I have. It’s a textbook case. How is there any difference to you?
I think that the precepts of disattachment and longings-causing-suffering are 75% correct, but much of the pain cannot be avoided completely by proper thought. If you are being bodily tortured by a person or disease, you can only ameliorate your suffering by philosophy, not end it.
I wonder how much of this philosophy arose from the upper-class upbringing of the Buddha, since most of the suffering around him was indeed only transitory and avoidable by disattachment. He may have felt differently if he had been a peasant with longing hunger pangs. Even his attempts at voluntary asceticism were avoidable, since, like the girl in Common People, “if you call your Dad he can stop it all”.
I absolutely disagree. It is fundamentally different from religion in that it does seek solace in a higher being or beings. Buddhism offers no reward or salvation, but a method of viewing and engaging nature and reality. It is extremely humanist - the only way to end suffering is through one’s own efforts, and it does so not through any supernatural means, but through personal introspection and moving beyond language and logic to grasp the underlying reality. Language and logic are only maps, not the terrain. As opposed to the supernatural, Buddhism is focused on stripping away the filters we place on ourselves that hides nature - both internal and external.
And the Buddha explicitly disavowed reliance on pure faith or wishful thinking. See the Kalama Sutra. The eight-fold path is very much empirical, based on personal experience and attainment of each of the steps. A skilled teacher is very helpful, but not required.
I think the third jewel - the Sangha, or community of practitioners, is as important as the Buddha and the Dharma. The analogy I use is of a music school - the statue of Buddha is more like a bust of Beethoven - not an idol being worshipped, but a revered teacher that one aspires to emulate. The Dharma is music theory. It is a method of understanding so that one creates music and not just noise. The Sangha is the group of students and players. Solo artists are great, but symphonies, orchestras and choirs take music to levels a soloist is incapable of.
And the path takes as long as it needs to take - no magic pill or potion or blessing will shorten the task. Certain drugs may help expand the mind beyond language and logic, but I do not see them offering any easy solution. Buddhism is very much a way of life - right speech, right action and right livelihood are equally important as right mindfulness and right concentration. One’s state of mind is only a part of one’s existence. What media a person consumes and produces, actions based on wisdom and loving kindness, and the work one does on a day to day basis are just as important as meditation and focusing on the present moment (as opposed to worrying about the past or future, which does not mean one never thinks about those, but does not let them overwhelm one’s thoughts or life.)
I should add, I think some schools of Buddhism have lost the message (Pure Land, and I am not a fan of Tibetan Buddhism). Some overemphasize certain aspects such as Zen (which I consider more of a graduate school for those at the end of the path, not a great place for beginners.) Also I am only partly Buddhist. I am also Daoist, and very much a humanist. And I see very little that is incompatible between those traditions.
I also think that the West continues to have a very limited understanding of Buddhism. Most of the Tripitaka has only recently been translated, and the majority of the two thousand years of commentary on them is not even close to being so, even among the Buddhist countries. I can’t help thinking that most of the question in this thread (and many of my own) have been addressed by someone, but are still sitting in a scroll lost a library somewhere. Buddhism has not shortage of practitioners, but we do have severe shortage of good scholars and translators.
From the Buddhist perspective, there is a difference between pain and suffering. the pain is as you state above and is as it is. the suffering might be something along the line of, “I deserve this” or any habitual pattern that is “self” destructive. That suffering is what can put to an end — in more current terms, anxieties, fears, self-esteem issues,etc. As a “philosophy” it is probably useless other than one more academic exercise.
I was hoping you had specifics. How is it different to me? It works.
The “pure thought” happens before we think of it. There is a book by a Buddhist psychotherapist titled, Thoughts without a Thinker. (the title might be all that is applicable here.)
The real work is to slow down the pace of our life and our thinking process to actually take a look at it. We experience things with our senses, but that does not label it. There is a gap before it becomes an idea. Meditation allows one to look at that gap.
It has been said Buddha’s final words were, “I am not a teacher, I never taught you anything.” The great Koan is, What is the sound of one hand clapping? The answer is it’s all the intellectual jacking off that goes into figuring out Buddhism. So many words have been spoken, and there are still words without end. At its core Buddhism is non-rational and and the teaching also non-rational. I’m Buddhist but don’t have a fuckin clue what God is, and don’t care.
To ask what a religion has given to the world is nonsense, I think, religions don’t exist separate from cultures, ask instead what have all the cultures that are also Buddhist given…
As a dabbler in Philosophical Buddhism and listener of many talks by Jack Kornfield, I’ll chime in with one additional point:
My understanding is that the roots of dukkah (suffering/dissatisfaction) can be thought of as having three components:
- Greed/Attachment
- Aversion/Hatred
- Delusion
So, the essence of the 8 Fold Path is to find ways to reduce the ‘big three’ in one’s life and interactions. I’ve heard it summarized as the ‘Eight Suggestions’ as opposed to the Ten Commandments. There are ways to reduce suffering (not pain - which comes and goes) as one can reduce rope burn, with a bit less grasping, and a bit more conscious focus on how the ropes might be resting on you. One wonderful summation of the essence of Buddhist thought is the meditation on the idea of:
Not Always So
Things change, and the struggle to try to make them not change, or to change quicker is a great contributor to suffering.
One other wonderful aspect of Buddhist thought is the concept of the Near Enemy. A Near Enemy is a quality that can, at first blush, appear to be one of the valued qualities, but the core behind it is usually based on fear.
In regards to (what I’ve heard as) the main concern folks have about Buddhism, the concept of Indifference is brought up. How is becoming indifferent to things really valuable? The answer is, it is not.
=)
Indifference is considered the Near Enemy to Equanimity. You can see how there might be some confusion between the two. Indifference is at the core a ‘not caring’ that is driven by fear of loss and/or pain.
On the other hand Equanimity is an openhearted embracing of the moment, what is here now, what is no longer here, and what is changing are all touched with kindness and greeted as they arrive, and pass.
I think there’s quite a few interesting concepts in Buddhist philosophy that deserve a much wider recognition in the west. Western thought has been traditionally steeped in substance-based ontologies: there’s some eternal, self-sufficient, independently existing stuff, and everything in the world is just different forms it takes on; basically the only variation is whether one considers there to be a single substance (monism, such as materialism or idealism), two substances (dualism, for instance Cartesian res extansa/res cogitans) or multiple substances (pluralism, as in Leibniz’ monads). Even today, the alternatives that exist—such as process, trope, or structural ontologies—are fairly marginalized views; most ontological debates really just revolve around what kind of stuff there is, whether there’s one kind or more, without even considering possible alternatives to there being stuff at all.
This is different in Buddhist thought, beginning at least with the writings of Nagarjuna, and to a certain extent even with the Buddha himself: there, things don’t really have an inherent nature; they are ‘empty’ (emptiness is perhaps not the best translation for the concept of sunyata, but it’s the most common one), and they don’t exist for themselves, out of their own, intrinsic power, but only dependently. The world is not a collection of things that just are, but more of relations that arise and dissolve. I think that there may be much to be gained by directing this sort of attitude towards many of the traditional philosophical problems (then again, it may be a complete red herring, of course).
The true nature of reality is not emptiness but suchness
What I admire the most about the Buddha is that he spoke from his own experience,
so put that in your own words.
The true nature of reality is what exists when you’re able to transcend all trivial distinctions such here and there, now and then, existence and non-existence. Maya arises from the propensity to discriminate. Maya is the illusion of reality. To pierce the illusion you have to transcend the impulse to discriminate.
Enjoy the strawberry!! (ok Orange instead!)
:D:cool:
I will put the same request on me:
The true nature of reality is as it is. we negotiate life by dualities, you cross the road because you know left and right. There is no transcendence but there is transformation. There is a fundamental change in how one perceives reality. This was given to me, “The emptiness of existence is existence.” we live in a relative world but are now informed by a visceral understanding of the absolute basis of that reality.
Language is very interesting. My understanding of Maya is as personification in the Indian mythology of the barriers one faces. Maya is not mentioned much after Buddhism goes to China and with development of ch’an.
According to wikipedia the Chan branch is described as follows:
Since I didn’t spend much time on Pureland maybe that’s why it doesn’t ring a bell. IDK. You have to understand it’s been over 30 years since I’ve actively studied this stuff and what I’ve retained is mainly the concepts I use in my daily life and thought - that and certain other concepts that were just so mind blowing that like a life altering acid trip are indelibly etched into my memory.
However I’m pretty sure you’re wrong about the references to Maya. That is a central theme in all Buddhism as is the concept of discrimination being the essence of the illusion of reality.
As for how one would use language to describe the true nature of reality, I can’t agree with the words you’ve chosen. There must be both transcendence and transformation but in truth neither and both simultaneously.
If by visceral understanding you mean an understanding that is experiential rather than intellectual, then I certainly do agree with that.
Chan is the Chinese. Zen is the Japanese. The similarity with Pure Land is they fit under Mahayana but Pure Land is about intervention by a Buddha whereas Zen is a direct shot at “it”, whatever that may be.
I looked at Maya and saw Mara. The teachers in Zen picked words that related to their experience. Instead of illusion the word ignorance is used more frequently, consequently I had not heard the word Maya. To rekindle your interest in the discrimination aspect, if you have not read the Faith in Mind poem, I recommend reading it.
The reason why the word transcendence is not used in the teachings I experience is there is still a connotation of a “self” in it, whereas transformation fits a little better with nothing given. An authentic teacher has nothing to give you. You have everything you need from the beginning.
and indeed, it is experiential otherwise it serves no real purpose.
enjoy the day and take care
The notion of transcendence implies there is something to transcend, setting up a dualistic notion of separation of self and other.
As I understand the use of the terms “existence and non-existence” in Buddhism is referring toeternalismand nihilism.
these are not trivial in any sense of the term nor is discovering a middle path between these.
(sorry to go back and drag up an old thread, but that word “trivial” bothered me.)
All distinctions are trivial and I get the feeling that you just want to argue with me which is something I don’t intend to do here.