0 votes
by (120 points)
Δεν θέλω αρκετά έντονα, ώστε να μην θέλω. It reads: I do not "not want" intensively enough, so that it leads to me not wanting.
It's in Greek. I would like a comment on this from  Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu if possible.
by (18.8k points)
Perhaps you should get help from an English speaking person from Greece to get a proper translation so the question would make more sense.
by (120 points)
No I think the question is pretty aqurate. Please do pass this to Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu, I think he will understand.
by (2.1k points)
I translated it via google and the gist of what I get from it is that "I do not desire enough to not want desire"
A paradox
As in, your desire is so less that you do not desire to work towards eliminating desire.
Just my opinion from my own perception.
by (120 points)
Yes, your perseption is correct. It's not a paradox if you really think about it.. there is a nice message in there. :)
by (8.5k points)
How does this relate to your practice? Let's try to keep questions related to things impeding our practice.
by (120 points)
The "purpose" of a Buddhist Monk is to be a “scientist” who observes and understands Existence.
How is this applied? : though the scientific method. This leads eventually to philosophical questions and observations. What I wrote is one. And I think is very important. It's conclusions change everything, that's why I'd like a comment fromm Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu. I will also send him an e-mail.
by (2.1k points)
I was told by a nun yesterday that there is no use in philosophical debates and questioning because it does not help us lead to seeing reality as it is but I disagree and I agree with your view, philosophical understandings are very important for us ourselves to get to grasp of concepts.
it isn't enough to just read others teachings and accept, we need to analyse and understand for ourselves.
by (8.5k points)
That's the trick to it all. Conceptual thinking is what got us in this whole mess. Relying on concepts will only dig us deeper.

There are three kinds of understanding.

1. Understanding we get from others like reading books or being taught by someone.

2. Understanding we come to through our own thinking. Like analysis.

3. Understanding through direct experience. Like Vipassana.

Only understanding through direct experience can actually change our behavior and release us from suffering.

So, as someone who struggled with this same issue for many years, thinking and analyzing will not get you even a step closer to the end of suffering. Only Satipatthana practice will do this.

It's like a scientist coming to a conclusion before even running the experiment. Not only is the conclusion just a limited guess but it's also not based on reality.
by (120 points)
you have a strong point.
But to get a direct experience, you have to rely on "belief", you have to believe someone that, for example, meditation will lead you to a new, profound experience.. but buddists don't believe anything, and that's why the teaching "Meditate and you will see" is "wrong".
And that's why philosophy is better: it addresses the mental level of your existence and it helps you take the next step, which is the answer to the next question.
The "problem" with philosophy is that no one has gone deep enough, and thus what you said is seemingly right.
Furthermore, if you just "skip" the answers of the "lower" concience levels and just meditate, you will loose important information.. it's like going to rocket science, while not having understand fluid dynamics completely: you will probably misunderstand something.

1 Answer

+1 vote
by (3.0k points)
Not sure what you want, but this reminds me of the Buddha saying that one needs to have desire to end desire. Which is quite logical.
Welcome to Sirimangalo Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers from other members of the community.