2
   

Buddhist Dilemma?

 
 
why
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2004 09:53 pm
tcis,

You've opened up some great topics here, right on. You have a knack for starting some interesting threads.

I experienced something like you describe in your first post. You are in a limbo world. IMHO, Asherman & JLN have some good advice.

Ever heard of the drunken monks? Even monks gotta get drunk sometimes...
0 Replies
 
nn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2004 04:52 pm
Unfortunately, instead of finding nirvana, I found this empty life where I want nothing. No desires. Everything seems to be an illusion.
Its like my senses are numb to the physical world.

you are on the right track, have you heard that song from nirvana, there is one song that makes that exact ref. and in the end of all things we find nothing, but again, our conscious level is limited, we could think forever and still reach the same nothing conclusion, but we must first realize how limited our conscious level is to come to peace with it.
and as for you feeling empty, girl this life is phase one, its like a video game, we're novices, level two will be greater and if you don't believe in religion well yes, if you are that pescimistic, yes you're life will be empty with reason which is a dangerous path to tread on. so we must make the best of what we have now, theres so much to learn in life, get out there, go river rafting, explore life, people, what excited me everyday in life is the fact of not know, coming to a new realization on something, epiphanies because you'll always have them, have fun, stop thinking on how it is to be human and just be, that is the key to happiness, observe, learn and be. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2004 07:43 pm
In Nothingness is Everything. Without clocks, or change, infinity equals zero. In Nothingness there is no suffering, or sorrow to stain the joy of completeness. There is Nothing to fear in Nothingness, for in It we are reunited with "God" the Dreamer without consciousness. Perceptual reality IS empty and false, but unless you are willing to enter the monastery and devote your all to finding full release now from the suffering of "existence", you can have a perfectly satisfying and "full" life.

Self-discipline is not easy, yet it is essential to living a full life that produces the least suffering. Why think in ways that cause you to suffer? Before you can speak or act there is thought. If the thought arises from anger, envy, pride, selfishness, lust, or the desire to inflict suffering, it should be acknowledged ... and dismissed. A horse without a bridle may carry the rider over a cliff. Rein in your thoughts, consider their source and even more importantly their effects. If you practice thinking of others before yourself, you will find that many of the negative effects (suffering) will be limited. Reacting from reason is better than from emotion. It is easier to be fair and forgiving to friends than enemies.

Communication is a difficult business if we want to be understood. Some struggle with basic grammar, and have a poor vocabulary. They may be unable to understand, and may thus be driven to anger or resentment. To talk down to people is just as dangerous. Sometimes we are so busy talking that we forget to listen, or only hear what we want to hear. Our prejudices filter out reason, and cause us to choose words/wording that reflect our prejudices and hatreds. Both of these result in failure to clearly communicate in ways that minimize suffering. Though the internet is a wonderful communications tool, it is seriously flawed. We do not see body language that forms an important part of face-to-face communications. We seldom know our audience very well, so we can not easily choose the best means of transmitting our thoughts. A compassionate thought can be twisted into a perceived attack, and result in counter-attack. Flame wars, it seems to me, are most often a tragedy of erroneous communications that escalate into really hateful rhetoric and stereotyping.

We think, sometimes in words, and then we act. Not all acts are equal. A random act of kindness has far more power than rudeness. There is a gypsy saying: "To add, subtract; to multiply, divide". Frauds and con-men apply this saying to the art of cheating and hurting "suckers". However, you can use the same saying for "good". Divide yourself, you assets, and you multiply the the "good" you do yourself and everyone else. Do less for yourself, and more will be given you. receive gifts humbly, and give them easily. It costs nothing to be pleasant and respectful to those around you, but the returns are enormous. Be courageous, and fear shrinks back into darkness. Give light, and the night vanishes.

Pop songs are pop songs made to make a buck. Don't spend your entire life playing at things, but focus on each infinite moment. Without time, there is time for everything, and infinity of possibilities are present in the moment, the only moment that ever exists.
0 Replies
 
alikimr
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2004 09:35 pm
Asherman:
stuh505 has catagorically stated that he is an outright atheist, and as such, his explanations re the subject Buddhist depression appear to be much more comprehensible to a realistic point of view,unhampered by the "enlightened" state you speak of. It is fascinating indeed that you can somehoe conclude in your last post that "stuh is
sounding pretty much like a buddhist"
He has allready indicated that religion causes suffering, and the best we can do is look for one that causes the least suffering......but then again, it is possible that you don,t consider Buddhism to be a religion at all, even after the
"Awakened" state you say all buddhists strive for.
I would appreciate a straight "yes" or
"no" answer to my question......is Buddhism a religion ?
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2004 10:52 pm
Alikimr, before Asherman responds, let me give you my perspective on this question. Buddhism, well ZEN Buddhism is not a religion if you define religion in terms of heavenly or hellish reward or punishment in an afterlife, soul, supernaturalism, God and gods, and a system of beliefs that must be held on faith. It IS a religion in the sense of "re-ligio". Religion in this sense re-connects or joins us with the ground of our being. Ligio has to do, etymologically, with "ligament", the tissue that connects tissues, and metaphorically us with Ultimate Reality and our true nature. Zen Buddhism has no notion of a God, a soul, supernaturalism, an afterlife, an absolutist belief system, etc. etc. It is completely non-dogmatic and naturalistic. Now YOU decide. Is it a religion?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2004 10:56 pm
In buddhism, there is no beginning or end; there is always cycles. All of us are all part of the cycle; our parents before us, and our children after us, and that continues forever.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2004 11:43 pm
I don't know what I could add to JL's post immediately above. Buddhism certainly isn't a religion in the same sense that the Abrahamic faiths are, but to my way of thinking, Buddhism is certainly a religion. I'm not very fond of playing label games.

Stuh may declare to the world that he isn't religious, but that wouldn't necessarily make it so. Indeed, though Stuh may be an atheist that wouldn't keep him from being Buddhist. Afterall, Buddhists doctrine denies the existance of God(s), and the soul. Stuh, may well be a better Buddhist than some who claim the distinction. To have an Awakening experience is a wonderful thing, and it certainly deepens one's understanding of the nature of reality. However, not everyone will have this experience, and not all Buddhists spend much time trying to achieve it. How many Christians emulate the life of Christ with the hope that they will achieve the transcendant experience that made Him the Son of God? Some, but not many. Many more Buddhists actively seek the Awakening experience, but even among that group only a minority ever actually have the experience.

While religion does generally have a reputation for causing suffering, it doesn't necessarily follow that all religions cause suffering. Even within the Abrahamic faiths it is wrong to assume that there are no redeeming features to be found. There are many followers of Judaism, Christianity and Islam who genuinely believe that their faith is the best path to peace, well-being and happiness. Quakers are no more likely to instigate wars than Buddhists.

Some, myself included, believe that the fundamental belief system that is evident in the Abrahamic faiths is so flawed that it tends to give rise to conditions that often result in widespread suffering.
Monotheism does have a tendancy to make ifs followers intolerant of those whose beliefs are different.
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2004 08:48 am
NOT that I expect anyone to change their philosophy... but I was recently reading this allegorical tale and thought you might enjoy it. (Carefully copied from the Taoism Depot)

Three Vinegar Tasters
We see three men standing around a vat of vinegar. Each has dipped his finger into the vinegar and has tasted it. The expression on each man's face shows his individual reaction. Since the painting is allegorical, we are to understand that these are no ordinary vinegar tasters, but are instead representatives of the "Three Teachings" of China, and that the vinegar they are sampling represents the Essence of Life. The three masters are Confucius, Buddha, and Lao Zi, author of the oldest existing book of Taoism. The first has a sour look on his face, the second wears a bitter expression, but the third man is smiling.

http://www.edepot.com/graphics/3vinegar.jpg

To Confucius, life seemed rather sour. He believed that the present was out step with the past, and that the government of man on earth was out of harmony with the Way of Heaven, the government of, the universe. Therefore, he emphasized reverence for the Ancestors, as well as for the ancient rituals and ceremonies in which the emperor, as the Son of Heaven, acted as intermediary between limitless heaven and limited earth. Under Confucianism, the use of precisely measured court music, prescribed steps, actions, and phrases all added up to an extremely complex system of rituals, each used for a particular purpose at a particular time. A saying was recorded about K'ung Fu-tse: "If the mat was not straight, the Master would not sit." This ought to give an indication of the extent to which things were carried out under Confucianism.

To Buddha, the second figure in the painting, life on earth was bitter, filled with attachments and desires that led to suffering. The world was seen as a setter of traps, a generator of illusions, a revolving wheel of pain for all creatures. In order to find peace, the Buddhist considered it necessary to transcend "the world of dust" and reach Nirvana, literally a state of "no wind." Although the essentially optimistic attitude of the Chinese altered Buddhism considerably after it was brought in from its native India, the devout Buddhist often saw the way to Nirvana interrupted all the same by the bitter wind of everyday existence.

To Lao Zi, the harmony that naturally existed between heaven and earth from the very beginning could be found by anyone at any time, but not by following the rules of the Confucianists. As he stated in his Tao To Ching, the "Tao Virtue Book," earth was in essence a reflection of heaven, run by the same laws - not by the laws of men. These laws affected not only the spinning of distant planets, but the activities of the birds in the forest and the fish in the sea. According to Lao Zi, the more man interfered with the natural balance produced and governed by the universal laws, the further away the harmony retreated into the distance. The more forcing, the more trouble. Whether heavy or fight, wet or dry, fast or slow, everything had its own nature already within it, which could not be violated without causing difficulties. When abstract and arbitrary rules were imposed from the outside, struggle was inevitable. Only then did life become sour.

To Lao Zi, the world was not a setter of traps but a teacher of valuable lessons. Its lessons needed to be learned, just as its laws needed to be followed; then all would go well. Rather than turn away from "the world of dust," Lao Zi advised others to "join the dust of the world." What he saw operating behind everything in heaven and earth he called Tao (DAO), "the Way."

A basic principle of Lao Zi's teaching was that this Way of the Universe could not be adequately described in words, and that it would be insulting both to its unlimited power and to the intelligent human mind to attempt to do so. Still, its nature could be understood, and those who cared the most about it, and the life from which it was inseparable, understood it best.

Over the centuries Lao Zi's classic teachings were developed and divided into philosophical, monastic, and folk religious forms. All of these could be included under the general heading of Taoism. But the basic Taoism that we are concerned with here is simply a particular way of appreciating, learning from, and working with whatever happens in everyday life. From the Taoist point of view, the natural result of this harmonious way of living is happiness. You might say that happy serenity is the most noticeable characteristic of the Taoist personality, and a subtle sense of humor is apparent even in the most profound Taoist writings, such as the twenty-five-hundred-year-old Tao Te Ching. In the writings of Taoism's second major writer, Chuang Zi, quiet laughter seems to bubble up like water from a fountain.

In the painting, why is Lao Zi smiling? After all, that vinegar that represents life must certainly have an unpleasant taste, as the expressions on the faces of the other two men indicate. But, through working in harmony with life's circumstances, Taoist understanding changes what others may perceive as negative into something positive. From the Taoist point of view, sourness and bitterness come from the interfering and unappreciative mind. Life itself, when understood and utilized for what it is, is sweet.

That is the message of The Vinegar Tasters.
0 Replies
 
Col Man
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2004 08:53 am
excellent tale Very Happy
i personally believe all the philosophies hold partial truth and none hold the ultimate truth however much they claim to Wink
is best to take the good points from them all as opposed to hiding in one and saying thats the best Razz
religions and philosophies are like trees...
each one is different but they all grow in the same earth Wink
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2004 11:55 am
Piffka, to me it seems that Lao Tzu's smile reflects the prinplce of Nietzsche that we should embrace our fate (amor fati). By "fate" he did not just refer to our story, but also to the conditions of the moment, no matter how bitter it may be. It IS, afterall, our Reality. Also, I'd like to note that the phrase, ZEN "buddhism" (chinese: Ch'an), should not hide from us the Taoist nature of Zen. When Buddhism moved from India to China it was transformed, combined with principles of Taoism, to become what we now speak of as zen "buddhism." Ray Grigg (author of The Tao of Zen) argues that zen IS chinese taoism.
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2004 12:32 pm
Hello JLN -- I'm no scholar as you are, but I see many similarities between Daoism and Zen Buddhism, too. The difference is that Daoism is much less rigorous and therefore easier to follow.

...oddly, I have always thought that vinegar tasted good....

The Heavenly Tao has no favorites:
It raises up the Good.
DDJ #79
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2004 01:36 pm
Thanks, Piffka.
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2004 05:42 pm
Wink
0 Replies
 
alikimr
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2004 03:17 pm
JLN:
I am dissapointed , but not surprised , that you did not answer my question directly, anf you
merely ask me what I think.......which , as you well know, is not my question. I realize that Zen has all these particular "secular" virtues regarding your
particular considerations of religion, (or is it 'religio'), but why don't you like to answer the question directly, ......is it because your desire to hold on to the mystical, to the "naturalism that is above reality" , somehow rejects your possible
rejection?
Leonard Cohen , the poet doesn't have a problem with that....why does the " Jesuit" wing of Buddhism ( i.e. Zen) have a problem?
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2004 09:22 pm
O.K., Alikimr, I'll answer your question. Zen (Buddhism/Taoism) IS a religion in the naturalistic sense I described and it is NOT a religion in the supernaturalistic sense of Gods, souls, and reliance solely on belief or faith. So, it depends on which definition of religion we accept here. Now if you want me to define religion, that's another matter. I would prefer not to. Definitions are arbitrary. I like the "religion" of Paul Tillich who "believes" in a God ABOVE God, a Reality that is totally beyond our intellectual capacity, something before which we must remain silent (we DO have ideas about the God below this God, the subject matter of theological quibbles). Yet, I feel that this God above God is the Ultimate Reality, and it IS us--as well as everything. That notion intrigues and moves me spiritually; I can't say why.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2004 09:33 pm
By the way, Leonard Cohen is a long time zen disciple of zen master, Roshi Sasaki Joshu, who, in 1960 or 61, my wife and I sponsored along with a dozen other people to come to the U.S. and teach. We do not study with him any longer, but are proud to have been an early supporter
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2004 10:08 pm
JLN, That's what's called putting your $$$ where you mouth is. Wink
0 Replies
 
alikimr
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jul, 2004 10:25 am
cicerone imposter:
Please let me know WHAT you are telling JLN .........even if it is with a smile.
I don't think anyone who has a buddhist "leaning'

speaks with more honesty and effectiveness than JLN in our group of debaters and rationalizers,...
so, what is it really that brings a smile to your face?
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jul, 2004 09:18 am
alikimir,

why do you want JLN / Asherman's opinion on whether or not Buddhism is a religion? You already know what Buddhism is...and religion is just a word for communication. Personally, I would say it is definitely a religion...I would say any spiritual belief is a religion. But use whatever definition you want for the word, different dictionaries will give you different answers.

Asherman you said that one can be atheist and Buddhist at the same time. I suppose that's true because being an atheist just means denying the existence of God...but one certainly cannot believe in science and Buddhism at the same time. And I think Buddhists do believe in a soul, even if it's not called that, because believing that the world is an illusion means that we would have a consciousness that is not bound to a physical body, and that means a "soul" as far as I can tell.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jul, 2004 11:04 am
Thank you Stuh in re. that definitional question. It truly is a non-issue.

One has to be careful when speaking of "Buddhist" doctrines, because there are almost as many as there are sects in Christianity. When I say "Buddhist doctrines", I'm referring to the seminal doctrines found in the Deer Park Sermon, and it other early teachings (most of which are found in the Pali Canon).

Buddhist doctrines absolutely deny the existence of the soul (Atman). Siddhartha steadfastly refused to moment on the existence of any god, or gods. His clear intent, and I believe there is ample textual evidence to support, was that no god/gods exist as people tend to think of god(s). The Hindu family of religions personifies the fundamental forces at work in the Universe (Krishna, Shiva, and Vishnu <their sub-sets and female consorts, etc.> as sub-traits of the unknowable Brahma). Most Hindus of Siddhartha's time probably regarded those personifications of universal forces as "real" god(s) with distinct personalities and "real" existence that interact with the perceptual world of humans. I belive that the historical Buddha regarded those Hindu god(s) in a more abstract way, and as such not existing at all. The universal forces of creation, preservation and destruction exist within the perceptual world of multiplicity, but those forces themselves are illusionary, belonging only to the perceptual world and not to Ultimate Reality. The notion of Brahma (which has somewhat later origins) is pretty close to the Buddhist conception of Ultimate Reality and is just as hard it seems to grasp. What do we call that which has no existence in time or space, that does not move or act in any way, but is the source of perceptual existence? What is it that is infinite and undifferentiated? To my mind what we are describing here is GOD, but clearly not the same sort of God that is worshiped by the Abrahamic monotheists. I also happen to be a Mason, an organization that requires a belief in God. That qualification is met by the Buddhist notions regarding Ultimate Reality, or "The Buddha Nature", or a gadzillion other terms that all boil down to the same thing. The Abrahamic crowd has for far too long appropriated the term "God" to apply only to their own narrow conception. Its time all those followers of other religious systems reclaimed their own god(s) by insisting that their definition is just as valid as that of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

"one certainly cannot believe in science and Buddhism at the same time. And I think Buddhists do believe in a soul, even if it's not called that, because believing that the world is an illusion means that we would have a consciousness that is not bound to a physical body, and that means a "soul" as far as I can tell."

Buddhist doctrine (see the qualifier above) is far more adamant in denying the existence of the "soul" than the denial of a "god". Hinduism does accept the idea that each person has a soul (Atman), and that the individual's role in the world is conditioned upon the state of their soul. Transmigration of souls is reasonably common in Hindu sects and culture, but was flatly denied by the historical Buddha. Indeed, this is one of the essential dividing lines between the two religions. If you care to do even a small bit of independent research I'm certain you will find this confirmed.

However, that is unlikely to really answer the question raised in your quoted remark. You will recall my criticism of Descartes proof for existence in another place. This goes to the "observer" question of validity. Do the creatures of your dreams realize that their thoughts/words/and actions are merely the projection of the dreamer? The illusion is not projected on the cave wall before "real" bound observers, so much as it incorporates the "observers" into itself. One doesn't have to have a "real" existence to be a participant in the Grand Illusion that the perceptual world of multiplicity exists.

I also disagree that one can not believe in science and Buddhism at the same time. There is no conflict. Science works because within the Grand Illusion of the perceptual world there are indeed rules that govern how the dream is structured. Even though in Ultimate Reality there is no time, diffrentation, or space, within the dream-world arising from that reality, time and space exist in a coherent fashion. Indeed, the laws of physics and mathematics are the essential skeleton on which the dream-world plays out its game of emotional attachment and the balancing act between joy and suffering, or duality as JL might put it. The Illusory World is like a stage on which dream creatures work out an elaborate play (..."signifying nothing"..) according to underlying rules than can be known to science and mathematics. Those underlying rules are also a reflection of the ultimate nature of things, Ultimate Reality. The study of science, phsyics and mathematics are just another path to knowing Reality.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Buddhist Dilemma?
  3. » Page 7
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/04/2024 at 05:36:55