This, again only in my humble opinion, is another addition to the list of misconceptions about the Buddha and his teachings. It's not that the Buddha advised/recommended some kind of dispassionate, emotionally sterile, state of mind always and everywhere. We can and should experience all emotions i.e. we are to be passionate but this should be done, in computer-speak, with the software of impermanence running in the background, ready to be activated as it were when the moment change occurs and what it is that one is passionate about dies, decays or is desrroyed. If not interpreted this way, Buddha would be, essentially, asking us to be passionless, and lifeless, rocks which just doesn't add up. — TheMadFool
I can see what you mean, but it doesn't really add up. Of course it's your opinion, however this is an interesting misconception about "dispassion". The Buddha, in teaching dispassion, didn't teach us to be emotionally sterile. To "activate" impermanence only when that which we love is gone is to attempt to repress grief by a kind of spiritual bypassing. That doesn't really solve any problems and doesn't necessarily help us. Nor does beating ourselves over the head with this word "dispassion" if we take it to mean absolute blankness; such a blankness is, in a way, suffering itself; it is when we tighten our grip on the mind for the sole purpose of not feeling any emotion. But that's not what dispassion is.
Dispassion is the result of understanding, which is the result of concentration, which is the result of joy, which is a result of virtue. Thus the Buddha's teachings actually encourage us to take
joy and delight in virtue and wholesome forms of happiness. Thus the scriptures say:
"This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "Monks, don't be afraid of acts of merit. This is another way of saying what is blissful, desirable, pleasing, endearing, charming — i.e., acts of merit. I am cognizant that, having long performed meritorious deeds, I long experienced desirable, pleasing, endearing, charming results." — Itivuttaka
One could infer that this was a later addition and thus had nothing to do with the Buddha's teaching because his original teaching was all about suffering and being emotionally sterile, or it had everything to do with it because it was about a "Good life" and not necessarily about this "cessation" or "dispassion" business. But actually, its connection to the teachings finds a basis in the teaching that joy leads to concentration, and so forth up until dispassion and release.
Speaking about the advent of modern medicine, that doesn't necessarily rule out suffering. And that can be connected to impermanence: our medicine may fail, our medical infrastructure may collapse, our bodies (or rather their invaders) may just develop resistance.
That is unsatisfactoriness from impermanence, not just a single incident of dissolution (edit: impermanence does not happen in isolation; DO illustrates that things are originated, not that they arise or cease on their own). And the dispassion lies in not
holding to medicine in such a way as to cause suffering; we use it to care for our bodies, but not on the hopes that our bodies will be healthy forever or that we'll be happy just because our bodies are happy, because the mind bound by craving will find
other things to suffer about. Thus when we lose things, the problem isn't that we have
lost something, it's what we've been
holding on to that which was never truly ours in the first place (anatta), and we seek refuge in
other things to ease our pain (such as a mere
program or
idea of impermanence running in the background). Thus
perception of impermanence, not just
thought of impermanence, is what (in conjunction with the joy of virtue and meditation) leads to dispassion and release: non-grasping by understanding suffering and abandoning its cause.
I see it as having been implied from, a necessary consequence of, impermanence. Surely, you can see it too? Between the delightful duo of recommended wisdom, and the doctrine of impermanence, there's one conclusion that stands out - change, transformation, or as I like to call it, evolution. — TheMadFool
If I understand correctly, yes: impermanence can lead to a sort of necessary "evolution". The culture surrounding the Buddha's teachings has to adapt in order to keep the essence, the
life, going. So while it's necessary to avoid panicking over these changes, it is also necessary to protect the essence through practice, education, discipline, etc. If impermanence met letting everything go according to whatever influences exerted upon it... I doubt Buddhist monks would even be alive right now! There was a story along these lines:
Once I had a disciple who stayed in a grass-roofed hut. It rained often that rainy season and one day a strong wind blew off half the roof. He did not bother to fix it, he just let it rain in. Several days passed and I asked him about his hut. He said he was practicing not-clinging. This is not-clinging without wisdom. It is about the same as the equanimity of a water buffalo. — Ajahn Chah
Well, good on you for having ideals. But there's no textual basis for your implication that I (edit: at least
immediately) avoid such a livelihood in order to be "acting accordingly". Given the current circumstances, avoiding such a job may lead to full on homelessness (or total dependency on others) which could arguably put me in a scenario which is even
worse.
As the Buddha said, it's a gradual training. If our livelihood isn't totally "pure" or "perfect", or we have found it to cause whatever form of harm (even without our intending to harm), then we should do our best to distance ourselves away from it. Given the circumstances, this isn't always possible immediately, and so in that scenario we can just do our best to keep to the basic precepts: not killing, not stealing, not engaging in sexual misconduct, not lying, or not indulging in intoxicants ourselves. Whatever others do is up to them, and if we seek to avoid any input in the matter we should work up to that. If we demand that of ourselves immediately, we may end up causing ourselves more suffering than necessary.
I appreciate that criticism but it isn't up to
you to tell Buddhists how they should act, especially if you don't understand their practice or even the context of their life.
Their actions are not
your responsibility.
Edit:
Thank you for sharing the beautiful photos
:pray: