At 09:03 AM 12/6/2005 -0800, you wrote: >Freud was interested in ushering the miserably neurotic to a place of simple >human suffering. Buddha devoted his life to examining the truth of >suffering, its causes, prognosis and treatment. Philosophers present >proposals relating to the nature of existence (problems) for debate (in >language), in much the same way that scientists publish findings to be >reproduced. > >Suffering, problematics and neurosis don't share the same couch, >categorically. Can one use philosophical musings as a means of attaching to >suffering? Sure. Can one use the terms of philosophical problematics to feed >misery and neurosis? Sure, but then, I could also use my fountain pen to >weed my garden. > >I can frame Buddhism spiritually (surrendering into the cosmic big S self), >philosophically (as a system of understanding the nature of reality and >lived values), or psychologically (as a tool to form (in)effective >behavioral responses to emotional stimuli). > >I am new to the list, rather new to dharma studies, and have been sitting >off and on for around 10 years. I recently joined a sangha in Los Angeles, >and am just beginning to work with teachers. Thanks to all of you for your >provocative writings :-) > >Regards, >Kahty (yes, it's spelled correctly) > >* My working definitions: > >Philosophy is the study of ideas, literally "love of wisdom." Philosophy is >concerned with examining truth, knowledge, morality, beauty, and the nature >of reality. > >Neurosis can be described as a distressing mental disorder that that does >not interfere with one's rational thought or ability to function (as opposed >to psychosis) and that is an inefectual coping strategy borne of >overwhelming emotional experiences. > >Problems (problematics) can be described as unresolved topics of thought. > >Buddhist "suffering" refers to the self generated disatisfaction that >results from the various forms of attachments. >-- >~say beautiful things to yourself~
Hi Kahty From a Dharma study perspective - the Buddha said "All conditioned things are impermanent" "All conditioned things are dukkha" "All dhammas are without self" Just wanted to bring that up, as it relates to big S Self in Buddhism and the translation of "dukkha" as "suffering." A very clear explanation of that is chapters II and VI of What The Buddha Taught by Walpola Rahula. Ian ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/S27xlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Current Book Discussion: Appreciate Your Life by Taizan Maezumi Roshi Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZenForum/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
