Other conditions today???

[ground]

Hi All,
although I have seen this sentiment befor, it is raising its head again, and I am curious
to quote the post

would somebody who have no more doubt, doubt that we live 2500 years after the Buddha with other conditions?

I am curious as to what the Buddha Taught and how it is no longer relevant today?

I personally see no difference on the practical level and the level of the teaching, sure externally we have different means of distracting, pleasuring, & harming ourselves and others, but on the level of practice it is the same from my perspective. Even on the more metaphysical level of rebirth, heavens... these have not been disproved to my knowledge either, ``so those of you who believe there are different conditions... than 2600 years ago please clarify what they are and why.

so here are the questions
what are these other conditions?

Knowledge and information.

why are they different to causes in the time of the Buddha?

Because poeple were not educated the way they are today. Scientific knowledge is readily available for everyone. More skills in critical analysis.

how are the teachings disproved, irrelevant, not appropriate to them; and why?

Due to information and knowledge and education people today are in a better position to "see through" all these teachings, to see the intent behind them without having to take them literally. This does not necessarily disprove the teachings in a didactic sense however.

how is this outside world more materialistic or worse for practice or what ever else you believe it to be, and how does that change things in regard to the teachings & practice?

It may not support blind faith in the same way but that is an advantage.

how are we any different (in relation to the Buddhas teachings of what the problem is & its cause) to people back when the teachings took place? and why does this matter?

see above.

how & why is it more complicated/difficult to see today than then? how do we proliferate, ignore the obvious, fool ourselves any more than then?

Actually it is easier to see today due to knowledge and information.

[Hanzze]

I would say, exactly that what some call knowledge is that what make it much more difficult. The knowledge bubble is so big, that many take it for real and it is much more difficult to find a way out of this labyrinth. But also here a matter of your own merits in the past: Did you believe all what was taught to you since you had opened the eyes in this very live... I guess we even have developed great mechanism to maintain those believes very well.

There is a nice experience I would like to tell:

Once I was asked from kids (rice farmer children) to explain mathematics. They usually have real problem to understand math especial if it turns under zero. The problem was to understand numbers under zero like 0.5 or 1/2. They could not get it. Then I took a potato, cut it into two pieces. Putting them together I aksed: "What is this?" "A potato." Then I divided (harming in the name of science) it, showed them one part and asked them again and they answered: "A potato" I replayed, yes but how of what amount: "A piece" "And if I cut one whole it in the middle?" "two pieces".

I simply started to laugh and thought: "How stupid we are to teach people such illusions and fiction as something like a real half would never exist." How ever they need to learn the common fiction to be able to lead a harmonious live and understand what people like to talk about.

Worldly Science is good to understand that worldly science is a trappy fiction and just conditioned by much creativity (karma).

[Cittasanto]

Hi Ground,
Just answering the questions somewhat pointedly due to time constraints and other bits I want to do right now

what are these other conditions?

Knowledge and information.

why are they different to causes in the time of the Buddha?

Because poeple were not educated the way they are today. Scientific knowledge is readily available for everyone. More skills in critical analysis.

how do these make a difference, considering greed, hatred & delusion are still present? and can you show how critical analasis it better today? the early texts demonstrate a high level of analysis.

how are the teachings disproved, irrelevant, not appropriate to them; and why?

Due to information and knowledge and education people today are in a better position to "see through" all these teachings, to see the intent behind them without having to take them literally. This does not necessarily disprove the teachings in a didactic sense however.

the teachings disproved, irrelevant, not appropriate to them is not shown here.

how is this outside world more materialistic or worse for practice or what ever else you believe it to be, and how does that change things in regard to the teachings & practice?

It may not support blind faith in the same way but that is an advantage.

Blind faith was not encouraged anyway, and if someone is a faith type....

how are we any different (in relation to the Buddhas teachings of what the problem is & its cause) to people back when the teachings took place? and why does this matter?

see above.

which one? if you are refering to knowledge & information, that doesn't answer the question as Greed; hatred & delusion are still pressent, and the four noble truths are still true (which was the level of the question).

how & why is it more complicated/difficult to see today than then? how do we proliferate, ignore the obvious, fool ourselves any more than then?

Actually it is easier to see today due to knowledge and information.

do you have any support for this?

[ground]

Hi Ground,
Just answering the questions somewhat pointedly due to time constraints and other bits I want to do right now

what are these other conditions?

Knowledge and information.

why are they different to causes in the time of the Buddha?

Because poeple were not educated the way they are today. Scientific knowledge is readily available for everyone. More skills in critical analysis.

how do these make a difference, considering greed, hatred & delusion are still present? and can you show how critical analasis it better today? the early texts demonstrate a high level of analysis.

The issue was the Buddha's teachings. One does not need them to know that there is greed, hatred & delusion.

how are the teachings disproved, irrelevant, not appropriate to them; and why?

Due to information and knowledge and education people today are in a better position to "see through" all these teachings, to see the intent behind them without having to take them literally. This does not necessarily disprove the teachings in a didactic sense however.

the teachings disproved, irrelevant, not appropriate to them is not shown here.

"disproved, irrelevant, not appropriate" was not even asserted generally. Obviously it is relevant and appropriate for some people ... e.g. for you. For others who can make good use of present information and knowledge it is irrelevant and not appropriate without causing any harm.

how is this outside world more materialistic or worse for practice or what ever else you believe it to be, and how does that change things in regard to the teachings & practice?

It may not support blind faith in the same way but that is an advantage.

Blind faith was not encouraged anyway, and if someone is a faith type....

What if I call even the idea of "liberation from samsara" blind faith?

how & why is it more complicated/difficult to see today than then? how do we proliferate, ignore the obvious, fool ourselves any more than then?

Actually it is easier to see today due to knowledge and information.

do you have any support for this?

Yes but I cannot transmit it to you with words


See I know that you are a believer and I do not have to prove or disprove anything. I can accept beliefs in the same way I can accept non-beliefs. I just stated my view which is based on knowing. However it seems to me that this knowing was somehow caused by some of the Buddha's teachings, certainly not all of it. Actuall there is nothing in his relevant teachings that is not known today in the sphere of science. It is just that it is not common capacity to make use of this available scientific knowledge and information but the latter seems to apply to the Buddha's teachings too so there is no difference regarding that which would make the teachings better than science or science better than the teachings. But there is science today which was not there during the times of the Buddha and that was the starting point of this view sharing.

[manas]

(edited out: a bit harsh, in retrospect.)

[Cittasanto]

The issue was the Buddha's teachings. One does not need them to know that there is greed, hatred & delusion.

The Buddha did not have the teachings nor modern science before his enlightenment yet still managed to see the three root conditions.

"disproved, irrelevant, not appropriate" was not even asserted generally. Obviously it is relevant and appropriate for some people ... e.g. for you. For others who can make good use of present information and knowledge it is irrelevant and not appropriate without causing any harm.

it was the question though!

What if I call even the idea of "liberation from samsara" blind faith?

you wouldn't be answering the question.

Yes but I cannot transmit it to you with words

then use pictures!
otherwise you have no verifiable evidence.

[ground]

The issue was the Buddha's teachings. One does not need them to know that there is greed, hatred & delusion.

The Buddha did not have the teachings nor modern science before his enlightenment yet still managed to see the three root conditions.

This is what transmission says, yes. And you may take this as basis for veneration. Here is where psychology may come in.

Yes but I cannot transmit it to you with words

then use pictures!
otherwise you have no verifiable evidence.

You mean objectively verifiable? Well there is no objectively verifiable evidence for the validity of the Buddha's teachings either.

Kind regards

[Cittasanto]

The issue was the Buddha's teachings. One does not need them to know that there is greed, hatred & delusion.

The Buddha did not have the teachings nor modern science before his enlightenment yet still managed to see the three root conditions.

This is what transmission says, yes. And you may take this as basis for veneration. Here is where psychology may come in.

How? again you are not answering anything.
and modern psychology did not exist then so un-usable then.
if the Buddha did not discover this path and then teach it it would of been another who was the original expounder of the teachings and pointless to accredit the Buddha as such.
so the question would be here; where did he get the teachings from?

Yes but I cannot transmit it to you with words

then use pictures!
otherwise you have no verifiable evidence.

You mean objectively verifiable? Well there is no objectively verifiable evidence for the validity of the Buddha's teachings either.

Actally it is Objectively Verifiable, The teachings have all the necessary requirements, indicators... so others can put them to the test (of which people have) and find the validity or not of the practice. it is verifiable in exactly the same way as any phychological system.

you are/can not provide any support for your claims, as a result this is winding up very quickly.

[jason c]

hey cittasanto,
i practice vipassana meditation as taught by s.n.goenka, who teaches that this method of meditation is the preserved teaching of the buddha. this method agrees with me personally, but i do not believe this is the only practice that can lead to liberation. in my own case, i led a life chasing after every possible pleasure available, i pursued money , climbed mountains, traveled exstensively, chased women, took intoxicants,etc...... ; all the time desperately looking for peace of mind. finally, i hit my bottom, i saw what i had become, the single most wretched human on the face of the earth and in a flash, an instant, i understood the futility of everything(there was clarity). i began a process of eliminating everything out of my life that was not absolutly neccessary for my survival, my wife freaked out, but i kept going with the understanding that these changes were for the greater good, and with the understanding that if i became a better person as a result of these changes she would not want to leave. i then came across a book by eckhart tolle(the new earth). this book introduced me to the human ego, and to god, two things i was afraid to look at because of ignorance and previous mental conditioning, and the reward for looking at these two things was another huge weight of karmic debt gone forever. this book was very liberating but it was not enough i still had anger buried deep inside me, this led to my arrival on the steps of a buddhist temple. learning to meditate, reading the teachings of the buddha i realized that the teachings of eckhart tolle are the same as the teachings of the buddha but it was eckhart tolle who reached me, and i will forever be thankful to that man and his teachings. but eckharts actual practice did not work for me, neither did the practice at the temple i was going to. someone mentioned goenka's retreat and when i read about the strict code of conduct the intensive sittings something in side me said this is what you need to do. i went and boom another huge chunk of karmic debt was gone forever. i kept going back and developing my practice, and then it just happened for me, an experience if you want to call it that, and with the maturity of knowledge of this experience, all my doubt about the teachings was eliminated, i had found what i had been looking for, and a great peace has come over me. now when i listen to the teachings of eckhart tolle, the buddha, krishnamurti , and other enlightened beings i have a deeper understanding of their words. so the enlightened beings of this day and age will use whatever knowledge is available to teach the message, and meditation teachers will use different methods to take people to the same destination. the important thing is to find the truth and be able to recognise the truth in its many wonderful forms. do not be to attatched to this buddha or that buddha, this method or that method, what works for you may not work for others. the buddha's teachings are just as relevent today, they are timeless, but we have to open our self to these teachings first. my hope is that others do not have to go through the torture that i did to find them.
metta,
jason

[Cittasanto]

Hi Jason,
Interesting but isn't what is being asked here, please see the OP.

[jason c]

Hi Jason,
Interesting but isn't what is being asked here, please see the OP.

hey cittasanto, maybe im confused by what you are trying to achieve with this topic.
human being is still human being but the ignorance changes, although it is still simply ignorance, some of us need different methods to free ourselves from the ignorance that can allow us to see the teachings of the enlightened ones.
metta,
jason

[Cittasanto]

Hi Jason,
Can you answer the question in the OP, it would be easier to address all the areas then.

Hi Jason,
Interesting but isn't what is being asked here, please see the OP.

hey cittasanto, maybe im confused by what you are trying to achieve with this topic.
human being is still human being but the ignorance changes, although it is still simply ignorance, some of us need different methods to free ourselves from the ignorance that can allow us to see the teachings of the enlightened ones.
metta,
jason

[jason c]

hey cittasanto,
i have to run out, i could try to answer each question individually in more detail later .
i feel i have answered and agreed with mostly your views, my only squabble is how people find the teachings of the buddhas today. it doesn't have to come in a particular package. the essence and destination is what is of relevance.
metta,
jason

[Cittasanto]

Hi Jason
well that goes beyond the purpose of this thread, it isn't about other ways to reach enlightenment, but other conditions which may effect the teachings & there effectiveness today, hence the subforum.

hey cittasanto,
i have to run out, i could try to answer each question individually in more detail later .
i feel i have answered and agreed with mostly your views, my only squabble is how people find the teachings of the buddhas today. it doesn't have to come in a particular package. the essence and destination is what is of relevance.
metta,
jason

[Kamran]

One difference is that we are inundated with far more information than in the Buddha's time.

Marketing, 24 hours news, ads, political propaganda, and multitude of screens are constantly distracting our a attention.

The Buddha once compared sensory input to a flayed cow with no skin, and every where the cow went insects would bore into its flesh.

I think there are more insects boring into our us than there were in the Buddha's time.

[Cittasanto]

Hi Kamran,
This has been noted in the OP, and I disagree that their is more, it is only different form.
Although it does apear to be more.

One difference is that we are inundated with far more information than in the Buddha's time.

Marketing, 24 hours news, ads, political propaganda, and multitude of screens are constantly distracting our a attention.

The Buddha once compared sensory input to a flayed cow with no skin, and every where the cow went insects would bore into its flesh.

I think there are more insects boring into our us than there were in the Buddha's time.

[Kamran]

Hi Cittasanto,

I admittedly only have a vague idea of what life was like in the Buddha's time. I imagine an agricultural society where most people work as manual laborers with no electricity, so that it is quiet and peaceful at night.

Whereas in most modern societies more people work with their minds, and scientific studies have shown that the body uses more energy with mental work than in physical labor.

For instance, an engineer in a high pressure job does not stop thinking about work when he leaves his job. A manual laborer does not think about his job when the day is over, he just goes home and has a beer or something....

On the other hand, maybe in the Buddha's time thoughts of getting enough food for your family, and diseases that we don't have to worry about were more common.

[jason c]

Hi All,
although I have seen this sentiment before, it is raising its head again, and I am curious
to quote the post

would somebody who have no more doubt, doubt that we live 2500 years after the Buddha with other conditions?

(emphasis added)
I am curious in relation to what the Buddha Taught how these "other conditions" make it no longer relevant today?

I personally see no difference on the practical level and the level of the teaching, sure externally we have different means of distracting, pleasuring, & harming ourselves and others, but on the level of practice it is the same from my perspective. Even on the more metaphysical level of rebirth, heavens... these have not been disproved to my knowledge either, so can still be seen as relevant & useful by those who believe in such things.
those of you who believe there are different conditions... than 2600 years ago please clarify what they are and why?

so here are more precise questions for those who believe there are "other conditions"

what are these other conditions?

why & how are they different to causes in the time of the Buddha?

how & why are the teachings disproved, irrelevant, not appropriate due to these new conditions?

how is this outside world more materialistic/worse for practice/what ever else you believe it to be, and how does that change things in regard to the teachings & practice?

how are we different (in relation to the Buddhas teachings & practice) to people back when the teachings took place? and why does this matter?

how & why is it more complicated/difficult to see today than then? how do we proliferate, ignore the obvious, fool ourselves any more than then?

if 6a is not relivant to you please answer 6b instead

how & why is it easier to see today than in the Buddha's time? how don't we proliferate, ignore the obvious, fool ourselves less than then?

if both 6a & 6b are not relevant please come up with your own question and answer it, but please indicate a question you are answering

(edited to try to make it easier to understand.)

question 1. the buddha was alive then .
2. now he is dead.
3. they are not, but are you sure you are practicing the buddhas teachings?
4. its perfectly imperfect to practice in
5. we're not. we can still practice his way
6a.its not.
6b. there is the possibility we could have more free time
metta ,
jason

[ground]

you are/can not provide any support for your claims, as a result this is winding up very quickly.

It never has been my intention to provide what you call "support" because I know that it is merely a matter of belief. I just wanted to share my view. As someone who has gotten deeply involved in the literal teachings you seem to be greedy to defend your religious view and negate mine which is more balanced and distanced. It is obvious that conditions today are different. It is just that you want to establish exclusive and absolute truth of the teachings you have gotten involved in very deeply. Your intent is quite "natural" for religious believers.

“You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe”

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/you_can ... 91321.html

Kind regards

[Cittasanto]

you are/can not provide any support for your claims, as a result this is winding up very quickly.

It never has been my intention to provide what you call "support" because I know that it is merely a matter of belief. I just wanted to share my view. As someone who has gotten deeply involved in the literal teachings you seem to be greedy to defend your religious view and negate mine which is more balanced and distanced. It is obvious that conditions today are different. It is just that you want to establish exclusive and absolute truth of the teachings you have gotten involved in very deeply. Your intent is quite "natural" for religious believers.

“You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe”

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/you_can ... 91321.html

Kind regards

you are using belief as though this negates an open mindedness, which is quite frankly silly; and the challenge is to support your views, as what these questions are addressing possibly effects the teachings in a big way.

so unless you have something demonstrable (something science likes) you are simply holding a belief and trying to shirk the burden of proof.