Buddhism discussion

[Zankou]

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of a hostile attitude towards life. I just think the vast majority of would-be buddhists don't hold anything resembling the enlightened attitude set forth in the four noble truths. What they want is a *better* life, one with joy and love and such. But that's a perversion of buddhism, not much better than the lay buddhists who pray to bodhisattvas for success.

The core of Buddhism is all about how life is fundamentally awful, but that through enlightenment attachments can be unwoven and suffering ended, the wheel of reincarnation overcome. What people like to take it as is very different: That through enlightenment, bad attachments can be unwoven, and good attachments kept. Which is basically just the premise of every "self help" book ever written, and why this kind of buddhism should probably be called "self help buddhism."

 

[JayElectra]

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.

I think that there is plenty to gain from the readings and some practices (chiefly meditiation) without fully committing to the religion.

 

[gryphonart]

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.

Interesting question. I thought it might be in conflict with Right Speech (in a nutshell):
1. to abstain from false speech, especially not to tell deliberate lies and not to speak deceitfully, 2. to abstain from slanderous speech and not to use words maliciously against others, 3. to abstain from harsh words that offend or hurt others, and 4. to abstain from idle chatter that lacks purpose or depth. Positively phrased, this means to tell the truth, to speak friendly, warm, and gently and to talk only when necessary.

That would extend speech to written words or film/music, and even there I don't see a real conflict as long as the intent is not malicious. Now watching/listening/reading those things would go against the precepts for a monk or nun, but not the laity.

I was actually thinking about this earlier, how would Right Speech extend to say posting on Sherdog? I know I've been on both ends of hurtful comments and that would be wrong, but what about misunderstood irony or sarcasm? In that case it's not my intent to be hurtful, but the end result may be. Obviously there was no internet when this was written, so should Right Speech extend to posting here? Seems to me it should at least to some degree.

 

[Zankou]

By the way, the best Western equivalent to Buddhism is probably the incredibly misunderstood but awesome philosophy of Epicurus.

"The philosophy of Epicurus (341–270 B.C.E.) was a complete and interdependent system, involving a view of the goal of human life (happiness, resulting from absence of physical pain and mental disturbance), an empiricist theory of knowledge (sensations, including the perception of pleasure and pain, are infallible criteria), a description of nature based on atomistic materialism, and a naturalistic account of evolution, from the formation of the world to the emergence of human societies. Epicurus believed that, on the basis of a radical materialism which dispensed with transcendent entities such as the Platonic Ideas or Forms, he could disprove the possibility of the soul's survival after death, and hence the prospect of punishment in the afterlife. He regarded the unacknowledged fear of death and punishment as the primary cause of anxiety among human beings, and anxiety in turn as the source of extreme and irrational desires. The elimination of the fears and corresponding desires would leave people free to pursue the pleasures, both physical and mental, to which they are naturally drawn, and to enjoy the peace of mind that is consequent upon their regularly expected and achieved satisfaction. It remained to explain how irrational fears arose in the first place: hence the importance of an account of social evolution. Epicurus was aware that deeply ingrained habits of thought are not easily corrected, and thus he proposed various exercises to assist the novice. His system included advice on the proper attitude toward politics (avoid it where possible) and the gods (do not imagine that they concern themselves about human beings and their behavior), the role of sex (dubious), marriage (also dubious) and friendship (essential), reflections on the nature of various meteorological and planetary phenomena, about which it was best to keep an open mind in the absence of decisive verification, and explanations of such processes as gravity and magnetism, which posed considerable challenges to the ingenuity of the earlier atomists. Although the overall structure of Epicureanism was designed to hang together and to serve its principal ethical goals, there was room for a great deal of intriguing philosophical argument concerning every aspect of the system, from the speed of atoms in a void to the origin of optical illusions."

 

[leto1776]

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

For many,it's not a full fledged religion, but a philosphy. I've met a few buddhists like that.

That`s why you don`t ask strict,religious people for their views on other religions. You`re not gonna get a logical answer.

Fixed that for you.

 

[JayElectra]

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of a hostile attitude towards life. I just think the vast majority of would-be buddhists don't hold anything resembling the enlightened attitude set forth in the four noble truths. What they want is a *better* life, one with joy and love and such. But that's a perversion of buddhism, not much better than the lay buddhists who pray to bodhisattvas for success.

The core of Buddhism is all about how life is fundamentally awful, but that through enlightenment attachments can be unwoven and suffering ended, the wheel of reincarnation overcome. What people like to take it as is very different: That through enlightenment, bad attachments can be unwoven, and good attachments kept. Which is basically just the premise of every "self help" book ever written, and why this kind of buddhism should probably be called "self help buddhism."

This is something that defenitely exists since Buddhism has become "westernized". Buddhism is similar in many respects to much of Schopenhauer's pessimistic philosophy.

 

[gryphonart]

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of a hostile attitude towards life. I just think the vast majority of would-be buddhists don't hold anything resembling the enlightened attitude set forth in the four noble truths. What they want is a *better* life, one with joy and love and such. But that's a perversion of buddhism, not much better than the lay buddhists who pray to bodhisattvas for success.

The core of Buddhism is all about how life is fundamentally awful, but that through enlightenment attachments can be unwoven and suffering ended, the wheel of reincarnation overcome. What people like to take it as is very different: That through enlightenment, bad attachments can be unwoven, and good attachments kept. Which is basically just the premise of every "self help" book ever written, and why this kind of buddhism should probably be called "self help buddhism."

Some of what I've been reading/watching emphasizes that the goal of improving yourself is to be in a better position to help others. Maybe it's just sort of a loophole, but I can get behind that idea. I've always enjoyed helping people however I can, and if I was wiser, kinder, more successful wouldn't I be in a better position to do that? Compassion is a major part of Buddhism as well.

 

[JayElectra]

By the way, the best Western equivalent to Buddhism is probably the incredibly misunderstood but awesome philosophy of Epicurus.

"The philosophy of Epicurus (341

 

[minute bull]

Life means suffering =/= life is awful

 

[Gunny]

By the way, the best Western equivalent to Buddhism is probably the incredibly misunderstood but awesome philosophy of Epicurus.

"The philosophy of Epicurus (341

 

[gryphonart]

More on "Westernized" or "Self Help" Buddhism:

OK, so in Christianity there are those who interpret the Bible literally and strictly. There are also those who take it more loosely and try to interpret the meaning behind what is written. Both are undeniably Christians. So, too, wouldn't this apply to Buddhism? If I'm (theoretically) attempting to understand the thought behind the words rather than taking them 100% literally, is that any less Buddhist? Clearly the world has changed since the words were written and the path described, so is it necessarily wrong to alter interpretation to fit a more modern setting? Not really sure what I think about that, just throwing it out there.

 

[Potiron]

More on "Westernized" or "Self Help" Buddhism:

OK, so in Christianity there are those who interpret the Bible literally and strictly. There are also those who take it more loosely and try to interpret the meaning behind what is written. Both are undeniably Christians. So, too, wouldn't this apply to Buddhism? If I'm (theoretically) attempting to understand the thought behind the words rather than taking them 100% literally, is that any less Buddhist? Clearly the world has changed since the words were written and the path described, so is it necessarily wrong to alter interpretation to fit a more modern setting? Not really sure what I think about that, just throwing it out there.

You are right my friend! There's actually a pretty good book on the subject called "money, sex, war, karma"

I got into buddhism when I read Dharma Punx and Brad Warner's books

 

[Potiron]

And to answer to the OP, I don't think of myself as a buddhist per say, but I try to follow the middle way

 

[Zankou]

I suspected with your first post that you had some misconceptions but I think this post has proved it unequivocally. If you're trying to understand Buddhism in terms of philosophy (and many would say that you can't) that blurb on Epicurus strikes me as almost 180 degrees in the wrong direction.

If you still want a Greek parallel to point to I'd suggest that combining the thoughts of Anaxagoras and Heraclitus brings us far closer to Buddhism. Even Plato's Allegory of the Cave is a better direction.

Why, because they also thought the primary point of enlightenment was to avoid suffering? Yes, I can see why "Life is suffering" fits REALLY well into Anaxagoras' philosophy, what with his obsession with past lives, human suffering, excess attachment, etcetera.

Ah wait, no they didn't. That would be Epicurus who talked about suffering and the pain imposed by life after death, not Anaxagoras or Heraclitus, who didn't say a damn thing about it. Look, if you think you can fit the four noble truths into another Greek philosophy better than with Epicurus, let me know. Stoicism is the common one people try to draw parallels with, but Epicurus is actually a lot closer, with the emphasis on using knowledge to kill the attachments and irrational fears that bring suffering. In no way do the presocratics come anywhere close; they barely talk about life at all, they just obsess about physical science.

The other Western philosopher who is a tight fit with Buddhism, as somebody mentioned above me, is Schopenhauer, who in fact was largely responsible for popularizing Buddhism in Europe. Schopenhauer is also incredibly awesome, but again, he is so overtly pessimistic that the self-help Buddha crowd can't take it.

 

[Gunny]

More on "Westernized" or "Self Help" Buddhism:

OK, so in Christianity there are those who interpret the Bible literally and strictly. There are also those who take it more loosely and try to interpret the meaning behind what is written. Both are undeniably Christians. So, too, wouldn't this apply to Buddhism? If I'm (theoretically) attempting to understand the thought behind the words rather than taking them 100% literally, is that any less Buddhist? Clearly the world has changed since the words were written and the path described, so is it necessarily wrong to alter interpretation to fit a more modern setting? Not really sure what I think about that, just throwing it out there.

This is probably a good spot in this thread to point out that there are many varying Buddhist traditions. One main division: Mahayana vs Hinayana. In the grossest of terms (and I really mean that) Hinayana could be seen as something closer to fundamentalist Buddhism, heavily reliant on the scriptures and specific instructions of the original Buddha while Mahayana (sort of) strips the Buddhist ideals of all concrete philosophy or metaphysics. So if I understand what you're saying it puts you more in the Mahayana camp however you used the expression "trying to understand the thought" which, in the absolute sense, is a fairly non-Mahayana impulse. Again though, you'll notice that I'm hedging my language with almost anything I write on the subject because a central tenet of every Eastern mystical tradition is that words are completely inadequate to express truth. They see words as a "finger pointing at the moon" - not to be mistook for the moon itself.

 

[Gunny]

Why, because they also thought the primary point of enlightenment was to avoid suffering? Yes, I can see why "Life is suffering" fits REALLY well into Anaxagoras' philosophy, what with his obsession with past lives, human suffering, excess attachment, etcetera.

Ah wait, no they didn't. That would be Epicurus who talked about suffering, not Anaxagoras or Heraclitus. Look, if you think you can fit the four noble truths into another Greek philosophy better than with Epicurus, let me know. Stoicism is the common one people try to draw parallels with, but Epicurus is actually a lot closer, with the emphasis on using knowledge to kill the attachments and irrational fears that bring suffering. In no way do the presocratics come anywhere close; they barely talk about life at all, they just obsess about physical science.

The other Western philosopher who is a tight fit with Buddhism, as somebody mentioned above me, is Schopenhauer, who in fact was largely responsible for popularizing Buddhism in Europe. Schopenhauer is also incredibly awesome, but again, he is so overtly pessimistic that the self-help Buddha crowd can't take it.

Ok, have it your way. In the end there are no concrete statements that can be made on the topic that are true and consistent within the topic itself so our engaging in an argument would be pointless.

 

[gryphonart]

This is probably a good spot in this thread to point out that there are many varying Buddhist traditions. One main division: Mahayana vs Hinayana. In the grossest of terms (and I really mean that) Hinayana could be seen as something closer to fundamentalist Buddhism, heavily reliant on the scriptures and specific instructions of the original Buddha while Mahayana (sort of) strips the Buddhist ideals of all concrete philosophy or metaphysics. So if I understand what you're saying it puts you more in the Mahayana camp however you used the expression "trying to understand the thought" which, in the absolute sense, is a fairly non-Mahayana impulse. Again though, you'll notice that I'm hedging my language with almost anything I write on the subject because a central tenet of every Eastern mystical tradition is that words are completely inadequate to express truth. They see words as a "finger pointing at the moon" - not to be mistook for the moon itself.

Something I watched touched on this briefly. If I understood it correctly (which is questionable) many follow only Hinayana, but in order to progress to Mahayana Hinayana is first necessary. It's a little fuzzy in my mind, I think it was something about the Three Scopes of Buddhism and I meant to follow up on it more but have not yet.

 

[Zankou]

In general, my feelings about Buddhism are similar to Christianity. If you look at what the Buddha actually said, at least as close as you can get (obviously there are source problems), it's amazing stuff. Same thing with Jesus.

Then when you listen to people talking ABOUT Buddhism or Christianity, or ABOUT Buddha/Jesus, well it sucks by comparison. People start trying to convert it into something else that fits better with what they want. They tame it, dilute it, and weigh it down with excess gibberish that ruins it.

 

[gryphonart]

In general, my feelings about Buddhism are similar to Christianity. If you look at what the Buddha actually said, at least as close as you can get (obviously there are source problems), it's amazing stuff. Same thing with Jesus.

Then when you listen to people talking ABOUT Buddhism or Christianity, or ABOUT Buddha/Jesus, well it sucks by comparison. People start trying to convert it into something else that fits better with what they want. They tame it, dilute it, and weigh it down with excess gibberish that ruins it.

Not the same thing but it sort of touches on something I was thinking about: Missionaries.

It seems one of the main goals of (some) Christians and Muslims is to convert the world, and as such conquer it. Are there examples of this in Buddhism or not? I sort of though some of the vids I was watching (slick production, putting Richard Gere out front) might be a form of that. However, if I had not been searching for things like that I would not have found them.

 

[Cross]

I'm not a Buddhist but their teachings resonate with me more than many other religions.

I tend to gravitate toward it as well. Do you meditate?