Other conditions today???

[Hanzze]

Seems that we need to work on better conditions. How ever, it was one more time a change. Don't worry to try it on and on. Things change, and if good done in a way that we might have better conditions. Not always there is so much free-will as we might believe.

One thing for sure, one can not suddenly change the conditions of others maybe even impossible. But the try would maybe better ones own condition as one needs to let go.

There need to be much work done till right concentration can arise.

I guess somebody in a situation where he is not able to gain further development, would no easily know it. Somehow, like a fool does not understand that he is a fool. To change his situation needs always a realization. A Dhammapada quote came into my mind.

63. A fool who knows his foolishness is wise at least to that extent, but a fool who thinks himself wise is a fool indeed.

That is mostly very connected with gratidute or can give rise to gratidude. How ever, even if realized that one self is a fool, there is still much wokr to do to get wise. The idea "I am wise" is moslty a very bad condition to continue or understand the path.

But even so and all seems perfect, the condition of somebody could be very bad.

64. Though all his life a fool associates with a wise man, he no more comprehends the Truth than a spoon tastes the flavor of the soup.

[Cittasanto]

this thread is specific (as already noted earlier).

[befriend]

what about nicotine that is a chemical, dont know if nicotine is natural or not, but def a deterrrent to the holy life. they might have had tobacco but i dont think they would have the addictive additives they have today.

[Cittasanto]

what about nicotine that is a chemical, dont know if nicotine is natural or not, but def a deterrrent to the holy life. they might have had tobacco but i dont think they would have the addictive additives they have today.

as I understand it, tobacco is from america and not found in other places???? so they wouldn't of had that. however they did have adictive substances, such as alcohol, beetle nut (thai ajahns use) and others. but how would this change the ability to practice?

[Hanzze]

this thread is specific (as already noted earlier).

Maybe I am not very smart or do not understand. Can you express the specific one more time. No need to take reference of what was said or quoted before. So what is the specific use of this topic (according to your perceptions in this regard).

Thanks for your patient.

[Alex123]

Buddha was alive 2,500 years ago. He could straiten out misunderstandings of His teaching. Today we don't have such condition. It would have been interesting if we could compare His teaching and what we have of it today with all the schools and many different opinions...

Plus, it seems that people were much tougher in those times than today. This is another condition.

[Cittasanto]

Buddha was alive 2,500 years ago. He could straiten out misunderstandings of His teaching. Today we don't have such condition. It would have been interesting if we could compare His teaching and what we have of it today with all the schools and many different opinions...

Plus, it seems that people were much tougher in those times than today. This is another condition.

it would be interesting but how does that or the tougher idea relate to the questions in to op & quoted above?

[Hanzze]

I really think that you need rethink what you actually try to express as it seems that eigher to answer your questions direct or indirect, it is how ever not in line with your thought-consturctions in regard of todays condition. Let us understand.

Do you like to have a simply "NO" on your topic question?

[Cittasanto]

this thread is specific (as already noted earlier).

Maybe I am not very smart or do not understand. Can you express the specific one more time. No need to take reference of what was said or quoted before. So what is the specific use of this topic (according to your perceptions in this regard).

Thanks for your patient.

I find this very disingenuous - even if it is true - because of your behaviour in general here. As it has been explained several times to you directly, I am not willing to bother trying to explain it to you again.

[Cittasanto]

I really think that you need rethink what you actually try to express as it seems that eigher to answer your questions direct or indirect, it is how ever not in line with your thought-consturctions in regard of todays condition. Let us understand.

Do you like to have a simply "NO" on your topic question?

please learn to read, nowhere there do I ask for a yes or no answer.

[Hanzze]

this thread is specific (as already noted earlier).

Maybe I am not very smart or do not understand. Can you express the specific one more time. No need to take reference of what was said or quoted before. So what is the specific use of this topic (according to your perceptions in this regard).

Thanks for your patient.

I find this very disingenuous - even if it is true - because of your behaviour in general here. As it has been explained several times to you directly, I am not willing to bother trying to explain it to you again.

Also not if I would beg you?

please learn to read, nowhere there do I ask for a yes or no answer.

Of cause nowhere there you do ask for a yes or no answer, I also did not say that you somewhere asked for a no or yes answer (write that) but it is a possible conclusion, as most answers seem to cause some kind of aversion or are far aside of what you like to point on.

[Cittasanto]

please learn to read, nowhere there do I ask for a yes or no answer.

Of cause nowhere there you do ask for a yes or no answer, I also did not say that you somewhere asked for a no or yes answer (write that) but it is a possible conclusion, as most answers seem to cause some kind of aversion or are far aside of what you like to point on.

as your question was "Do you like to have a simply "NO" on your topic question?" it is asking that very question.

back to topic or restrain yourself from responding here!

[Hanzze]

what is the topic of your topic from your view? Or are the conditions (that you can accept things as on topic) still the same? Conditions do not change that fast, but they are changeable and change in any way. Lets look, maybe they are different tomorrow.

[Cittasanto]

what is the topic of your topic from your view? Or are the conditions (that you can accept things as on topic) still the same? Conditions do not change that fast, but they are changeable and change in any way. Lets look, maybe they are different tomorrow.

please refrain from posting any further!

[edit= this request is due to repeated requests to stay on topic initially in this thread, and refusal to answer questions apart from the same one which quickly became circular.
Explanations have previously been given and ignored so now less than willing to humour such behaviour further here. This was after all what led to me requesting the thread be closed.]

[daverupa]

Question 1 - what are these other conditions?

One example might be the chronological and cultural distance we have from the texts, which earlier populations experienced differently, or even not at all when one goes back far enough.

Question 2 - why & how are they different to causes in the time of the Buddha?

The words used, the implicit understandings which were part and parcel of that milieu, the off-hand remarks and idiomatic expressions referring to a connotative realm wholly foreign to us today, all of this contributes to the distance mentioned in Q1.

Question 3 - how & why are the teachings disproved, irrelevant, not appropriate due to these new conditions?

The teachings, overall, require a careful approach in order to make salient the presuppositions and assumptions one brings to them, but this has probably always been true. I think the field is simply different, rather than better or worse, so the teachings are not necessarily disproved, irrelevant, or inappropriate due to this, but changes in emphasis can certainly be seen (in the West, meditation over merit-making, for example).

Question 4 - 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?

I think access to the internet and television and personal music players are all worth mentioning; the barrage of entertainment is certainly greater. The world is now largely one of readers, not oral traditions, which changes pedagogical approaches to the Dhamma. Most people have a fundamental outlook which is based on modern science, which gives them an altogether different world view about how things work. Other examples can be mentioned, but they are in alignment with being mere differences, per Q3.

Question 5 - how are we different (in relation to the Buddhas teachings & practice) to people back when the teachings took place? and why does this matter?

World-view as above, the linguistic differences which change how experience and conversation is naturally framed, and lack of familiarity with the colloquialisms of the day are all differences which increase the need for careful scrutiny of the texts.

Question 6#

It isn't necessarily easier or harder to get at the Dhamma, just different.