On Buddhism
I do want to right away start by saying that I am a novice in regards to Buddhist thought and belief. However, I have been quite interested in Buddhist thought for quite a while now, and to be honest, I live my life, to the best of my knowledge, as a Buddhist would. Now, this doesn't make me a Buddhist by any regards, as I am deficient in the asceticism component of Buddhist thought and belief. I do have some misgivings with regards to Buddhism, which I'm going to list three main points that I hope anyone cares to address:
1) With that said, as someone who most closely is aligned with Stoicism and Cynicism, due to their influence on Christianity and such, I do find the asceticism to be difficult to incorporate into the life on an average Western adult, that I am. Even in our consumer-based economy that is the United States, it's a matter of personal preference and ultimately individualism to embrace Buddhism, or so I thought. Namely, that Buddhism is not an individual based 'taste' or 'liking', as far as I'm aware, nor is it a philosophy that embraces individualism in any regard. Is this something anyone would agree with?
2) Another misgiving that I have towards Buddhism is the fact that it's a philosophy that is at once very elegant in its simplicity, yet very hard to master or achieve. By which I mean to make the claim, that Buddhism is a philosophy that is too stringent on such a basic urge that is desire. Think about it this way, if everyone in the world mastered their desires and practiced Buddhist asceticism, then we wouldn't have made it very far as a species. The entire economy would fall apart and we would figuratively live as if we were still in the stone age. I mean no disrespect here in comparing a world full of Buddhists to cavemen with some fire; but, I hope I got the point across here. Is this something anyone would agree with?
3) Finally, and perhaps most abstractly in scope is my dread with the concept of reincarnation. It's almost scary to think that I will be reborn as a centipede or let alone as another human being, in the future. The only reassuring thing about death is the fact that it is final and permanent or certain. I find the desire to live an after-life in some magical place in the sky or as a pig in some field, like some cruel and sadistic joke. I mean, would you want to live in perpetuity in a world with so much suffering? I would not. The people that do come off to me as insane or lacking in sensibility with regards to this matter.
1) With that said, as someone who most closely is aligned with Stoicism and Cynicism, due to their influence on Christianity and such, I do find the asceticism to be difficult to incorporate into the life on an average Western adult, that I am. Even in our consumer-based economy that is the United States, it's a matter of personal preference and ultimately individualism to embrace Buddhism, or so I thought. Namely, that Buddhism is not an individual based 'taste' or 'liking', as far as I'm aware, nor is it a philosophy that embraces individualism in any regard. Is this something anyone would agree with?
2) Another misgiving that I have towards Buddhism is the fact that it's a philosophy that is at once very elegant in its simplicity, yet very hard to master or achieve. By which I mean to make the claim, that Buddhism is a philosophy that is too stringent on such a basic urge that is desire. Think about it this way, if everyone in the world mastered their desires and practiced Buddhist asceticism, then we wouldn't have made it very far as a species. The entire economy would fall apart and we would figuratively live as if we were still in the stone age. I mean no disrespect here in comparing a world full of Buddhists to cavemen with some fire; but, I hope I got the point across here. Is this something anyone would agree with?
3) Finally, and perhaps most abstractly in scope is my dread with the concept of reincarnation. It's almost scary to think that I will be reborn as a centipede or let alone as another human being, in the future. The only reassuring thing about death is the fact that it is final and permanent or certain. I find the desire to live an after-life in some magical place in the sky or as a pig in some field, like some cruel and sadistic joke. I mean, would you want to live in perpetuity in a world with so much suffering? I would not. The people that do come off to me as insane or lacking in sensibility with regards to this matter.
Comments (114)
I am not sure, if I can agree with you here, but then I am not even sure at this stage, whether or not I clearly see your argument.
As far as I can see your argument, you seem to be in favour of Buddhism, but not with asceticism it entails. Perhaps you could say more precisely what you like about Buddhism, or with which Buddhist teachings you agree, and then also why you dislike asceticism.
I am inclined to believe that it is not necessary to be an ascetic in the sense that you refuse food and any personal pleasure in order to be religious. What is needed much more, in my view, is a respect for the teachings of the religion and a sincere attempt to live according to its moral standards.
Quoting Wallows
This is, in my view, indeed an important point.
On the other hand, of course, I don't think Buddhism tells you to stop working.
It just means to tell people not to be guided by personal greed and the desire to influence others and exercise power over them.
Buddhism, I tend to believe, is not a religion/philosophy for young people, though. In your youth, you can and should have desires, such as the desire to earn a living and to find a partner.
Wisdom, including the wisdom that all achievements in life are questionable, is something that comes later.
Quoting Wallows
As far as I know, there is no empirical basis for reincarnation.
Reincarnation, however, if someone believes in it, does not necessarily mean you are reborn as the same person with the same qualities, traits and characteristics. It is not even sure you are reborn on this planet.
An immortal soul reaching the heights of God and a state of eternal love and light need not be such a bad thing, I think. But as I said before, we don't and can't know, if this is what we will be.
Generally, I would advise getting in contact with a Buddhist centre - going to a talk or public event. There are many Buddhist centres around now, unlike a few generations ago.
I think overall the most beneficial aspect of Buddhism is their approach to meditation or mindfulness as it is called nowadays. Interestingly, it doesn't really figure in many traditionally Buddhist cultures, where meditation is 'something monks do', but there have been some influential popular movements coming out of Western Buddhism, and some Thai and Tibetan traditions, encouraging meditation practice for lay people.
I just don't see any point to it, honestly. Is it some prerequisite towards enlightenment?
Quoting Andreas Greifenberger
I am out of my element here, so I'll just play it by ear. Isn't it doubly difficult for a person from the West, who was raised to become a good working citizen, is made aware of human capital attained through the laborious efforts of 'stepping on the shoulders of giants' of the past, is also aware of the comfort and luxury that technology and progress entail through competition and the invisible hand of the markets... Well, you get my point here, I suppose? If I were to put this mildly, a profound disillusionment with our current socio-economic system would have to occur in the mind of a would-be Western Buddhist. It also strikes me as profoundly selfish to want to abandon the good that can be promoted through being such a "cog".
Quoting Andreas Greifenberger
But, then is it still Buddhism we are talking about or a convenient aberration of Buddha's philosophy or way of living?
As far as I am aware, samsara will continue until nirvana or enlightenment is attained by each and every individual. Is that correct?
There's a lot of metaphysics to Buddhist philosophy that I am only vaguely aware of.
Quoting Wayfarer
Yes, but usually when I buy into a philosophy I take it as a whole and not selectively pick out parts that I like or don't like. The current Dalai Lama is thought to be the 14'th reincarnation, so I think it's pretty important, yes?
Maybe I'm confusing the whole philosophy of Buddhism here and treating it like a religion, is that accurate?
Yes. Try reading the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha) himself. Nothing in his teachings merits taking reincarnation literally. Also, SG was born a prince, a kind of a playboy. He became disillusioned when he finally left his palace as a young man and saw people suffering in the streets for the first time. After some soul-searching, he decided to renounce that life and became an ascetic. He became disillusioned again this time about asceticism. He finally settled on “the middle way” or what we would call moderation.
So no need for asceticism or belief in literal reincarnation!
Hope this helps.
I’m afraid that is not true at all, but I can’t respond further until much later as I’m on duty.
I don’t believe I’m wrong, but the metaphysics of BCE India was different than now. I’m trying to help Wallows. Anyway, the Buddha would have reached Nirvana, so the Dalai Lama’s incarnation doesn’t need to be believed. In fact, the cycle of death and rebirth can be seen as metaphorical, and there is no way of knowing what the Buddha meant by this cycle. He was rebelling against Hinduism, so it’s not impossible that when he was talking about an escape from that cycle he was just speaking about renouncing Hinduism. That’s my belief. It's an original idea as far as I know. It’s certainly not falsifiable.
Anyway, @Wallows, any religion should only be a guide to a better life. When we start taking things literally or buying it whole cloth, then we become fundamentalists and it loses its utility.
And here I would like to bring up my fourth 'misgiving' with Buddhism. Namely, the concept of suffering or dukkha. Now, I have no reason to suffer if I was a dolphin. I would simply adhere to what Nature dictates that I do. But... people, on the other hand, complain and moan and beat their chests with how much suffering they have gone through or expect to encounter. Why is that? It's somewhat perplexing that anyone should complain about their suffering.
What I mean here, is the natural aspect of the human condition being in a world with limited resources and scarcity, forcing us humans to migrate in our earlier years to other lands, undergo adaptive changes that allowed us to survive in distant hot or cold lands, etc. But, at the heart of all this is an aspect of being human that one is either forced to accept by adhering to Nature, which is that suffering is natural and unavoidable.
What I do not see as just is saying that we suffer because we are human; but, rather we suffer because it is natural. And, if one wants to live in a world with less suffering, then they must accept this fundamental aspect of being.
To me, “we suffer because it is natural,” is a brute fact, not a suggestion that you can’t do anything about it. Isn’t that a point of meditation? To separate one’s mind from the ego, the part that suffers? @Wayfarer, is that right?
Metaphysics - Buddhism rejects metaphysics, in the Aristotelian sense. There is nothing in Buddhism corresponding to the notion of the Aristotelian 'ouisia' (translated as 'substance'.) Buddhism teaches ??nyat? (usually translated as 'emptiness'), which is notoriously difficult to either define or understand; a good brief introductory article can be found here.
Practically speaking, Buddhist 'metaphysics' is based around the 'twelve-fold chain of dependent origination' which couldn't really be summarised in a forum post (although there's a good article on it on Wikipedia).
Re-birth - obviously a very controversial aspect of Buddhism in the West, where 'belief in reincarnation' is culturally taboo (on two grounds, one religious, one scientific).
But two important points have to be made - unlike what Noah suggests, the fact of rebirth is fundamental to all forms of Buddhism. You can interpret it to say that it means the constant birth and death of our feelings and emotions, moment to moment - and that's true. But Buddhism really plays out on a much larger canvas than that. It is a sore point for 'secular Buddhism', in particular, which is generally averse to the idea that re-birth is something that really happens. So, it's a stumbling block for many people - that's why I said to 'bracket' it, which doesn't mean rejecting it, or believing it, but just suspending judgement about it.
The second point is that Buddhism *does not* teach that there is a 'soul that migrates from life to life'. Big no-no. It's much more like a process view - that one life gives rise to the next like the 'passing of a torch' or even the transmission of a fax (a modern metaphor that has been used). There is a lovely word in Mahayana Buddhism, the 'citta-santana' meaning '"mindstream", used in Buddhist philosophy. Citta may be translated as “that which is conscious,” “ordinary consciousness” or “the act of mental apprehension”; and santana may be translated as “a series of events” or “continuum.”
This is defined as the moment-by-moment continuum of mental thoughts, impressions and occurrences. It is the stream of successive moments of awareness, or movement of the mind. What it provides is a continual and enduring personality in the absence of an individual self, or atman. But it is not (unlike Aristotelian metaphysics) understood in terms of substance and attribute. Quite why not, is another deep study.
Quoting Wallows
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
Well - here is where 'faith' comes in. Ultimately what the Buddha points to is indeed a state beyond all suffering - that is what makes it a religion. But Buddhism recognises that we obviously don't know that state - if we did know it, then we too would be Buddhas! In the absence of that direct knowledge (jñ?na), then we have to 'take it on faith'. Here is a snippet of dialog with one of the Buddha's principle disciples:
Pubbakotthaka Sutta: Eastern Gatehouse
Quoting Wallows
It's another difficult question, and (unfortunately) one to which the only answer is 'yes and no'! Buddhism is most definitely a religion (or group of religions.) But because it originated in an entirely different cultural sphere to the Semitic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) then it understands the meaning of religion in a very different way. In fact, 'dharma' and 'religion' are not exact synonyms; like many Buddhist terms, there is no exact counterpart for 'dharma' (or 'bodhi' or 'samsara' or many other fundamental terms.) That is why it is often said that Buddhism is 'more like a philosophy or way of life' than a religion, and in a way that's also true. (Hence, the 'no' part.)
For myself, what drew me to Buddhism was the strength of the basic argument; but also one particular book, Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind by Shunryu Suzuki, published about 1970. That is actually the founding text and teacher of the San Francisco Zen Centre. One of the central ideas in this book, which is basically a series of dharma talks (=Buddhist sermons), is to 'practice meditation with no gaining idea'. This is based on the Soto Zen principles of Master Dogen (one of the two main sects of Japanese Zen.) The idea is, to sit in zazen (meditation) every day, but not to expect anything from it. Hence, 'no gaining idea'. That, in my mind, is what makes it a religious practice. (See my brief guide to Zazen.)
Some articles for the philosophically inclined:
Beyond scientific materialism and religious belief, Akincano M. Weber.
What is and isn't Yog?c?ra Buddhism, Dan Lusthaus.
That’s a silly way to phrase it, as though Westerners reject the notion because it’s “culturally taboo,” :razz: rather than it simply being inconsistent with popular Western religious beliefs, science, or plain reason. I guess it could be taboo in some underdeveloped subcultures, but then Buddhism would be rejected in its entirety in such a place, I imagine.
There are many aspects of Buddhism that is culturally alien, but are nevertheless consistent with our reality.
The curious fact is that everyone must “bracket out” rebirth because no one can explain it. We can only believe in [it].
Exactly. I question why secular Buddhism even exists, when under a 'one life and done' model, the path leading to the cessation of Dukkha is mere bodily death.
- https://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/reincarnation.htm
There is a lot of debate amongst Western adherents of Buddhism about whether, or in what sense, ‘the wheel of rebirth’ is real. Sometimes it is said that rebirth is part of Indian culture and not necessary for practicing and benefiting from Buddhism; other times, that it is an analogy for the moment-to-moment process of daily life. However I am not so sure about that. I think the meaning of 'rebirth' is that 'so long as we identify with those things that are subject to birth and death, then we too are subject to birth and death'. When seen this way, rebirth seems a lot less like participating in an endless series of dramas that many people seem to understand 'rebirth' to mean. It is more that through our attachments and cravings, we are bound to all the sufferings of creatures driven by instincts to keep struggling for survival, and that being bound to this, is bondage indeed.
According to Buddhism, it is not as if we can simply step out of existence, or get off the hamster wheel, even at the time of death, because the latent tendencies that drove this life will always re-form another existence - which is also bound to the same wheel, by the same forces. It is not a voluntary process. Buddhism seeks to show you how to be free of these drives. But that understanding is not a simple matter, it is not like 'having a relaxing time' or 'being free from stress' in the way that modern culture generally understands. If it were like that, then simply being materially well-off and not having emotional problems would be the same as spiritual liberation. But Buddhism says that, even though we might be lucky enough to be free of adverse material conditions, we are still subject to change and decay, and so still bound to the wheel of birth and death, and that whatever favourable circumstances we have now will one day be lost.
So I think according to Buddhism, understanding 'freedom from rebirth' is not actually a matter of whether you believe in reincarnation or not. It has a deeper meaning. It is about whether you are of this world, part of the whole cycle of birth-and-death, change-and-decay, rising-and-falling, that everything in nature is subject to; one of the designations of a Buddha is ‘lokuttara’ meaning ‘above the world’. Nowadays we seem to think that 'natural' is good and wholesome, yet it is the case that everything in nature is subject to decay and death, even if it is beautiful when it is young and vital. (Hence culture’s fascination with youth, youth fashion and ‘staying young’.)
The Buddha teaches that there is something that is beyond change and decay, that is not subject to the constant cycle of birth and death. That is what the Buddha found and points to. Living in the light of that, realizing what that is and making oneself open to it, is the aim of the Buddhist teaching, as I interpret it.
All sorts of teleological narratives could replace rebirth. Can you explain why a different narrative would be any less effective?
The idea of suffering is at the heart of Buddhism. The first of the Four Noble Truths in Tibetan Buddhism is the truth of suffering. There's no way around it. From what you say, I don't think you understand what it means in this context.
And no, I'm not a Buddhist, but I know what suffering is as discussed here. I have felt that suffering.
So, why stop with Buddhism? Why not try a whole smorgasbord of ancient and oriental religions?
I see no problem with people investigating, trying-on-for-size, sampling, playing with, becoming novices in, and dithering over other religions suitably distant from the wicked western wasteland of materialism, consumerism, industry, etc. Go for it, but you still have to work out your personal salvation (whatever that may be) where you are, in the cultural milieu in which you exist, using the too familiar materials at hand. Just like every Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jew, Moslem, Jain, Zoroastrian, Shinto, atheist, etc. has to do.
Your best bet will, in the long run, will be to "grow where you are planted". For you, Western heritage, no less / no more than the Eastern, is a mixed bag and has depths that are difficult to fully plumb. You have a long head start in the Western traditions. "Your people" are westerners. You are a westerner. You may think that westerners are uniquely monstrous colonial, imperialist, materialistic, polluting... blah, blah, blah but we are not. There is no escape, this side of the grave, from human folly. We are all (7 billion+ of us) bozos on the bus, messing things up as we go along.
Finding your personal salvation (whatever that is) will be no easier here, there, or anywhere else.
If you buy the idea that philosophy can help guide us on the path to salvation, which I do, then which philosophy you pick can be important. I find that eastern philosophies are much more in tune with the way I understand the world than western ones are. This has nothing to do with any moral problems with the western way of seeing things. Also, I don't deny that my outlook is a western one. I started out intellectually with science, math, and engineering. That led me straight to Taoism, although it would be silly to call myself anything other than a dabbler. It has had a big effect on my intellectual and psychological development
Also, there's an advantage to trying out approaches that are different from those you grew up in - it's easier to see and avoid the philosophical and religious pitfalls and illusions. You get to choose what you follow and what you don't. Of course that means that Buddhism in Asia is different, maybe even more, than Buddhism in America. So be it.
Edit - sorry. , changed "less" to "more."
Quoting Wayfarer
What about karma? I don't even know how to describe the concept of karmic rebirth or how it is 'accumulated' during one's life, and then in a figurative sense evaluated to influence samsara.
Quoting Wayfarer
Yeah, can you elaborate on these "forces" that dictate rebirth?
Quoting Wayfarer
I'm not familiar with this notion of Buddhism as being above and beyond the world when enlightenment occurs.
What do you mean?
Quoting T Clark
You have felt the suffering in terms of what, desire or what?
In the Vedic religion, 'karma' was something regulated through rituals and the correct performance of sacrifice. The Buddha adapted the term and broadened its scope to mean 'intentional action' generally. (Likewise, the Buddha adapted the term 'brahmin' to mean 'one of noble conduct' instead of simply 'one born into the priestly class'.) So in this way, karma is central to Buddhism as the main principle of action. In principle it's not complicated: what you do now gives rise to future states of being; hellish actions produce hellish consequences. (People nowadays seem not to believe in hell, so they seem to think if they die then there's no further consequences; I'm not so sure of that although I can't say that I know.)
Quoting Wallows
I can't summarise it. The principle is simple enough, but the details are not. All I can do is link to some resources such as this article.
The 'round of rebirth' has been depicted as the 'bhavachakra', which encompasses the six realms (hell realms, ghost realms, animal realms, human realms, titan realms, heavenly realms). Beings are reborn in these realms endlessly because of karma; the Buddha and the Bodhisattvas are symbolically depicted as outside the wheel, although in some versions, they also appear in minute form in each of the realms, symbolising the Buddha's compassion to teach all suffering beings. Plainly this is a mythological iconography but it conveys the gist of the idea - that what we do now gives rise to rebirth in higher or lower states of being in future (although again in our sensate culture we have great difficulty accepting the reality of such ideas).
Quoting Wallows
In early Buddhism (represented today by the Theravada Buddhism of S E Asia) there was an absolute distinction between Nirvana and Samsara. One of the innovations of the Mahayana was to say that these are ultimately not distinct, that they are the same domain, viewed from different perspectives. That is the basis of Buddhist non-dualism (advaya). This was and is a radical teaching from the viewpoint of many Buddhist schools - the Theravada have never accepted that. To really grasp it takes some study of the MMK of Nagarjuna, which is quite an arcane piece of philosophy ( 1).
But the Buddha is 'lokuttara' (above the world) (and also 'lokuvidu' (i.e. 'knower of worlds')) in all schools of Buddhism; these are traditional epiphets. Ultimately, the Buddha is pointing to 'the unborn, unconditioned, unfabricated'.
(This verse is often compared by scholars to sayings concerning the 'wisdom uncreate' in other religious traditions; there are some resemblances, but also considerable differences.)
My qualms with Buddhism relate more to the caste system. I can't quite get past that whole thing is just designed to get you to accept your lot in life. The rah get to live it up since they acted virtuously in another life and everyone else just has to learn to cope with that the human experience primarily entails suffering. It's all kind of a lot of good advice, but I do wonder if that isn't just simply there in the same way that being burned at the stake is kind of what is meant by an eternity in hell is just sort of there in Christianity. Like, I'm not quite sure that the religion isn't just simply the pretext for whatever it was that the Indian rah had done to warrant what could be understood as the set of excuses which comprised an ideology.
Religion is an aristocratic excuse disguised as Philosophy. The invocation of the divine is a condescending means to explain inequality to the general populace. It could be indicitave of a certain kind of Western arrogance to be so dismissive of other faiths, but I kind of think that it's all just sort of the same across the board.
Buddhism rejects the caste system. It is one of the main reasons Buddhism died out in India.
The notion is that there is a continual and enduring individual "mindstream" across different incarnations, which pretty much amounts to the same thing as saying that there is an individual self or atman, except that it is conceived as being dynamic, and not static and changeless.
The Buddhist conception of rebirth is incoherent; that's why no one can understand it. The secular Buddhist movement is right to discard this groundless idea. It is arguable that the idea only arises because of the tendency of all organisms to cling to life at all costs, and that psychological fact coupled with reflective awareness of our unacceptable impending fate generates the ideas of reincarnation or resurrection; and the general idea of an afterlife. If the aim of Buddhism is to relinquish attachment, then clinging to the idea of rebirth should be the first thing to go.
There is no "larger canvas" than this life (that we could all non-prejudicially agree upon at least) ; anything like that is a contingent artifact of cultural and individual imagination. The usefulness of Buddhism stands or falls on its ability to help deliver relinquishment of attachment here and now, and the fulfilling mortal life of equanimity that this might help bring about.
Of course I predict that you will not attempt to answer this.
And that makes sense to you?
Sure, in the context. There is not a single thing that exists independently or in isolation from everything else.
It's a matter of fact. The Buddha never recognised castes or discriminated on the basis of caste. He adopted the term 'brahmin', which means for Hindus 'born into the priestly caste', to mean 'those of noble behaviour' thereby explicitly denying the notion of birth-right.
I climbed the Himalayas, long ago,
While traveling for the Army DIA to be,
And complained to the wise Lama
Up there that life could be hell.
He said “Get lost!
Go make a heaven of hell and then me tell.
The door is never shut on the prison cell,
So, why would you ever want to stay inside it
When the exit is always wide open.”
A week passed, then a month, and then 31 years,
And I found myself at a Buddhist-run cafe,
In New Hamburg, NY, and decided to sit there
Through most of the summer,
Having just retired from IBM,
And becoming as free as a neutrino.
The cafe was run by the Buddha Girls
From the monastery on Shafe Road,
Home to one of only two Lamas
In the entire United States,
And the only one on the east coast.
The cafe was called
“Himalayas on the Hudson”,
And the Lama often came to dine there,
With his entourage of higher-ups and bodyguards.
Because I was there often,
I got to know the old Lama,
His bodyguards ever retreating,
And so I taught him how to do
High fives and low fives and such,
And we began to talk about
The connectedness that underlies all things,
The reaching of which meditative state
Through the removal of all thoughts
Being the very heart of Buddhism.
In addition, I always gave him the weather
For the rest of the day and for the next day,
Always saying that
It would become sunny if it was raining,
And that it would be still sunny
If it was already sunny,
And if it was really raining heavily,
That it was always sunny on the inside.
I remember,
Thinking upon first meeting him
That “here he is”, the great one,
And so I have a chance to ask
A deep question of him,
Without having to go back over to
Tibet or India and climb up a mountain,
So, I pointed to an article
In the newspaper that said,
“We may never know who won
The Presidential election, Bush or Gore”
And so I asked him for his wisdom on the matter.
Well, he thought for only a second or two and said,
“Who cares!”, and such it sunk into me a bit later
That this was a great wisdom, indeed.
The Cafe workers didn’t wear the flowing gold
And reddish robes that the Buddhists wore,
But wore regular clothes and even had long hair,
And so, many of the hectic type customers,
Unknowing of their servers’ Buddhism,
Wondered at the peace and joy
That the workers radiated,
As if they were in some sort of serenity field,
Which I suppose the workers were,
Plus they being chosen for their outgoingness.
I talked with them about string theory,
The theory that the differing vibrations
Of really small ‘strings’ gives rise
To all of the elementary particles and forces,
And, so, we related this to all that is absolute
And fundamental beneath this projection
Of reality in which we live out life dreams.
Buddhism is not a religion, but a way of life,
And Buddhists can still have friends,
Outside jobs, fun, sex, and whatnot,
Although some of them spend a lot of time
On the inner world, which, like meditation,
Can only be known as “not what you think”.
Summer soon died in his sleep one night,
And so Time hurled its waves ever onward
?Until even Old Autumn had passed on.
The cafe had now been rented out,
Having become an American-Korean restaurant
Run by Sin-Ha and Su-Nee,
Although still owned by the Buddhists.
Winter had snowed us in.
In late spring, the Cafe, still my ‘office’,
Announced that it was closing down,
Right away, for it could talk,
Although its Garden of Peace and Serenity,
Surrounded on three sides by 30-foot rocks,
The “Himalayas”, was still open,
And so I figured that it was time
To move my “office” outdoors,
Not that I would ever do any W-O-R-K there,
For that is a four-letter word to a retired person.
Then, miracles of miracles, that day,
After saying good-bye to the Koreans
And taking home 50 eggs
And many bags of chocolate chip cookies,
I went back to the Cafe garden
To sit under an umbrella table in the rain,
And there was the old Lama himself,
Sitting there, all alone,
Having just shown the building
To someone who might lease it.
I hadn’t seen him in six months,
For he had been off to other continents.
He gave me a medium high five
And I told him that the sun would be out tomorrow,
And that it was always sunny on the inside.
He said, “Thanks, old friend.”
“Re-leasing the building?”
[i]“Yes, probably, but we’d like sell it.
Perhaps Buddhists shouldn’t be in business.”[/i]
“Well, it worked as a kind of outreach,
When you ran it,
And the Koreans liked it for a while.”
“True.”
“How’s the new golden temple going?”
[i]“It’s about half completed.
We need another three million dollars.”[/i]
“Hmmm.”
[i]“Yes, I know.
Perhaps Buddhists shouldn’t be looking for money,
Nor building a golden temple that’s not really real.”[/i]
“Yes, I’ve heard that this world isn’t really real,
That we shouldn’t worry about the rain
Or about life’s tribulations.”
[i]“That’s what we believe.
Tell me, does that work?”[/i]
“Well, um, does not life’s existence
Look, seem, and act just the way it would,
In every detail, as if it were really real?”
[i]“Yes, indeed. Exactly.
That’s what they say makes for the great illusion.”[/i]
“I hate to say this,
But a ‘difference’
That makes no difference
Is no difference.”
“I think you’re onto something.”
This “continual and enduring personality” that you speak of apparently does. Where does this thing exist? Let me guess, it exists in a ‘formless realm’. The whole point of a formless realm is to put things that exist independently or in isolation from everything else.
No, it exists in relationship.
Well, okay. Perhaps I shouldn't be so negative. What is there to gain by only seeing what is negative about other worldviews?
“Relationship” isn’t a where, but you know that of course.
You’re not doing a good job at appearing that this stuff actually makes sense to you. If it made sense to you then you’d be able to talk about it freely and sensibility, rather than behaving like you’re trying to conceal nonsense.
I'm sure there are many things that can be criticized about Buddhism as a cultural phenomenon. But it is originally based on a critical philosophy.. There's a good argument that the original Greek scepticism was based on contact between Greek travellers and Buddhists in Gandhara (then part of the Alexandrian empire.)
Interesting. I'll have to look into that at some point.
I'll be taking a class on Ancient Philosophy in the fall and so may take you up on this. I'll be leaving here then, though.
I think from a very high-level view, what's interesting about it is the connection between the suspension of belief and ecstatic states ('ecstatic' meaning 'outside the normal stasis'.) In the West,because of the way religion developed, it is natural to assume that religious philosophies imply acceptance of dogma. But the yogic/meditative traditions are not necessarily dogmatic in that sense, they are based on insight and highly refined states of attention, although in practice this often goes hand in hand with dogmatic elements.
In the class that I took on Gnosticism, it was suggested that Buddhism had an influence on the Gnostic depiction of Christ. That's probably the extent of my knowledge on the connection between Buddhism and Ancient Greece which doesn't have too much to do with the subject at hand altogether. I had never heard of the connection between the suspension of belief and ecstatic states. That sounds fairly interesting. I like the concept of ekstasis. You don't really have to concede the point as I have already retracted my former position.
Beware Siddartha’s “middle way”. Buddha led the most foundational times of his life to the extremes, in both extreme opulence and extreme poverty. Surely that factored into his enlightenment more than any middle way.
This is a good point. Harkens back to the epigram “Life is a journey.” If Siddhartha had not experienced the extremes, would he have attained enlightenment? Perhaps ‘enlightenment’ can be achieved through many different paths, and it’s a destination that results in a ‘middle way’ lifestyle.
Weird to accept that there is “enlightenment,” and that there’s a method to achieve enlightenment, by the mere authority of a man, and then doubt the method he laid out.
:lol: I guess it is weird when you put it that way! I don’t really know what enlightenment is actually. I was trying to give some comfort to Wallows.
Well, even Buddhists don’t know what enlightenment is so you’re in good company.
In any case, ‘bodhi’ is often translated as ‘wisdom’ although like a lot of Buddhist terms, there is no direct synonym.
As regards the meaning of the word, it is not something that can be conveyed easily, i.e. it takes some reading and reflection to understand its import. The idea needs to be understood in the cultural context in which it developed, which is very different to our own. But there are plenty of internet resources and a plethora of books around nowadays, maybe a good starting point would be Access to Insight. The Buddha's self-description of the awakening is taken from the Dhammapada:
As to what the 'unformed' is, that is another term for the 'unconditioned, unmade, unfabricated'. And what that is, is again difficult to convey, but that there is an 'unconditioned, unmade, unfabricated' is central to all schools of Buddhism. But here you run up against the difficulty that many of the key principles of Buddhism are not really conceptual in the modern sense of being able to be conveyed in words or formulae, which again is why it takes some study to understand.
If you can’t say what something is then it’s safe to say that you don’t know what that thing is. That’s not a problem in religion, in fact it may be a requirement.
Aren’t you the big risk taker. :grin:
Functionally, they are identical, no?
The ending of this life with no new rebirth (because there exists neither craving nor ignorance in the arahant).
You don't go anywhere beyond death because there was no substantial "you" to begin with (just a process sustained by brain function/dependently originated khandas).
As far as I can tell, the Buddha refused to answer the question as to where we go after death (I assume because the question itself assume a view of a substantial self).
Nice. It's good to keep such doors open. Not because I quite believe this one, but I think interesting thinking leaves on the table, at least for a while, things we think we can readily dismiss.
I would say some other similar things to consider: I think it can be useful to read texts or hear lectures by people, say, who present their ideas as certain, correct and indisputable. Even if the person in question, has times of doubt or has made some leaps, which they themselves notice, in logic and argument or even in experience. Why? Well, then you get to experience something in a pure form and try it on. This is a different and potentially useful experience, different from someone who qualifies everything. I am not saying this is right in all cases, though I think it can be useful in some. I have heard college lecturers I disagreed with, but where I was glad they just laid it out as fi they knew. I got to experience their personality and position in a kind of pure form. If I had a long term more closely interpersonal relationship with them, I would start to see this as a failure of character, though I still might find it useful, but in a short term situations, I think it is great provocation and can be clearer than something more carefully qualified.
In relation to the Buddha. I think one can have solved one set of problems, how the subject object split is handled, while being sexist, for example. A lot of masters and gurus have clearly, to me at least, had a range of skills that are quite impressive, but they also had huge blind spots that no amount of meditation will ever get rid of. Sometimes this ends up popping out and they abuse, for example, their position of power over women followers. But sometimes it does not pop out, but is still there is expecting women to have traditional roles. There are some things meditation is not going to touch. Ken Wilber goes into this in great detail in his system. Sex Ecology and Consciousness and another more recent work go into this. I think he is on to something, though he is pretty Buddhist and I, frankly, don't like Buddhism.
Couldn't his so called anti scientific assertions be considered about internal experiences or as metaphors. Also couldn't he have found stuff not yet confirmed by science?
Someone once asked some modern pundit if he knew something that the Buddha didn't. 'Yeah', he said, 'how to drive a jeep'. Of course it was a tongue in cheek answer, but the point is, the Buddha couldn't have known that kind of fact, given the circumstances of his birth.
The term translated as ignorance is actually 'avidya', which is a Sanskrit word. It is the negation (a-) of 'true knowledge' (vidya) - a word which is from an Indo-European root that Latin has in common by way of videre, to see (hence video etc). So 'a-vidya' means ignorance in the sense of 'not-seeing'. Whether this means that the Buddha's knowledge (jñ?na) amounts to actual omniscience (meaning 'all knowing' or knowledge of all facts) is a point of contention within Buddhism itself. Some say that the Buddha knows everything that can be known; others that he knew everything that was conducive to the attainment of Nirv??a (the cessation of all suffering.) Of course, understanding what the Buddha might have known, is a major interpretive challenge.
But it should be interpreted in the context of ancient Indian religious culture, which had the conception that life itself was part of an endless cycle of birth-and-death, in which beings are trapped because of ignorance of their real nature. The Hindus depicted the real nature in terms of ?tman or 'higher self' in the philosophy of the Vedanta.
The Buddha had a different approach, based on the 'doctrine of dependent origination'. The Buddha rejected the Vedas and traditional religious lore, including the lexicon of the 'higher self'*; he was a non-conformist (or 'heterodox' in the language of comparative religion).
But both Hindus and Buddhists seek the state variously known as mok?a, vimukti, nirodha, or Nirv??a, signifying release or escape from the endless cycle of birth and death. The problem with that is, there is no obvious counterpart to such an idea, within traditional Western culture (which rejected the idea of re-birth early in the Christian era), or within the scientific worldview. So it's a difficult issue to interpret, but I'm inclined to think that most 'common-sense' analyses are going to miss the mark.
----------------
*Although, that said, in later Buddhism, a conception of 'Buddha Nature' arose which bears many resemblances to a 'doctrine of higher self'.
I suppose I understand where you're coming from in that presentations with too many qualifiers are distracting, if that's what you mean. I'm not sure what you mean by "pure" unless you're referring to lecturers or other presenters who believe what they're saying but are just adding in qualifiers to be scientific/political - that would be an awkward way to talk.
However, it's too often in my book that teachers, doctors, and buddhists talk about something for which they have no proof as if it were fact. That's annoying primarily because we're not machines able to immediately add asterisks to potentially false information - it's been evidenced, rather, that we believe everything we hear as true at least momentarily as we decide whether or not to accept it. I have to wonder where the Buddha got his information on earthquakes and rebirth - I leave way for the possibility that something inexplicable was going on, but again, I wonder just what the Buddha had to do to his brain if he really removed suffering, that most natural and fundamental part of being conscious.
Rick Hanson might have some answers.
My impression for the longest time was that it was the latter - in my encounters and studies with buddhist teachers in the past, they tended to steer clear of making many science-contradicting statements and stuck with matters related to mind, suffering, etc. Even the Dalai Lama recently said that if Buddism is found to contradict science, buddhists must change their beliefs. I agree with that, but from reading the sutras, it's not clear that the Buddha would have agreed. Perhaps not for a rational reason, but again because to admit he was wrong, that there are things he does not know, is not possible for him or it would change some necessary condition in his neurology, would destroy his enlightenment. Again conjecture, but I think I've made my point based on making the premise that he did in fact end suffering...
I found that suspicious as well, that the religion of his place and time just happened to be what he claimed to be the truth. I lend way for the possibility that some as-of-yet-not-understood scientific oddity is reincarnating us all and that attaining enlightenment involves accessing that, but I think back to that quote made by...some scientist (Neil Degrasse Tyson maybe??) asking what's more likely, that nature bent its rules for something to happen, or that some one misunderstood something. Perhaps the buddha understood his own mind so well, so perfectly, he thought to extend that confidence to the natural world at large. Or again, maybe he couldn't help it?
It was informed, smart, and logical.
In my private opinion -- not to coerce or convince anyone else -- Buddhism is just another gibbery-hogwash system of faith, full of holes that the knowledge gap has since filled, and the followers are too busy ignoring or trying to forget it's part of Buddhism.
Also, please note, that in court if the witness of a party is found to be lying, his testimony will affect the client's interest rather negatively. Now that Buddha got caught on lying, we may want to reconsider the "wisdom" in all his other insights.
Well, I still see it as kind of having won the religion race, just for having made perhaps the least number of outlandish claims compared to the other faiths. But yes, the science contradictions are frustrating. At the same time, it works in terms of moderating the body, the mind. The challenge is looking past the lore and fanaticism to the actual practioners, who, if they're practiced and serious, live as hermits. These guys live in the woods for years and they're still lucid, sharp - the practice works, but the goal is to become a recluse, or an "island unto oneself" as the Buddha is quoted. It's become too political, and fanatical in most sects though so that's all we see in the media.
Just to be clear, when I'm talking about the Buddha's apparent dishonesty I'm saying it may be a little more complicated than that - if he actually "put an end to suffering," if we follow that premise, it may follow that some weird stuff was going on along with that. The premise I'm making I guess is that he did something really interesting to his brain and this "ignorance" he got rid of may have included becoming unable to admit ignorance on anything, even to himself, so it wasn't a lie, but some crazy neurological thing....
A Buddhist would ask you, why would it matter for the species to be successful? For humanity to thrive means that the other denizens of earth (among them, also other humans) to suffer, and since all is one, why is that preferable?
And what exactly is success? A Buddhist would value spiritual and mental well-being far above material well-being, and how healthy is humanity spiritually?
Megalomania?
[i]"Upaka the Ajivaka saw me on the road between Gaya and the (place of) Awakening, and on seeing me said to me, 'Clear, my friend, are your faculties. Pure your complexion, and bright. On whose account have you gone forth? Who is your teacher? In whose Dhamma do you delight?'
"When this was said, I replied to Upaka the Ajivaka in verses:
'All-vanquishing,
all-knowing am I,
with regard to all things,
unadhering.
All-abandoning,
released in the ending of craving:
having fully known on my own,
to whom should I point as my teacher?
I have no teacher,
and one like me can't be found.
In the world with its devas,
I have no counterpart.
For I am an arahant in the world;
I, the unexcelled teacher.
I, alone, am rightly self-awakened.
Cooled am I, unbound.
To set rolling the wheel of Dhamma
I go to the city of Kasi.
In a world become blind,
I beat the drum of the Deathless.'
[...]
"When this was said, Upaka said, 'May it be so, my friend,' and — shaking his head, taking a side-road — he left.
xxxx[/i]
I have to hope that story is true because it strikes me as perhaps among the funniest moments in human history.
Spam filter false positive. Now released.
You might have to allow for the fact that science is not all-knowing, either.
As was my now-edited-out tirade-against-the-man a false positive. Some posts vanish and I mistakenly assumed I knew why...again, the problem with being a know-it-all.
Quoting Wayfarer
Tell me about it. It's 2019 and I've yet to buy a non-malfunctioning printer.
But yeah, we've been at a roadblock for decades in most of physics, both large and small scale, minus some gravitational wave detections here and there of late. Still, it's progressing and when people talk about it not explaining everything I always have to wonder how much of that is about its failure to penetrate the mysteries of us - life, the mind, consciousness. It's true, we're stuck, but progress is being made there too. I look at it like Buddhists being minors trying to drill out of a cave while science is trying to drill in....or something like that. I expect there to be a merger at some point in the probably-distant future.
Q: What is the meaning of Buddhism?
A: Cease from doing evil, learn to do good, purify the mind. That is the teaching of the Buddhas.
Q: harrumph. A child of seven knows that.
A: How many men of 70 can do it?
Re Buddhism and science, see https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/opinion/13brooks.html?
I don't mind if they're a jumble so long as I'm communicating individual ideas clearly. Buddhism is deep and profound and I've always held way for the possibility that it's the only route to enlightenment that takes you all the way there...For all of the Buddha's megalomania (and if you read the sutras he was undeniably megalomaniacal), he seems like the most harmless, altruistic megalomaniac who ever lived.
It's just good to remember that he was real, and make sure that the Buddhism you've been taught is the same Buddhism in the sutras. Depending on the sects, there's almost universally a good deal of divergence. The Buddha was pretty no-gray-area hardlined about the need to go into seclusion, to separate men and women, to follow the teachings to the T and not waste time delaying your extinction and reaching enlightenment. Give up everything and no dallying! A lot of sects second-guess all that and that's fine, but then it's a play off the Buddha's teaching, so we may not be talking about the same Buddhism.
The point of the classical 'story of the Buddha' was that he was a prince that renounced his kingdom. From that time forward, he possessed nothing but his begging bowl and robe - same as all of the other members of his order. He had no military or political power whatsoever. As 'megalomania' is 'obsession with the exercise of power' then it's not plainly not applicable to the Buddha. He had absolutely zero power, other than the power of persuasion.
The passage you quoted about the Buddha declaring his enlightenment is a doctrinal statement of the faith. The Buddha is not speaking there as 'the individual, Gotama'; this statement is similar to other such doctrinal statements in Indian religious mythology indicating the 'triumph over ignorance' and have to be interpreted accordingly.
No one can effectively practice towards a goal if they don’t know what the goal is. No one knows what “enlightenment” is.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/
The megalomania is pretty hard to ignore - it's in almost every one. Again, he never admits to not knowing the answer to a question as far as I've read. There are ten thousand sutras and I've only read a good 100 or so but that's more than an adequate sample size in math. Admitting he didn't know wasn't part of what he did but rather he would often mansplain the heck out of questions like declaring there was a sky under the crust of the earth. Did I mention as he was dying he yelled at a monk to get out from in front of him because the gods were crying that he was blocking their view of the Buddha?
If you're worried about what you'd find don't be. I still love the guy and think he may have discovered what's necessary in all of us to achieve the state of non-suffering he achieved. I'm coming off more critical of him than I mean to be. But read the sutras. Know your faith. The buddha says in a sutra that Buddhism will become corrupted and fade when disciples pay attention to the words of other disciples but stop reading or paying attention to the words of the Buddha in the sutras. He says his words are directly connected to emptiness. Check out the Ani Sutta:
[i]"In the course of the future there will be
monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of
the Tathágata -- deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent,
connected with emptiness -- are being recited. They won't
lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't
regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But
they will listen when discourses that are literary works -- the
works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the
work of outsiders, words of disciples -- are recited. They will
lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will
regard these teachings as worth grasping and mastering.
In this way the disappearance of the discourses that are
words of the Tathágata -- deep, deep in their meaning,
transcendent, connected with emptiness -- will come about. " - Buddha[/i]
Not just distracting, but I find I really consider something if it is presented as simply the case. In contrast with another type of presentatino where the person introduces other possible interpretations and explantions. It becomes more of an encounter. I am really hit by this view, test it out. I suppose this could be merely personal.
Sure I have. I think your interpretation is mistaken. It’s got nothing to do with ‘meglomania’. The name ‘Buddha’ means ‘knowing’ or ‘awakened’, which you seem to have trouble comprehending.
If you can't see the man for his flaws and still love him I'd question your comprehension. Even the Dalai Lama's admitted the buddha was wrong about some statements he made that science proved wrong. He said he was the buddha, not a geologist or an astronomer.
Well, I was hoping I was right in thinking it is not a great risk. :halo:
Yes, enlightenment is merely relaxation, losing neurotic self-concerns and becoming totally yourself so as to live this life as well as possible. That's a coherent view; anything to do with afterlives, rebirth and so on is incoherent fantasy and dogma.
So, commonsense analyses "miss the mark" and obfuscation doesn't? Where would that leave us, philosophically speaking?
No, me neither. In fact, I would say that part of the reason I appreciate it is because I will in the longer run be critical and I know this. I trust myself. I say, longer run, meaning that I think I 'try on' ideas, while I am hearing them. Of course, I will notice things I am resistant to, for all sorts of reasons, some negative some positive, and small critical voices in my head are going to pipe up. But there is a trying on which I in fact appreciate. This is easier for me if the idea is put forward clearly and without qualification. I get a real feel for it. I am not going to convert, but I want to see the world through that idea.Quoting hillsofgoldYes, and there is a difference, I think, between a lecture and a one on one discussion, especially one carried out over time.Quoting hillsofgoldThat's certainly possible. In the case of Buddhism, I think the Buddha came up with an answer. It may or may not have led to a perfect unwavering state without suffering, but still was complete, for humans. The problem I have with it could be summed up concisely as 'he severed off parts of being human, he made himself less, and I find people who have repeated what he did to be unpleasant to be around, because on some level they hate the emotional body.'
If it were commonsense we wouldn’t need a religious authority to obfuscate it for us. In other words, religious authority is based on access to uncommon knowledge, therefore there must always be uncommon knowledge. It seems to be an essential aspect of religiosity.
I see what you mean with trying on ideas; but I think you're a step away from answering just why ascetic buddhists can be so unpleasant to be around. There's a documentary on youtube, really the only one of its kind on Buddhist hermits living in a remote mountainous region of China. They're revered within their sect for going further in the Buddha's teachings than most are willing to and have isolated themselves in forest shacks while studying the sutras and living the disciplined recluse's life. One of them says that living in society is like being in a cloth dying vat and that if you stay in too long you'll never come out clean. Isn't that essentially what happens every time we "try on" some one else's ideas? Whether we decide to accept them or reject them, they're in us now, we've been dyed by them. Neurological studies support this, showing identical brain patterns appearing in both the speaker and listener during communication - a literal transfer of ideas.
There's a different lifestyle choice being made between those who spend time around other people, and those who choose to be hermits, or who choose to learn the buddhist way which if followed through leads towards being a hermit. Devout buddhists have enough on their plate observing and letting go of their own ideas. So I really can't say how compatible the two groups are.
But, then, you be dragging, in your own already tainted mind, a billion of these things anyway. And it is often easier to chew on these things when they show up on the outside.
Very true. True hermits in buddhism are very few and far between and more often than not their hermitages are only "retreats" of a few weeks, months, at most a year. It's just important to remember that traditionally, as far as the Buddha's teachings in the sutras are concerned, seclusion is the goal, a vital part of the journey, and should be done by monks more and more often until the final retreat during which one attains enlightenment. One who can remain secluded in pursuit of enlightenment and no longer needs a master is known in the sutras as having "stood on his own in the Teaching." -Advice to Venerable Punna Sutra
This advice isn't for laypeople though - it's for monks, and requires lengthy training and immersion in the Buddhist forest tradition. Generally speaking, I can't imagine total seclusion as a healthy option for laypeople.
Quoting Coben
Good point. I'd surmise that (see there's my qualifier) pretending we're thinking only our own thoughts at the same time as we're reading, attending lectures, speaking with friends etc is an exercise in arrogance. So long as that stuff is getting in, better to keep letting more stuff in and grow that way. I would also say that some people need outside information coming in slower, and in smaller doses. They shouldn't be recluses, but they might not be ready to be full on socialites.
Quoting Coben
Agreed - any encounters with the world, be it with people, with nature, let us work with our problems in a tangible, real way. But they also carry us away from wherever we were and it's good to recognize that. That going with the flow in life and doing your best to manage it CAN work, but it's not your flow, it's not necessarily going to take you right where you need to go, and if you need to go somewhere different from most people, it'll be hard to find a flow that works, however diligently you try to navigate it. You might wind up more lost than you started out.
Right, so given that religion is obfuscation, what you are saying really seems to amount to saying that for there to be religion, there must be an illusion of uncommon knowledge. This illusion would seem to be promulgated in the form of lies told to the masses. Such acts of deceit are excusable on the grounds of something like Plato's notion of the "noble lie", perhaps?
If you google how many religions there are, the first result listed, from Wikipedia, says there are 4,200. We know of course that there are several standouts, Buddhism being one of them, but even so, that’s a hell of a lot of uncommon knowledge variants. Such knowledge must be illusory.
Culturally, we live with all sorts of shares fictions. I don’t think that we can characterize any of them as being generally noble or ignoble. They all serve a purpose of some sort, with the common feature of allowing cooperation within large groups of individuals. A very successful survival strategy, it is theorized.
The thought I’ve recently arrived at and found disturbing is that spiritual tradition may have an implicit, and explicit in some cases, disposition to obfuscate. Unfortunately, the true spiritual teacher is almost vanishingly rare.
I think the problem is that what is metaphor or parable is often (probably most often) taken as literal. Religions cannot offer any literal knowledge; they cannot tell us whether there is an afterlife and if there is an afterlife, what form that would take. There are all kinds of myths about what the "enlightened ones" "knew". Gautama is said to have remembered 5000 of his past lives on becoming enlightened. Of course I think this is just myth-making nonsense; even if it weren't how could you ever know?.
I don't know how you could ever tell if a spiritual teacher is authentic (really enlightened?) or even how you could tell whether you are. The best I can offer is that an enlightened person would be 100 percent themselves and imperturbable by the judgement of others. I see it as being all about living this life to the fullest without superfluous superstitious belief crutches like rebirth or resurrection, which only becomes possible insofar as, and to the degree which, you are able to let go of self-concern. Those kinds of things are believed because we are all afraid to die, and simply cannot accept our true situation; which is one of ignorance; so we cling to the idea that there is some "special" esoteric knowledge to be had.
I have come to think that is all imagination and dogma. I don't condemn people for believing any of that stuff; some people cannot help themselves and/or need to believe something or life just seems too empty and/or they feel insecure, and I can sympathize with that. That goes for atheists as much as theists. I would never criticize anyone's beliefs unless they ask for it by arguing as though there could be some inter-subjectively corroborable fact of the matter regarding the so-called "truths" of religions.
So, if people bring their beliefs to be critiqued on a philosophy forum; then they are fair game, though. What really bugs me is when they claim that they do not believe anything and that it is all "really" a matter of actual experience; I think that is delusory nonsense if it claims anything beyond the ability to know whether one is in a relaxed and happy state of mind or the opposite.
Personally, I have tried at various times in my life to practice religion, but I am incapable of seriously believing, as opposed to merely entertaining, anything for which there is no evidence or logical argument, and the thing with religious or spiritual practice is that you have to believe something or there is no incentive or direction to your practice. If people want or need to be religious, then they should stay away from philosophy forums, or at least refrain from trying to use philosophical argument to support their religious beliefs. They just end up looking like fools and are in danger of undermining their own religious life.
I have to stop taking my medication for a day to figure out what you’re saying.
You think many things I say about this topic are 'delusory nonsense', but I get by.
I understand 'philosophy' in the broad sense of meaning 'love~wisdom' - the aim of it is a practical discipline in pursuit of a state of being which encompasses these qualities. Buddhism, and some schools of ancient Greek philosophy, both support that kind of approach (eudomonia and virtue ethics, in particular.)
I often reflect that the aim of secular culture is to provide a safe space for us to do what we like. Which is great, and highly preferable to any form of autocracy or compulsion. But I still think that left to our own devices, we won't necessarily follow the path of 'love~wisdom', which is a demanding path to follow.
As far the experiential claims of Buddhism are concerned, these can be and have been validated by many Buddhist practitioners. Certainly faith is necessary in some respects, especially for the times when you loose sight of the goal, which does happen. But there is a kind of 'inner evidence' that becomes apparent from the practice meditation and the disciplines which support it, even if we're not all 'remote mountain hermits' the Fields of Gold think we must be.
Quoting creativesoul
I agree - whenever karma is used to rationalise misfortune or blame, it's superstitious fatalism. The only beneficial aspect of believing in karma is as a positive corrective, i.e. the realisation that whatever you do will come back to you. Beyond that it easily morphs into fatalism.
Which if true, would be then true. But then even that means that if you are raped, then you raped before. Not a pleasant bit of insight to take in and if not the case, and I do not think it is the case, a real crime on the metaphysical level. I am utterly open to past lives and patterns, but from my experiences it is nto like this at all. People tend to find similar positions and carry out the same problematic acts and attitudes over long periods of time. It is the learning from inside the pattern that needs to take place, not some 'see how bad that was' karmic smack. Nice idea but not what I see going on. Does anyone think Hitler came back in his next life, suddenly transformed into some minority who minding his own business is dragged off to a camp. That is just not what is energy field (just throwing out a term not to be taken literally) is going to do. He didn't unlearn all his power mongering and harsness from dying in that bunker. He came back, somewhere most likely, with the same programming, perhaps even more desperately driven to dominate, control, rule, crush, clean out. It's a bizarre idea that souls would suddenly shed a perpetrating set of attitudes and come back as with a victim attitude, for exmaple. Or that what pulls they have magnetically (me again making up terms as metaphors not as literal) that will draw towards them entirely different life patterns. No, they come back with much the same attitudes, unless they manage in death bed encounters or over their lifetimes, to face their shortcomings and real motivations and fears. It is coming to face with what is really going on in oneself that breaks the pattern, not some Karmic flipflopping where you are born with entirely new patterns and draws.
I really don’t see karma like that, and it’s certainly not how it’s treated in the Buddhist texts.
[quote=Thanissaro Bikhu]instead of promoting resigned powerlessness, the early Buddhist notion of karma focused on the liberating potential of what the mind is doing with every moment. Who you are — what you come from — is not anywhere near as important as the mind's motives for what it is doing right now. Even though the past may account for many of the inequalities we see in life, our measure as human beings is not the hand we've been dealt, for that hand can change at any moment. We take our own measure by how well we play the hand we've got. If you're suffering, you try not to continue the unskillful mental habits that would keep that particular karmic feedback going. If you see that other people are suffering, and you're in a position to help, you focus not on their karmic past but your karmic opportunity in the present: Someday you may find yourself in the same predicament that they're in now, so here's your opportunity to act in the way you'd like them to act toward you when that day comes.
This belief that one's dignity is measured, not by one's past, but by one's present actions, flew right in the face of the Indian traditions of caste-based hierarchies, and explains why early Buddhists had such a field day poking fun at the pretensions and mythology of the brahmans. As the Buddha pointed out, a brahman could be a superior person not because he came out of a brahman womb, but only if he acted with truly skillful [i.e. virtuous] intentions.[/quote]
Yes, and I'm totally on board with that aspiration.
Quoting Wayfarer
Some, probably very many, people will not follow the path of "love-wisdom", but what to do about that? Force them?
Quoting Wayfarer
The experiential claims that I would accept would be awareness of heightened states of awareness, compassion, and enhanced relaxation and well-being. I accept all of that. You experience that yourself and you don't need any "authority" to "validate" it for you. If you do...well...I would question the authenticity of your purported self-knowledge.
Validation of metaphysical beliefs that belong to Buddhism being validated by Buddhist practitioners does not impress me. Of course people will interpret their experiences of heightened states in accordance with cultural paradigms they relate to. Happens all the time.
Faith is always necessary, not just when you lose sight of the goal, but you must have faith in the goal itself. Youo can't have experience before you have experience, if you know what I mean. :wink:
Join a philosophy forum?
I think the intuition behind the original sin still holds true. Granted, ‘sin’ is the most politically-incorrect idea possible in the modern lexicon. But there needs to be an antidote to it.
One of the key things that drew me to Buddhism was the way that it is presented as a raft or a vessel. Yes, says that parable, by all means abandon the raft, when the river is crossed. The precise words are ‘abandon dharma, to say nothing of adharma’. But short of ‘making the crossing’ then a vessel is necessary.
The aim of secularity is to provide a safe space from irrationality, to put it bluntly. Not to claim that secular culture is entirely, or even majorly, rational. However, it’s generally not subject to the whims of the religious authority (absolute) and the intense passions generated in religiosity.
I don’t believe there is any evidence, by the way, that secular culture is any less moral than religious, if that’s the suggestion.
I believe in the Buddhist concept of emptiness and that directs and motivates my practice to some degree. Orthodox Buddhists would say such a stark view is folly and leads only to nihilism.
How will you joining a philosophy forum help the situation; that others do no follow the path of "love-wisdom"?
I have no sympathy whatsoever with the idea of original sin; I think it's pernicious nonsense.
As to a "raft"; everyone is different. I don't deny that faith in Buddhism, or Christianity or Daoism or Shamanism or whatever may variously help suitable people come to terms with their lives and become happier in themselves and better members of the community, which is what it is all about as far as I am concerned. None of us can avoid placing our faith in something for which there can be no empirical evidence.
The idea of esoteric knowledge, though, is an ego-driven fantasy. No one can give a coherent answer as to what this so-called "knowledge" could be. Religious people should be honest and admit to themselves and others that it is all merely a matter of faith, and there's nothing at all wrong with that, for anyone who is unable or unwilling to live with uncertainty, which is probably most people. Just let go of the pretence.
I realize that in Buddhism the meaning of nihilism is different. The path is seen as a middle way between eternalism and nihilism; which refers to the idea of a soul or self being seen respectively as either immortal or non-existent. Gautama was famously cagey about such questions; which would indicate that he could not give a definitive and coherent answer and/ or that he thought the question was an unnecessary distraction.
The problem is that the idea of rebirth is incoherent without the idea of a soul or self which endures from life to life. Personally I find the idea of rebirth utterly irrelevant, unless you were to place your faith in an Atman which persists and aspires to become one with Brahmin (from which it was never separate in the first place). In that sense I think the Vedanta is actually more coherent philosophically than Buddhism.
The Nature of Reality (Death, Rebirth and Reincarnation)
Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu
From what I understand, Buddhism claims that all is empty and all sentient beings are Buddhas (enlightened), and it is only our ignorance (of our true empty nature) that prevents us from realizing this. There seems to be two ways to know emptiness: intellectually and experientially. Personally, I think impermanence is the key to understanding it intellectually. If everything is in a constant state of change then there cannot be static or independent things. If something was completely fixed and independent, well, it certainly wouldn't be alive.
As for knowing emptiness experientially, that can happen deliberately as with some form of contemplative practice, or it can be experienced unintentionally by something (such a stroke, see Jill Bolte Taylor) causing a particular brain state, or perhaps with the use of psychedelics. In any case, it is still just a transient experience. It may have benefits, such as relieving existential anxiety and whatever else, but these benefits may need to be maintained by regular practice.
From this perspective "enlightenment" doesn't live up to the hype, but it does explain why we don't see any enlightened people walking around, being all all-knowing, all-loving, all-compassionate, all-unsuffering, and all-whatever-the-hell-else-some-priest-can-dream-up.
Sorry for the delayed reply. I'm not sure that I follow your reasoning here Jeep.
The agreement is more superficial than it may seem. It begins and ends at the uncharted territory of marks on paper/screen. The same marks are often repeated - sometimes verbatim - in statements that differ remarkably in their meaning. I think that you and I are working from different world-views.
In layman's terms...
The issue is multi-faceted. In order for any of it to make sense - there must be some supernatural moral judgment at work. I reject cosmic justice.
The idea conflicts with everyday events/facts/happenings/actuality. Good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people.
things often don't turn out in ways that seem right.
Also, the Buddha's day, nothing was written down, so it couldn't have begun there.....
Bad things happen to good people. Good things happen to bad people. We can watch it take place. There are innumerable historical examples thereof. So, to believe in karma in light of this...
In order to make any sense at all, we must further think/believe that things are not what they seem regarding the aforementioned unfortunate circumstances.
Your reply is a prima facie example.
I meant the depth of our agreement.
It's deep-root truth which is untestable, you take it or leave it by yourself. If this is not passed, we can't continue.
Under that light: reincarnation is just a chain of big drama episodes, or dramas. Every living object (arguably non-living too) assumes a role, e.g a President or a cockroach, based on the being's own causally behavioral history where each episode is a chapter. Economy achievements how splendid are just on stage.
There are beings who can exit the reincarnation cycles but this requires too much insight into it to perceive. But also turns back the problem #1: self or self-less? Only vagueness around this to what it ultimately is. Falun gong doctrines do explain about it using metaphysical models same as superstring's multiverses, but it's also too complicated by words to elaborate.
Regardless, to exit reincarnation, i.e venturing through soul cleansing under any form of asceticism, one needs to have a strong leading prime from within which(who) is not delusioned by any surroundings.