I do not agree that living for the moment and savoring the present maximally are core Buddhist values, but perhaps we can ask the Buddhist.
The traditions of Buddhism are born around this key question: How do eliminate suffering? The Buddhist answer is: attain Enlightenment.
The recipe for enlightenment is the subject of all Buddhist scriptures, but it does not condense down to living as if this were the only moment of your life. It condenses down to something much closer to this: Live as if this life itself were irrelevant, since it is an unenlightened existence, and use this life to progress toward an enlightenment which will free you from this unenlightened existence.
While I am not taking issue with your particular personal philosophy–another thread, perhaps–it’s not Buddhism. And that’s all I’m really moaning about in this thread. I’m not on some sort of vendetta against Buddhists (although I find myself crusading against un-scientific reasoning and mysticism wherever I find it); I’m complaining about folks–particularly Westerners–who think they are embracing Buddhism when they are not, and who dress up their own philosophies as “Buddhism” while at the same time rejecting all the goofy core. At some point rejecting the goofiness of a religion is tantamount to rejecting the religion itself.
I suggest spinning a few giant prayer wheels in Ladakh or visiting some monasteries to check out the giant brightly-colored statues and observe the monks for awhile, and then decide if Philosophy-light is actually Buddhism.
This doesn’t strike me as a very Buddhist or zen answer to the problem of the endless voice in your head.
In my experience mindfulness is about noticing these passing thoughts without engaging with them. The idea of introducing competing thoughts to get some quiet in your head is at odds with what is taught in Acceptance and Commitment Therapy or zen or even meditation.
You seem to have an underlying idea that you can either be a rational or scientific person, or believe in some religious philosophy, but not both, and as result you are reframing whatever is said to fit this false dichotomy: One is either rational, but is following their own philosophy, and it isn’t Buddhism, or else they are irrational “fancytalkers”. A parallel within another religious tradition would be “you’re only Christian if you believe in transubstantiation, and to believe in transubstantiation is illogical” - therefore you can only be Christian or crazy. Obviously there are many other options. I suggest that there may be more depth and breadth to Buddhism than you know, or at least are allowing. For instance, Zen has many of the attributes that you attribute to not-Buddhism, and I think you’d find it interesting.
I’ve spun my wheels, (both in this thread and in temples :)). I’ve enjoyed your input into this thread, and the discussion has galvanized me be more rigorous in my practice. So, thanks.
Thank you for suggesting Thich Nhat Hanh. I haven’t had a chance to get to the library or book store but there are some lovely videos on youtube so I did get to hear him speak.
Everything I’ve read so far draws me in more. I don’t care what it’s called. I don’t concern myself with the titles; they’re just there to help label collections of beliefs. The more I learn though, the more sense I get out of things. Before I didn’t believe in reincarnation and frankly found the idea silly, but then as I read more I realized reincarnation in Buddhism is not what I thought it was at all so now it does make sense. Enlightenment is not what I thought it was, and so now it makes more sense. And meditation? It doesn’t mean sitting crosslegged and trying not to think. It means being focused on mindfulness, something I’ve been doing for a long time without realizing it could be considered meditation.
Really enjoyed it. As someone who attends a Vietnamese temple on Saturday’s, and then a Dharma talk, with a Tibetan monk, on Monday’s, I could really relate! Thanks for posting it!
On cognitive behavior therapy…from what I understand, you become mindful of your harmful thoughts and then you challenge them through a rational process. There are practices and techniques that allow you to be aware that you’re having these thoughts. Mindfulness techniques also allow you to be aware of your thoughts but you don’t engage them. They just drift by. After awhile they may stop all together. Very peaceful, but not necessarily a goal of zazen (no goals). Both can lead to a similar outcome; that is recognizing that thoughts are sometimes just thoughts and may not coincide with reality. The key to both is learning how to recognize when the monkey mind is throwing shit around in your head. :smack:
One can embrace science or superstition, but not both.
Most of that which is embraced under Buddhism is outright superstition or else Fancytalk, which is to say there is no actual content underneath a bunch of high-sounding mysterious sayings.
This does not mean that concentrating on something that puts you in a better frame of mind isn’t good for you. It may well be good for you, and even help you get through your day. I can believe in the Tooth Fairy and have a little ritual around meditating on her. Such a ritual might cheer me up right out of my depression or even make me a better person toward others. That does not mean belief in the Tooth Fairy has any substance in fact.
Is there a reference in the name, “Attack from the 3rd dimension”? Why unpleasant?
just some comments:
Science is not completely clean, in the sense that it has brought us nuclear weapons; it is messing with the food chain, etc. It is important for science to have moral and ethical guidelines.
I get a little nervous around “beliefs”. What appeals to me about Zen is that it is completely experiential. Of course that means you have to try it, and accept some of the premise on “faith”, which is another word that makes me nervous.
It is important to remember that with Buddhism and Zen in particular, it involves at least four cultures and five languages by the time it reaches the West. There are levels of translation but also in some cases almost pure invention to explain something based on an ineffable experience.
I do not like the word “spirituality” but it may fit in this case, “mystery” might be a better word, if I may paraphrase, “There should be a distinguishing between ‘spirituality’ and religion.”
would you agree that it is beneficial in having moral and ethical direction in what technology directly produces and science indirectly produces? the last I knew, research at major universities was dependent on corporation funding. I can not believe that is done without strings attached.
I saw an argument once that stated with the advent science, there was a societal shift from asking the ultimate questions to essentially basing fact upon preceding fact. There is some limitation in the scientific method, it does not always allow for a big picture approach — meaning the “understanding” may further down the line than what fact finding may have presently reached.
People, poetry, and music are all subjective. An all-objective world might not be much fun.
I found it frustrating as well. But I’m open to the idea that we can do better.
I’m happy to continue answering questions, but I do want to make one thing clear. I’m an American and a Zen Buddhist. These things are not mutually exclusive. Buddhism absorbs the culture in which it is practiced. Many religions do this, but the vast variety of Buddhisms throughout the world, some so radically different from one another, indicate to me that Buddhism in particular is very adaptable to the culture in which it is practiced. Many Americans who find Buddhism do so after a long and unpleasant relationship with Christianity, so it stands to reason that dogma would be one of the first things to go. This, I believe, is why Zen is so popular in the United States. Historically it has been pretty undogmatic, for Buddhism. That is definitely one of the things that drew me to it.
So this debate about what is and is not ‘‘true’’ Buddhism seems pretty pointless. Sufficed to say it really depends on who you ask.
I enjoyed reading both your and ATTACK’s comments. I am actually more interested in the Zen piece of it. To me, Buddhism is the convenient form, the package that Zen fits in.
There was a very valid point made by the CHIEF. I will have go back it and reread it. It had something to do with Engaged Buddhism and Social activism.
I have a friend who works at an institute that hosts a lot of Buddhist teacher gatherings. within the last year, there was a conference that addressed the depth vs. breadth of how Buddhism is evolving in the West. It is an old problem and probably led to the development of what is known as Third Order. Third Orders took care of hospitals, teaching, “Good Works”,etc. The Franciscans are a Third Order, the Friars Minor were the cloistered element. with Buddhism only really being here in the West for 40-50 years, this might be resolved without a division, Engaged Buddhists (the extent of suffering is almost overwhelming) over here and in depth practice (you can not save all sentient beings until you have saved yourself.) over there. I going to jump a little bit. there is a higher level Zen teaching of the resolution of all dualities. Including those that may have caused your frustration and ATTACK’s experience of unpleasantness.
A broad question with both global and personal aspects. Any comments?
Having specialized in Mahayana Buddhism as an undergrad, I’ll see what I can do to help out - if you’ll permit me.
For now I would just note that there are 2 broad distinctions that should be drawn when talking about Buddhism - Theravadin and Mahayana. The former is generally synonymous with Indian Buddhism and tends to be more ascetic and purist in its orientation. Mahayana which literally means great vehicle is more all encompassing and includes everything from Pureland sects to strict monastic practice.
edit: Mahayana is really more a synthesis of Taoism and traditional Indian Buddhism IIRC
