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

[Mike Austin]

In message <1985255190.20060628130441 at gmail.com>, Vicente Gonzalez 
<vicen.bcn at gmail.com> writes
>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.

My position is that we may have done it for some activities. For others, 
we can envisage what the results will be, so we do not even try. Surely, 
there must be negative activities that you have not even attempted?


>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.

I am not saying that we cannot learn from our mistakes. I am saying that 
we do not need to make those mistakes in order to learn. For example, we 
may both have killed ants, but we would never have killed humans.


>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...

Again, one does need to kill to have a notion of life and death. One can 
have a notion of life and death by merely seeing a dead animal - or even 
by having a near death experience oneself.


>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.

One experiences dukkha (i.e. the results of unwholesome actions) in this 
life without having to perform more unwholesome actions. Indeed, one may 
perform unwholesome actions and not even experience the results for such 
a long time that one cannot see any connection between cause and effect. 
One's mere existence in samsara  provides all the evidence one needs for 
renunciation.


>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.

Did he kill or steal or harm others through sexual misconduct? Moreover, 
did he encourage us to do so? He observed.


>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.

Our suffering may be higher, but not necessarily our knowledge. I think 
your main point is really that more suffering provides more motivation. 
This could be partly true.  My teacher always used to say that a little 
suffering is a good thing (but no encouragement to create it though!)


>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.

Hmmm. Cultivating morality and wisdom go hand in hand. I think they both 
improve together. By acting morally, one has less mental disturbance. By 
less mental disturbance, one may direct one's actions better.


>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.

Well, I would like to think I am avoiding them - but that is probably a 
poor excuse for lack of opportunity!


>Because one should known by himself the coherence of such rules
>to have an inner conviction. The preach it's a poor patch.

What one needs to understand is the reasons for 'rules'. Then one should 
to be reasonable - or realistic - in their application. I think it would 
be equally poor to ignore the 'rules'. Their application is up to us.


>No master in the Buddhist history teached
>permanent Vinaya rules for lay people. It is a complete aberration.

I think you may be attributing a comment to someone (Benito?) that he 
did not make.


>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.

The problem is treating 'advice' as 'rules'. As you suggest, this is the 
path of ignorance. Blindly applying rules without thoroughly checking is 
irresponsible and stupid.


>Taking some precepts and keeping a practice according the
>situation, until they can reach by themselves an higher intention.

Yes, but I think it is good to know of all these 'rules' and the reasons 
for them - even if one does not adopt them. It helps to form intentions. 
And, of course, cause and effect applies equally to all beings - whether 
ordained or lay - so it is useful for us all to know.


>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.

Respect for the Sangha comes from respect for their ordination vows.  So 
it is necessary that we know what they are and why they are there. If we 
thought they had no purpose, or no efficacy,  it would be stupid to have 
any respect for someone who holds them.

-- 
Metta
Mike Austin