Was the Buddha sourgraping?
Was the Buddha sourgraping?
Did he dismiss too easily life as it is usually lived?
If one tries hard enough, does one find true happiness in things that are subject to change, to aging, illness, and death?
Did he dismiss too easily life as it is usually lived?
If one tries hard enough, does one find true happiness in things that are subject to change, to aging, illness, and death?
Comments (152)
I'll take a stab at this. Immutability is not a necessary component of happiness from where I sit. Do I disparage an amazing meal because it gets finished? The pleasure is in the eating. Am I prevented from appreciating a magnificent sunny day because the weather will change in 16 hours? Do I bemoan friendship because my friends will all be dead in a few decades? For me pleasure or delight is felt in moments, in glimmers of experience. Those moments do not have to be permanent to be cherished.
I don't think so. Supposedly Siddhartha Gautama was a prince, with a lifestyle to show for it. Pretty clothes, good food, servants and guardians, all that jazz.
Of course it also depends what you understand as a "life usually lived"?
Either way, I don't see the Buddha being "sour" about anything.
He came from a privileged background which likely taught him that material value is not an immediate key to happiness. When he witnessed suffering, disease and death, he decided to go down a spiritual path, becoming an ascetic. He didn't find the right answers in ascetism either though. Eventually, he did find a formula that seems to work: The Middle Way.
Such a way certainly doesn't condemn trying hard, working for things, money, food and whatever else. There is always a certain amount of trying necessary to live at all. Rather, I'd like to propose, the Middle Way is about just that - finding the right balance between everything and nothing.
What would you say distinguishes true happiness from untrue happiness?
One can enjoy things that are subject to gaining, illness, and death, but how much joy, and for how long?
PS. I'm not sure "true happiness" is even the goal of Buddhism.
The question might better be asked, can one find an end to suffering in things that are subject to change?
What's the word "true" adding here?
If you mean "lasting happiness", yes, just pick something that ages very slowly and you're mostly good to go. Though that is difficult to do.
[irony]Yes, one of humanity's great philosophical systems, which has been studied by millions and profoundly influential for 2,500 years, is based on resentment about the unfairness of the world.[/irony]
As long as there is an infinite supply of those moments.
I'm reading a pop-Zen book by Brad Warner, There is No God. It's kind of cool how practical Zen can-be.
No. Therapists or physicians are not "sourgraping" when they treat, and teach others how to treat, illnesses. (Besides music, what could be more life-affirming?)
No. The Buddha diagnosed and prescribed a treatment for "life as it usually lived" maladaptively.
The Buddha, if it makes sense to say he "seeks" anything, seeks the cessation of "constants" (e.g. anicca, anatta, moksha).
I don't know. Mindfulness meditation is beneficial in most regards. It's nice to engage in any form of meditation, and I think most practicers of meditation want to do it correctly, so they engage in their own investigation into Buddhism.
:lol: If Brad were at all practical he'd be a MUCH better meditation teacher.
The book is shiete, but I'm still laughing while I read it.
Only needed if your demand is to be completely happy all the time.
That depends on whether the Buddha of the Pali Canon really was sourgraping or not.
If "ordinary unhappiness" is your aim ...
What do you think?
In the case of the Buddha, his solution to the problem of suffering is so radical that it doesn't seem like a solution at all, but, rather, a whole new pathology.
Then you're not talking about the Buddha of the Pali Canon.
"Sourgraping" refers to the old tale of the fox and the grapes: The fox was eager to eat some grapes, but because they were too high on the vine for his reach, he gave up and disparaged them, saying that they are probably sour anway and not worth the effort.
The story goes that he was unhappy despite all that luxury.
Seeking satisfaction in food, drink, sex, work, art.
By modern standards, he exemplifies antisocial tendencies, depression, and other pathologies.
Basically, he can be accused of not trying hard enough to find happiness in his marriage, family, work etc.
The reference is to Freud's idea that the goal of psychotherapy is to overcome being neurotically miseable and instead be ordinarily unhappy.
I actually don't know a canonical reference for this. @Wayfarer, do you? How is the order of things-- must one first be convinced that abandoning the hindrances is possible before one can begin abandoning them?
I don't know. The Buddha of modern Buddhism is an entirely different figure from the one in the Pali Canon. To say that there are modern Buddhists who are appaled by the Buddha of the Pali Canon is an understatement.
Freud was a pessimist. Happiness/ unhappiness: it's a matter of perspective.
Quoting baker
I'm not claiming there is. But I see no reason to think anyone would attempt to give up responding to the five hindrances if they didn't believe that liberation from them is possible (and desirable!). That said: world-weariness may do the trick I suppose.
Where did you get that phrase "responding to the five hindrances"? I've never heard it before. The hindrances as something to "respond to"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_hindrances
The question is as to whether it is really possible (and desirable) to permanently cease responding to them, i.e. become liberated from them. Why would you try unless you believed it is possible?
Perhaps. In modern (western) context, "the Buddhist solution" is like weaning-off of a heroin addiction with physician-assisted methadone treatment (& group counseling support) and then maintaining with premium THC & CBD edibles.
If they come in sour grape flavor perhaps it could be said that many Western Buddhist’s are sourgraping. :blush:
Quoting Shawn
with the subtitle 'and He is with you always'. Read the intro, totally get it. I quite like Brad Warner, he's a student of Zen teacher I have utmost respect for, Gudo Nishijima-roshi. His book To Meet the Real Dragon is on my all-time greatest hits list. (Not so keen on Nishijima's other prominent successor, who had many online run-ins on various Buddhist forums I used to frequent.)
On a more general note, I think 'westerners' views of Buddhism (and dharmic religions generally) is stereotyped by their own cultural-religious background. I had a debate with I Like Sushi recently where he was insisting that Buddhism is 'theistic', because of the worship of deities such as celestial bodhisattvas and meditation Buddhas - even though Buddhism has always eschewed any notion of creator-God. But because those figures are seen as deities, then Buddhism is stereotyped with the Biblical religions where really the underlying belief-structures are entirely different. See http://veda.wikidot.com/dharma-and-religion.
It's a little too simplistic in my opinion. He creates an assumption that religion is full of idiots, like the guy killed in Jerusalem by being beaten to death in a street alley over doing nothing wrong apart from being a white westerner. Its not all that bad apart from the notion that absurdity isn't taken as a reduction and absurdom towards traditional religions.
I found this to be a very clear exposition of the five hindrances: https://www.hillsidehermitage.org/new-book/
Funny that you "totally get" Brad's 'no God and He is with you always' but don't get I Like Sushi's 'theistic' interpretation. Anything that spills forth from a Zen priest must be legit, I guess. :grimace:
I miss Jundo. :lol:
It's an interesting point. I think it depends on what you mean by theism. True, Buddhism has no creator God, but it does have many gods and above all else an "omniscient one". It is at least deistic, although it does not propose that we derive our wisdom from the deities, should worship or appease them and so on. Homage is paid to the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, all of whom were once human. not sure if it is believed that the gods can become Bodhisattvas or Buddhas without becoming human first,
But Buddha doesn't 'create the world'. Buddhism's focus is the negation of suffering - it points to the cause of suffering and the way to the cessation of suffering. Beings like us don't see 'how things are' because of our defilements and attachments which go down a long way into the psyche. Once freedom is attained from them, then we see things as they truly are. It is analogous to the Christian doctrine of original sin, but avidya has a more cognitive focus, as distinct from the Christian idea of sin, which is more volitional in nature. (I suppose you could argue that the Buddhist terms klesas and asavas, defilements and outflows, are also analogous to the Christian idea of sin, although 'sin' has become a real boo-word in modern culture.)
As to how the world was created, it's a meaningless question in Buddhism as it doesn't assume a singular moment of creation. Ancient Vedic cosmology which Buddhism incorporated, was cyclical in nature. That doesn't make it literally true, it was also embedded in many structures which were clearly mythological. But the sense of the beginingless and endless nature of the cycle of existence makes intuitive sense to me.
A saying I read on Dharmawheel - 'Ignorance has no beginning, but it has an end. Liberation has a beginning, but it has no end.'
A nice one!
I agree that Buddhism is certainly not theistic if that term is taken to denote a purposely created cosmos.
By the way I also really liked the book To Meet the Real Dragon. I still have it on my shelves somewhere; way too many books! I sometimes wonder if accumulation of books would count as an unwholesome habit. :gasp:
I don't miss Jundo, since apparently I missed, or at least fail to remember, Jundo altogether.
Jundo Cohen is the founder of an online zen center, Tree Leaf Zendo. He got banned from some Buddhist forums, I guess for being overly opinionated. Another other notable successor of Nishijima is Michael Luetchford, who recently published this book. He led some centres in the UK but has retired to Slovakia or Czech Republic - I corresponded with him recently. I am very drawn to the S?t? Zen tradition but there's not many centres around Sydney.
Dear Jundo has been repeatedly banned for heresy, essentially, and general creepiness, online and in person. And this person given the stamp of approval from Gudo Wafu Nishijima. Hmm… make you wonder, right? It should.
I used to sit with a group that met monthly which was lead by another Nishijima devotee. Kevin Bortolin, a philosophy teacher at the local JC and someone I met at one of Brad’s sittings, practiced in Japan with Nishijima but never finished the program (whatever that entails). Cool guy, and I’d much rather sit though one of his talks than Brad’s.
I don't hold that against Nishijima. Besides have been many fallings-out between Zen teachers and their putative successors the last few decades. I don't look at it through rose-colored glasses.
:up:
Quoting Wittgenstein ladder
@Wayfarer can you help me? I can't seem to find the Zen story of leaving the boat behind after having crossed the river/sea
Well, no surprise that I prefer the doom of "Sisyphus" (defiance) to that of "Tantalus" (dissatisfaction) ...
Amor fati, Fool. :fire:
You must have a photographic memory! You seem to know/remember what you said to whom and where! :100:
What's the solution?
Prove to yourself, convince yourself that such objects are not worthwhile. The Buddha does this by defining true happiness is, as @Wayfarer put it, liberation - has a beginning but, get this, no end. Very foxy, won't you agree? Hounds, where are the hounds?
[url=https://www.amazon.com/Buddhas-Teachings-Prosperity-Home-World/dp/0861715470/r][/url]
Details
True, our natural desires seem attuned to the ever-changing - we love beauty, it doesn't last; we love life, it too doesn't last; and so on - and even though the Buddha warns us - anicca (impermanence) - that in itself doesn't imply that we should now stop being enamored of beauty or that we should reject life. All anicca is meant to convey is don't be shocked and don't mourn the passing of beauty and life when that happens and that will, ceteris paribus, happen. Anicca does, in a sense, devalue that which is transient but it definitely doesn't recommend that we can't/shouldn't, for instance, enjoy the blossoms in spring while they're still around and pretty as can be.
I guess it all boils down to two simple rules:
1. Enjoy it while it lasts
2. Nothing lasts forever
:chin:
1. Seeking it is like a a magnet's north approaching another magnet's north. As you move towards it, it moves away from you.
2. Not seeking it is to place a magnet's south next to a another magnet's north. You don't have to lift a finger, the north automatically moves towards and makes contact with the south. Once you stop seeking nirvana, that is nirvana.
Now, why do I feel like I'm an inept love guru?
Our lives
1. Remember what I mentioned earlier about how our desires seem to be naturally directed towards, in Buddhist terms, the mercurial.
2. Buddhism enters the arena and says what we should really strive for/desire is the changeless, nirvana being the apotheosis.
What I believe is happening
Two simple rules:
(i) Enjoy it while it lasts
(ii) Nothing lasts forever
I believe we're all buddhas but the problem is we've forgotten rule (ii) since we always seem to get attached in an non-buddhist way to the ephemeral but we do remember rule (i) and that's why we're naturally drawn to the impermanent.
I have never before heard of "responding to the hindrances". To "respond" to sensual desire, ill will, sloth and torpor, restlessness and worry, and doubt?
Can you provide a Buddhist source that uses this formulation, "responding to the hindrances"?
The formulation used in Buddhist sources tends to be "abandoning / overcoming the hindrances". I have never heard "liberated" in this context.
Because you have faith in your teacher's instructions; because you've seen other people succeed in abandoning them; because you have a measure of insight that the hindrances are bad for you, already in a worldly sense, ie. that they hinder you and so it would be good to overcome them; because you've already had some success in abandoning them.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/index.html
In Buddhism, a deva is not a permanent identity, it's a type of body that one can be born into if one has the merit.
No, there is no such universal should in Buddhism. All that the buddhas say is, if you want to be free from suffering, you should do such and such. But beyond that Buddhism is not a religion of commandments the way most other religions are.
I understand. It's just simpler to use concepts that we're, the majority are, familiar with. It muddies the water rather than clarifies the issue but then that's the whole point I suppose.
I recently read a book, the link to which I provided to @Wayfarer, which deals with the hindrances. I'm not claiming my terminology is "normal". Abandoning the hindrances would be to cease to respond to their demands, would it not? To abandon them would be to be liberated from them, no?
Quoting baker
Yes, I'm aware of that. What's your point?
:ok:
Well, in my opinion, yes. More significantly, though, I think that Gautama rather ignored the power of those human qualities which underpin "life as it is usually lived", in particular the universal mammalian drive for social status and what is properly called in human social contexts "authority" (but in actuality is good old-fashioned "dominance"); these things that the Ancient Greeks referred to as ?????? (agonia, "struggle", "competition"). Renunciation of these "agonistic" drives is certainly possible, but only makes sense within the peculiar Hindu cosmological view within which Buddhism is based, one in which individual consciousness survives the body, the continuous reincarnation of said consciousness is fact, and cessation of said continuity of reincarnation is possible. I would argue that the practitioner who believes in Samsara and has become a Buddha, thought to have achieved moksha, is living in delusion based upon his acceptance of this cosmology. Even so, he has achieved the delightful bliss which the renunciation of desire imparts. However, for both him (because Samsara appears to be as false a doctrine as 'heaven' and 'hell') and the so-called 'secular Buddhist', whose practice is not based upon Samsara but on the achievement of said bliss alone, the entire Buddhist enterprise seems, as I have said elsewhere, a mere masturbatorial exercise, and the ultimate goal thereof seems akin to the pursuit of orgasm ("good feeling"). For my part, I would rather struggle on agonistically in search of world domination, even if it makes me miserable. Perhaps, though, this is because it has not yet caused me enough agony, has not yet made me miserable enough.
I'm just saying that you have a terminology that is novel to me.
As for the details of abandoning the hindrances: this is worked out very well in the doctrine, see here, for example:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.064.than.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/part3.html#part3-d
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel026.html
To say that one ceases to "respond" to them is very abstract.
This was in reference to an ongoing discussion as to whether and how Buddhism is theistic. While in Buddhism, there are deities, which could nominally make Buddhism "theistic", given that those deities are not such by their inherent nature, they are categorically different beings than the gods we know from other religions.
No, nothing so elaborate is needed to see the problems inherent in the desire to dominate. One only needs to be aware of the limits of one's resources in order to pick one's battles (more) wisely, and sometimes, this means, not going into battle at all.
I'll try to keep this criticism of Buddhism in mind ...
There is no such thing as "miserable enough", there is no rock bottom to hit after which one would be automatically and sufficiently inspired to change one's course.
The point isn't to "muddy the water". Concepts need to be clarified. In different religious contexts, the same word can mean different things. This is something to clarify, lest we continue with the wrong understanding.
Yes, that is what observation instructs. I do hope you realize that my tongue was planted firmly in cheek for that last bit.
I guess not but there's a way to makes sense of my statement. We're not supposed to see the truth!
Speak plainly. What exactly are your misgivings about Buddhism, and why?
??
Why not? Says who?
I recall my college days - when my professors wanted to cull the herd in a manner of speaking, the exam questions were decidely harder.
I have a couple:
(A) that in it's true, full iteration it is based in a Hindu cosmology, which appears as nonsensical as that of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam,
(B) that in it's partial, bastardized, secular modern form it appears no more than masturbatorial in it's elevation of pleasure (bliss) over purpose as the ideal of life, and
(C) that both of the aforementioned forms demand espousal of an essentially dehumanising process. Mankind did not evolve as a being which is devoid of desire and/or agon. We evolved from former social mammals which were competitive to the core of their psyches, and which subdued that innate competitiveness only insofar as was necessary to coexist within an evolutionarily advantageous social group. Within the group, competitiveness reigned, as it still does within the core of the human psyche today. Because of this, I feel that Buddhism preaches an essentially unnatural doctrine. I'm not saying that this doctrine is inherently "bad" or "evil", just that it is unnatural. The man who has been able to to relinquish all of his desires and longings in the pursuit of Nirvana seems to have become essentially inhuman to me. If one has relinquished or utterly subdued one's essentially human qualities in the pursuit of a cessation of a Samsara which is non-existent in the first place, then all one is left with is bliss, and to have sacrificed essentially human (competitive) purpose for the simple achievement of bliss seems to me a bad trade.
Try sitting still for hours on end with your legs crossed watching your breath. It's the very definition of un-fun. I can't bring myself to do it any more.
Honestly, I don’t really understand how anyone expects to get anything from a few minutes a day if they have no idea what it is they are working towards. So, do the meditation full time (for a week if possible) and if you get something out of it then you’re more likely going to stick to a daily rountine.
Personally I’m with Jung when it comes to my regard for meditation. That is it is a means of building up a wall between the ego and unconscious - this might be good for some but might be bad for others.
This is fairly clear as buddhist meditations are generally about shifting attention away from unconscious items that arise rather than exploring them. Exploring them (which is not something to be taken lightly) is the process of Individuation - which is inevitably painful/scary.
Religion is an extension of ‘shamanism’. Shamanism, across the globe, shares particular defining features where shamans go through certain extreme stresses and relate their body being broken down, consumed and reconstructed. In religious traditions with whirling dervishes and flagellants pieces of such stress are induced. Just looking as Jesus, Mohammed and buddha we can see repetition of known physiological stresses that actively induce altered states of consciousness (ASCs) known to neuroscience. Examples are isolation, sleep deprivation, extreme focused thought, hyperventilation, fasting and trance dancing.
From personal experience I can say hyperventilation is something instinctual when it comes to inducing this state as I immediately started to hyperventilate ‘on purpose’ once I came out of the peak state and I had no idea why only that I was desperate to get back to it. My experience was induced by intense focus and inner battles, sleep deprivation and fasting (because I forgot to eat and sleep). Such physical stresses and strains will hit anyone with a mental sledgehammer.
It is possible I had a mini stroke maybe? Either way I’d recommend it even though it comes with necessary hell and torture. I certainly had what buddhist’s refer to as ‘ego death’. I went on to try and purposefully induce the same experience again and a year later bungled it (which I had to) and went to the most ‘hellish’ place imaginable that gave me perspective. What this taught me was how memories are very selective and I recalled several episodes from my past I had buried away. I also recalled the full pain of first experience I had but it was still outweighed by the benefit.
The closest I’ve come to explaining this is to come to the conclusion that it was DMT naturally produced in my brain (how I’ve no idea). I say this because reports from trails, and from others who’ve taken ayahuasca, are as close to what I can find that expresses what I experienced. The potential and power of this is not really something I can express (nor fully believe anymore), but I did make myself remember beyond doubt at that point exactly how ‘important’ it was.
There is a chance I am just an unusual person who had a moment of normality. If that is the case though the world would not be how it is now so I can only assume I’m relatively normal and insane like everyone else and just happened to glimpse naked sanity briefly. Now I’m just going along with the madness of everyone else because this species is still figuring itself out.
Note: I’m not a member of any temple (and never have been), both my parents are atheists and I generally abhor both states and religious institutions for the most part. My first love was physics.
If that is to be accepted as a premise, that Buddhism must be, or is best approached experientially, phenomenologically, rather than (I struggle for the word...) accusatively...objectively (in the specific sense of "with an objective to be reached"), then how can anyone's Buddhism be authentic save that of Siddhartha himself? The argument made for Buddhist pursuit is that "this way of llife will free you from the pain caused by your longing, from the burden of your desire and the oppression of yourself by your will, and ultimately (for "religious" Buddhists) a release from the cycle of Samsara". This argument inherently involves an objective or two: (a) the achievement of Nirvana, and (b) the achievement of Moksha. Since this essentially seems to be the argument put forth by Gautama himself to those who listened to him, and then by them to all subsequent "disciples", then all but Prince Siddhartha himself has had an approach to and experience of Buddhism which is 'tainted' (I use that word cautiously) by objectivism...by having the objectives of Nirvana and Moksha in mind upon entering into the franchise, would you not say? As "sushi" has noted,
the Buddha may be viewed as,
Quoting I like sushi
...but all who have followed him have not have the same experience as experientially as did he, based upon what I have noted above. Have not all but Siddhartha, then, according to the Zen admonition, simply been "wasting their time" on their little black cushions?
Ah, very good! I must read on this. Have you a reference (Jung's collected works are voluminous)?
Please, understand that, given the shortcomings of my vocabulary, I only use the term "masturbatorial" as a shorthand for "pertaining to the pursuit of pleasure as a primary objective". I don't intend to suggest any references to the physical act of masturbation, which, while it may avoid being boring, always leaves one feeling terribly unfulfilled.
Sorry. Cannot recall off the top of my head where it came from. Likely from The Archetypes and The Collective Unconscious. I’ll have a quick look …
Found it! Was in Mysterium Coniunctionus:
Note: From book ‘Jung on Active Imagination’ (p.169).
This is silly, as it’s obvious how natural it is for people to cooperate for mutual benefit.
I think they call that holotropic breathwork.
:rofl: That means...Buddhism is a big fat lie!
It's because of these shortcomings of your vocabulary that it's difficult to the point of impossible to have much of a discussion here. Your knowledge of Buddhism is, at best from tertiary sources, or quartary and further removed. It would simply be too much to go over the whole doctrine in these posts.
It is. It's often said that Buddhism "goes against the flow".
Yes.
What I find peculiar in all this is your continued interest in Buddhism. It reveals that your basic understanding of religiosity is shaped by Abrahamic religions, ie. "religion is something you must do".
Someone unburdened with an Abrahamic past would just shrug their shoulders and dismiss Buddhism with an idle hand gesture. But here you are, obsessing about it.
Quoting Michael Zwingli
Yes, yes, the old "I want to be a rightfully self-enlightened Buddha, or nothing. I rather have nothing, be nothing than be merely an arahant."
That's the ultimate competitiveness, the ultimate risk-taking: refusal to take an established path in favor of "doing one's own thing".
However, it bears noting that the Buddha himself said things like this:
The Buddha sees himself as part of a tradition and as having discovered something that is already there. He didn't invent anything new.
"Buddha" is actually a title, not a personal name. A buddha is not unique. There is one buddha per cycle of the Universe. The cycles go on and on, and a buddha is said to appear in each one. This is where a buddha so significantly differs from a figure like Jesus: Jesus is unique, one for all times; if you miss his train, you're done for eternity, you've missed your chance. But in Buddhism, it's not like that. If you don't feel like it this time around, there's always a next rebirth, no pressure.
It can be an unthinkably long time between those opportunities, however.
In the short-term, yes.
Theravada takes a different view on this. Namely, it sees meditation as a matter of skill, developing a skill, mastering a skill. It very much conceives of meditation as a matter of gaining something. One should have goals for one's meditation and should work toward meeting them.
Thanissaro Bhikkhu talks about this a lot. E.g.
There is a very famous secular Buddhist/Hindu teacher and very famous retreats are named after him. They teach there to "watch the breath", "bare attention" and such. People sometimes go crazy at those retreats or afterwards.
It's a cautionary tale of how wrong things can go when a variation of a Buddhist meditation practice is divorced from the ethical and metaphysical system of Buddhism.
Well, whenever you're ready.
Like I said earlier, there is no universal should in Buddhism the way such shoulds exist in most other religions. All that the buddhas say is, if you want to be free from suffering, you should do such and such. But beyond that Buddhism is not a religion of commandments the way most other religions are.
This is a very important point to understand. Buddhism has no grip on you, unlike most other religions.
that's what I was referring to.
If you're referring to the Goenka retreats, I completed one of those in 2007-8, and have no criticism of them, although there are invariably those who will make a problem out of them. People can make a problem out of anything.
Which he dismissed as a dead end, something that can be skipped.
I don't see it that way at all. Framing it that way sounds like, for one, operating out of a no-self doctrine. It's a view very popular in some of Buddhism esp. in popular Western Buddhism. But it's hard (I think impossible) to support it with the Pali canon, given that there we read things like this:
For two, it echoes the old Mahayana vs. Theravada conflict, and Mahayana accusing Theravada of being "selfish" (and all kinds of inferior). (Just remember that while Mahayana places such emphasis on compassion and liberating all sentient beings before oneself, they also believe that you and all those sentient beings don't really exist.)
Thank you.
Well, you sounded quite defeated in your previous comment.
Of course you don't, given how gung-ho you were. :wink:
I actually admire people who can meditate like that -- the sheer willpower they have!
I sometimes feel it.
Quoting baker
Tosh. That is the nihilist reading of Mah?y?na. But let's not get involved in sectarian disputes.
Hmmm...I feel that religion is something we must have, certainly. Religion is not a necessity, but it is all but a necessity, as it adds a great deal to the experience of life.
Quoting baker
Find it not so. Buddhism is a fascinating phenomenon. I recognize that it is based on many observations of truth, even if I find the greater scheme faulty. Ultimately, I think that there is more truth in it than in the so-called "Abrahamic religions". Also, since recognize that I have actually very little knowledge of Buddhism, my opinions regarding it are not even approaching firmity. There is much that I would have to learn before I might claim any firm opinions on the subject; much of my interest is surely the product of my ignorance. Herein, I am merely testing my hypotheses by arguing points from my current understanding.
:clap:
I know this feeling well. The few times that I have tried to meditate, I found the practice to be, for all practical purposes, beyond my ability. Then again, for reasons that are beyond the scope of the instant discussion, I have never had the benefit of a mind which was able to be restful, or at peace. I assume that such a "defective affect" as my own is generally assumed to be proscriptive of the practice of meditation. I admire and vaguely envy those who have the ability to engage in long bouts of meditation.
A caveat: the following reply comes from a misanthrope...
I must partially disagree. People do all that they do purely for their [I]own benefit[/I], whether said benefit be physical, abstract, concrete, or emotional, with but passing thoughts of mutuality. This holds true for every human relationship in the world, including the mother-child relation. That mutual benefit is often the by-product of selfish desire is the foundation of capitalist economic thought, as expounded by A. Smith way back when (capitalist thought takes the notion that self-centerdnes is the aspect of the human psyche most influential to behavior as a premise, and seeks to harness the power thereof for mutual/societal benefit). Make no mistake, the wealthy philanthropist engages in his philanthropy not primarily in the interest of the lot of others, but rather to achieve the emotional benefits and elevated self-concept that his acts of philanthropy avail him. The idea that human beings are able to be other than self-interested and self-absorbed is, I think, a pie-in-the-sky notion, and is a "useful fiction" with which we universally delude ourselves in order to avoid living in a constant state of horror at how alone we truly are.
When people cooperate with others, they do so utterly for their own benefit, no mutuality necessary. Unfortunately, I have had to make these observations by taking classes in "the school of hard knocks".
This is self-contradictory, if people don’t benefit from cooperation then they don’t cooperate. Mutuality is necessary, and our natural capacity of reason allows it.
You've brought this up before, but I hesitated addressing this much.
In short, if you're eager to compete, religion/spirituality is a brilliant venue to do so. Corporate sharking is small fry in comparison to the power games that go on in religion/spirituality. Pretty much any religion/spirituality, regardless of its doctrine.
Competing for positions of power within the hierarchy, competing in humiliating others, competing in elevating oneself, competing for financial and other resources within the religious/spiritual organization. It's all just one big competition.
So what exactly did you do when you "tried to meditate"?
That's certainly what I have seen over a couple of decades involved in various groups and associations. Whether there is a path to higher consciousness or not, it seems to me that those who are in pursuit of this are no less prone to substance abuse, jealousy, scheming, lying, philandering and ambition than any other group. Although it seems there's something nastier about all this when it's a part of spirituality.
Or maybe that's what religion/spirituality is all about!
In no other field of life is the mindfuck so complete and so pervasive as in religion/spirituality.
Your boss or a coworker can ruin your job, or even your career, but you can still have some semblance of a life after that, and could even recover fully. Or a romantic relationship can go awry. But not in religion/spirituality: because that has the potential to destroy you from the inside and the outside, never to recover.
This is a very common view. Used to be called cynicism (in the non-philosophical sense). What do you consider to be good evidence for this? Is there a difference between gaining satisfaction through helping others and more rapacious forms of self-interest, like being a slum lord or selling drugs? Are they the same thing?
I know it's slightly off topic but I'd also be interested in what you mean by 'the horror at how alone we truly are'? What do you have in mind here?
:fire:
I might be wrong, but I don't view the matter thusly, thinking that the motive behind all cooperative behavior is selfish. As I noted above, however, I have become quite misanthropic over a period of years, and my view of the matter might be skewed by that fact.
No, there is a difference, but that difference is peripheral, not essential. The difference is that he who gains the benefit of a reinforced self-concept or emotional pleasure, or even of good press, by means of altruism, achieves his own selfish ends through a "good" act, through acts of benevolence. At the same time, he who gains concretely, by increasing his wealth or through satisfying other "baser" desires by means of usurious, illegitimate or criminal acts, achieves his own selfish ends through acts of malfeasance. Even so, there is no essential difference between these two situational types, since they are both motivated by and determined for the achievement of selfish ends. There is no motivational difference. I think that the essence of an act is determined by what motivates it, would you not say.
So they are the same motivationally but one is preferable to the other? So is the way to assess the merits of an act then found in the virtue of the performative deed rather than it's origin?
I wonder too if finding pleasure in, say, anonymously donating money to a charity is the same type of pleasure as finding pleasure in murdering children.
I mean, the horror of the realization that nobody will ever love or value me nearly as much as they do themselves. That in the end, myself, my life, and my hopes don't mean a shit to anybody else...that to them, I am just an object to be used in the achievement of their ends, and am otherwise utterly expendable.
I don’t see how we’re in disagreement. Cooperation isn’t necessarily selfless or selfish, though as I mentioned, people realize that they may personally benefit from cooperation so they cooperate out of self-interest.
Do you care about anyone other than yourself? Even if not, do you allow that others may feel differently?
Well, that's a bit of a hyperbolic contrast, but no, obviously not. Very obviously different types of pleasure, but the motives are equally self serving in both cases.
You should consider if that might be something like a self-fulfilling prophecy, or self-reinforcing, at any rate.
I think the problem you're having, if you don't mind me saying, is that you find it impossible to conceive of any motivation beyond self-interest.
I wish that I didn't have to hold it, either. I wish I could revert to believing otherwise, but since around 2009 I've seen too much to contribute to the opinion that I hold, that I don't expect any return will be possible...just seen too much of how people seem truly to be in recent years.
Quoting Janus
There are a couple of people that I truly care about, but all in all, I think that most humans aren't worth a shit, to be quite frank. I have become so callous, that occasionally I shock myself these days. On one occasion a few weeks ago, I disembarked at a bus stop and here's this guy obviously overdosing on heroin (probably fentanyl these days) with a couple of girls there calling "911". I actually found myself telling these chicks as I passed them by, "don't even bother, fuck that loser". Then, later on, I found myself thinking, "man, who am I?". Maybe now I should move to NYC, where I suppose I'd fit right in, as we all stepped over the addicts on the way to the office.
Quoting Janus
I once believed that people might, but now...I dunno. I have lost most of the faith that I once had in human decency. These days, even when I meet a person who seems what you might call "nice", I find myself thinking, "yeah, this is just the mask he/she shows to the world".
Maybe we should jerk this puppy back on topic, though.
Much to their chagrin, scientists will have to agree that to the brain, the above two pleasures are the same. And if the brain is the measure of all things ...
Kamma is intention, is sometimes said.
Quoting Michael Zwingli
Acknowledging that humans are a mixed bag, a mixure of good and bad is not misanthropy, it's realistic. But it is a view that can be quite difficult to live with, without proper contextualization. So people generally tend toward one or the other extreme: ie. they believe that people are "essentially good", or they believe that people are "essentially bad". Early Buddhism offers a way to transcend this duality altogether.
And you feel exactly the same way about other people. So you're even, and you can't cry foul.
What you say above is actually a view expressed in Early Buddhism:
[i]I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near S?vatth? at Jeta’s Grove, An?thapi??ika’s monastery. And on that occasion King Pasenadi Kosala had gone with Queen Mallik? to the upper palace. Then he said to her, “Mallik?, is there anyone dearer to you than yourself?”
“No, great king. There is no one dearer to me than myself. And what about you, great king? Is there anyone dearer to you than yourself?”
“No, Mallik?. There is no one dearer to me than myself.”
Then the king, descending from the palace, went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, “Just now, lord, when I had gone with Queen Mallik? to the upper palace, I said to her, ‘Mallik?, is there anyone dearer to you than yourself?’
“When this was said, she said to me, ‘No, great king. There is no one dearer to me than myself. And what about you, great king? Is there anyone dearer to you than yourself?’
“When this was said, I said to her, ‘No, Mallik?. There is no one dearer to me than myself.’”
Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:
Searching all directions
with your awareness,
you find no one dearer
than yourself.
In the same way, others
are thickly dear to themselves.
So you shouldn’t hurt others
if you love yourself.
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/Ud/ud5_1.html[/i]
Note: This is a king asking his wife whom she loves the most. He surely expected that she would say that she loves him, his majesty the most. But no. The Buddha then acknowledges that this is indeed the state of affairs in the world.
Rather, the problem is that he doesn't seem to conceive of a life _with_ that insight in it. It seems a rather common problem.
[i]Look at people in strife.
I will tell how
I experienced
terror:
Seeing people floundering
like fish in small puddles,
competing with one another—
as I saw this,
fear came into me.
The world was entirely
without substance.
All the directions
were knocked out of line.
Wanting a haven for myself,
I saw nothing that wasn’t laid claim to.
Seeing nothing in the end
but competition,
I felt discontent.
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/StNp/StNp4_15.html[/i]
This actually speaks of a type of misgivings about Buddhism, and why some people find fault with the Buddha, saying he gave up on humanity too soon and that his outlook was too grim (and why they feel compelled to ascribe to him fancier motivations and views).
This is where the old spat between Mahayana and Theravada is, again, instructive. Namely, Mahayana accuses Theravada of being "selfish".
But the crux of the matter is really delusions of grandeur, seeking pleasure in believing oneself to be morally superior (whatever that means in any particular social context).
Further, "selfishness" is a complex term, confusingly, misleadingly complex (but at the same time, conveniently so). We can conceptualize the same behavior that is considered "selfish" as an expression of greed, lust, hatred, passion. But doing so is not acceptable in our culture. For one, because those terms hail back to our Christian heritage of the capital sins and we feel that is just baggage to get rid of. For two, conceptualizing it in terms of greed, lust, hatred, passion induces us to think what would be an example of not acting out of greed, lust, hatred, passion -- and this is something we are reluctant to do, because we can't see a way to act without greed, lust, hatred, passion. Or else, we resort to ad hoc judgments about what in particular passes for greed, lust, hatred, passion, and what doesn't, and those ad hoc judgments are bound to confuse us. So we use an amorphous term like "selfish" to air our criticism of someone, while at the same time, remain in the comfort of conceptual mist.
You do realize the absurd irony of talking about this with people, right?
Anyway, the way I see it, your problem is a case of simplificationism, the desire to have things categorized in neat boxes, with neat labels, wanting things to be either this or that. It's a common human tendency.
Early Buddhism goes against that tendency, and this is another misgiving that not just a few people have about Buddhism. Often, Early Buddhism expects one to think in very different categories than one is used to, and that can be alienating. For example, people tend to expect that a religion/spirituality will take a firm stance on human nature (whether humans are "essentially good" or "essentially bad"), but Early Buddhism doesn't hold that the term "human nature" is meaningful to begin with.
I like the way you say this, as though it were the simplest thing in the world to do, a piece of cake, or easy peasy lemon squeezy.
Quoting praxis
Easy to say, but like you point out, not so easy to do! The Buddha also realized the difficulty and came up with an eight fold path to help people obtain the right state of mind, but it isn’t easy and human nature, being what it is, is always looking for an easy solution.
I like the way you say this too, as though if there were an easy solution, a Buddhist would still do it the hard way. That suggests to me that it’s really not about a solution but rather all about the way.
Well, when life gives you lemons you might as well make lemonade. Try and become a bodyguard for a head of state. Believe me, if you happen to be the last one left standing in the way between him and a bullet, you'll be worth more than the lives of potentially billions of people. At least, to the person responsible for the lives of said billions of people who asked him to be. Not a bad switcheroo.
[quote=Linji Yixuan]If you meet the Buddha, kill him.[/quote]
The enemy of my enemy is my friend (Arthashastra).
I'm bad. Does this mean the Buddha is my friend? WTF?! :chin:
And okay with suffering. Life without suffering is a contradiction.
Quoting Michael Zwingli
Hold onto that thought. Nihilism could well be a necessary 'passage of rites' kinda thing. Sadly buddhists often tend to wallow in it like they've discovered something special when they've really just notice the door and forgot to walk through it ... which is also necessary if your doctrine at its heart is about doing away with 'suffering'. Ironic me thinks.
Do provide a canonical reference for this.
When I was a young man, I studied Buddhism in general and Zen Buddhism in particular. It was long ago, so I’m unable to reference any particular book I’ve read at the time, but I came away with the impression that the Buddha’s insights were simple and yet profound. Whatever has happened in the past, cannot be changed and it makes no difference whether we accept it or resist it. Whatever might happen in the future, has not yet happened, so why worry about imagined outcomes? The only moment we have any power at all, to do anything, is here and now. If one can cultivate the ability to live in the present moment and let things go, it will be a very useful attitude to have, at the moment of our own death.
For every "Buddha said" one should have a canonical reference. One wouldn't want to spread as "the word of the Buddha" something for which one doesn't have a reference. One wouldn't want to put words into his mouth. So one relies on a bonafide source for his words.
Well, that's not so profound, that's pretty much pop psychology. It's also so general it's not specifically Buddhist either.
You said earlier:
Quoting Present awareness
But in all this, there's one thing you're firmly clinging on to: your desire to enjoy sensual pleasures.
With this desire firmly in place, death will be horrible. Things will be gone, but your desire for them will be unsatisfied. That's dying thirsty and hungry, cold and desiring warmth, in pain and desiring wellbeing.
I completely disagree, because no one really know whom said what, thousands of years ago and it doesn’t even matter! What matters most are the ideas and ways of looking at things, regardless if Buddha, Jesus or any other wise man may have said them. If you read something that rings true, regardless of the source, who cares where it comes from? It may not be right, it may not be true, but you and only you, are the final judge on whether it has value!
Then why preface your sentences with "the Buddha said" and such?
So my earlier point about clinging to the desire for pleasure still stands.
You're not actually letting things go -- things such as romantic relationships, delicious foods, etc. -- you're just using them up one by one, all along relying that there will be an endless supply of them. Sure, you can let go of this piece of cake after eating some of it, but can you give up desiring to eat delicious food altogether?
I’m simply giving the Buddha credit for what others have attributed to the Buddha in Buddhist literature.
Quoting baker
No, not me. The desire to give up desire, is also a desire, so it doesn’t work. It’s like trying to wipe off blood, with blood or trying to stop thinking by thinking.
Then you need to read more "Buddhist literature". There, what you now claim "doesn't work" is very well worked out as working.
Buddhist literature outlines a path which may lead to an enlightened experience and it has helped many of those whom have chosen to follow it. Through meditation, one may enter a state where all that is experienced in the moment, is allowed to be. In a state of non resistance to what IS, there may be a sudden awakening or a flash of insight.