Buddhism and mother
Buddhism and mother
Several questions about the mother concept.
- In Buddhism the goal is to quit this planet. The greatest attachment is to mother. Your thoughts please.
- We think that we love mothers because they self-sacrificed for us. I see goodness as refusing their self-sacrifice and setting them free. This planet took everything from women using the mother illusion. Women do not exist. We love their self-sacrifice.
- Can you really believe that mothers can ber good? They do not show it but they are the ones who trigger wars. Mother cannot be good because everything was taken from her. Can the Buddhist face this?
(This is not sexist. We know that man is not good neither.)
Thank you,
- In Buddhism the goal is to quit this planet. The greatest attachment is to mother. Your thoughts please.
- We think that we love mothers because they self-sacrificed for us. I see goodness as refusing their self-sacrifice and setting them free. This planet took everything from women using the mother illusion. Women do not exist. We love their self-sacrifice.
- Can you really believe that mothers can ber good? They do not show it but they are the ones who trigger wars. Mother cannot be good because everything was taken from her. Can the Buddhist face this?
(This is not sexist. We know that man is not good neither.)
Thank you,
Re: Buddhism and mother
1. The goal of space travel is to quit this planet. The goal of Mahayana Buddhism is to become a Buddha and lead all beings to liberation. These are very different goals.Green5 wrote:Several questions about the mother concept.
1. In Buddhism the goal is to quit this planet. The greatest attachment is to mother. Your thoughts please.
2. We think that we love mothers because they self-sacrificed for us. I see goodness as refusing their self-sacrifice and setting them free. This planet took everything from women using the mother illusion. Women do not exist. We love their self-sacrifice.
3. Can you really believe that mothers can ber good? They do not show it but they are the ones who trigger wars. Mother cannot be good because everything was taken from her. Can the Buddhist face this?
2. We have been bound in samsara so long that all beings without exception have already been our mothers at least once. We should honor and respect all beings in the same way we should honor our parents, and dedicate our practices to their well-being.
3. Of course mothers can be good. All beings have the capacity for awakening. This is called Buddha-nature. Your logic is flawed, by the way: you are claiming that mothers cannot be good because everything was taken from them. By this logic, people who are enslaved or falsely convicted of crimes, or victims of genocide, also cannot be good, because everything was taken from them. This is non sequitur. Do women trigger wars? People trigger wars. Usually men. Read Thucydides, Machiavelli, Clausewitz...
You might be interested in learning more about PrajnaParamita, the mother of all Buddhas.
Re: Buddhism and mother
I do not understand why you think mothers are bad. Yes there are bad mothers, but there are also good mothers, just like there are good fathers and bad fathers. The human condition effects us all, male/female, mothers/fathers.
Re: Buddhism and mother
Mother (and father) can be good of course. Their true nature is good.
But they are not good currently.
You are (sorry I don't have a better word) naive.
Honoring parents means: Asking them for self-sacrifice.
What I do is not honoring: I ask them to live their own life and save themselves.
But they are not good currently.
You are (sorry I don't have a better word) naive.
Honoring parents means: Asking them for self-sacrifice.
What I do is not honoring: I ask them to live their own life and save themselves.
Re: Buddhism and mother
You cannot lead someone to liberation.Jikan wrote: 1. The goal of space travel is to quit this planet. The goal of Mahayana Buddhism is to become a Buddha and lead all beings to liberation. These are very different goals.
When someone is ready, they liberate themselves.
There is no need for Buddha and he should be tired, I do not want to disturb him.
Re: Buddhism and mother
I can assure you, my mother is good and the mother of my children is good, and my grandmother is good.Green5 wrote: But they are not good currently.
Re: Buddhism and mother
That is not honouring.Green5 wrote: Honoring parents means: Asking them for self-sacrifice.
- Hickory Mountain
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2014 11:40 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Buddhism and mother
If I make the statement, "My mother carried me in her body for 9 months, dropped out of college to raise me, and has taught me all manner of good qualities and behaviors-all the while expecting no reward for her actions."Green5 wrote:Honoring parents means: Asking them for self-sacrifice.
I am not asking her for self-sacrifice. She made those sacrifices in the past and I am grateful for them in the present. Since she has given me these great gifts, it only makes sense for me to repay her with the greatest gift I can give-helping her along the path to liberation.
Namo Amitabha
Re: Buddhism and mother
I don't believe that mother makes sacrifices, she decides to be a mother without the child.Hickory Mountain wrote:If I make the statement, "My mother carried me in her body for 9 months, dropped out of college to raise me, and has taught me all manner of good qualities and behaviors-all the while expecting no reward for her actions."Green5 wrote:Honoring parents means: Asking them for self-sacrifice.
I am not asking her for self-sacrifice. She made those sacrifices in the past and I am grateful for them in the present. Since she has given me these great gifts, it only makes sense for me to repay her with the greatest gift I can give-helping her along the path to liberation.
Re: Buddhism and mother
There is no good human on this planet currently.Seishin wrote:I can assure you, my mother is good and the mother of my children is good, and my grandmother is good.Green5 wrote: But they are not good currently.
Re: Buddhism and mother
Then why single out mothers as being bad?Green5 wrote: There is no good human on this planet currently.
- Hickory Mountain
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2014 11:40 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Buddhism and mother
Definition of MOTHERGreen5 wrote:I don't believe that mother makes sacrifices, she decides to be a mother without the child.Hickory Mountain wrote:If I make the statement, "My mother carried me in her body for 9 months, dropped out of college to raise me, and has taught me all manner of good qualities and behaviors-all the while expecting no reward for her actions."Green5 wrote:Honoring parents means: Asking them for self-sacrifice.
I am not asking her for self-sacrifice. She made those sacrifices in the past and I am grateful for them in the present. Since she has given me these great gifts, it only makes sense for me to repay her with the greatest gift I can give-helping her along the path to liberation.
1
a : a female parent
Full Definition of PARENT
1
a : one that begets or brings forth offspring
b : a person who brings up and cares for another
What you are saying literally does not make sense. Motherhood and having-child-hood are identical. To decide to be a mother without deciding to have (or raise in cases of adoption) doesn't work. You can't have one without the other.
And even if it did work, if it weren't my mother who made these sacrifices to raise me, but were Bob who lives next door; then I would give Bob who lives next door the same reverence. It's just that it tends to be the mother who fills this role and to whom we are grateful.
*Edit: spelling
Namo Amitabha
Re: Buddhism and mother
I don't see any reason to be grateful, she did her job. I do the same in a next life.Hickory Mountain wrote:
What you are saying literally does not make sense. Motherhood and having-child-hood are identical. To decide to be a mother without deciding to have (or raise in cases of adoption) doesn't work. You can't have one without the other.
And even if it did work, if it weren't my mother who made these sacrifices to raise me, but were Bob who lives next door; then I would give Bob who lives next door the same reverence. It's just that it tends to be the mother who fills this role and to whom we are grateful.
*Edit: spelling
I noticed that this "love my mother" is in fact a lazy state. There is no love, we are just lazy. Half-sleep looks like love.
I know that this may be shocking to many. IMO it is not love, we are just lazy in half-sleep.
Looks like Devil's job. (there is no Devil)
- Hickory Mountain
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2014 11:40 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Buddhism and mother
Working from the premise that you are not trolling. 1. She could have chosen not to do her job, thankfully she did. The consequences for her of not doing this action are a separate issue and not really related to the existence or non-existence of a moral imperative towards gratitude. 2. If my house caught fire today and a fireman came and put the fire out, saving my home. He was just doing her job. In no way does that mean that I am not obliged to feel grateful that he did so.Green5 wrote:I don't see any reason to be grateful, she did her job. I do the same in a next life.Hickory Mountain wrote:
What you are saying literally does not make sense. Motherhood and having-child-hood are identical. To decide to be a mother without deciding to have (or raise in cases of adoption) doesn't work. You can't have one without the other.
And even if it did work, if it weren't my mother who made these sacrifices to raise me, but were Bob who lives next door; then I would give Bob who lives next door the same reverence. It's just that it tends to be the mother who fills this role and to whom we are grateful.
*Edit: spelling
That's a pretty big assertion you're making, care to defend it?Green5 wrote:I noticed that this "love my mother" is in fact a lazy state. There is no love, we are just lazy. Half-sleep looks like love.
I know that this may be shocking to many. IMO it is not love, we are just lazy in half-sleep.
Looks like Devil's job. (there is no Devil)
Namo Amitabha
Re: Buddhism and mother
I concluded this way after long analysis of my subconscious mind.Hickory Mountain wrote:Working from the premise that you are not trolling. 1. She could have chosen not to do her job, thankfully she did. The consequences for her of not doing this action are a separate issue and not really related to the existence or non-existence of a moral imperative towards gratitude. 2. If my house caught fire today and a fireman came and put the fire out, saving my home. He was just doing her job. In no way does that mean that I am not obliged to feel grateful that he did so.Green5 wrote:I don't see any reason to be grateful, she did her job. I do the same in a next life.Hickory Mountain wrote:
What you are saying literally does not make sense. Motherhood and having-child-hood are identical. To decide to be a mother without deciding to have (or raise in cases of adoption) doesn't work. You can't have one without the other.
And even if it did work, if it weren't my mother who made these sacrifices to raise me, but were Bob who lives next door; then I would give Bob who lives next door the same reverence. It's just that it tends to be the mother who fills this role and to whom we are grateful.
*Edit: spelling
That's a pretty big assertion you're making, care to defend it?Green5 wrote:I noticed that this "love my mother" is in fact a lazy state. There is no love, we are just lazy. Half-sleep looks like love.
I know that this may be shocking to many. IMO it is not love, we are just lazy in half-sleep.
Looks like Devil's job. (there is no Devil)
Devil approach makes me believe that human is venerable and I fall asleep in other humans' hands.
Mother is one example.
She is as bad as others, we are just asleep.
(I am not trolling I can assure you, I only question an unquestionable illusion which may of course appear like trolling unfortunately...)
- Hickory Mountain
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2014 11:40 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Buddhism and mother
If you concluded that there is no love after a long analysis of your subconscious mind, then please answer one specific question:Green5 wrote: I concluded this way after long analysis of my subconscious mind.
Devil approach makes me believe that human is venerable and I fall asleep in other humans' hands.
Mother is one example.
She is as bad as others, we are just asleep.
(I am not trolling I can assure you, I only question an unquestionable illusion which may of course appear like trolling unfortunately...)
What factors in your analysis led you to this conclusion?
I'm trying to understand your reasoning here, because you've told me by what process ("[a] long analysis of your subconscious mind") you arrived at your conclusion, but you haven't offered any reasons or evidence for your claim. Until you do so, I really don't see any way to go forward with this discussion.
Also, I want to explain why I feel it looks like you're trolling.
1. You're posting in a Mahayana Buddhist forum denying that it is possible for one being to lead another towards liberation.
2. In response to your claim that there are "no good human[s]" on this planet currently, you were asked to defend why you single out mothers in particular as being bad. You have not done so.
3. When asked to defend your claim that "this 'love my mother' is in fact a lazy state," you responded by saying that you arrived at your conclusion "after long analysis of my subconscious mind." Unless you back that statement up with your reasoning behind it, your defense for your claim is essentially "I think this is true because I thought about it for a long time, and then realized it is true." Above, I've asked you to present your reasoning for this claim, but I don't expect that you will.
But then, maybe you're right. Maybe you've stumbled upon a truth that overturns the beliefs of pretty much every Mahayana (and I would guess Theravada, but don't know enough about their approach to say definitively) Buddhist scholar of the last two-and-a-half millennia. In which case I would be very interested to hear your reasoning as to why. Until you present that reasoning, I'm going to respectfully bow out of the discussion.
Namo Amitabha
Re: Buddhism and mother
I will try to answer:Hickory Mountain wrote:If you concluded that there is no love after a long analysis of your subconscious mind, then please answer one specific question:Green5 wrote: I concluded this way after long analysis of my subconscious mind.
Devil approach makes me believe that human is venerable and I fall asleep in other humans' hands.
Mother is one example.
She is as bad as others, we are just asleep.
(I am not trolling I can assure you, I only question an unquestionable illusion which may of course appear like trolling unfortunately...)
What factors in your analysis led you to this conclusion?
I'm trying to understand your reasoning here, because you've told me by what process ("[a] long analysis of your subconscious mind") you arrived at your conclusion, but you haven't offered any reasons or evidence for your claim. Until you do so, I really don't see any way to go forward with this discussion.
Also, I want to explain why I feel it looks like you're trolling.
1. You're posting in a Mahayana Buddhist forum denying that it is possible for one being to lead another towards liberation.
2. In response to your claim that there are "no good human[s]" on this planet currently, you were asked to defend why you single out mothers in particular as being bad. You have not done so.
3. When asked to defend your claim that "this 'love my mother' is in fact a lazy state," you responded by saying that you arrived at your conclusion "after long analysis of my subconscious mind." Unless you back that statement up with your reasoning behind it, your defense for your claim is essentially "I think this is true because I thought about it for a long time, and then realized it is true." Above, I've asked you to present your reasoning for this claim, but I don't expect that you will.
But then, maybe you're right. Maybe you've stumbled upon a truth that overturns the beliefs of pretty much every Mahayana (and I would guess Theravada, but don't know enough about their approach to say definitively) Buddhist scholar of the last two-and-a-half millennia. In which case I would be very interested to hear your reasoning as to why. Until you present that reasoning, I'm going to respectfully bow out of the discussion.
1. I believe that humans cannot lead others. Especially on a low planet like this. A supreme being (creator of the universe) can do it but there is none in Buddhism and I respect this.
2. There are no good humans on this planet yes. Goodness is reducing harm. Helping is so easy that it is not considered as goodness. Reducing harm is difficult. We did not reduce harm at all. We did not work in this direction.
3. "This 'love my mother' is in fact a lazy state" is -only my- experience. I only share my discovery: "Love state" and "lazy state" are very similar. There is a "wish for not harming". This one is not similar to the "lazy state". Love is an emotion (which means body language) or attachment, "wish for not harming" is not an emotion nor attachment.
Re: Buddhism and mother
Green5,
Like I said in your other thread before it got deleted for being so misogynistic (at least that's my presumption): just because your mother treated you poorly doesn't mean all mothers treat their children poorly. What you're doing is a good example of the fallacy of hasty generalization. This logical misstep seems to be twisting the rest of your views about human beings along with it.
In other words, your misogyny, conditioned by the poor way your mother treated you and your resentment of this, has also conditioned a more general attitude of misanthropy. That's my pseudo-psychological diagnosis. Practicing loving-kindness and compassion both on and off the cushion would be the Buddhist treatment, IMO.
Like I said in your other thread before it got deleted for being so misogynistic (at least that's my presumption): just because your mother treated you poorly doesn't mean all mothers treat their children poorly. What you're doing is a good example of the fallacy of hasty generalization. This logical misstep seems to be twisting the rest of your views about human beings along with it.
In other words, your misogyny, conditioned by the poor way your mother treated you and your resentment of this, has also conditioned a more general attitude of misanthropy. That's my pseudo-psychological diagnosis. Practicing loving-kindness and compassion both on and off the cushion would be the Buddhist treatment, IMO.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
- Hickory Mountain
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2014 11:40 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Buddhism and mother
Why can one human not lead another? Also, if this is true, then of what use is the Buddha? After all, we (Buddhists) are all just following the lead of an enlightened human who pointed out a path to follow. So why is it that one human on that path, perhaps farther down than another, can't lead another human down the path along which they have progressed?Green5 wrote:
I will try to answer:
1. I believe that humans cannot lead others. Especially on a low planet like this. A supreme being (creator of the universe) can do it but there is none in Buddhism and I respect this.
So if I follow your logic here: Helping is different than goodness because it does not meet your criteria of "difficulty"? A few issues with that:green5 wrote:2. There are no good humans on this planet yes. Goodness is reducing harm. Helping is so easy that it is not considered as goodness. Reducing harm is difficult. We did not reduce harm at all. We did not work in this direction.
1. Based on what is helping different than reducing harm? At minimum, please give an example to explain your position here.
2. Based on what is helping easier than reducing harm? At minimum, please give an example to explain your position here.
3. How does the difficulty of an act modify its moral standing in any way?
4. I am assuming that you don't mean something unexpected by difficulty, but if you do mean something unusual, please explain.
5. Consider the following: I live in an old house in a rural area. Crickets are constantly crawling through cracks in my walls and ending up in my house, where -if left alone- they would starve to death. It is easy for me to gather those crickets in an empty jar and set them outside of my house, thus it is easy for me to reduce the harm in their lives. Additionally, in this area, it is rare to find an old person attempting to cross the street. Were I to see someone doing so, I could help them across the street. Since it is difficult to accomplish something that relies on a rare combination of events (myself and an old person crossing the same street) it is difficult to help.
Working within your system here, if it is easy for me to prevent a cricket from starving to death, then I am helping it-not reducing harm to it. I should think it fairly self-evident that saving a cricket from starving to death in the near future is reducing harm to it. One could counter by saying that I am not reducing harm, but only postponing it, as death will come to it eventually either way; but by that same logic I could kill a man and argue that I had not harmed him, since death would have come to him anyway. This is clearly not a valid argument.
In the same way, taking the action of helping an old person across the street is very difficult for me to do, due to my current situation in life. You have asserted that "helping is so easy that it is not considered goodness," yet in this case providing help -not reducing harm- is in fact quite difficult.
QED, your system of qualifying "Good" acts based on the difficulty of accomplishing them is inconsistent and cannot be true.
If that's all there is to it, then ok, it's your experience I guess. Still would love to hear a logical defense of your assertion that the state of love and the state of laziness are identical, but I'm growing increasingly skeptical that you have one to offer beyond, "I thought about it, then I thought this thought, so now I will present this thought."green5 wrote:3. "This 'love my mother' is in fact a lazy state" is -only my- experience. I only share my discovery: "Love state" and "lazy state" are very similar. There is a "wish for not harming". This one is not similar to the "lazy state". Love is an emotion (which means body language) or attachment, "wish for not harming" is not an emotion nor attachment.
I would like to kindly ask you when you respond to please back up any assertions you make with some kind of coherent logical argument, surely that is not too much to ask of a Spiritual Master such as yourself.
*Edit:You'd think with an English degree I wouldn't have to edit every post I make for spelling errors.
Namo Amitabha
- LastLegend
- Posts: 5408
- Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
- Location: Northern Virginia
Re: Buddhism and mother
If women and men are not good, can they practice to be good through Buddhist teaching?Green5 wrote:Several questions about the mother concept.
- In Buddhism the goal is to quit this planet. The greatest attachment is to mother. Your thoughts please.
- We think that we love mothers because they self-sacrificed for us. I see goodness as refusing their self-sacrifice and setting them free. This planet took everything from women using the mother illusion. Women do not exist. We love their self-sacrifice.
- Can you really believe that mothers can ber good? They do not show it but they are the ones who trigger wars. Mother cannot be good because everything was taken from her. Can the Buddhist face this?
(This is not sexist. We know that man is not good neither.)
Thank you,
It’s eye blinking.