[Buddha-l] Re: What are the "joys of living"?

[Vicente Gonzalez]

Mike wrote:

MA> So, it is not necessary to do something in order to not want to do
MA> it. Maybe  it often happens that way, but it is not a
MA> prerequisite. 

I agree. The difference with your argumentation is that I think we
have done it. 
We are able to know a same nature in different motives presented to
us. In this way, our past experiences with some of them can be enough
to avoid the similar ones.
If we look at our own life, we can realize that we have killed,
stolen, lied and the rest. In example, when we were children we have
killed ants or little animals. This experience allow us to understand
this thing and the sense of a law. From here, to apply the respect for
the life to any other being.

However, if somebody doesn't have a notion of life and death, he will
not be able to avoid that action when he lack of an inner conviction
about the nature of that. For this reason children are innocent in
front laws, etc...


MA> It is like  taking poison. One has a fear of taking poison because
MA> one has a fear of  the result. Thus one renounces samsara.

it is because we know that poison. Paracelso already discovered that
really there is not poison but different doses.
Experience of unwholesome things is needed precisely to be able of
renounce samsara. See the Buddha life. He was the being with the best
karma of this world but he needed the life of Siddharta before become
a Buddha. 

MA> One can at least cease to create further causes.  Then one can also take
MA> action against previous causes, just as one may brake a car after having
MA> accumulated speed.  Of course, the status of 'causes' is a philosophical
MA> issue. If it were the case that there were distinct, existing causes, it
MA> would be the case that the results must arise immediately. It is because
MA> things depend on a multitude of conditioning factors that some so-called
MA> 'causes' may be averted.

I agree with you all time but in a partial way.
We are able to put an end to causes of in dependence of our knowledge
of them. It is always limited but also it is higher when we have some
experience of them.

MA> I remember seeing a cartoon of a guy reading a book called "Being in the
MA> Moment". On his desk, there was a book "Being in the Moment after That."
MA> Although this is funny, it tells a story.  One can 'be in the moment' if
MA> one is unconcerned about the future.  So how does one become unconcerned
MA> about the future? One reduces actions that produce dukkha. Merely 'being
MA> in the moment' - i.e. as some sort of slogan - without appreciating this
MA> is like trying to achieve liberation through ignorance.

Well, I agree. Avoiding dukkha and purify the mind it's a way to reach
the present moment. 

Note while we are talking about dukkha, one is engaged quickly in the
problem of reaching the present moment. While the mind is engaged in
seeking truth, thoughts about unwholesome actions decreases in a
natural way. There is a natural morality arising when wisdom improves.
For this same reason, teaching the avoiding of sex and salsa for
beginners it's one of the more bizarre things that I have read in this
list. Because one should known by himself the coherence of such rules
to have an inner conviction. The preach it's a poor patch.

If one wants to follow Vinaya, the way of home-leavers, he need to be
a home-leaver. If one doesn't want such life, then one should know the
purpose of Vinaya before try to adopt that in the lay life.
Vinaya is the higher practice to be established in the present moment
by purifying the mind. However, these rules cannot be applied for a
lay person in society, because they can cause dukkha and the
abandonment of the Way. No master in the Buddhist history teached
permanent Vinaya rules for lay people. It is a complete aberration.

It remembers what happens in some religions, in where some preachers
teaches the lay people to follow strict rules which in origin belonged
to ascetics and monks. It is a crazy thing. People leaves such 
discourses except in those dirty relations involving the submission
of other minds. There is some people who enjoy the lust of such
minister because they see their brothers and sisters as toys to calm
his own anguish and miseries. They want celebrity, be famous,
the submission. That people belongs to Mara.

Not Buddha neither Jesus they preached to lay followers to follow
these strict rules. They teached self-control and respect, and not
forgetting the true goal of human being while one is engaged in the
lay life. Taking some precepts and keeping a practice according the
situation, until they can reach by themselves an higher intention.

There is a future only for those Religions able to return to their own
roots, and it means able to respect the space of lay people.
The consequence will be the respect of lay people to the religious life.
As always has happened. If one want to taste the life under Vinaya, he
can go to any Monastery, and TRUE followers of Vinaya sure they will
be happy to teach him. Without lies. 

Preachers of anguish go home.

best regards,