What "action" are you referring to, then?As I said prior its a question of semantics. My usage of the word action does not denote anything like the mindless money comparison analogy you make.
Upvote
0
What "action" are you referring to, then?As I said prior its a question of semantics. My usage of the word action does not denote anything like the mindless money comparison analogy you make.
Actually, I agree with you. IMO samsara is ultimately neutral, a training ground, so to speak. I agree that it is our perceptions that color events in samsara. Anicca, therefore dukkha, therefore anatta.If I read you correctly, ananda, your understanding of Buddhism is:
"Life as we know it is garbage, so let's get rid of it and exchange it for something better, something permanent."
The way I see things (which might also be a possible reading of Buddhism is):
"Our perception of life is faulty, leading to all kinds of expectations and entanglements that cause suffering, as we either expect impermanent things to remain unchanging, or else find fault with everything for failing to do so."
What "action" are you referring to, then?
From a very high level analysis: Your attachment to the man resulted in an action which caused a birth, and birth always results in decay and death, which results in dukkha.... no concepts or hypotheticals on any wider ramifications that 'you think' occur, just the interaction on how it played out as I relayed it.
I cannot speak of this because I have no direct knowledge of this.
You speak of "personalities" as if we have static, unchanging personalities that remain in the next reality.
No, evidence tells me even now that my personality is constantly changing - our lifestream is in an unending state of flux, taking in new ideas from others and the world around us, discarding other ideas and thoughts.
Well how would one know which interpretation is the truth within the Quran?being different is a thing and different interpretation is another thing..the Quran is true and didn't change since it was revealed yet the difference in interpretation cannot be a proof of being wrong or corrupted
From a very high level analysis: Your attachment to the man resulted in an action which caused a birth, and birth always results in decay and death, which results in dukkha.
Unfortunately, I have no knowledge of this dogma for myself. What I can and do see is constant change.... once recorded the data cannot be changed and remains the same on the media to the last, so is the eternity, once something is done in the current eternity, the same is exactly what will be done in every next/future eternity at the same time and place it happened in the current eternity - IOW, we humans are the ones that draw our destiny, whatever we do in the current eternity, the same is what will be done in every next/future eternity by the same personalities that we are now, so the eternity is like one movie/film that replays over and over again in the course of the time's infinity, only the "actors" are successively alternated as to the "roles" (one step ahead for every eternity), everyone will successively be in the place and position of any other......
I didn't expect you would have experienced immediate dukkha. Instead, you probably experienced short-term sukkha from the act of giving, and so did the other man, being temporarily enriched.A very high level analysis, interesting. No in that moment I experienced none of those things.
Man is evil in his very nature. I don't see any reason to water this truth down. If one does not fundamentally understand the anthropology of man, then to claim that men seek God, in and of themselves, is erroneous.
If I wasn't interested, I wouldn't have created this thread, and contributed to its growth to 46 pages
Eh? I thought I was having a genteel parley with like-minded folk.And here I thought you just wanted to fight with everyone.
I didn't expect you would have experienced immediate dukkha. Instead, you probably experienced short-term sukkha from the act of giving, and so did the other man, being temporarily enriched.
In the long-term sense, you provided him a bit of extra money, probably prolonging for a bit of additional time his temporal, physical existence (and thus extending his experience of long-term dukkha).
Unfortunately, I have no knowledge of this dogma for myself. What I can and do see is constant change.
When did I claim your interaction with the man was dysfunctional?As I said prior these are statements not explanations. For you to explain why a reciprocal interactive connection between two humans is dysfunctional involves you casting your net into concepts and hypotheticals, things you don't know. You also make assumptions about me and the person I interacted with.
Finding dysfunction in the way we interacted and making those statements is no different than a Christian telling you Buddhism is not the right path for you because it doesn't get you into heaven. I'm assuming that would mean very little to you on your path?
Perhaps so. Is that an official judgment of a prophet of the true One, or a personal opinion?it seems as if you are extremely dull
Blessings
The idea that there's no need to ever water this down has been troubling to me for a while, though. How do Calvinists handle people with depression and self-hatred issues?