Buddhism discussion

[gryphonart]

As a philosophy, Buddhism really resonates with me. A little while back, I was looking in to incorporating the teachings in to my life. I'm a Christian, but I think the two actually compliment each other in a lot of ways. Jesus and Buddha are not so different outside of name. I need to look back in to it, I don't know why I didn't keep up with it.

Was watching a doc on the life of Buddha last night and definitely saw some similarity. As I mentioned, Jesus is considered to have reached Nirvana and become a Buddha on his own path. Buddha's teachings are a path, but not the only path. You can take more than one road to get to the same destination.

 

[Slick_36]

Was watching a doc on the life of Buddha last night and definitely saw some similarity. As I mentioned, Jesus is considered to have reached Nirvana and become a Buddha on his own path. Buddha's teachings are a path, but not the only path. You can take more than one road to get to the same destination.

Yes!
M

 

[Gunny]

Like you TS I'm a non-joiner when it comes to specific religious affiliation although I don't run away from religion either. While I have studied a great deal of Buddhism I'm just as interested in Taoism, Advaita and even the Judeo/Christian mystical traditions. I do not and will not likely ever consider myself a member of those movements as adopting those labels (if you really want to be consistent with them) implies a great many things that you may not be ready to commit to. Fortunately you have no need to adopt the label to gain the benefit of the insight. Speaking personally, if I were forced to self-describe, I would call myself a "Monistic Idealist" as that term pretty well encompasses the all common elements that you'll find in those various traditions. I suspect you also might find that term a useful topic to investigate as it contains all the aforementioned movements but is also a view that is increasing embraced by modern theoretical and quantum physicists.

While this is not specifically Buddhist, the video below is a must watch for anyone who is interested and any of the Eastern enlightenment movements. Strict Buddhists might actually eschew this kind of rational exposition of the topic but I think it's very useful for laying a philosophical/metaphysical groundwork for the later insights of Buddhism.

Skip to 1:40 for the beginning of the talk.

 

[gryphonart]

Well this is going better than I expected

Thanks for the vid Gunny, I will check it out later. I'm in danger of being hindered by sloth/torpor if I don't get off my ass and get some shit done right now. I'll be back!

 

[wlu29]

If you ask a Catholic, Buddhism is the same as atheism.

not this catholic

i like some ideas and philosophy from buddhism

 

[Zankou]

The thing is, almost nobody likes the hard part of buddhism, which is the nihilistic attitude towards this world. But that's the essence of buddhism, transcending the world through enlightenment about how the world's essence is attachment and suffering. Almost nobody who finds buddhism attractive, in my experience, actually shares the intensely pessimistic premise of buddhism. They just want the frills, sans the enlightenment.

I think it is fair to strip buddhism of the theology and religious frippery that have gotten stuck to it over time. But it's not fair to strip buddhism of its pessimism and belief in reincarnation, because without that, it really doesn't work, you have pseudo-buddhism. It basically degenerates into self-help mumbo jumbo, and patting yourself on the back for vapid 'spirituality,' at that point. This is one reason why pseudo-buddhism is so popular for women in their 40s.

 

[Slick_36]

The thing is, almost nobody likes the hard part of buddhism, which is the nihilistic attitude towards this world. But that's the essence of buddhism, transcending the world through enlightenment about how the world's essence is attachment and suffering. Almost nobody who finds buddhism attractive, in my experience, actually shares the intensely pessimistic premise of buddhism. They just want the frills, sans the enlightenment.

I think it is fair to strip buddhism of the theology and religious frippery that have gotten stuck to it over time. But it's not fair to strip buddhism of its pessimism and belief in reincarnation, because without that, it really doesn't work, you have pseudo-buddhism. It basically degenerates into self-help mumbo jumbo, and patting yourself on the back for vapid 'spirituality,' at that point. This is one reason why pseudo-buddhism is so popular for women in their 40s.

I'm already a nihilist so that part comes easy for me. The reincarnation I think is complicated. What exactly is another life? In Christianity, we're promised new life on top of everlasting life. They agree and disagree. I don't know. There's truth to it for sure. And that's why as a philosophy alone I think it's great. It's when you start putting labels on it that it becomes an issue.

 

[standupguru**]

I'm Buddhist, parents from tibet, im tibetan/canadian

Honestly, im not into religion that much but i pray every now and then.

Its not all about meditation, its a way of life. Its about compassion, kind to others.

Monks dedicate their life to buddhism, that means no sex, marriage, no family of your own. Its a tough commitment. But u can be a regular person as a buddhist and still do all the things you like.
Monks are exception, because they are what u call "extreme" in a good way

Buddhism is not a strict religion like muslim, where u cant eat pork, drink alcohol, but we ask that u dont eat any kind of "meat" on fullmoon. Idk the purpose behind that, just what my parents told me and its common in tibetan buddhism, It can be different from say japanese buddhism or korean, etc. I guess I never bothered asking my parents about the no meat on full moon.

If your really serious about learning bhddhism then I recommend you listen to his holiness the Dalai lama's teachings. English version

 

[minute bull]

The thing is, almost nobody likes the hard part of buddhism, which is the nihilistic attitude towards this world. But that's the essence of buddhism, transcending the world through enlightenment about how the world's essence is attachment and suffering. Almost nobody who finds buddhism attractive, in my experience, actually shares the intensely pessimistic premise of buddhism. They just want the frills, sans the enlightenment.

Nihilism isn't pessimistic to me. It's quite liberating.

 

[Gunny]

The thing is, almost nobody likes the hard part of buddhism, which is the nihilistic attitude towards this world. But that's the essence of buddhism, transcending the world through enlightenment about how the world's essence is attachment and suffering. Almost nobody who finds buddhism attractive, in my experience, actually shares the intensely pessimistic premise of buddhism. They just want the frills, sans the enlightenment.

To be fair you're making that comment from the assumption of an objective, material reality. That's not the assumption from which Buddhists make those claims that you find nihilistic. Even you disagree with their assumption on reality you can hardly deny that changing the input stream of an idea inevitably alters the nature of the output stream. Consider the difference in your attitude toward:

1. a gun on display in a museum case
2. a gun being pointed at you by a mugger

 

[shunyata]

My problem with Buddhism is how rigid it is. If you are a true follower of Buddha then you are expected to comply to the following:

Eating only between noon and sundown
No sex (or masturbation)
No drugs or alcohol
No lying
No dancing
No music
No jewelery

Those are just a few of the rules. No music? Seriously? There are some nice ideas in Buddhism such as no lying, no stealing and no killing of any creature but to me these are just common sense.

A rational minded person shouldn't need a rule book to live their lives. Take from every religion and philosophy what applies to your life and moral creed.

Those are for monks and nuns. Lay people are not expected to do all that.

Sex within a loving relationship that does not cause suffering is not against the rules.

 

[bjjHERRERA]

this thread is an illusion.

 

[shunyata]

The thing is, almost nobody likes the hard part of buddhism, which is the nihilistic attitude towards this world. But that's the essence of buddhism, transcending the world through enlightenment about how the world's essence is attachment and suffering. Almost nobody who finds buddhism attractive, in my experience, actually shares the intensely pessimistic premise of buddhism. They just want the frills, sans the enlightenment.

I think it is fair to strip buddhism of the theology and religious frippery that have gotten stuck to it over time. But it's not fair to strip buddhism of its pessimism and belief in reincarnation, because without that, it really doesn't work, you have pseudo-buddhism. It basically degenerates into self-help mumbo jumbo, and patting yourself on the back for vapid 'spirituality,' at that point. This is one reason why pseudo-buddhism is so popular for women in their 40s.

I would disagree. It is quite possible to operate within a paradigm of philosphical buddhism while still having joy and reverence for life.

I've always found strong overlaps between chan buddhism and roman stoicism, particularly in the writings of Marcus Aurelius.

Aurelius writes it as "to be devoid of passion yet full of love".

Now I do concur that pseudo buddhism is common in America, but where I find the falseness lies is not with a lack of nihilism but with an inability to remove the emotions as much as possible from ruling the mind.

 

[gryphonart]

The thing is, almost nobody likes the hard part of buddhism, which is the nihilistic attitude towards this world. But that's the essence of buddhism, transcending the world through enlightenment about how the world's essence is attachment and suffering. Almost nobody who finds buddhism attractive, in my experience, actually shares the intensely pessimistic premise of buddhism. They just want the frills, sans the enlightenment.

I think it is fair to strip buddhism of the theology and religious frippery that have gotten stuck to it over time. But it's not fair to strip buddhism of its pessimism and belief in reincarnation, because without that, it really doesn't work, you have pseudo-buddhism. It basically degenerates into self-help mumbo jumbo, and patting yourself on the back for vapid 'spirituality,' at that point. This is one reason why pseudo-buddhism is so popular for women in their 40s.

The Four Noble Truths:

1. Life means suffering.
2. The origin of suffering is attachment.
3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.
4. The path to the cessation of suffering.

You'd be referencing the 1st as Nihilistic, but it's not necessarily so. In fact, it's undeniable. Every one of us will get sick, get hurt emotionally or physically, grow old and die. It's more realistic than Nihilistic. The 3rd states that it is possible through acceptance of that fact to get beyond it, and the 4th shows the path to do so. Yes, it is a part of Buddhism to discuss suffering and death, but just the starting point.

Also, it is not a disdain for the Earth that is discussed. When Buddha faces Maya (a manifestation/analogy for worldly attachment) he touches the Earth with a finger and says "With the Earth as my witness." It is at that point that he sees his past lives and reaches enlightenment. The idea here (as I see it) is that the beauty and peace is inside us, but since we are all one with the Earth and all that is on it, it is also in everything. You are not so much transcending the Earth as understanding it. What you are transcending is Ego and attachment which are inherent to life, but not to the Earth.

As for reincarnation, Buddha seeing all his past lives seems as though it should be taken literally. Taken more metaphorically, it shows that connection between him and all other living things, past or present. It is used as a motivational impetus, you are human in this life so you better get yourself as far along the path as you can now, cause next time you might be a scorpion and not have the opportunity. It also backs up the idea of harming no living thing unnecessarily.

As of right now, I most likely am guilty of your "pseudo-Buddhism," but that can and will change one way or the other. Change is also an undeniable truth.

 

[gryphonart]

I'm Buddhist, parents from tibet, im tibetan/canadian

Honestly, im not into religion that much but i pray every now and then.

Its not all about meditation, its a way of life. Its about compassion, kind to others.

Monks dedicate their life to buddhism, that means no sex, marriage, no family of your own. Its a tough commitment. But u can be a regular person as a buddhist and still do all the things you like.
Monks are exception, because they are what u call "extreme" in a good way

Buddhism is not a strict religion like muslim, where u cant eat pork, drink alcohol, but we ask that u dont eat any kind of "meat" on fullmoon. Idk the purpose behind that, just what my parents told me and its common in tibetan buddhism, It can be different from say japanese buddhism or korean, etc. I guess I never bothered asking my parents about the no meat on full moon.

If your really serious about learning bhddhism then I recommend you listen to his holiness the Dalai lama's teachings. English version

Yeah, practicing meditation does not seem to be the point, or the be-all end-all of it, but just an essential tool along the way. I've been checking out the Dalai Lama some, and also watching a series of videos with a bit of a more Western take, the teachers are mostly Western to make it more "digestible" I suppose. I posted the first one in spoilers in the OP.

As an aside, read Seven Years in Tibet not long ago, interesting to get some insight into the Dalai Lama as a child/young man from there.

 

[JayElectra]

I think that there is something to be gained from meditation (I am partial for my own lazy form of zazen) but Buddhism is very much an organized religion in many places (of course, there are different strands of buddhism and so on). Aside from reading some of the teachings and meditating, I don't know how important the whole religious framework really is. Oh, and to sound like a 16 year old idealist, I'll say that Buddha wouldn't be a Buddhist and Jesus wouldn't be a Christian.

 

[BayAreaGuy]

My problem with Buddhism is how rigid it is. If you are a true follower of Buddha then you are expected to comply to the following:

Eating only between noon and sundown
No sex (or masturbation)
No drugs or alcohol
No lying
No dancing
No music
No jewelery

Those are just a few of the rules. No music? Seriously? There are some nice ideas in Buddhism such as no lying, no stealing and no killing of any creature but to me these are just common sense.

A rational minded person shouldn't need a rule book to live their lives. Take from every religion and philosophy what applies to your life and moral creed.

The bolded part only applies to monks.

A normal person doesn't have to follow those rules, just common sense things like no lying, no stealing, ect...

 

[BayAreaGuy]

Question:

Obviously the rules of Buddhism are that there's no sexual misconduct, no murder, no stealing, ect...

But what happens if someone writes a story, or directs/acts a movie in which these things are promoted.

Does that count as bad karma, or is understood that it's fantasy and not real? I've always wondered that.

 

[Vincent86]

out of all the major religions, Buddhism might be the least retarded

 

[gryphonart]

I think that there is something to be gained from meditation (I am partial for my own lazy form of zazen) but Buddhism is very much an organized religion in many places (of course, there are different strands of buddhism and so on). Aside from reading some of the teachings and meditating, I don't know how important the whole religious framework really is. Oh, and to sound like a 16 year old idealist, I'll say that Buddha wouldn't be a Buddhist and Jesus wouldn't be a Christian.

Definitely benefits to meditation outside of Buddhism. It's spreading into conventional psychology, being taught in some schools, at corporate retreats, etc. I can accept that it is in fact a religion. I suppose it's my own hang up, trying to hedge my bets by getting into the philosophy without committing to a religion since I've resisted that my whole life. I'll have to get past that if I do decide to go further with it.