12-11-2018, 01:47 AM
(12-10-2018, 11:04 PM)Stranger Wrote:(12-10-2018, 09:50 PM)MangusKhan Wrote: I'm reading the Dhammapada now, and I still don't understand Siddhartha's polarity. Is he positive, or is he negative? His philosophy is such that it defies all labels. Passionless and pure, acquiring energy-density for the sake of energy-density. He seems like he's enslaving others, but then he is also completely harmless and benevolent.
That is shocking to me. Who is he enslaving?
Maybe "enslaving" isn't the word I'm exactly looking for. He often seems to impinge on the free-will of others, bending their will away from the world and towards his own. But his will was pure, that the painful illusions of this world cease and all beings partake instead in the peace of truth. All the joys and pleasures and passions of life are completely rejected and invalidated by Siddhartha's philosophy, because they all constitute a partaking of illusion and the suffering that accompanies it. He seems to have no problem breaking the veil for another in order to convince them of the foolishness of participating in the world and fulfilling their desires.
I believe it was Q'uo who once said that Gautama ignored the heart, but I can't find that session now. So this is where my confusion about the polarity of his philosophy and actions stems from. I will say that I don't really believe at all that the Buddha was negative. Compassion and loving-kindness towards others still takes a prominent role in the philosophy. It's just the lack of love for the world and the processes of the world which makes him seem so uncaring. So much of his philosophy is about discipline and control, but of the self as opposed to others.