buddhism

Trying to apply principles of buddhism to the ideas necessary to prepare, for disengagement. Disengagement applying to letting go of attachment.
This idea in addition to the idea of de structuring the personality should have an effective way to deal with the way we see, feel and think about the various bothersome ideas, as Valery would say-idea fixee, which have built up over the course of our life.

I think this notion is incredibly difficult to apply, however it is the only rational way out of the quagmire of mixed states leading to the terror which life lays out in uneven fashions, as our life’s progress from the relative innocence through the increasing involvement with all kinds of conflicting values, reaching the point where all things should become obvious.

There is a vacillation: a grasping for irreducibles, the mini temptations of quasi solutions where the plenum of life hits the singular existence with an awesome hit: the whole being as a sign, strikes a deadly blow at the very end, with an apparent cruel punch, a knockout so overwhelming that it reduces all prior reality to a pulp.

Letting go can only be achieved with acts of incessant kindness, a seemingly impossible task, given the contradictions presented in human natures incessant, compulsive and unrelenting quest to conquer, overcome every obstacle blocking the way.

Dis identification is part of this process, and can be achieved through the existentially reduced persona, into the being of the situation. This process very difficult, and the basic solution is to convert the erotic element into dealing with the decaying, thanatos related anticlimax of the conversion of pain.

This mini mirroring of the personal from the major trends of cultural development, had it’s apex of the culture of pain within the movement in France, where the theatre of the absurd led. The theatre of pain, of de sade, the fleaur the mal of abstract expressionism offers a guide map of how major trends can be applied to specific needs of the Buddhist concept of disengagement.

The romantic idiom's obsessive preoccupation into the realms of esoteric shadows, of peculiar and idiosyncratic involvements, is a point in fact: the microscope of the very minute,a blowup of the seemingly insignificant and irrelevant, the absurd, all play into the acceptance of the transvaluation of the personal into the impersonal, of the attached into the dis attached, of the pleasure into the pain.  Dis attachment is pain, egolessness is a painful state.

In modern psychology they call this masochism. The ego imbalance is not done away with coupling the sadism of progression with the masochism of regression, the coupling is ego enhancing for both: the sadism of the vanity (schopenhauer) can not feed the masochism of a romantic decay, because the process is not sensible, it feeds a pseudo ego, with 2nd tier symbols and processes, the gap between them is too wide for accommodation, it’s repetition as a rite creates an illusionary ideal.(Kierkegaard).

The coupling mortifies and reinforces the ideal, an ideal of engagement between the religious and aesthetic semblance.

The pain of reinforcement involves this semblance of the coupling, and forms the basis of the pseudo magical write between the one, and the other. The more the regressive nature of misinterpretation of original signals, the more the urge of bonding with the evolving paradigm of a fused religious/aesthetic pseudo unity.

The fusion if kept within the stage of the absurd will develop the essential, unitary nature of a pathos of acquiescence of the elements within. The inversion will complete it’s cycle, and redemption will occur as a consequence.

I thought Buddhism was more simple…like we all suffer…

Buddhism is simple but only simple as a way of salvation. But the way is extremely difficult in it’s application. The application, again, is simple, but it’s foundation to those applications are almost insurmountably difficult. The foundation is a trifle compared to the complexity of the foundation’s roots, which are again miniscule to those relation to the source into which the roots are planted.

Then, the source itself, becomes coherent and simple. Like the turtle which lies on the back of another turtle that on another trutle all down the line.

The beginning and the end are simple because they are the same, everything else in between gets increasingly complex and differentiated, in my opinion.

“Buddhism is simple but only simple as a way of salvation. But the way is extremely difficult in it’s application.”

You could say the same thing about bodybuilding, or getting a good education.

On the other hand, what distinguishes the enlightened from the unenlightened could be reduced to one’s willingness to reject samsara, wholly and unequivocally. And what leads such a rare and truly incredible person to do such a thing? Unfortunately, I’m not qualified to say.

I am not qualified to say either, as having only a perfunctory and not a comprehensive knowledge of the Vedas, however, enlightenment of rejecting Samsara is difficult , I am able to say

Can someone love someone, his wife for instance, the partner of his whole life for whom he has sacrificed everything?  And later, much later, finding that the love is  only a  projection not being reciprocated?  I won't go into the details, but can a man love a women, even above and beyond the call of duty, regardless of anything which may go down?

Can a man love a woman from he has found out, he can gain very little by way of reciprocation,and yet totally in love with her? Does opinion of others as far as making a difference as to what the life and reciprocation mean as far as changing his opinion?

In other words is total n unexplainable, and giving altruism toward others a sensible? Is this easy? No, it is the most singular difficult thing to do internally, and yet others can chime I scratching their heads, how simple and sensible solution it would be just to leave. And what of others again criticizing such a thought as not a good example of what samsara isn’t?
Isn’t nirvana a very personal thing, and it is why, others’ opinion of simplicity is very trite and shallow?

I would say nirvana is a very singular experience, and cannot be gained through a group effort arrived at by consensus. This Is why persons having gone through it at any modicum of degree, can agree, that it probably is the very hardest thing in the world.

I assume those are rhetorical questions.

No in fact they are not, Anon.

Really? Wow, it would take a long post…

Yes it would, and as I don't wish to turn a forum on buddhism into a dear abbey column, something tells me to abstain from  any advertantly stretched out novelette.

No, it is not.

And perhaps, that mistaken simplicity is the only reason why it is the most preferred Eastern religion in the west.

Could not agree more with that.

That is true.

Everyone knows how one can build a body. But, merely knowing that is not enough as it entails years of hard work. Furthermore, one has to keep it doing, otherwise the previous work done may go in vain.

No.

That is merely a first step of the long process.

Curiosity driven by the observation and circumstances that sometimes manifests very sincere dedication, though not in each case.

You got it absolutely right again.

with love,
sanjay

I understand why you say that, but if you have rejected samsara, wholly and unequivocally, you are surely not enmeshed in samsara. You are a Buddha. If you are disgusted enough with Samsara to become a Buddhist and practice the teachings, then that’s great - and as you say, you have taken some first steps in a long process. But if, like me, you are still attached to various unwholesome things, then you haven’t really rejected samsara, wholly and unequivocally.

.

[size=124]

Just discovered this thread.

I REALLY appreciate it.

The original poster is amazing.

You have a deep understanding of your perimeters AND you seem to be actively pursuing your concept of disengagement.

Good on you.[/size]

[size=124]
…you my friend are, what I perceive to be, a true philosopher.[/size]

.

Yes.

If the love was real, such is irrelevant.
The desire for reciprocation is self centered, self-love.

Yes.

Has happened quite often.

Depends on his reference of authority; self confidence, or others.

Depends on whether you truly understand it.
Understand it properly and you can’t really avoid it.