Buddhism discussion

[ocean size]

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 kind of agree, Buddhism is about avoiding things that cause both highs and lows, both of which can breed suffering.

 

[Nomad Nemesis**]

i think i read one or two of the more popular buddist books by the dali lama or whatever

i came to the conclusion that it was stupid bunch of shit

it is hard to remember, but it is like it was saying that no one is special and not to feel emotion. well fuck that. feeling emotions is part of what makes life great. people that mean something to you and are close to you are special.

 

[highkicknomore]

I kind of agree, Buddhism is about avoiding things that cause both highs and lows, both of which can breed suffering.

I'm not really a buddhist but I practice it's philosophy.

What I've come to realize that the truth is always the answer, whether its good or bad. As humans, we shy away from the truth, especially when it's something bad. We make excuses and blame another factor for the cause (which might be true).

But in the end of it, you just have to man up and accept that you've made a mistake and learn from it.

I think too many people in society would rather not know the truth and in the long run it causes them more sufferring because they're just trying to suppress it, instead of working on the issue.

I still have a hard time meditating but when I do it, I feel calmer and grounded.

 

[highkicknomore]

i think i read one or two of the more popular buddist books by the dali lama or whatever

i came to the conclusion that it was stupid bunch of shit

it is hard to remember, but it is like it was saying that no one is special and not to feel emotion. well fuck that. feeling emotions is part of what makes life great. people that mean something to you and are close to you are special.

Buddhism teachings are confusing and some are contradictory (if all humans are equal, how come there's no female Dalai Lama?). Not going to deny that.

But monks cry and get happy just like the rest of us. If you see a footage of the Dalai Lama, he's really caring and people are receptive to him. It's because he studies loving everyone unconditionally. So it doesn't matter if it's a stranger or your relative, their theory is to love everyone the same. This way you can connect with anyone. They believe being social will lead to geneoristy. And genoristy and compassion is the truest form of happiness.

Also they do teach you not to get attached to your feelings ie sadness (which can lead to self pity) and happiness (which can lead to ego). So they suggest staying as neutral as possible but it doesn't mean you become a robot.

 

[gryphonart]

It's not so much about banishing emotion, but controlling it. I know from experience it's not a pretty thing when you allow your emotions to run all over you and take control. It's about having control over your thoughts and emotions, like ocean size said, finding a centered calm rather than peaks and valleys.

A demonstration I saw used a glass half full of water. The teacher shook it back and forth, then set it on the table. The point was the shaken water is when your "mind" (which is a bit more inclusive in Buddhist philosophy than the general meaning of the word) and emotions are running rampant. When you set down the glass the water becomes calm and even, which is the natural state of the mind. When the water is calm it reflects light and images, when it is roiled it does not. So, too, with the mind.

 

[Fawlty]

Burn the dogma. There's no chosen one and no way to be. The most useful thing for me is taking a few breaths and coming back to my senses.

 

[gryphonart]

Burn the dogma. There's no chosen one and no way to be. The most useful thing for me is taking a few breaths and coming back to my senses.

I see where you are coming from, and felt that way most of my life. Buddhism, among other religions, was a fun thing to look at but not much more. But, in my case, when I started looking at Buddhism again I found that the ideals in fact fit with things I try to practice, or things I wish I did practice more. I didn't feel like I was "falling for" the Buddhist Dharma (or dogma if you must) as much as I already had one foot in the pool. To me that is cause at least for a closer examination... which is what I'm doing and what this thread is about.

 

[Nomad Nemesis**]

It's because he studies loving everyone unconditionally. So it doesn't matter if it's a stranger or your relative, their theory is to love everyone the same.

this is probably my exact problem with this.

i just completely disagree with this. if you love everyone the same then your love is not special and no one else is special. I believe that there is the constant battle -- order vs chaos, good vs evil.

i read the book(s) at a time when i had really bad anger issues to try to maybe calm me. just was not for me for sure.

 

[Chesten_Hesten]

Alan Watts is a good listen for Buddhism.

Zen in the Art of Archery is a swell read too.

I never understood why anyone would want to sit on their can and meditate, when they could do the same while practicing an action instead.

 

[gryphonart]

this is probably my exact problem with this.

i just completely disagree with this. if you love everyone the same then your love is not special and no one else is special. I believe that there is the constant battle -- order vs chaos, good vs evil.

i read the book(s) at a time when i had really bad anger issues to try to maybe calm me. just was not for me for sure.

I would reply that nothing could be more special than being able to love more than just your friends and family, and that in fact everyone is special, not just them, if you are able to set aside an egocentric view. Not saying I'm there (or ever will be), but it would be an argument.

As for sitting on your can meditating, it's about creating an environment of stillness and calm. Not everyone does it that way, Yoga is a form of meditating involving physical action and often done in groups rather than solitude. I have enough trouble clearing my mind while still, so for now it's sitting on my can

 

[Fawlty]

Alan Watts is a good listen for Buddhism.

I agree. People criticize him for being a "guru" but he has a way of putting eastern ideas into perspective for western minds, and he's been a big help to me.

 

[Nomad Nemesis**]

I would reply that nothing could be more special than being able to love more than just your friends and family, and that in fact everyone is special, not just them, if you are able to set aside an egocentric view. Not saying I'm there (or ever will be), but it would be an argument.

if everyone is the same to you then they would not be special. not by my definition of special with is "better" than normal.

sorry, i am not going to love jerry sandusky as much as i love katy perry's tittays. not gonna do it.

I am a westerner through and through. fuck yeah. 3% neandethal up in here.

 

[gryphonart]

if everyone is the same to you then they would not be special. not by my definition of special with is "better" than normal.

sorry, i am not going to love jerry sandusky as much as i love katy perry's tittays. not gonna do it.

I am a westerner through and through. fuck yeah. 3% neandethal up in here.

LOL... tough to dispute the Sandusky/Perry analogy indeed

And yeah, I'm not there with unconditional love. Maybe I will be one day, maybe I won't.

...but the "to you" part is what I was after in my reply. You are talking about people who are special to you in your own situation and your own way of thinking. Everyone, everywhere is or was special to someone else, so everyone qualifies. In order to think that way you gotta take the Ego out of it though, and that is not easy.

I'm a whole lot better at the compassion side of things than the unconditional love part.

 

[highkicknomore]

if everyone is the same to you then they would not be special. not by my definition of special with is "better" than normal.

sorry, i am not going to love jerry sandusky as much as i love katy perry's tittays. not gonna do it.

I am a westerner through and through. fuck yeah. 3% neandethal up in here.

I totally understand your view.

That's the hard part. You have to be completely selfless to do that. Buddhism teaches compassion because it's their belief, it's the only way you can be truly happy.

For example you might be broke or just broke up with your gf. But by being compassionate and not thinking about yourself all the time, it sets you free and you're content with your life. Compassion you can control but external factors such as your gf and cash not so much. It's tough though because with a mindset like this you might become one of those hardcore Christian nuts that is super nice just because they want to be rewarded by going to heaven. There's a balance there and it's hard.

It's really hard to grasp but I've experienced it in my life that I believe in it.

Also I agree with Sandusky vs Katy Perry example. No way I can have compassion for Sandusky but my goal is to have compassion for everyone.

One buddhist monk was imprisoned in China and getting beat up by the guards daily. He said he was afraid and meditated. But then he claimed he wasn't afraid of dying or when he'll be released. He was afraid he was starting to hate the guards and losing compassion towards them. He didn't want that anger and hate. Pretty deep stuff.

 

[gryphonart]

Also, compassion and love are not the same. I watched someone point out the differences exactly, but it escapes me now. I think the gist of it was compassion is a desire for others to not feel pain and suffering, while love is the desire for others to feel happiness.

 

[shunyata]

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."

I get that. I have seen Americans who claimed to be trying to live by buddhist principles but they became offended when I suggested that even "positive" emotions could generate suffering.

In that sense the falseness comes from the refusal to acknowledge that any and all emotional attachements will generate suffering vs the diluted idea that only the "bad" emotions are problematic.

 

[Gunny]

Alan Watts is a good listen for Buddhism.

Zen in the Art of Archery is a swell read too.

I never understood why anyone would want to sit on their can and meditate, when they could do the same while practicing an action instead.

Agreed on Alan Watts. I almost consider him a prerequesite for any westerner trying to understand Buddhism - particularly Zen. If you take some of the Koans on their own, with a western upbringing and no basis in Eastern thought, it's likely to appear to be utter nonsense. Like this;

"If I see you have a staff, I will give it to
you. If I see you have no staff, I will take it away from you."

Until you've wrapped your head around why they're uttering such silliness there's no way to grasp what they're trying to accomplish.

I'm also with you on the seated meditation thing but that's mostly because I have a pretty restless mind and find it easer to come to stillness while doing something. That said I do see the value in training oneself to the point where stillness is automatic no matter the circumstances. I have to admit that I'm a long way from that point.

 

[gryphonart]

I get that. I have seen Americans who claimed to be trying to live by buddhist principles but they became offended when I suggested that even "positive" emotions could generate suffering.

In that sense the falseness comes from the refusal to acknowledge that any and all emotional attachements will generate suffering vs the diluted idea that only the "bad" emotions are problematic.

Well said. If you skip to around the 10:00 mark, there is an interesting part about the peaks and valleys and how both can be disruptive and cause suffering. If you don't skip forward, the Dalai Lama speaks (or at least his translator does):

 

[gryphonart]

I think the hard work referenced by Buddhism is conquering the self's baser desires. It's not that Buddhism kills your ambition, but ambitionless people will use Buddhism as an excuse for non-action. That's the pitfall, but not necessarily the defining characteristic. With Buddhism it's easier to relegate oneself to non-action than "other" ways of living, which harp on ritualization.

I think I might understand better what you were getting at. Today I was posting ITT, thinking about the info I absorbed last night, and generally feeling pretty well centered. Then, I took a walk down to a local customer's shop and picked up a deposit on some work... positive vibes, a good day.

Waiting for me when I got home was having to figure out business B&O tax for the city, which is a drag. It'll put your head in a bad place no matter how you spin it. So, I thought "Why not put it off until tomorrow? I'm in such a good frame of mind, why ruin it with a harsh reality/responsibility?"

At the end of the day I got it done, and it did pollute my mind some having to deal with an unpleasant task. But, it was a necessary task. The point is though, that the thought was there. Why do it now when I'm in a positive light? I can just put it off. Not entirely rational, doing it in a bad mood will only exasperate that mood... but I have to admit the thought was there.

 

[zapataxiv]

LOL... tough to dispute the Sandusky/Perry analogy indeed

And yeah, I'm not there with unconditional love. Maybe I will be one day, maybe I won't.

...but the "to you" part is what I was after in my reply. You are talking about people who are special to you in your own situation and your own way of thinking. Everyone, everywhere is or was special to someone else, so everyone qualifies. In order to think that way you gotta take the Ego out of it though, and that is not easy.

I'm a whole lot better at the compassion side of things than the unconditional love part.

i would look at the situation as both people are people at the core and by that virtue want to be loved and valued as much as anybody else so by that they both deserve the same alue of love
but the choices sandusky has made are despicable and have hurt many people and because of that i choose not to respect or love him as much katy perrys boobs but that is sanduskys karma for living life the way he did