DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Trercakaressy** · 06-22-2012, 05:49 PM

Now that leaves us with the question: Do i have to view the world in such a negative way as "unsatisfactory" in order to get liberated? how about if i see the world as impermenant, yet satisfied with it as it is! Does that mean i am not wise?

Not the physical world but the phenomenal world perceived through the six sense doors. If you are truly satisfied then you are wise, actually most probably enlightened. However if you have never observed the pervasive nature of Dukkha and learned to be free from it by facing up to it and understanding it then I'd say that was ignorance in action.

If there is a contradiction between a 2500 years old translated text, and reality as i see it, which one should i believe? my eyes or the text?

Well I don't really understand why you'd want to be a Buddhist, you'd need to throw out the four noble truths for a start. If you have no inkling of wanting things you can't have or having things you don't want and then tension they create then I don't really understand why you'd want to be discussing Buddhism on the Internet.

Finally, can we say that the world is objectively unsatisfactory? Or to describe it as dukkha is a completely subjective?

We observe it subjectively in our own experience, see the signals of of the same kind of thing being experienced by others, and through that can infer how pervasive it is.

06-22-2012, 05:49 PM	#35
Trercakaressy Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 490 Senior Member	Now that leaves us with the question: Do i have to view the world in such a negative way as "unsatisfactory" in order to get liberated? how about if i see the world as impermenant, yet satisfied with it as it is! Does that mean i am not wise? Not the physical world but the phenomenal world perceived through the six sense doors. If you are truly satisfied then you are wise, actually most probably enlightened. However if you have never observed the pervasive nature of Dukkha and learned to be free from it by facing up to it and understanding it then I'd say that was ignorance in action. If there is a contradiction between a 2500 years old translated text, and reality as i see it, which one should i believe? my eyes or the text? Well I don't really understand why you'd want to be a Buddhist, you'd need to throw out the four noble truths for a start. If you have no inkling of wanting things you can't have or having things you don't want and then tension they create then I don't really understand why you'd want to be discussing Buddhism on the Internet. Finally, can we say that the world is objectively unsatisfactory? Or to describe it as dukkha is a completely subjective? We observe it subjectively in our own experience, see the signals of of the same kind of thing being experienced by others, and through that can infer how pervasive it is.
	Quote