Buddhist Dilemma?

tcis, I think you ARE depressed and might benefit from some therapy. I had a similar experience in the early sixties. I was meditating very hard, for long hours under the guidance of Zen master, Sasaki Roshi. One day while driving everything became unreal, actually the words for things became detached from their referent things. So the world looked almost pristine, with no labels on anything. And my language seemed to be mere sounds or empty symbols. It was very frightening. Soon it faded, and I was relieved. The next day it happened again. I asked the Roshi if it had any zen significance. He told me to back off from the meditation for awhile, to go have fun. Suggesting that I was stressing myself out too much. I did, and the wierd state of mind never came back. I think I was somehow removing myself from my ordinary reality, a kind of depression, in the form of escapism or self-removal from life. I don't really know. But that was more than forty years ago, and I've been "normal" ever since.
Let me suggest that Buddhism does not pursue indifference (detachment). Non-attachment--as I've suggested before on these threads--is not the same as DEtachment. It is human to have desires. Our psyches and bodies are one (as far as I can tell), and as long as my hormonal system works I am going to have desires, sexual and otherwise. What I try not to do is to identify with my desires and their objects. I do not attach to them. They just happen; they are enjoyed; and they pass. No sweat. But I do not wax nostalgic about past pleasures or spend time anticipating future ones. That would be attachment. No need for the forest as far as I can tell. Just do not feed the ego with attachments to things, fame, identities, others' approval, etc.

JL-

Thanks. Do you follow any particular path now?

JL:

That is perhaps the most honest and cool answer (not to mention enlightened) I have seen in some time. I am feeling like that about philosophy right now - I think I just need to back off.

Thanks for the life advice bro.

TF

Also, I agree completely. The Buddha was different from Ascetic Hinduism because of the realizing that one is a wonton being - but that wantoness (desire) should not rule ones life.

When the Buddha passed out in the river he realized that he had been focusing so much on the desire that he could not focus on the detachment - but this does not mean you should not even see your desire at all. You should recognize it and put it in its perspective.

This is where I see the merging of Buddhism and Epicureanism.

But, I am an absolute lay-scholar of Buddhism and would please ask you to correct me if I understand this incorrectly.

TF

TF, your first paragraph sounds right, but not the second. But I'm no Buddhist scholar. Let's just hope Asherman sees this thread. He's your best bet for reliable information.

edited 6-17-04

Budhist dilemna
Sounds like you've extinguished nothing. For example, you mention the undesirable outcome of possibly becoming homeless. If you desired nothing why would the thought of being homeless be so "UNDESIRABLE."

Re: Budhist dilemna


Point well taken. Becoming homeless is probably almost a natural progression in some of these paths. It appears that even Buddha & followers, many Buddhist monks, Jesus & followers, etc., were indeed homeless, for at least much of their lives.

The Zen buddhist even begs daily because he disavows the ownership of food. That is why buddha often is seen with a begging bowl.

I think he is made as being portly because the artists are wanting to show the wealth of his soul.

TF

I wish again that Asherman were here to set us straight on some of these matters of fact. While the Buddha (the skinny one) spent much time homeless, I do not think it is a prerequisite for enlightenment. And the portly buddha you refer to, is, I think Hotai (sp?), a fat Chinese buddha (not the Indian Siddartha Gautama), more of a Santa Claus type. And while a matured buddhist would not be attached to the idea of having a home, he or she could still experience the sentiment-- the desire for one--and just let it pass. There would be an absence of ATTACHMENT to the desire, not necessarily an absence of desire. A subtle but critical distinction.

I have not studied Buddhism, but it was once explained to me by someone who does...and they did not describe it as a quest to lose all desires.

It seems obvious that any such quest, if completed, would simply lead to a state of depression.

As it was described to me: Buddha was a rich prince who lived separated from his people. He was relatively happy, albeit spoiled...but one day he went on a journey, and saw people outside of his palace experiencing sadness. He realized that his cloistered life was false, real life was not so perfect. He left his royal heritage behind, and all his posessions, and became a wandering homeless man. He then realized that he had gone too far, and that this also was not a good way to live. So in the end he decided that he must follow the middle path, seeking good things...but not overly indulging in them.

You are a living example of why I believe religion is so dangerous. Do not live your life as a slave to some doctrine, because then if you interpet the doctrine wrong...you could end up doing horrible things, which hurt other people, or hurt yourself. Worse yet, no doctrine is perfect...and will always teach poor practices. Worse still, by living your life by a doctrine, you will make less choices yourself, and be less adept at making difficult moral decisions. And finally, the doctrine will not tell you what to do in all situations, but you won't be able to make good decisions on your own since you are so accustomed to following the doctrine.

tcis, set yourself a new religion: yourself, and happiness. Do what you feel is right, do what makes you happy. F*ck religion.

Stuh, what has tcis ever said to warrant your avuncular condescension toward him? I hope your problem is merely stylistic.

I am here, invited by JL. I've reviewed all of the posts in this thread. There seem to be several points that might need clarification, but I am most struck by the first.

JL's points about the differences between non-attachment and de-tachment are well made. I also heartily agree that it is best to proceed under the supervision of a Buddhist Master for a number of reasons.

Most important is the effect reported by Tcis in his first post. Buddhist doctrine is like a doctor's prescription. There are uncomfortable symptoms, in this case "spiritual" suffering. We seek, if not a cure, then at least some mitigation. Sidhartha gave us that prescription in the Deer Park Sermon, and in many subsequent discourses on the subject of suffering. The cause of suffering is our attachment to the illusory world. We want what we can not have, what we have lost or may lose. We constantly seek pleasure and are angered when pleasure fails to fill the void we feel within us. A phantom drink of wine has no power of intoxication. We are tied to the illusion that time and space are real, but they are nothing more than dreams.

Even without study or practice of Buddhist discipline, some may suddenly find themselves face to face with the reality that lies behind the sensory illusion of multiplicity. Suddenly, the ego fades and eternity is like a bottomless abyss before us. This experience is so counter to what we have all our lives believed, that it is terrifying. To see through the illusion to the underlying reality is timeless, yet few of us are able to maintain the experience for more than a few moments in "objective" time. We return to our "senses", and will forever after be changed.

For the person who has not been properly prepared for the experience there may be negative outcomes. A few have been known to become psychotic and require hospitalization. Terror of losing one's ego can push some personalities over the edge. More common is a post experience period of depression and nihilism as a response to the insight that common values are ultimately meaningless. What is too often overlooked is that the Ultimate Reality that is experienced is absolutely free of suffering. Rather than feeling depressed properly prepared seeker of Enlightenment should experience great joy in shedding the "apart-ness" that is the hallmark of Maya. Within Ultimate Reality, and Tcis seems to have genuinely touched upon it, we are "healed" from suffering to the extent that we can hold onto the understanding gained from the experience.

Tcis, what you are feeling is not unusual for someone who experiences ultimate Reality before being fully prepared for it. The feelings of depression will pass. Now is the time to study and practice even more diligently so that you will come to more fully understand and appreciate your experience. You have several roads open before you: You can go back to sleep, and dream of a universe structured around time, space and multiplicity. On this path you will continue to experience suffering, just like everyone else. You will have some pleasures, and you will suffer proportionately to your attachment to that world of illusion. You might join a monastery and devote the rest of your life to refining the experience apart from the distractions of the outside world. This is a comfortable path in many ways, and personally rewarding. If you seek full Enlightenment and escape from the world of suffering, this is probably the best choice available. You can rejoin the world and become a "householder" of one sort or another. In this path, you will be continually in the storm that typifies the Illusory World where suffering is the norm. By choosing this path you will have many opportunities to help others find the surcease of Buddhist doctrine. Live well. Walk always the Middle Way and practice non-attachment. Be compassionate with all those who suffer, and try to help them overcome their suffering. Be aware and awake; use your mind and insights to reduce the general suffering. You can not erase all suffering, but you can by perfecting yourself reduce suffering by some small amount.

You have made a good start, though it would have been better if you had the assistance of a Master and mentor. BTW, most of the Buddha's disciples did embrace homelessness, wore the rags of the despised, and owned nothing beyond their begging bowls. You may want to read/study the Theravada sutras soon. Also, some of what you are feeling is associated with Existentialism. The distinction is that in most Existential philosophy there is no moral/ethical ground. That leads to feeling that the World is absurd, that in such a world as you've experienced all behavior is equal and ultimately pointless. Buddhism has a solid moral/ethical ground ... the problem of dealing with suffering. There are causes of suffering. The causes can be known, and then suffering can be overcome. Essential Buddhist doctrines are signposts to prepare us to achieve the experience of Awakening. Sometimes we just want to go back to sleep, to dream again even though we know that suffering will follow.

Now let's comment a bit about Buddhist history and iconography.

The historical Buddha lived around 550 BCE in Northeastern India. He was almost certainly of the nobility, but left a life of relative ease to seek the cause and cure for human suffering. Siddhartha came from the Hindu family of religions and that had great influence in how Buddhist doctrines were framed from a very early period. There are many legends about Siddhartha gautama, and though they have a certain charm and render some insights into Buddhist doctrines, they are ultimately not much more than fairy tales. We are reasonably certain that Siddhartha did exist and we have pretty good insights to his actual life and teaching.

Probably the most important of all was the Deer Park sutra delivered shortly after Siddhartha had his Awakening experience. Rather than spend this little space talking about the Four Noble Truths and The Eight Fold Path, the interested reader can find them for themselves. Siddhartha, now the Buddha, lived for many years after his Enlightenment and delivered many sermons across a wide swath of Northern India. His teaching was electrifying and he had a huge number of followers and disciples who constantly questioned him about his teachings. There are a number of sutras that probably date to the actual time that the Buddha was alive. Most of those early writings were taken down in a dead language called Pali. The Pali texts form the Theravada canon. In early Buddhism there wasn't much iconography. No statues with symbolic mudra gestures, no chants to speak of, no mandalas on which to focus meditation. Only the Eight-Spoked Wheel, symbolic of the EightFold Path, dates to early Buddhism.

After the Buddha's death, Buddhism continued to grow but at a much slower pace. Most Buddhists were wandering monks who owned nothing beyond their yellow rags and a begging bowl. After a time they came to settle near communities where the begging was most profitable, and founded the first monasteries. Being concentrated in monastic communities the monks had more time on their hands, and they spent that time thinking about and discussing the significance of Buddhist doctrines. Out of those discussions, and over many years and lifetimes, new interpretations came into existence. The idea of the Bodhisatva was one of the most significant developments to come out of those studies. This was of great significance, now even the non-monk might look forward to Enlightenment as a product of the Bodhisatva's compassion. A religion of limited appeal now could involve the people who still lived "in the world". The new ideas about Enlightenment and how one might come to it were written in sanskrit rather than the more archaic Pali. This form of Buddhism based on Sanskrit texts is called Mahayana (Great Vehicle) and is predominent today. Buddhist iconography became more complex, and we begin to see Buddhist "missionaries" go out into the world beyond India.

Buddhism in India reached it's zenith with Asoka before being overwhelmed by the dominant Hindu religious culture. Today, most Indian Buddhists are expatriates from Tibet. Theravada exists today almost exclusively in Southeast Asia, especially Ceylon.

There were three main streams of Buddhism out of India. First, Buddhism went North through Nepal into Tibet where Mahayana Buddhism combined with the aboriginal Bo religion to become what is today Tantric Buddhism. His Holiness, the Dali Lama is the foremost expert and exponent of that form (and a wonderful humanbeing as well). A second stream of Buddhist missionaries went west and ran into the Eastern frontiers of Greek culture in Gandara. It was in Gandara that most of the stylistic features of Buddhist statuary originated. The missionaries then turned east toward China along the Silk Road and across the Talamakan desert. At the Chinese frontier they were confused by the Chinese as teaching a higher form of Lao Tse's Tao. That helped establish Buddhism in Northern China, but the Buddhist form most common there came to be the so-called "Pure Land" schools. The Nichern Shoshu are an example, though there are others. Mahayana Buddhism "fit" pretty well into the Chinese approaches to religion, and became a co-equal with Confucism and Taoism. This topic is far too complex and lengthy to discuss here, sorry.

The third stream was across southeast Asia mostly following the sea routes into southern China. The traditional founder of Buddhism in south China was Bodhidarma. Bodhidarma carried with him the "Flower Sermon" and founded what the Chinese called Chan, Zen in Japanese. The Flower Sermon is said to have been the Buddha's last sermon. Asked if there was any last thing that the Buddha could tell his disciples about Enlightenment, he reached from his death bed and held out to them a flower. Anyway, Bodhidarma is said to have sat in meditation within a cave so long that his legs withered away ... the prototype for those quaint Japanese dolls that are legless but always return to the vertical when knocked over. In the monastery that Bodhidarma founded there was a monk who worked in the kitchen. Ho-tai loved his food, and grew to considerable size. Ho-tai's love of children and sunny disposition were famous. He would often go into the nearby villages bearing home-made toys and delicacies for the children. Everywhere he was followed by crowds of children. After Ho-tai's death he came to be regarded as almost a minor god. Little statues of Ho-tai, symbolizing happiness and full-bellies (good fortune) could be found on the alters of Confucian and Taoist Temples and shrines as well as in Buddhist facilities. Westerners took the Ho-tai statues home with them as souvenirs and called the statues of the Buddha. Wrong, but no harm no foul.

Take notes, most of this will be on the mid-term.

Stuh,

A couple of stories for your amusement:

A couple of wandering Buddhist monks found themselves isolated in the high mountains. Trapped by great snow drifts their prospects of survival looked dim. One monk had carried with him a wooden statue of the Buddha that contained a relic of the Buddha himself. What a precious item! The more enlightened of the two built a fire using the statue as the only available fuel.

If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.

*********
Religion isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, the religious impulse seems to be an important part of our psychological makeup. It give comfort to those who suffer, hope to those facing despair, and strength to endure terrible hardships. Even if the religious notions that a person holds are riddled with faults and errors, it will have some value to the person who follows its doctrines. What we are seeking is a religious doctrine that is causes the least suffering, and provides the greatest opportunity to rise above our natural inclinations that lead to suffering.

I quite agree that no one should be a "slave" to any particular religious doctrine, but let's not throw out the water just to get rid of the baby. Religions, even those damned Abrahamics, offer some moral and ethical guidance. There is a danger that the non-religious might come to believe that they are personally the arbiter of right and wrong. "I wish to murder, so murder is alright." Extreme idealism like Nazism and Communism are antithetical to religion, but are hardly models of good social behavior. Personally, I find that weighing each thought, word and action against the probable degree and extent of the suffering that will follow is a pretty good way to live my life.

Your advice to Tcis to make a religion of himself, and his own desires and needs I believe is faulty. Whenever we adopt thoughts and beliefs that separate us from the rest of the universe, that build-up the ego, we are increasing the likelihood that suffering will follow.

I read that you recommend "weighing each thought, action against the probable degree and extent of suffering." I wonder how you determine the "probable degree" of suffering. Suppose, for example, you cast your vote for the capitol punishment of a killer. Do you take the number of people who will suffer if he lives and subtract the number who will suffer if he dies? Do certain victims of the suffering that will follow count more than others? How do you weigh their suffering?

Weighing our thoughts, words and actions to produce the least suffering is never so easy as solving a simple equation. Each moment of each day we need to be aware of the effect that our thoughts, words and actions will have, and all of them have the potential to cause some degree of suffering for ourselves, or others. We can not know with any degree of certainty what the effects will be, only in a general way what the probabilities are. If I choose to think selfishly, or to "look down" upon others, the chances are great that suffering will follow. I will be easy to anger, incite resentment, jealousy and perhaps envy. By placing myself at the "center" I insure my own frequent disappointment.

When I speak, I may set off a chain of events that were far from what was intended, so I try to choose my words carefully. Sometimes telling the truth (as I perceive it) may cause more harm than good, but doesn't the dying man in the hospital deserve frankness? No choice is ever easy, and that is why it is so important to be dispassionate and fully attending to each moment. To get caught up in the past, or lost in a labyrinth of "what might become" can freeze us into immobility of thought, word and action.

Being fully aware is the purpose of meditation, and with years of practice (in most cases) meditation continues through all of our waking moments. When a student first begins to follow Buddhism they sit in meditation for relatively short periods learning to control their minds and desires. As they progress their sitting meditation increases, and walking meditation is learned. Eventually we hope that the student will be rewarded for their efforts by having an Awakening experience. Once one has learned how to discipline themselves, to focus their attention for long periods, and have achieved to some extent their goal, meditation becomes much easier to maintain for long periods of time. Those who choose to seek full Enlightenment for themselves at this point may redouble the formal meditation routines of their sect. Some will go back into the world. Living in the world carries with it the constant temptation of going back to sleep, but it is also possible to live a life where most of our thoughts, words and actions flow directly from our awareness of the underlying nature of reality.

In Ultimate Reality it matters little if one, or millions die. They're separate identity is illusory, do we weep over the creatures of our dreams? The Buddha is aware of the nature of things, AND compassionate to the suffering. In timelessness there is no past, present, or future, so all possibilities have happened, are happening and will happen. Only through our compassion for the suffering that attaches itself to the illusory world is there "redemption". There is in Ultimate Reality no thee, me, ant they; all are the same and caught up in dreams with varying degrees of consciousness that there even is a dream. When we live in the "world" we are something like the one-eyed man, conscious of his limited vision, who lives in the land of the blind.

From the understanding gained from direct experience of the true nature of things, we make our choices. I don't think most who have had the Awakeing experience will favor capital punishment, though they probably will spank the child who plays with fire. Generally telling the truth as we perceive it is better than trying to soften the blow by lying to some degree. The better people understand the nature of things, the better armored they are against suffering. We try to be a living example of how Buddhist practice can relieve suffering. Our families should reflect our own efforts to live without causing suffering, our friends and their friends hopefully be brought closer to living lives that result in suffering. Our mission is to conquer suffering, but all in its own timeless time.

Progress away from great and general suffering has taken places in the last 2550 years, only 10, 000 Kalpas to go.

There is also a danger that the Awakened will begin to think themselves better and more knowing than all other sentient beings. That is to be avoided at all costs; that is going back to sleep. Buddhism is a hard practice, not for sissies or those who want to live out some magical fantasy called "heaven" where all one's desires are met and fully satisfy our need for pleasure. BS, this is hard and we fail often even when we know better.

Thanks, Asherman. That should stimulate much discussion AND preclude a lot of nonsense.

JLNobody,

my post was not intended to be condescending. I have vehement emotions on this topic. I gave Tcis my advice and I think if he followed it, he would become a more happy person.



The suffering cannot precisely be measured, because it is subjective, and there are more than one way to look at every problem. But the purpose of the ideal is that you should make decisions which don't violate your conscience, and which you feel are the best. Thus, nobody can tell you what method to use to weigh the good vs the bad, you must decide for yourself.



Certainly, this is true. For something to "matter", it must affect the achievement of a set of objectives. For instance, my objectives could be: to be happy, to be married, to get a good job. Thus, anything that affects my progress towards these goals matters to me. But ultimate reality has no objectives, therefore, nothing matters in ultimate reality.

However, this is exactly the kind of statement which can make religious doctrines dangerous...many people are uneducated, unintelligent, or immature and blindly willing to set aside logic to follow an ideal. This statement could easily be interpreted by a weak minded person and used to justify murder to oneself.

Stuh505---

The topic we're discussing is Becoming Aware. At A2K we try to focus on the topic and not on the participants. Your opinions of Tcis was unsolicited and unwelcome to all veteran posters.