Tibetan Uprising

[Netti-Netti]

I don't think compassion is an emotion. Love (the kind I'm talking about) isn't either. They are states of intent, of motivation- they are states of consciousness.

I agree with this. In Buddism, compassion is considered "the big intent." It may include an emotional aspect, but it is not reducible to an emotion. It is truly motive force for practice as well as a goal of practice.

I'm startin' to wonder if Francis is trying to pull our leg by suggesting that Buddhism is flippantly dismissive of certain "emotions" or states even though it refers to them as "divine" or "sublime."

The affinity between beings can be inferred to present among animals. Do animals deal with "constructs"? I think we are in the company of our animal companions so they can teach us that love is not just an emotion. It is vulnerable, patient, and forgiving, and not self-absorbed.

Regarding what may be an underlying issue, "Doubt is a pain too lonely to know that faith is his twin brother."~ Khalil Gibran

[Virtual_Cliff]

Look, sorry if this sounds emotional. When I read any of the text posted by Francis I get the feeling of someone who has been hurt and let down badly. This naturally enough leaves him feeling cynical and defensive.

I suspect many on this forum have been in a similar position. It can get better. Time does heal. I was one of the million marching through London to try to prevent the Iraq war. I don't think anyone would have noticed if I had not been there. I did what I felt was right. Blair told his family that morning that he might not be prime minister by the end of the day. I think we came close. In the event the world has learned that military might does not solve problems it makes them worse.

Looking for "outcomes" is foolish though. We will never know the whole story, what caused what, what seemed good that turned out bad etc. We can only do what we feel is right, given the best wisdom at our disposal.

[Netti-Netti]

Disasters come and go. Our challenge is to somehow accept the pain and sorrow of the world along with our personal pain and sorrow, and grow into compassion each and every day in the situations we confront.

We must not let these times harden our hearts.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

We must not let these times harden our hearts.

That is how I feel. I have been deeply hurt in my personal life. And I have been deeply pained by my society, by the way the world operates, by what humans do to each other and to the earth.

But I refuse to let any of it take away what is my essence, which is to love. I choose to see beyond the pain to the possibility, and strive for that.

Like VC said, it is not about the outcome. Attachment to outcome only sets us up for disappointment, frustration, and more pain. It is about the action being the right action, what resonates with one's sense of harmonious action in the universe.

Just my way of looking at things...

[Francis king]

lol... I'm loving this...

I don't think like the majority here because...?

ahh, I see... I must have been terribly hurt and am wounded...

so then people should feel sorry for Francis, and not listen, because Francis has little in the way of compassion left, and thinks that's progress...

... this false compassion is precisely why I refute it as being a natural state of play...

You (and I always use the term collectively, btw) are belittling me, and my opinion, and while doing so pretend that this "cold fuzzy" is really a warm one...

it's cool... I don't hate you, or even mildly despise you... I think this is fun...

regardless...

are cats compassionate? To their own young, perhaps, to their loving owners, perhaps, yet... do we nurture because we love, or do we nurture because it's a biological imperative?

cats are capable of love...

what if you're a mouse? Cats don't seem too fluffy then, do they? And, lets' face it, the only reason a cat shows you love is because... you have conditioned it to respond in a certain way to you... it has learnt that by being what you term "affectionate" it will be groomed and fed...

I currently have three cats... I have trained them all to respond to vocal commands and hand signals...

At one stage I had a cat who was very intelligent... I taught this cat to open the fridge door, unscrew a plastic lid from a milk carton and then knock over said milk carton to get milk... it took only a few weeks of daily repetition before the cat learned what to do, but learn it did...

later, when I had abandoned the experiment I would still come down the stairs occasionally and walk into my kitchen to find the fridge door open and milk all over the floor... I named the cat Ksira...lol... obviously...

So, currently, I have trained my cats to kiss me... and they all do...

But do they? I watch one cat do the same to his (non-related) brother... should I surmise from this that they have a loving, close bond?

If I did I would be a fool, wouldn't I?

Is the cat kissing you because he just licked his bum and is wiping his poo on your face, and then running behind the sofa and laughing?

I say he isn't capable of this not because he is a peasant but because his cerebral cortex is not convoluted enough to proccess such complex ideas... and, if he isn't capable of deliberately wiping poo on you and running away to laugh, then nor is he capable of love... instead, the truth:

he kisses his cat brother because he wants to find out what his brother might have been eating...

...emotion is a purely conditioned response... the only "thing" people feel independently, without adhering to some form of construct or ideal or idealised world-view is... pain...

Pain is real... its' a physical response to stimuli...

beyond pain...there is nothing... the mind is a void... empty... clear...

love? A learned behaviour... same too with hate, anxiety, depression, fear,
joy, gladness, happiness, doubt, worry...they are all conditioned responses, ways of behaving and supposedly "feeling" which have been imprinted upon your mind via your life experience... basic behavioural psychology....

You commit act A for therein lies a reward, and refrain from action B because from this comes punishment... s-r... r-s... stimulus(provokes)response, and the response(provokes attachment to the )stimulus...

it runs a little something like this... the child gets a sweet when it is good- i.e., when it behaves in a way a care giver wants it to... So the child is given a sweet everytime it says its prayers...

The child says its prayers every night, for a sweet. Initially. But eventually, the child comes to associate "sweet" and "good" with prayers. When you withdraw the sweets, the child will continue to say their prayers, not only IN CASE a sweet comes, but because being "good" is reward itself (the previous "good-feeling" memories rebound).

This is how emotions are made. They are not innate natural biological processes- you might get a serotonin cacade eventually when "being good", but that cascade is not the cause of the emotion- the the mental state is the cause of the cascade. Similarly, when "being bad", the quickened heart rate and flushed skin and dilated pupils are not the result of "guilt" itself, but the result of the state of guilt being proccessed by the mind and triggering the release of adrenaline...

without the constructs, there is no "good" and "bad" feelings- emotions then must come into the catagory of, not truth, but truisms- they seem to be true and real, on the surface, but, scrape away the layers of values, judgements, constructs and there is nothing there... nothing...

all your morals, ethics, principles, ideals and ideas of self and what that self is made of... all reducible to products- products which have causes...

In the beginning, as a buddhist, you are told a quick way to get there is to generate the four immeasurables... these are ideal states...

yet... this is only because most people are in fact, still animals, and they need to be conditioned to be decent, as they are not. Instead of poo-ing all over the world-house, they learn to use a litter tray... not just for their own sake, but that of everyone else, too...

eventually, an intelligent buddhist will abandon such paltry constructs and see them for what they are- devices which the vehicle creates to maintain the motion of the one who hopes to become a tathagata but has only just stepped out on the road...

Ultimately...

"...doctrines here are empty; all is sunyata.... None take birth or die, nor are they stained or pure, nor do they wax and wane. No ignorance or end of it nor all that comes of ignorance; no withering, no death, no end of them... Feeling, form, thought, choice; consciousness itself is the same as this..."

Nagarjuna's Prajnaparamitahridaya sutra... not " the sutra of the heart beyond wisdom", but instead... "wisdom going beyond the heart"

So, let's not pretend buddhism is some "loved -up" hippy affair, and let's not pretend it is a vehicle for social action either... Instead...

see buddhism for what it is...

...nothing...

[Francis king]

...and then we do good and evil...

[Francis king]

reality is a construct... things do not exist the way they appear...

(nagarjunas madhyamakacastra)

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Like VC said, it is not about the outcome. Attachment to outcome only sets us up for disappointment, frustration, and more pain. It is about the action being the right action, what resonates with one's sense of harmonious action in the universe.

I agree. I wonder if part of the challenge is to stay with right intention and right action without much assurance of positive impact and - in many instances - despite an adverse outcome. I personally have many failed missions to my credit. But I have to trust my own best judgment. It's all I can do.

Originally Posted by Francis king

maintain the motion of the one who hopes to become a tathagata but has only just stepped out on the road...

This sounds like delusional attachment to an outcome.

So, let's not pretend Buddhism is some "loved -up" hippy affair, and let's not pretend it is a vehicle for social action either... Instead... see Buddhism for what it is...
...nothing...

I thought Buddhism was a fully integrated system of ethics based on certain ideas about the human condition and human nature.

love? A learned behaviour... same too with hate, anxiety, depression, fear, joy, gladness, happiness, doubt, worry...they are all conditioned responses, ways of behaving and supposedly "feeling" which have been imprinted upon your mind via your life experience... basic behavioural psychology....

Even someone like BF Skinner, who we generally associate with the more barren forms of behaviorism, allowed for "Black Box" phenomena - i.e., psychological processes that can't be accounted for in terms of a simple conditioning paradigm.

The way I see it, life experience does not "imprint" emotional experience. Rather, it gives us opportunities to develop certain potentials. I agree with you that our labelling of emotions is to a large degree dependent on cultural context. Different societies don't value the same kinds of emotions in the same way.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Francis king

I must have been terribly hurt and am wounded...

so then people should feel sorry for Francis, and not listen, because Francis has little in the way of compassion left, and thinks that's progress...

1. You have said you were hurt/wounded on other threads. Furthermore, I spoke of my own pain and response, not yours.

2. I don't feel sorry for you. That would be pity. I don't pity people.

3. I listen to what you have to say, but listening and agreeing are not the same thing. Just because I have my own ideas and stick to them does not mean I am not listening.

You (and I always use the term collectively, btw) are belittling me, and my opinion, and while doing so pretend that this "cold fuzzy" is really a warm one...

Actually, I am not belittling you. I do disagree with you, but that is par for course in these types of discussions. I am not responsible for your reaction to me, and if you choose to see sincerity as insincere, I cannot help that.

it's cool... I don't hate you, or even mildly despise you... I think this is fun...

Well, thanks. I guess. Obviously, I guess we all think it is at least interesting, if not fun, or we wouldn't be here. I never thought you hated me, or despised me. I just thought we disagree fairly adamantly and each were stating our views. I mean, that's the point, right?

do we nurture because we love, or do we nurture because it's a biological imperative?

Nurturance and love are two different things. The type of love you speak of is not the same type of love I speak of, from what I gather.

We nurture because it is a biological imperative and a spiritual one, in my opinion. Just because something is biological/material does not make it less spiritual in my belief system. It's a matter of perspective.

what if you're a mouse? Cats don't seem too fluffy then, do they? And, lets' face it, the only reason a cat shows you love is because... you have conditioned it to respond in a certain way to you... it has learnt that by being what you term "affectionate" it will be groomed and fed...

Maybe, maybe not. How much have you studied animal behavior (and I mean a wide variety of animal behavior, among wild as well as domesticated species)? There are among many species, cats included, documented evidence of inter-species relationships that show affection. Why? Who knows. Recently, I saw photos of a polar bear playing with sled dogs. This went on for a week, according to the caretaker of the dogs. Normally, bears and dogs are aggressive toward one another. One of my cats became great friends with our little rabbit. They hung out until the end of the cat's life. I've seen dogs and cats "adopt" fawns, squirrels, birds, etc. Cats also frequently "adopt" horses and hang out with them, and my horse used to hang out with a wild coyote for about a year. The coyote would just come and hang out in the corral and the horse never was bothered, nor did the coyote try anything nasty. Are all these animals training each other? Or do they just find affection to be pleasant?

And what does any of that have to do with love in the sense that I speak of, or compassion? (I would say not much, but maybe you see all of it as rolled into one.)

I say he isn't capable of this not because he is a peasant but because his cerebral cortex is not convoluted enough to proccess such complex ideas... and, if he isn't capable of deliberately wiping poo on you and running away to laugh, then nor is he capable of love... instead, the truth:

But you never really know, do you? Or are you a cat psychic?

People used to think this about primates, until they realized that, in fact, some species of primates DO have attribution and a lot more capacity for deception and planning than we thought.

Furthermore, you are confusing affection with love (agape, in my case). Also, you are making big assumptions that the lack of X behavior means the lack of Y consciousness, which is unfounded.

emotion is a purely conditioned response... the only "thing" people feel independently, without adhering to some form of construct or ideal or idealised world-view is... pain...

Scientifically, that is inaccurate. If you read about the psychology and physiology of emotions, you find that affection/love (as you are showing it) is related to hormonal and physical responses just as pain is, just a different set of reactions. Certain emotions are not "pure" conditioning, but rather are held by the entirety of humanity as part of our biology, notably sadness/sorrow/depression, physical pain, love/affection, happiness/joy, disgust, and fear.

We overlay cultural conditioning on top of ALL of these, including pain. Studies of physical pain show very different results culture to culture, based on a culture's conditioning of how to respond to pain, how to interpret it. Even pain is seen through cultural conditioning.

Conversely, just because we see everything through cultural conditioning does not mean there is not an underlying reality. We just don't see it perfectly. Pain exists, but we never know what pain really feels like except through cultural conditioning (perhaps as babies, but then we can't remember that). Love exists, but we arguably never know that perfectly either for the same reason.

From what I understand of my years of studying Buddhism, which granted is not an expert opinion, the process of following the path of Buddhism is to release oneself from attachment to cultural conditioning and ego/self, so that one perceives things as they truly are and is able to extract oneself from suffering. In Christianity, there is a similar message "die to self to live in Christ."

Pain is real... its' a physical response to stimuli...

Is it? What about hypochondriacs? What about pain in amputated limbs (phantom pain)? What about the fact that placebos, in most cases, are about 70% as effective as morphine.

Is pain really a response to stimuli? Or is it more wrapped up in conditioning and the mind than that? The scientific facts point more to the latter than the former, at least in the case of humans.

love? A learned behaviour... same too with hate, anxiety, depression, fear,
joy, gladness, happiness, doubt, worry...they are all conditioned responses, ways of behaving and supposedly "feeling" which have been imprinted upon your mind via your life experience... basic behavioural psychology....

Behavioral psychology is not that simple, nor is it a complete theory of being human. If it were, there wouldn't be thousands of social scientists in psychology, sociology, and anthropology still studying this stuff. We'd have all packed up, said "we found the answer!" and no one would be paying us to research this stuff.

Truth is, it just ain't that simple. Not even when you cut religious sentiment and God and moral absolutism completely out of the deal.

Love is not a behavior (nor fear, nor joy, nor doubt, etc.). These are emotions, or perhaps some variations of these are states of consciousness. We are conditioned to perceive these in certain ways, and then more conditioning shows us how to express them and how to behave in response to them. And this process is very complicated, which is why there are so many people studying it and trying to figure it all out.

To say otherwise is like saying, "Well, Newton figured out gravity so there is no need for further study in physics!" When in fact, all along, what everyone "knew" was actually inaccurate perception and was going to be turned on its head.

You commit act A for therein lies a reward, and refrain from action B because from this comes punishment... s-r... r-s... stimulus(provokes)response, and the response(provokes attachment to the )stimulus...

That's interesting. Most actions I do have no reward or punishment, at least not immediately. Nor do I believe that God is waiting to smite or promote me at the end. So not sure where that's coming in...

Further, if that is the case, then your own perceptions are just as conditioned as mine, and so it's more or less a stalemate. Like debating with someone who believes everything has been pre-ordained by God, in this case, everyone is stuck in conditioning from which there is no escape and arguably no truth to find beyond it anyway. So what's the point? You'll have your views, and I'll have mine, invariably because of how we were raised or whatever. Kind of makes the whole thing pointless.

it runs a little something like this... the child gets a sweet when it is good- i.e., when it behaves in a way a care giver wants it to... So the child is given a sweet everytime it says its prayers...

I would call that lousy parenting. LOL

What of someone like me? I was not rewarded for saying prayers. Or given much guidance in religion. Or taught that God would punish. I was basically turned loose on religion with the idea to explore and draw my own conclusions. So when I pray, what am I doing it for, exactly? Why did I ever start in the first place?

And why is this process so easily derailed, if this is what really shapes a human being? Even my horses are not so gullible, so reliable (and not just mine, but any of the dozens I've worked with over the years). We are not automatons, and neither are other animals.

They are not innate natural biological processes- you might get a serotonin cacade eventually when "being good", but that cascade is not the cause of the emotion- the the mental state is the cause of the cascade.

It's not that simple, actually. You can gain a better mental state by causing the cascade by drugs, for example. Or, if you want to be legal, you can cause good feelings through exercise, drumming, dancing, chanting, getting into the sunlight, etc. It goes both ways. Body and mind are not uniformly set up in cause-effect relationships. It's messier than that.

Similarly, when "being bad", the quickened heart rate and flushed skin and dilated pupils are not the result of "guilt" itself, but the result of the state of guilt being proccessed by the mind and triggering the release of adrenaline...

Not sure that describes guilt (sounds more like fear), but I would guess the two are entertwined. But again, it isn't a clear one flowing into the other. Some people experience fear without stimulus, so it begins with a mental state. Same goes for guilt- some people will experience guilt without having done anything wrong. Conversely, you can do things to the body to end a bad feeling like fear, despite not removing the stimuli. For example, horses as prey animals fear lots of things. I can leave a fear-inducing stimulus in the ring with my horse, but if I lower his head, it causes a "feel good" relaxation response despite the stimulus still being there. That is not training him out of the fear, however. If I allow it, the head pops back up, and the fear and tenseness returns.

scrape away the layers of values, judgements, constructs and there is nothing there... nothing...

I think there is a leap here that is unreasonable. "We can't experience ultimate reality, so there is no ultimate truth/reality." I think none of us perceive reality accurately, but it doesn't mean it isn't there. People used to not know all kinds of things about the universe, but they were still there.

]quote]all your morals, ethics, principles, ideals and ideas of self and what that self is made of... all reducible to products- products which have causes...[/quote]

As does this particular worldview you espouse...

yet... this is only because most people are in fact, still animals, and they need to be conditioned to be decent, as they are not.

That's interesting. I have found most animals to be quite decent naturally, including many if not most humans.

So, let's not pretend buddhism is some "loved -up" hippy affair, and let's not pretend it is a vehicle for social action either... Instead...

see buddhism for what it is...

...nothing...

I'm not Buddhist, so I'm free to live in a loved-up hippy affair without worry. LOL However, whether or not it was meant to be taken as a vehicle for social action, it is now. I'll not debate on the purpose of Buddhism (not my area) but I can say definitively that Buddhism has a substantial history of social action behind it, not the least of which was a severe break with Hinduism's concepts of caste relating to religion. Whatever it was meant to be, religion has its social functions too.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Are all these animals training each other? Or do they just find affection to be pleasant?...And what does any of that have to do with love in the sense that I speak of, or compassion?

I believe Ms. King was addressing something I brought up in Post #31. My thought was that Buddhists wanting others to be enlightened and happy was analogous to the affinity among social animals in general. Compassion is based on insight about suffering as a universal condition of existence. It's unclear to what extent this happens with animals. However, caretaking behavior on the part of animals -- even cross-species -- is not unusual. If animals are naturally capable of it, why would it be a stretch to propose that human beings' capacity for compassion is innate?

Love is not a behavior (nor fear, nor joy, nor doubt, etc.). These are emotions, or perhaps some variations of these are states of consciousness. We are conditioned to perceive these in certain ways, and then more conditioning shows us how to express them and how to behave in response to them.

I agree and would only add that our expressions of these emotions, and our recognition of these emotions as expressed by others, are also conditioned. But the basic emotions themselves appear to be quite universal and therefore would appear to be innate. One thing potentially worth exploring is whether spiritual emotions can be likened to conditioned responses and whether attitudes and moral aspirations are simply products of social learning experiences.

I'm new here and I'm not sure what's going on. It's a bit disorienting that I can't tell if Ms. King would have people see the world as Buddhists do -- an impression that arises when she quotes the Heart Sutra, for example. That is, it's unclear whether Ms. King is taking positions that can be reasonably assumed to reflect on Buddhism or whether she is expressing personal opinions that actually have precious little to do with Buddhism.

It is my understanding that Buddhist doctrine suggests that human capacity for compassion is indeed innate, being an aspect of the Buddha nature which is considered innate. Here's an example where it's very unclear whether Ms. King is trying to accurately represent doctrine: "(E)ventually, an intelligent Buddhist will abandon such paltry constructs and see them for what they are - devices which the vehicle creates to maintain the motion of the one who hopes to become a tathagata but has only just stepped out on the road... "

Soooo . . . . does that mean an "intelligent Buddhist" will eventually dispense with the fundamental "Great Intention" that provides motive force for practice ??. . . . It seems the "intelligent Buddhist" is being portrayed as one who will give up practice altogether? How does one reconcile this with the supreme Buddha telling us to work out our salvation with diligence?

Was Siddhartha Gautama just a prankster who dedicated his life to misleading his followers and the world at large about the nature of human existence, the importance of a personal discipline, and the psychological benefits of practice? Is Francis King following in Siddhartha Gautama's footsteps as someone who is intent on leading others by the nose by having them believe that the hypothetical universe of discourse she makes up on the spot is the Really Real????. . . . .

Originally Posted by Francis king

... things do not exist the way they appear...

Maybe this is true even for an online discussion forum.

[Francis king]

path-of-one...

re: ...1/2/3... I wasn't addressing you directly- which I pointed out... yes, ur not responsible for your reaction to me, and if I choose to see sincerity as insincere, you cannot help that... but I don' think we were debating ur sincerity, in particular... you know, as an individual...

you see a difference between love and nurturing... you then mention agape...

which is, I think, a concept of the greek christians..? originally... and yes, if you see compassion as akin to agape, how lovely it must be to "feel" this, but my point is, if you did not have the concept, you couldn't possibly have the feeling in the first place...

what did people call agape before the concept of agape was created by the mind of man?

You say that there are lots of documented evidences of inter-species relationships that show affection

I say this is an impossibility- it is the inferring consciousness that creates the affection- as you point out, I would not be able to discern even the motivation of a cat, unless I was a cat psychic...

you then provide me with some first-hand examples of these inter-species relationships, yet as far as I can see what you are witnessing is not affection, but a repeat pattern of two seperate species not competing for resources and co-existing in the same space.

This is perfctly natural. Man is the only animal who attacks other animals for fun and sport. Most animals do not attack wily-nily- they attack because they want to eat, they attack to defend territory, they attack because they seek to have the superior position- usually for the purposes of mating.

A horse and a coyote will not neccesarily fight- both animals have their strengths- the horse could kick the coyote's head in, the coyote could bite a big chunk out of the horse. If they get injured, then potentially they get sick and die.

A bear will not attack a group of dogs- a bear is not stupid. The dogs will not attack the bear, as although they are a pack, they are still individuals, and know the bear might kill them.

It is perfectly natural for different species of certain animals to co-exist in the same space and this be no problem for them, generally, as none of them are hungry or are displaying attack or defence/fear behaviours...

But this isn't compassion, or the proof that even animals can have this agape, this pure love which goes beyond sex, and need gratification, and good behaviour, surely...?

Primates are never a good example for animal behaviour- they are too human... apparently, the average primate and child 5 years and under have the same level of reasoning and potential for language...

after five, the human keeps growing, intellectually, yet the primate does not...

we cannot infer from this that all animals have the same depth of intellectual reasoning as humans do, as they do not have the brain structures to do it as well as we do... as for the research which proves the biological basis for emotion- nope... I'm not buying it...

...although I agree that we DO overlay cultural conditioning on top of ALL of these [emotions], including pain. Studies of physical pain show very different results culture to culture, based on a culture's conditioning of how to respond to pain, how to interpret it. Even pain is seen through cultural conditioning". But, in truth, the pain is the same- the only difference in the pain felt is due to perception...

I agree with you wholeheartedly when you say that... "the process of following the path of Buddhism is to release oneself from attachment to cultural conditioning and ego/self, so that one perceives things as they truly are and is able to extract oneself from suffering"

Spot on... exactly as I see it too... and most other buddhists would agree...But the pain of a hypochondriac is NOT real... Nor that in phantom limbs...

There are only two forms of consciousness... the cause consciousness and the effect consciousness...

the cause of a beansprout, we feel, may be a seed, yet the seed itself is not the cause of the beansprout- the causes of the beansprout are seed, light, and water.

Similarly, we may feel the cause of love is not seeds, light, and water, but a deeper, more mystical and therefore more potent and true conceptualisation, yet still it does not exist the way in which it appears...

For them to be in themselves, actual realities, is impossible.

Nor can they be anything more than conditioned responses...

Gravity, in itself, does not exist. "We", mankind, grasps this explanation for the attraction and repulsion of forces as gravity, for without the concept to be perceived man would float around non-plussed in his own ether...

By the same token, that which you perceive to be emotion is much like gravity...

path, u say..."Most actions you do have no reward or punishment, at least not immediately. Nor do I believe that God is waiting to smite or promote me at the end. So not sure where that's coming in..."

So, why do you behave in the ways which you do AND hold the opinions that you do?

Because you have presented with concepts and ideals via your family, and peers, and life experience and your own investigations, and have arrived at what you think are your own conclusions, but...

without the initial exposure to the concept/subject, you would have no basic for any of your rationales, which would render them non-objects/subjects.

I agree, my own perceptions may be as conditioned as yours, yet...

I feel that studying buddhism has enabled me to go beyond that conditioning...

I feel that yes, everyone is "stuck in conditioning", but, rather than believe there is no escape I say there is...

buddhism can be this escape...

You may feel that you have not been rewarded for saying prayers, but the action of you saying prayers tells me otherwise-
the reward is there, you just don't accept that is your motivation (of course, it might not be your motivation... I mean "you" in general here...)

why do people pray? They aim their good intentions into the ether and hope that somebody somewhere will intervene/intercede/interject...
there is the reward... not only is the reward there, the reward is also present in the idea of prayer- it being a good thing to do, it being something that works, etc, when, actually...

prayers are useless, unless you want to impress somebody's mind with a concept... if you want to save the world from suffering, philanthropic acts and the study of science and medicine... this is far more useful than prayer, I would think....

You ask... "why is this process so easily derailed...?" but I don't think it is... we might not be automatons, but we are blind and deaf and heartless and take sides based on non-facts, in equal measure- hence the exhortation to generate the four immeasurables...

"We can't experience ultimate reality, so there is no ultimate truth/reality."

I disagree. We can experience ultimate reality and understand ultimate truth...

But to do this, you would have to go beyond these minds, no matter how boundless they are supposed to be, for even these can be fetters, and binds and snares in themselves...

things which bind people to misery... and hence my objection to buddhists running around in the street and throwing stones and smashing windows.

[Tao_Equus]

Francis,

Gravity, in itself, does not exist. "We", mankind, grasps this explanation for the attraction and repulsion of forces as gravity, for without the concept to be perceived man would float around non-plussed in his own ether...

You really believe that?

[Francis king]

netti-netti...

I agree that it is part of the challenge to stay with right intention and right action without ant reward and without any assurance of positive impact and - in many instances - despite an adverse outcome.
I also have many failed missions under my belt- and every time I have learnt something new...
I have mainly learnt that oftentimes, my individual desire/want/need to intervene, change things, act for the good, try to influence a positive outcome, et cetera, has been almost worthless and has, in truth, benefitted nobody but myself, and my own psyche/ego...
at the times when I have tried to follow these noble ideals and have been in real, serious danger, sometimes from death, and destruction, there has always been a little something which tells me not to proceed, and the danger has always intensified when I have ignored my own common sense and ignored my insight into the depravities human beings can sink to only so I can uphold a principle...
so, I have suffered at my own hands, through ignorance, through holding wrong views, for not seeing everything "as it is" and instead "imposing my views upon reality" (again, Nagarjuna...)
As for "delusional attachment to an outcome"; without this delusional attachment, what is there that remains?
nothing... not even buddhism...

[Francis king]

yes tao, I do... ultimately, it is just another man-made concept, and while it may be the case we can explain "it" in this way, it does not mean that "it" is what "it" appears to be...

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Francis king

I also have many failed missions under my belt- and every time I have learnt something new...

Sometimes that's all we could hope for - or it's an unexpected benefit we did not intend that we can neverthless allow ourselves to enjoy.

I have mainly learnt that oftentimes, my individual desire/want/need to intervene, change things, act for the good, try to influence a positive outcome, et cetera, has been almost worthless and has, in truth, benefitted nobody but myself, and my own psyche/ego...

Sometimes it's hard to see how others may have benefited. And if it should be the case that that you benefited more, this can be a blessing, an opportunity for healing and development.

I have suffered at my own hands, through ignorance, through holding wrong views, for not seeing everything "as it is" and instead "imposing my views upon reality"

Priceless.

As for "delusional attachment to an outcome"; without this delusional attachment, what is there that remains?

Trust the process?....

Carry on.