th frinds () companions one misses one's goal,beingshackle d Ka iS i el ‘shackled in mind. Se
Humans are social animals and isolation from others is the basic principle of some of the most inhumane torture methods (solitary confinement). Assuming that such dissociation leads to anguish, does the speaker recommend we conquer this anguish and that there is a light on the other end of the tunnel?
Norisitattainedbynotseeing,nothearing,notknowing,ortheabsenceofmoralhabitand vows.Discard-ingallofthis,notgraspingand holding,relyingonnothing,atpeace,hewouldnotdesiretobecomeanything.
I believe the Blessed One is saying that while knowledge, moral habits, and views are not the way to enlightenment or "inner peace", their lack isn't either. Both these things and their opposites are irrelevant because true peace must come from "within" and not be dependent on these things that are acquired from outside the person.
envied by those who are tied down in desires.”
But remember, he should not care about this.
and eventhose who can live more than this will also die of old age.
TRIVIAL It's crazy to think some people may have lived beyond 100 thousands of years ago.
He feels no excitement in passion, nor does he delight in ai spassion
It would seem that part of being enlightened is not caring about the fact that you are. As mentioned in class (25th Aug), aren't you desiring something if you desire enlightenment? It looks like enlightenment is what happens when you're indifferent to achieving it.
Because,hecanonlyspeakofwhatheknows
I've only just begun reading Buddhist Philosophy but so far the views espoused sound an awful lot like Socrates "the only thing I know is that I know nothing". Now I know that may not be exactly what is being said is practiced by the great sages of Buddhism but I feel like there is some relation. The "hold on to no views" part is what made me think of this connection.
ere,themisogynyofthetextisquiteconsistentwiththelatertr
Controversial, but I feel like it must either be the case that misogyny is part of enlightenment or the Buddha was not enlightened. How could the Buddha himself, the man who was supposed to be wise and knowledgeable enough to escape the cycle of life and death, be mistaken about anything, including his attitude toward women? Put in another way, how could anyone who has a misogynistic attitude towards women be truly enlightened? I think 1 of the two must be true: that misogyny is part of enlightenment, or that the Buddha was not really enlightened. Or perhaps there's a third "way out". Perhaps the Buddha never said whatever he said regarding women, and this story is made up. This is also tough to digest, especially for a practicing Buddhist or scholar. Caveat: I haven't actually read the relevant passage, I'm just taking the authors word that it was misogynist.
Both keeping past teachings alive and understanding thepresent—someone able to do this is worthy of being a teacher
I think this statement holds more meaning than found at first glance. It seems to me to be a slap in the face on whoever claims Asian philosophy is rigid and never changing.
at forty I became free of doubts;
I've always believed such conviction is dangerous. Surely the master does not mean his teachings are the only solution to heaven and all other ways are misguided? This way of thinking is certain to make its practitioners arrogant and its people divided!
e. If, however, you guide them with Virtue,and keep them in line by means of ritual, the people will have a sense of shame andwill rectify themselves.
I think this statement is of particular significance. A society where people don't do evil for fear of the law is unstable and is sure to dissolve in resentment and rebellion. Eliminating the people's desire to do evil for their own gain is the surest way of creating an orderly society, one in which there is no need of judges, police, or even law. This can be done with the help of religion or morality in the modern world.
When someone’s father is still alive, observe his intentions;after his father has passed away, observe his conduct. If for three years he does notalter the ways of his father, he may be called a $lial son.
It is known that Confucius prized filiality but it would be fascinating to see how this virtue holds up to others he espouses. If one's father was a scoundrel or lazy person, should one follow in his footsteps? Surely not, so what does Confucius mean when he talks about "ways"?
!e Master said, “A clever tongue and $ne appearance are rarely signs ofGoodness.”
I'm confused about this saying. By clever, does he mean cunning and rogue-like, or intelligent and wise? I think what he means is only applicable for the former because being silver-tongued and taking great effort (provided its not tooo much) to look beautiful are usually appreciable traits in people.
Kongzi’s Way, which involves lifelong and sincere devotion to tradi-tional cultural forms,
Is observing particular customs and/or rituals mandatory in Confucianism? What would he say if he saw people inspired by his teachings on virtue, patience, excellence etc but who refused to practice some rituals, as it would be of no cultural significance to them. For example, the correct way to wear one's lapel pin is not applicable for, say a tribe that only wears tunics or fur coats.