is gone or broken, ect
it took me tons of self-persusasion to let go and see the new path ahead of me
thank you for your advice (/me offers ice milo to bohiruci)
thanks ,it makes me feel like we are back in the good old days of IRC
/me
/think .. :)
Originally posted by Mr Milo:
Hmmm...just wondering
how does one undo all attachments to oneself or to others when all it takes is the will and determination to make it happen?
if so, then why need become a monk or nun?...all these attachments have always been with us, so why do we still pursue such...(forgive me) symbolic acts?
especially those who are not monks or nuns...they are able to let go and gain attachments easily
According to my old folks, they told me, this live, become a monk or nun, is for next life. Next life, they will be free of sufferring when they reborn.
Originally posted by likeyou:According to my old folks, they told me, this live, become a monk or nun, is for next life. Next life, they will be free of sufferring when they reborn.
Actually, the purpose is to be free from suffering in this very life, and many practioners, monks included but lay-men included also, achieved this goal in this very life.
Also if that person did not achieve enlightenment in this lifetime, it doesn't mean he would achieve enlightenment in the next. But the practice continues.
Also the Buddhist goal is not to reborn in a realm of heaven as even that is temporary and subject to impermanence. The Buddhist goal is to end the uncontrolled cycle of rebirth and suffering. So we do not look to the next life to be free of suffering. Any future births as more bondage.
question to ask. does Mahayanists all aspire for Buddhahood?
Originally posted by Rooney9:question to ask. does Mahayanists all aspire for Buddhahood?
Most, I think all the Mahayanists I know vow to attain Buddhahood.