buddhism on attachments Text - Physics Forums Library

Seiryuu

Sep18-08, 10:33 AM

In buddhism are these statements true?

1. You shouldn't become too attached to external things that are ultimately temporal.
2. All happiness must come from within.

If these two are true, then what should you do in life? Sit and meditate? Family and friends should not be invested in?

Detachment doesn't mean that you shouldn't invest in family or friends. What it means is that you shouldn't rely on them or expect them to create your own happiness. Instead you should rather take your life into your own hands as you yourself are responsible for your own happiness, not the people around you.

As Astronuc pointed out, happiness is a state of mind, and therefore unrelated to the situations that you may find yourself in or to the people around you. Simply put, it is our own perception of a situation or another persons action that makes us feel the way we do. If we see the event as something negative, it will cause suffering. If we associate it with something positive it will cause bliss.

This is exactly why suffering is rooted in desire, because as long as one desires, there's a chance that you may be disappointed if you do not get what you want. As opposed to that, if you are free from desires, you will not expect anything from anyone or anything, so there's nothing that can cause suffering in the first place. You simply accept reality as it is without expectations, with eliminates a dualistic view of positive and negative or good and evil.

LightbulbSun

Sep18-08, 11:34 AM

This is exactly why suffering is rooted in desire, because as long as one desires, there's a chance that you may be disappointed if you do not get what you want. As opposed to that, if you are free from desires, you will not expect anything from anyone or anything, so there's nothing that can cause suffering in the first place. You simply accept reality as it is without expectations, with eliminates a dualistic view of positive and negative or good and evil.

That's more like a nihilistic viewpoint.

Astronuc

Sep18-08, 12:00 PM

That's a thought I don't understand. If there was a logical fallacy for this I'd name it "appealing to simplicity". It's like they're saying the following:

X is simple, Y is extravagant.
Therefore, X is true.

Obviously we can say the converse is also a logical fallacy. It falls under the same umbrella as "appealing to tradition/novelty." There's no logical fallacy.

As simple example would be a choice between wearing simple cotton robe, or one that is gilded and studded with jewels. A Buddhist monk would select a cotton robe, or one that is simple, rather than the gilded one. It's something like the vow of poverty that some monastic orders take. In fact, avoiding overindulgence is a principle of the major religions.

In the western industrial nations, it would be a choice of a simple car, e.g. a Honda Civic (which gets 40 mpg), vs a Cadillac or Continental or Ferrari or Porsche or Corvette, . . . (which get 14-20 mpg). Interestingly, the US is materially more wealthy than any nation or empire in history, yet the happiness has not increased proportionally.

This is exactly why suffering is rooted in desire, because as long as one desires, there's a chance that you may be disappointed if you do not get what you want. As opposed to that, if you are free from desires, you will not expect anything from anyone or anything, so there's nothing that can cause suffering in the first place. You simply accept reality as it is without expectations, with eliminates a dualistic view of positive and negative or good and evil. This is not nihilistic (based on 1 a: a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless b: a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths).

It's simply a matter of overcoming desire or craving. With desire/craving, there are two possibilities: 1) one obtains/attains/achieves what one desires, yet one's craving is not satiated, and the craving for more, or 2) one does not obtain/attain/achieve what one desires, and one is left disappointed. So putting things in perspective and reducing or eliminating craving, one overcomes disappointment or unhappiness.

Hunger by the way is not suffering. It's simply a physiological function that indicates the need for nourishment. Starvation on the other hand is suffering - for most.

LightbulbSun

Sep18-08, 12:07 PM

There's no logical fallacy.

As simple example would be a choice between wearing simple cotton robe, or one that is gilded and studded with jewels. A Buddhist monk would select a cotton robe, or one that is simple, rather than the gilded one. It's something like the vow of poverty that some monastic orders take. In fact, avoiding overindulgence is a principle of the major religions.

In the western industrial nations, it would be a choice of a simple car, e.g. a Honda Civic (which gets 40 mpg), vs a Cadillac or Continental or Ferrari or Porsche or Corvette, . . . (which get 14-20 mpg). Interestingly, the US is materially more wealthy than any nation or empire in history, yet the happiness has not increased proportionally.

Yes, but to say something is true just because it's simple is not logically sound. It's the same as appealing to tradition/novelty or appeal to poverty/appeal to wealth.

This is not nihilistic (based on 1 a: a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless b: a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths).

It's simply a matter of overcoming desire or craving. With desire/craving, there are two possibilities: 1) one obtains/attains/achieves what one desires, yet one's craving is not satiated, and the craving for more, or 2) one does not obtain/attain/achieve what one desires, and one is left disappointed. So putting things in perspective and reducing or eliminating craving, one overcomes disappointment or unhappiness.

Our desires are essentially based upon our value system. All of us have different value systems which is why we all have different desires. Nihilism believes that all values are baseless. Buddhism is applying this same belief by portraying desire in a negative overtone. Buddhism also wants us to detach ourselves from expectation. This is also implying a nihilistic viewpoint of "nothing can be communicated." We expect to portray our desires through means of communication. Both Buddhism and Nihilism take an extremely pessimistic view on this.

Greg Bernhardt

Sep18-08, 12:11 PM

LightbulbSun

Sep18-08, 12:14 PM

Seiryuu

Sep18-08, 05:26 PM

Far from it. You're missing the point. Buddhism isn't about not having desires, it's about becoming detached from your desires. There's a difference and I think Astronuc explained it pretty well.

Our desires are essentially based upon our value system. All of us have different value systems which is why we all have different desires. Nihilism believes that all values are baseless. Buddhism is applying this same belief by portraying desire in a negative overtone. Buddhism also wants us to detach ourselves from expectation. This is also implying a nihilistic viewpoint of "nothing can be communicated." We expect to portray our desires through means of communication. Both Buddhism and Nihilism take an extremely pessimistic view on this.

Buddhism doesn't place any negative tone at all. It simply states that desires are the root of all suffering and that if you want to be free of suffering, you should be free of desires. But again, there's a very large difference between being free of desires and having no desires at all!

Being free means not that you don't have desires, but rather that you are not attached to them. It simply means that you accept reality a 100% as it is. Or in other words: that you don't resist the situations around you based on whether your desires are actually fulfilled or not. If you are able to accept any outcome, regardless of whether it matches your expectations, you become incapable of suffering and you will start experiencing joy even in the worst possible circumstances.

Astronuc

Sep18-08, 06:46 PM

If you can't let desires move your life, what is there to live for? Why work for that job promotion? Is desiring a life to help the poor wrong? Without desire I see a life of sitting in my room rocking back and forth till I die. I don't let desires run move my life. I prefer to just do (which I learned from Buddhism, Taosim and others). I am not quite sure how to explain to someone from western society/culture.

I don't work for a job promotion or more money, I just do the best work that I can. If I get a promotion or more money fine, if not that's fine too, but I keep working, learning, contributing to the field and being successful.

It more about not letting one's desires to control one's life - hence the goal of moderation.

It's about not putting emphasis or importance on a given desire, and ultimately achieve without effort.

Rather than desiring to help the poor, one can simply go out and assist the poor. I will post about that elsewhere. Perhaps in it one will find part of the answer.

A Buddhist would recognize the value of something, but the idea is to refrain from over-valuing something, especially material items. In other words, don't make things more important than they are.

LightbulbSun

Sep18-08, 06:47 PM

Far from it. You're missing the point. Buddhism isn't about not having desires, it's about becoming detached from your desires. There's a difference and I think Astronuc explained it pretty well.

Buddhism doesn't place any negative tone at all. It simply states that desires are the root of all suffering and that if you want to be free of suffering, you should be free of desires. But again, there's a very large difference between being free of desires and having no desires at all!

Being free means not that you don't have desires, but rather that you are not attached to them. It simply means that you accept reality a 100% as it is. Or in other words: that you don't resist the situations around you based on whether your desires are actually fulfilled or not. If you are able to accept any outcome, regardless of whether it matches your expectations, you become incapable of suffering and you will start experiencing joy even in the worst possible circumstances.

So free of desires essentially means "indifferent desires" which is a load of mumbo jumbo.

Astronuc

Sep18-08, 07:04 PM

So free of desires essentially means "indifferent desires" Not quite.

Seiryuu wrote "but rather that you are not attached to them." In other words, recognize desire for what it is and do not let is control oneself.

Western psychologists take about needs and wants. Wants are essentially desires, which are things that it would be nice to have, but are not necessary. The problem for some is the development of yearning or craving for something. Sometimes is can be obtained or attained, and for some brief time, one is satisfied. But then the craving for more appears, and one can be on a never ending cycle of craving, satiation, craving, . . . . Or, perhaps one does not obtain or attain the goal of one's craving, and one becomes disappointed, upset, miserable, angry, . . . . (all negative feelings).

One of the utilimate goals in Buddhism is to release oneself from the cycle of craving and the negative feelings of not satisfying the craving.

And actually, Judaism and Christianity have a similar trains of thought, and perhaps Islam as well.

Otherwise, don't worry - be happy. :smile:

LightbulbSun

Sep18-08, 07:12 PM

I don't let desires run move my life. I prefer to just do (which I learned from Buddhism, Taosim and others). I am not quite sure how to explain to someone from western society/culture.

So are you saying that one is incapable of action because of desire? Because there are plenty of examples of one desiring and then acting to fulfill those desires. Hence no "suffering."

A Buddhist would recognize the value of something, but the idea is to refrain from over-valuing something, especially material items. In other words, don't make things more important than they are.

Why are they so negative about material items? Our physical world is material.

LightbulbSun

Sep18-08, 07:12 PM

Otherwise, don't worry - be happy. :smile:

And how is this line of thought in any way esoteric?

waht

Sep18-08, 07:14 PM

1. You shouldn't become too attached to external things that are ultimately temporal.
2. All happiness must come from within.

If these two are true, then what should you do in life? Sit and meditate? Family and friends should not be invested in?

These are just words made up by someone long time ago that stumbled upon some principles of psychology, hypnosis, and NLP (neuro-linguistic programming). They sure indeed sound as if they are absolute and hence project a sense of power that can captivate someone.

These guides are good if you want to avoid getting emotionally hurt.

Astronuc

Sep18-08, 08:56 PM

So are you saying that one is incapable of action because of desire? No - nowhere is that stated or inferred. There can be action with or without desire.

Why are they so negative about material items? Our physical world is material. They are not negative on material things. It is simply of avoiding attachment to materials things (i.e. avoid materialism), especially if that attachment leads to unhappiness or suffering.

LightbulbSun

Sep18-08, 09:25 PM

They are not negative on material things. It is simply of avoiding attachment to materials things (i.e. avoid materialism), especially if that attachment leads to unhappiness or suffering.

I'm still not sure as to how being attached to something material is a negative thing though.

Astronuc

Sep18-08, 10:09 PM

I'm still not sure as to how being attached to something material is a negative thing though. It's not necessarily negative, unless the attachment causes one frustration or distress, because one cannot obtain it, or one obtains it but is still not satisfied. For example, one wants a particular car in a certain colour, but the dealer does not have it in stock, or it doesn't have the options one wants. I've seen people terribly worked up because they can't get what they 'want'. That's just one example, but I could provide thousands of others.

Of course, anyone can choose to be materialistic - that's certainly one's freedom to do so.

For others, they can choose to become less materialistic.

There are also other aspects to being happy, joyful, or content.

LightbulbSun

Sep18-08, 10:52 PM

It's not necessarily negative, unless the attachment causes one frustration or distress, because one cannot obtain it, or one obtains it but is still not satisfied. For example, one wants a particular car in a certain colour, but the dealer does not have it in stock, or it doesn't have the options one wants. I've seen people terribly worked up because they can't get what they 'want'. That's just one example, but I could provide thousands of others.

Of course, anyone can choose to be materialistic - that's certainly one's freedom to do so.

For others, they can choose to become less materialistic.

There are also other aspects to being happy, joyful, or content.

I understand. So I think we could extend this by saying that if your attachment causes frustration or distress then it's a bad thing whether this thing is material, or a concept.

Seiryuu

Sep19-08, 04:37 AM

Yes. It is your attachment that causes the suffering. For example:

So free of desires essentially means "indifferent desires" which is a load of mumbo jumbo.

Here you demonstrate the power of perception and attachment. You associate "free of desires" with indifferent desires and therefore attach a negative value to it: "a load of mumbo jumbo". In other words, it is not the concept that causes you to see that way, but rather your perception of that concept. If you were to see that free of desires can mean something else other than indifferent desires, you can detach both concepts and wouldn't be judging it as "a load of mumbo jumbo" so easily.

The same thing is true for suffering. If you can see that is your perception of a situation that causes you to suffer, rather than the situation itself, you realise that all you have to do to transform suffering into joy is changing your own perceptions...

To take the example of the car: if your desire is to have a particular car in a certain colour and the dealer doesn't have it in stock, you can see it as something negative because you don't get what you want. Or, you can see it as something positive if you look at it as an opportunity to choose something different that you would have never chosen if you would have gotten what you wanted in the first place.

Let's assume two persons who have these two different perceptions. Both share the same initial desire: a particular car in a certain colour and neither is in stock. Both will find themselves in the same situation, but the person getting worked up will suffer from it, because he cannot let go of his desires, while the person seeing the opportunities might actually like it since he is open to receive something else than what he desired in the first place.

The difference is clearly attachment onto the initial desire. Attachment as in: "holding on to it". As long as you hold on to desire, you will be driven by it and it will influence the way you look at things. If you can let it go, that doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't desire anything at all, but simply that when pursuing your desires you are able to accept whatever happens to you whether it is something that you wanted or not.

The important thing to note here is that as long as we hold on to what we want, we see not getting what we want as something negative, while getting something different might actually be positive, if for example, you get something better instead. People who continue to hold on to what they want, will not even be able to see that though, because even when they get something better, they still see it as something negative since it's not what they wanted...

In other words, holding on to desires clouds your judgement and makes you overvalue that what you desire and undervalue that what you do not. This is why, very often after having received that what you have craved for, you don't feel fullfilled, because you have been overvalueing it since the start and suddenly you notice that it wasn't all that valueable to you at all in the first place.

Seiryuu

Sep19-08, 07:29 AM

Our desires are essentially based upon our value system. All of us have different value systems which is why we all have different desires. Nihilism believes that all values are baseless. Buddhism is applying this same belief by portraying desire in a negative overtone. Buddhism also wants us to detach ourselves from expectation. This is also implying a nihilistic viewpoint of "nothing can be communicated." We expect to portray our desires through means of communication. Both Buddhism and Nihilism take an extremely pessimistic view on this.

As pointed out before, the difference between Buddhism and Nihilism is that the latter states all values are baseless, while Buddhism actually states the opposite: it acknowledges the value of everything in existence. As such, being free of desires does not mean that you don't value at all, but rather that you learn to see the proper value of all that is and put things in perspective instead of over- or undervalueing.

The mere act of making choices in life, means you assign and compare values and this is highly personal for each of us indeed, as we all make different choices based on how we value things. But if you can properly recognize the value of everything as it comes to you, you will be able to make the choices that truly make you happy instead of making choices based on a value system that is distorted by holding on to desires.

Maybe it's best explained with another example about hunger.

In the Four Noble Truths it states that "the cause of suffering is rooted in desire." I don't mean to extend this claim so much, but if I desire a hamburger, does that mean the cause of it is some form of suffering? I'm not sure that logic is completely sound.

As you have correctly guessed, neither the hunger nor the desire for a burger is a form of suffering. You just notice that you are hungry and desire a hamburger, but you can't say that you're suffering at this point. You would be suffering, however, if you were hungry, desire a hamburger and are unable to get it. That's what's meant with "the cause of suffering is rooted in desire".

Let's illustrate it a bit more. Say that you find yourself in a foreign city and you notice yourself as being hungry. Immediately the desire arises that you want a hamburger.

A person who's attached to that desire will go out and search for a place where he can get hamburgers. He will focus on his objective and walk around and around untill he finds such a place. If he can find it, he will experience joy, but if he can't he will suffer from it as he'll either have to continue searching somewhere else or have to find something else to eat.

A person who has overcome desire will do the same thing. He'll go out and search for the same place, but instead of focussing on the objective itself, he will be focussed on whatever he comes across as he is searching. As such, he might find a place where he can eat hamburgers and experience joy. But he might also come across something different and think, "oh, this looks even better, I'll just go eat here" and he'll also experience joy. Or he might not find anything at all that suits his taste, but instead of suffering from it, he'll just be happy with the next best thing, because he realises that he'd rather eat something else, than having to search for hours just to get the object of his desires. Either way, anything he does becomes joy instead of suffering, because he sees and acknowledges the value in all these alternatives that are giving him something different as opposed to what he desires.

mal4mac

Sep19-08, 10:02 AM

A person who has overcome desire will do the same thing. He'll go out and search for the same place, but instead of focussing on the objective itself, he will be focussed on whatever he comes across as he is searching. As such, he might find a place where he can eat hamburgers and experience joy. But he might also come across something different and think, "oh, this looks even better, I'll just go eat here" and he'll also experience joy. Or he might not find anything at all that suits his taste, but instead of suffering from it, he'll just be happy with the next best thing, because he realises that he'd rather eat something else, than having to search for hours just to get the object of his desires. Either way, anything he does becomes joy instead of suffering, because he sees and acknowledges the value in all these alternatives that are giving him something different as opposed to what he desires.

What if he never find anywhere to eat? Does he suffer at any point on his way to starvation? I can see how he might overcome the suffering of having to eat fish & chips instead of a hamburger, but can he overcome *real* suffering? You might find a monk who says he starved for days and didn't suffer. But how do you know he's not making it up "to look good".

Seiryuu

Sep19-08, 10:27 AM

LightbulbSun

Sep19-08, 10:53 AM

The same thing is true for suffering. If you can see that is your perception of a situation that causes you to suffer, rather than the situation itself, you realise that all you have to do to transform suffering into joy is changing your own perceptions...

Lets take a deeper example than the car since that's easy to see. How about a sociopath vs a compassionate human being? Is my negative connotation of the sociopath just merely my perception of a situation? If I attempted to view everything from his view, does that make being a sociopath a positive thing? If so, this is delving into relativism which I completely disagree with.

What causes us to suffer when we are in pain?
The perception that pain is something negative, a bad thing.

Actually pain is more like an alert system from our body that something is wrong. It is wise to act upon this alert system instead of just rationalizing away that it's merely perception.

mal4mac

Sep19-08, 12:22 PM

If you're talking about not feeling any physical pain or discomfort, then the answer is no. If you're starving because you didn't find anything to eat, then you will feel that starvation.

But can you feel all that without actually suffering from it? Then the answer is yes. The reason for that is simple: suffering lies not in the fact, but rather in the perception of the fact.

Is the raw pain a nice feeling or a not-nice feeling? If it's a not-nice feeling then that's my definition of suffering. I would also suggest it is the "everyday" definition of suffering. So, using everyday language, the starving monk suffers, just like everyone else. He may suffer less, because he doesn't berate himself by saying, "Poor me! I must find food!" But you don't need to be a Buddhist not to indulge in such berating, just a sensible human being. For instance, the ancient Greeks, and Albert Ellis, used cognitive techniques to fight such thoughts.

What causes us to suffer when we are in pain?
The perception that pain is something negative, a bad thing.

That may be a small part of it, but a tumour tearing our insides apart might be the bigger part of it. Would your monk not seek alleviation of pain through modern medication in preference to ancient meditation?

What causes us to suffer when are starving, ill or perhaps even dying?
Again the perception that all of these things are something negative.

Again, maybe in small ways. But lack of food or a dirty great tumour are likely to be more proximal causes.

Because we are conditioned to see them as something negative, we cannot accept it if we are in these conditions and start resisting instead of enjoying the sensations. The resistance to reality, is what causes suffering, not reality itself.

If we didn't see starving as negative we would not bother to eat!

... he will definitely feel the pain, illness, etc.

That is, he suffers, if the word "suffers" is to have meaning in normal discourse!

An example of positive conditioning could be though, that someone realizes that whenever he feels pain, the body is actually healing itself. So someone who makes the association between pain and healing, might actually be able to enjoy it, as he knows that as long as he feels pain a good thing is happening...

How does the pain of terminal cancer indicate a healing experience?

Seiryuu

Sep19-08, 05:23 PM

Lets take a deeper example than the car since that's easy to see. How about a sociopath vs a compassionate human being? Is my negative connotation of the sociopath just merely my perception of a situation? If I attempted to view everything from his view, does that make being a sociopath a positive thing? If so, this is delving into relativism which I completely disagree with.

Comparing it with the car example, a sociopath may actually enjoy acting the way he does, while most of us would not. The reason why he can do so, is because he isn't troubled by the same moral issues that cause us to see it as negative behaviour. He may be a cause of suffering for others, but he himself does not suffer. If we on the other hand would act in the same way as a sociopath does, we would suffer from it, because we perceive sociopathic behaviour as bad or negative. If you attempted to view everything from his view, I suppose sociopathy would indeed be a positive thing, as it would give you joy.

Of course, I'm not saying that you should change your point of view in this case, as the alternative to prevent suffering in the first place is by refraining from this kind of behaviour... This is especially true for people who can put things in perspective, as they are aware of the great amount of suffering they would inflict upon others and this awareness would prevent them from finding joy in it.

Actually pain is more like an alert system from our body that something is wrong. It is wise to act upon this alert system instead of just rationalizing away that it's merely perception.

I never said pain was merely a perception. I said that you suffer from it when you perceive the feeling of pain itself as something negative. If you want to prevent experiencing further pain, it would indeed be wise to act upon it. :p

Is the raw pain a nice feeling or a not-nice feeling? If it's a not-nice feeling then that's my definition of suffering. I would also suggest it is the "everyday" definition of suffering. So, using everyday language, the starving monk suffers, just like everyone else. He may suffer less, because he doesn't berate himself by saying, "Poor me! I must find food!" But you don't need to be a Buddhist not to indulge in such berating, just a sensible human being. For instance, the ancient Greeks, and Albert Ellis, used cognitive techniques to fight such thoughts.

That's what I meant really with:

What causes us to suffer when we are in pain?
The perception that pain is something negative, a bad thing.

Suffering is caused from seeing pain as something negative or bad, or in other words, from seeing it as a not-nice feeling. If you were to look at pain as a nice feeling, it's impossible to suffer from pain...

That may be a small part of it, but a tumour tearing our insides apart might be the bigger part of it. Would your monk not seek alleviation of pain through modern medication in preference to ancient meditation?

He may definitely want to use medication for the sake of overcoming his injuries, illnesses or simply to prevent the sensation of pain to become overwhelming. It's not because he doesn't suffer or in the extreme case that he can enjoy his pain that he wouldn't want to do something about his health. Unless he wants to be ill of course, but then that's a choice he makes.

Again, maybe in small ways. But lack of food or a dirty great tumour are likely to be more proximal causes.

Lack of food, a tumour, etc are all causes of pain. Suffering begins when you resist the pain by seeing it as a negative feeling.

If we didn't see starving as negative we would not bother to eat!

Or maybe you bother to eat because you enjoy other things more than the feeling of starving. I know I do! :p

That is, he suffers, if the word "suffers" is to have meaning in normal discourse!

Suffering is a perception of the mind, the physical sensation that we call pain is not... :p

How does the pain of terminal cancer indicate a healing experience?

It was an example of what one could associate with the feeling of pain as a positive alternative instead of the negative connotation we have. Whether pain actually indicates a healing experience or not is something different, although if you think about it, you can't help but notice that pain occurs when the body is damaged and disappears when it is not.

Therefore I am speculating that pain is in fact related to a sensation of healing. But in the case of terminal cancer, the damage is spreading faster than the body can heal, hence the combination of intense pain with a steady decline of our health. It doesn't matter though if this is actually makes sense or not, I just used it as an example.

mal4mac

Sep20-08, 06:39 AM

Suffering is caused from seeing pain as something negative or bad, or in other words, from seeing it as a not-nice feeling. If you were to look at pain as a nice feeling, it's impossible to suffer from pain...

How can you ever see pain as a nice thing? Evolution has led to us automatically "viewing" pain as something to avoid, because doing so enables us to live and reproduce. "Something to avoid" is, surely, everyone's definition of a not-nice thing. We can't avoid feeling pain as bad, it would be like deciding to see the world in eleven dimensions instead of three. Can't be done (at least not through immediate perception!)

Even Buddhist monks avoid pain (most of the time!), so they view pain as a not-nice thing.

He may definitely want to use medication ... to prevent the sensation of pain to become overwhelming. It's not because he doesn't suffer or in the extreme case that he can enjoy his pain that he wouldn't want to do something about his health. Unless he wants to be ill of course, but then that's a choice he makes.

Why would he ever want to use medication? If something becomes over-whelming then it is a not-nice thing, that is, a form of suffering. But you just said pain could always be viewed as nice! You are contradicting yourself.

Suffering is a perception of the mind, the physical sensation that we call pain is not... :p

It seems to me it is. You can see alterations in brain function if, say, you get hit by a spade. These are correlated with changes in mental function and subjective expressions of pain. You can't just ignore the brain waves that indicate pain. They are part of you and therefore part of your mind. They are the raw essence of suffering, and no amount of meditation will wish them away. The horrendous pictures of Tibetan monks being beaten by their Chinese oppressors showed them at least trying to avoid the blows of police batons. Why did they bother doing that if they can convert pain into "feeling good"?

Seiryuu

Sep20-08, 11:01 AM

How can you ever see pain as a nice thing? Evolution has led to us automatically "viewing" pain as something to avoid, because doing so enables us to live and reproduce. "Something to avoid" is, surely, everyone's definition of a not-nice thing. We can't avoid feeling pain as bad, it would be like deciding to see the world in eleven dimensions instead of three. Can't be done (at least not through immediate perception!)

Even Buddhist monks avoid pain (most of the time!), so they view pain as a not-nice thing.

You are confusing avoiding (running away from) with the choice to experience something else other than pain. The most obvious reason not to experience pain is, like you said, because you feel it whenever something is wrong. In other words, while a monk doesn't have to avoid pain for the sake of avoiding suffering, he still has to avoid pain to prevent injury or illness if he values his health and life....

Why would he ever want to use medication? If something becomes over-whelming then it is a not-nice thing, that is, a form of suffering. But you just said pain could always be viewed as nice! You are contradicting yourself.

There is no contradiction. You assume that when something becomes overwhelming you suffer. This is not true. Pain is a strong sensation. If it becomes too strong, it overwhelms you, just like you can be overwhelmed with grief or with joy for that matter. I very much doubt that you'll see being overwhelmed with joy as a form of suffering. Overwhelming means nothing more than one sensation becoming so strong that you can't feel anything else anymore other than that sensation. Even if he doesn't resist the pain itself, he may still want to use medication to heal his injuries.

It seems to me it is. You can see alterations in brain function if, say, you get hit by a spade. These are correlated with changes in mental function and subjective expressions of pain. You can't just ignore the brain waves that indicate pain. They are part of you and therefore part of your mind. They are the raw essence of suffering, and no amount of meditation will wish them away. The horrendous pictures of Tibetan monks being beaten by their Chinese oppressors showed them at least trying to avoid the blows of police batons. Why did they bother doing that if they can convert pain into "feeling good"?

I said pain was physical. What are alterations in the brain function? Are they mental? No, they're a physical reaction too. Is there a correlation with the changes in mental function? Of course. That correlation is the translation of the physical sensations into a mental perception. So the question is not, can we ignore the brain waves that are caused by pain, but rather, are the brain waves themselves an indication of pain or an indication of how we perceive pain? And if they are indeed an exact indication of pain, a new question arises: is our ability to perceive, our consciousness, an effect of these brainwaves or can it interpret them seperately?

As for the monks, I never said they can convert pain into something else than pain. You cannot avoid experiencing pain when the body is in pain. It cannot be done. Avoiding that would be mentally running away from the sensation that is pain, which means you resist it and therefore suffer. But they can choose not to run away from it (again, in a mental way) and experience pain for what it is: a physical sensation. By doing this, they avoid suffering.

This is what is meant with "overcoming" suffering. It doesn't mean eliminating the pain, but merely eliminating the perception we have about pain. Whether those monks perceive pain as negative (leading to suffering) or positive (leading to joy) becomes a choice. Just like it is a choice as to defend yourself from becoming injured or not, which would be the whole point of trying to avoid the blows.

The same thing is meant with "overcoming" desires. It doesn't eliminate the desires themselves, but merely the attachment we have to our desires. And by attachment it doesn't mean the value of the desire itself, but rather the distortion of over- or undervalueing. It's all about putting the value of desires in their proper perspective.

OrbitalPower

Sep20-08, 04:50 PM

This false analogy of associating buddhism with nihilism has been corrected before. It's interesting we should debate what Buddhism means by this or that as Buddha himself said "perhaps someone, somewhere will not misunderstand me."

But, how does one go about being buddhist. Are the things talked about here even possible in a society that values capitalistic "individualism." Would be it be barr to success? Or is it a way of coping with the everyday realities of our society or any society?

LightbulbSun

Sep20-08, 07:16 PM

Passion and desire is the spice of life. Those who want to quell it because they fear suffering are the same people who are afraid to do anything new because they're afraid of failing at it. Just my two cents.

mal4mac

Sep21-08, 10:09 AM

In other words, while a monk doesn't have to avoid pain for the sake of avoiding suffering, he still has to avoid pain to prevent injury or illness if he values his health and life

Pain *is* suffering, so of course he needs to avoid pain if he wants to avoid suffering. If injury was not suffering to hinm then why would he avid it or value health?

There is no contradiction. You assume that when something becomes overwhelming you suffer.

No -- if a monk encountered overwhelming pain he would suffer, whatever mental attitude he took to it. Of course he wouldn't suffer if was overwhelming joy!

Whether those monks perceive pain as negative (leading to suffering) or positive (leading to joy) becomes a choice.

Twaddle. Pain could never be positive. If someone was born feeling pain was positive then they would be an evolutionary dead end. Look at leprosy, people lose fingers because they cannot feel pain in them.

The same thing is meant with "overcoming" desires. It doesn't eliminate the desires themselves, but merely the attachment we have to our desires. And by attachment it doesn't mean the value of the desire itself, but rather the distortion of over- or undervalueing. It's all about putting the value of desires in their proper perspective.

You can always be "philosophical" when your desires are thwarted. But you are bound to feel some pain, otherwise it could not be something you wanted. A minor pain could be converted into a major one, by berating yourself ("I must find a hamburger stall!"), but you will always feel somne pain ("an empty stomach").

Seiryuu

Sep21-08, 01:34 PM

Look, this can be an argument going on forever, since we're obviously not talking about the same thing. You assume that pain is suffering, so it's quite normal that in your logic one can never be free of suffering. I agree, there's no point arguing with that. If suffering = pain, then you're 100% right.

The whole idea based on what I'm trying to explain however, is the notion that pain and suffering are two different concepts and that pain can be experienced as a sensation without having to suffer from it. It's not like you have to agee with it, we'll just agree to disagree then, but then there's no point continuing the conversation.

However if you want to understand the reasoning, you'll at least have to make an effort to try and see the possibilities that arise from this change in assumption. Without doing so, you cannot see the logic from my perspective and you will continue to try and prove it wrong based on your perspective. Realise that there is no right or wrong here, but that our difference in opinion totally depends on whether pain is the same thing as suffering or not.

As I have pointed out before, to me suffering is not pain. Suffering is the resistance to acknowledging the value of pain, hence why we see pain as something bad, while we should be merely seeing it as a physical sensation that alerts us when something is wrong. In this way, pain is a positive thing. It doesn't mean that pain has a positive effect, that's a different story.

Pain *is* suffering, so of course he needs to avoid pain if he wants to avoid suffering. If injury was not suffering to hinm then why would he avid it or value health?

The misconception you seem to have is that when pain is viewed as positive, that it means that you see it as something that is good for you or that you automatically have no reason to do something about it.

Look, a Buddhist sees the proper value in everything. While he acknowledges the value of pain, this doesn't mean he is oblivious to the value of his own health. Seeing as how he values the pain as a warning, he will not suffer from it. But if he were to lose perspective on the value of his own health or life, then he would indeed do nothing to avoid the pain.

To summarise: although the perception of pain may be positive (pain is a good thing, because it tells me something is wrong), the monk is still aware that the cause or effect pain might have can be negative on his health. Hence, as long as he values that, he'll take action to stop the pain...

No -- if a monk encountered overwhelming pain he would suffer, whatever mental attitude he took to it. Of course he wouldn't suffer if was overwhelming joy!

True if pain is suffering. The whole point however is that suffering is unrelated to pain.

Twaddle. Pain could never be positive. If someone was born feeling pain was positive then they would be an evolutionary dead end. Look at leprosy, people lose fingers because they cannot feel pain in them.

Experiencing pain as a positive sensation, is not the same thing as being ignorant to it's cause or effects and thinking pain is good for you. It merely means that you recognise the value of pain as a way to protect you from harm.

The leprosy example is actually a quite good case where people may definitely suffer upon noticing how they loose their fingers, without feeling any pain at all.

You can always be "philosophical" when your desires are thwarted. But you are bound to feel some pain, otherwise it could not be something you wanted. A minor pain could be converted into a major one, by berating yourself ("I must find a hamburger stall!"), but you will always feel somne pain ("an empty stomach").

As long as you desire, there's a chance that you might indeed feel disappointment, anger, pain or whatever. This doesn't change. What changes is that you no longer see that disappointment, anger or pain as something negative and that it's ok to feel the way you feel at any given time. As such, none of these '"pains" will bother you and you won't suffer from them.

Why? Because suffering is the resistance (as in: not acknowledging the value of) to reality as we experience it. If you have an emotion and resist that emotion, you suffer. If you are in pain and resist the feeling of pain, you suffer. In the same way, if you resist the fact that you can't get what you want for some reason, you suffer.

If you accept the fact that you wanted something and can't get it, you will not suffer. If you can accept the fact that you wanted something, can't get it and feel disappointed about it, you will not suffer. If you can accept the fact that you can't accept a situation, you will not suffer (as contradictory as it may sound :tongue:).

Passion and desire is the spice of life. Those who want to quell it because they fear suffering are the same people who are afraid to do anything new because they're afraid of failing at it. Just my two cents.

A valid statement, but totally unrelated to Buddhism as already pointed out before.

What Buddhism is about (imho) is not that you can't have desires, but simply that you learn not to hold on to them. You desire and let go of that desire, as in you want something but rather than focussing on it's fulfillment, you focus on whatever happens as you go along. By doing this you can make the choices that lead to happiness at any given time, instead of making choices that will eventually lead to happiness when the desire is fulfilled in some distant future. Also, a Buddhist accepts the situations he finds himself based upon his choices in and changes his desires accordingly, instead of trying to resist the situations themselves by holding on to desire.

Oh and you should also realise that I edited this post a gazillion of times, because it's almost impossible to explain it right, without missing or contradicting somewhere. That's why I believe it's equally hard to interpret it right, unless you have experienced it yourself, hence all the misconceptions... At least I hope it makes *some* sense :p

LightbulbSun

Sep22-08, 12:20 AM

A valid statement, but totally unrelated to Buddhism as already pointed out before.

What Buddhism is about (imho) is not that you can't have desires, but simply that you learn not to hold on to them. You desire and let go of that desire, as in you want something but rather than focussing on it's fulfillment, you focus on whatever happens as you go along.

I hold onto my desires until they're fulfilled. That's just how I operate. No Buddhist teaching can tell me I'm wrong.

Seiryuu

Sep22-08, 10:30 AM

LightbulbSun

Sep22-08, 11:29 PM

Good for you. No Buddhist teaching will ever tell you that you're wrong either, so you don't have to worry about that. If you don't agree with the philosophy, just don't agree with it. Also this is just my interpretation of it. I can't speak for everyone or Buddhism in general.

It's not a philosophy. It's a religion. The definition of a religion expands much further than just believing in a personal god.

mal4mac

Sep23-08, 04:28 AM

Buddhism, in most guises, comes with a belief system and as such is certainly a religion. And therefore just as unfounded as the Abrahamic religions. For instance, reincarnation, enlightenment, and karma are usually espoused by Buddhists. Of course, you may say these are not essential to Buddhism. But if so should you really be calling it Buddhism? It's like the "sea of faith" gang in Christianity, they do not hold there is an actual objective God, so are they really Christians?

Another sad part of Buddhism, as with all religions, is the 'cult of the individual' that allows nutters to act like gods on Earth. In Buddhism, recent examples include Sangharkshita and Chogyam Trungpa. The formers alleged abuses are not amusing in any way, so I'll just mention Trungpa. He is famous for getting blind drunk and crashing an expensive car into a joke shop :-) His followers suggest that in an 'enlightened one' such activity is acceptable. Such is all religion, it always ends up in raising some very flawed human beings to the level of gods. Science also, sometimes, has a tendency to do this, as with Einstein. But at least it has mechanisms, and people like Bohr, to pull such heroes back down to Earth.

OrbitalPower

Sep23-08, 05:23 AM

Wrong. One doesn't have to at all believe in reincarnation or anything else to be a Buddhist:

[b]"Whether you believe in God or not does not matter so much, whether you believe in Buddha or not does not matter so much; as a Buddhist, whether you believe in reincarnation or not does not matter so much. You must lead a good life."

Buddhism is a philosophy, or actually, a way of life, to reach enlightenment. When asked to express his experience in one word, Buddha said "awareness."

Your post is just nonsense. There is nothing in Buddhist teachings equivalent of the holy bible or anything else in the "Abrahamic religions" that tells people what to do and how to government.

The different sects among Buddhism is also different than the different Christian and Islamic sects that exist around the world. First of all, there is much less in-fighting in Buddhism than in these religions, because it's generally understood that Buddhists of one school tend to accept Buddhists of another, because "the individual disciple is seen directly, personally involved in his own salvation, apoint of view which allows exceptional latitude in matters of instruction and practice."

Second, Buddha himself called for a Middle Way, he can't be blamed for the extremes in Buddhism then, especially the Southeast Asian varities of Buddhism.

Also, if you look at the structure of Buddhism it works in much the same way as programs like Alcoholics Anonymous and so on work, that is to admit you have a problem and then to deal with it at a personal level, in order to control our lives and be aware of our surroundings. Buddhism is just more all encompassing.

And where in Buddha's original teachings does it say that Buddhists become Gods? This is either nonsense, or I have missed something in the teachings of Buddhists.

Enlightened individuals are no better than others and enlightened ones are only supposed to guide others, not to "preach."

I do agree that unfetted individualism, like in the writings of the egoist and leftist author Max Stirner, would be terrible. Basically he said individuals should seek to maximize their own happiness, including at the expense of others (which would allow people to take property). Extreme individualism like that is bad, and false individualism, like what American-Libertarians advocate, is even worse. (See Godwin's writings on why capitalism is a false individualism.)

Buddhism isn't anything like this though.

Cite ORIGINAL scholarship, not some sects you've found.

BeezyBeaver

Sep23-08, 05:25 AM

OrbitalPower

Sep23-08, 05:41 AM

I think Buddhism comes into one's mind and life in different flavors and forms, dependent upon that person's education also. Buddhism teaches people to follow neutralization, elimination of irritative thoughts, to attaining the peace of the mind, not about Creationism. Buddhists are not Christians.

I agree; well put. It's in Buddha's original message that this is how it's supposed to be, I believe.

However, keep in mind that the Buddha, like other ancient Eastern sages, spoke in contradictions, weird styles of poetry, and so on, to get their message across. The most obvious case is Lao-Tzu, where people have completely different interpretations of passages. confucius was more clear, though.

But what if there were no religion ?

That would be good, then, and Buddhism would be all the more relevant.

In his book "Buddhism: Plain and Simple" the author states that people generally fall into either two extremes when accepting the fact that the world is governored according to scientific principles:

"Either we blind ourselves to our predicament and attempt to escape via drugs or alcohol or our careers or any of innumerable belief systems, or we face the woeful prospect that we're intelligent creatures living in a meaningless world."

Buddhism is then a third way to these two ways of dealing with the world as science tells it us, and my experience most people in the west are definitely in either one of those two categories.

Buddhism is more about a way of life, a philosophy of awareness, and really how to deal with personal problems. People are always going to have different definitions of how to live well, and how to live the good life. Buddhism is really just the Eastern version of this, for the Western version, the ancient philosophers had their own classifications of how to live well, and by live well not even they suggested it be by making lots of money or what have you, but by trying to be healthy and happy given your situation.

For example, some sick people can convince themselves they may feel well even though they are not well. Others can believe they're ill when they're actually not, and still others can get used to being sick. The ancient Western philosophers attempted to understand this.

Modern Western philosophy is more like LightBulbSon's belief, which is, "if it feels good do it," and you feel well, you must be well. This is called hedonism, and imo is the second worst personal philosopher, behind "In the Garden of Eden" type philosophy, where you feel that you're right all the time.

Seiryuu

Sep23-08, 02:24 PM

It's not a philosophy. It's a religion. The definition of a religion expands much further than just believing in a personal god.

Should we really be arguing about this in the first place? Why does it matter to you, or anyone for that matter, whether people generally see it as a religion or a philosophy? What are you trying to achieve by proving me wrong on how I should call it properly? If you want to call it a religion fine. Let's call it a religion then....

Now tell me, what do you gain from being right or wrong and how does it answer your questions?

baywax

Sep23-08, 05:23 PM

If you can't let desires move your life, what is there to live for? Why work for that job promotion? Is desiring a life to help the poor wrong? Without desire I see a life of sitting in my room rocking back and forth till I die.

Do what turns you on man! Just don't expect anyone to understand you or be turned on by the same thing.

That's part of the detachment from the external. You neither "want" the external nor do you want the external to "want" you. This was Buddha's way to Nirvana.

You're right though Greg, Nirvana is considered a state of "unknowing" and "all knowing". Where all expectation is let go. You just experience what you experience without judgement and like it is the first time, every time.

So, desire would become just another experience. It would be something you can leave or take. It simply becomes one of the infinite states you're mind can experience. And I think a Buddhist will treat it as such... with out becoming consumed by it.

Its a little like what my old teacher used to say....."Drink. Don't think." At the time I thought he meant, you know, drink booze, don't think about it or anything too seriously.

Then I though... wait a minute. Drink. Don't think can also represent "drinking" each experience without thinking about it. Sort of like playing an improvisational solo in a musical piece.... you have to let the notes come without thinking.

baywax

Sep23-08, 05:28 PM

I hold onto my desires until they're fulfilled. That's just how I operate. No Buddhist teaching can tell me I'm wrong.

So you have desires you desire to hold onto and you desire to fulfill them. How desirous.:bugeye:

What happens when the chance of fulfilling your desires becomes nil?:cry:

Do you fall back on the next desire? Do you "try" your best to revive your chances? Do you find that the more you "try" to fulfill your desires, the less likely it is that that will happen?

Let's say I desire a Lambourghini... or I at least desire to be able to spell it.:redface: But, I also desire to leave behind less oil stains and gas emissions for my kids to deal with in the future. Here the desire for the Lambourgini is kind of a fantasy... wouldn't that be cool... my kids would totally dig me if I had one.

So, its a back-burner desire. The meat and potato's desire is to do what's right for the economy, the boys in some dirt-bag place fighting for oil, the kids playing without exhaust, the plants that clean the air and the rivers etc...... so.... my desire for all this over-rides the desire for the Lambo. And, I buy a Detroit Electric Lotus, hopefully built in the USA.

LightbulbSun

Sep23-08, 05:39 PM

Should we really be arguing about this in the first place? Why does it matter to you, or anyone for that matter, whether people generally see it as a religion or a philosophy? What are you trying to achieve by proving me wrong on how I should call it properly? If you want to call it a religion fine. Let's call it a religion then....

The four noble truths and the eightfold path is the core belief system. Buddhism's version of the ten commandments really. Then they believe in reincarnation, nirvana and a whole bunch of nonsense. Yeah, I'd consider dogmatic belief systems such as that to be a religion.

It matters to me because people ALWAYS give Buddhism a pass because no one views it as a religion. They must think that if a group of teachings doesn't believe in a personal god then it must be purely philosophy. Even Einstein and Sagan went light on Buddhism. Why? Just because they believe in cycles that last for millions of years doesn't give it any more credence than the Abrahamic religions.

LightbulbSun

Sep23-08, 05:42 PM

So you have desires you desire to hold onto and you desire to fulfill them. How desirous.:bugeye:

What happens when the chance of fulfilling your desires becomes nil?:cry:

Could you give me a situation where the chances of fulfilling my desires are nil?

Do you fall back on the next desire? Do you "try" your best to revive your chances? Do you find that the more you "try" to fulfill your desires, the less likely it is that that will happen?

Most of my desires just require dedication and hard work to fulfill. I'm not desiring otherworldly stuff.

Let's say I desire a Lambourghini... or I at least desire to be able to spell it.:redface: But, I also desire to leave behind less oil stains and gas emissions for my kids to deal with in the future. Here the desire for the Lambourgini is kind of a fantasy... wouldn't that be cool... my kids would totally dig me if I had one.

So, its a back-burner desire. The meat and potato's desire is to do what's right for the economy, the boys in some dirt-bag place fighting for oil, the kids playing without exhaust, the plants that clean the air and the rivers etc...... so.... my desire for all this over-rides the desire for the Lambo.

Why do you always use a frivolous example?

baywax

Sep23-08, 05:59 PM

Could you give me a situation where the chances of fulfilling my desires are nil?

I don't mean to burst any bubbles. Too many are bursting in Canada and the States with regard to real estate and monetary matters. But for example... not too trivial...your burning desire was to see the Mona Lisa in Paris at the Louvre and you suddenly lost your sight. Would you also loose all hope because of your desire and related desires going unfulfilled?

Most of my desires just require dedication and hard work to fulfill. I'm not desiring otherworldly stuff.

What is otherworldly stuff?

Why do you always use a frivolous example?

What is frivolous about my friends in a dirt-bag hole in A-stan guarding the construction of an oil pipeline? A purchase of a certified, made in Detroit, electric vehicle... (a great desire of mine) sets the example that spreads throughout the nation to the point where... heh.... we don't need that oil crap...edit: get the **** back home boys and girls.

LightbulbSun

Sep23-08, 06:42 PM

I don't mean to burst any bubbles. Too many are bursting in Canada and the States with regard to real estate and monetary matters. But for example... not too trivial...your burning desire was to see the Mona Lisa in Paris at the Louvre and you suddenly lost your sight. Would you also loose all hope because of your desire and related desires going unfulfilled?

No? I don't know why you and Buddhists in general get so hardcore about desires being unfulfilled. You act like if a desire goes unfulfilled that it's the apocalypse and the only way to save ourselves is through a meaningless eight fold path to get to a made up place called "nirvana."

What is otherworldly stuff?

Made up stuff such as "nirvana."

What is frivolous about my friends in a dirt-bag hole in A-stan guarding the construction of an oil pipeline? A purchase of a certified, made in Detroit, electric vehicle... (a great desire of mine) sets the example that spreads throughout the nation to the point where... heh.... we don't need that oil crap...edit: get the **** back home boys and girls.

What was frivolous about it is the guy wanting to buy the car just to look cool in it. There is a difference between a frivolous desire and a genuine one. Just thought you should know that since Buddhism loves to categorize all desires under the same umbrella.

baywax

Sep23-08, 07:00 PM

No? I don't know why you and Buddhists in general get so hardcore about desires being unfulfilled.

I'm not. I'm simply asking what would happen if your desires were unfulfilled. For myself, its a trade off. I desire one thing, so the other must be ignored. And so on.

Made up stuff such as "nirvana."

Nirvana is a term used by Buddhists to describe a lack of suffering. I call it Beer.

There is a difference between a frivolous desire and a genuine one. Just thought you should know that since Buddhism loves to categorize all desires under the same umbrella.

When did you become an expert on what is what in Buddhism?

LightbulbSun

Sep23-08, 07:04 PM

I'm not. I'm simply asking what would happen if your desires were unfulfilled. For myself, its a trade off. I desire one thing, so the other must be ignored. And so on.

If there was a physical limitation preventing me from fulfilling a desire I just accept the limitation and move on. I don't sit in a hole the rest of my life.

When did you become an expert on what is what in Buddhism?

I never said I was an expert. I do have a general understanding of its teachings though.

OrbitalPower

Sep23-08, 07:07 PM

Not really; you associated the eightfold path with reincarnation just a minute ago.

What do you think of Taoism?

LightbulbSun

Sep23-08, 07:14 PM

Not really; you associated the eightfold path with reincarnation just a minute ago.

Actually I didn't. Here's what I said.

The four noble truths and the eightfold path is the core belief system. Buddhism's version of the ten commandments really. Then they believe in reincarnation, nirvana and a whole bunch of nonsense. Yeah, I'd consider dogmatic belief systems such as that to be a religion.

What do you think of Taoism?

Taoism is ******** too. If you want to argue about that then make another thread.

baywax

Sep23-08, 07:15 PM

Not really; you associated the eightfold path with reincarnation just a minute ago.

What do you think of Taoism?

A leader is best when people barely know he exists,
when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say:
we did it ourselves.
Lao Tzu

A scholar who cherishes the love of comfort
is not fit to be deemed a scholar.
Lao Tzu

Anticipate the difficult by managing the easy.
Lao Tzu

Know the male
But keep to the role of the female
And be a ravine to the empire.
If you are a ravine to the empire,
Then the constant virtue will not desert you
And you will again return to being a babe.
Know the white
But keep to the role of the black*
And be a model of the empire.
If you are a model of the empire,
Then the constant virtue will not be wanting
And you will return to the Infinite.
Know honour
But keep to the role of the disgraced
And be a valley to the empire.
If you are a valley to the empire,
Then the constant virtue will be sufficient
And you will return to being the uncarved block.
When the uncarved block shatters it becomes vessels
The sage makes use of these and becomes the lord over
the officials

Hence the greatest cutting does not sever.
Lao Tzu

I like it.:cool:

Seiryuu

Sep23-08, 07:20 PM

The four noble truths and the eightfold path is the core belief system. Buddhism's version of the ten commandments really. Then they believe in reincarnation, nirvana and a whole bunch of nonsense. Yeah, I'd consider dogmatic belief systems such as that to be a religion.

It matters to me because people ALWAYS give Buddhism a pass because no one views it as a religion. They must think that if a group of teachings doesn't believe in a personal god then it must be purely philosophy. Even Einstein and Sagan went light on Buddhism. Why? Just because they believe in cycles that last for millions of years doesn't give it any more credence than the Abrahamic religions.

And so what? Can you even name the reason why it bothers you so much?

Even atheïsm is based upon the core belief system of the non-existance of a god and the non-existence of any of these concepts. Untill evidence shows clearly one way or another, it is not any more credible than any other religion you may dismiss as nonsense.

Your dogmas are simply hidden under the veil of denial, but you too believe in your own views and truths as much as anyone else. If you didn't, you wouldn't be assuming (because that's what believing is) that it is nonsense in the first place.

No? I don't know why you and Buddhists in general get so hardcore about desires being unfulfilled. You act like if a desire goes unfulfilled that it's the apocalypse and the only way to save ourselves is through a meaningless eight fold path to get to a made up place called "nirvana."

You are the only here getting hardcore about it. Don't ask questions if you cannot handle the answers without feeling threatened in your own belief system. And don't waste our time if you're not even willing to read what's being said, instead of making up your own version.

Made up stuff such as "nirvana."

Have you verified for yourself that it is made up and doesn't exist? If so, show me some proof. A true scientist wouldn't rule out any possibilities, even if they may prove his own theories wrong.

What was frivolous about it is the guy wanting to buy the car just to look cool in it. There is a difference between a frivolous desire and a genuine one. Just thought you should know that since Buddhism loves to categorize all desires under the same umbrella.

Desires are as important as you want them to be. That's why some people get worked so bad for mere futilities in the eyes of others. But glad to see you love to categorize all desires as either frivolous or not.

Seiryuu

Sep23-08, 07:26 PM

Taoism is ******** too. If you want to argue about that then make another thread.

If you want to argue about how **** Buddhism is, you're in the wrong thread yourself. Keep it for those actually willing to hear about what it has to say.

LightbulbSun

Sep23-08, 07:33 PM

And so what? Can you even name the reason why it bothers you so much?

I just listed reasons. Maybe you need to read what I say before you type?

Even atheïsm is based upon the core belief system of the non-existance of a god and the non-existence of any of these concepts. Untill evidence shows clearly one way or another, it is not any more credible than any other religion you may dismiss as nonsense.

Actually atheism doesn't have a core belief system. I'd like to see you point to one.

Your dogmas are simply hidden under the veil of denial, but you too believe in your own views and truths as much as anyone else. If you didn't, you wouldn't be assuming (because that's what believing is) that it is nonsense in the first place.

Typically when a person gives an elitist "holier than thou" response such as the one you just gave me this indicates cognitive dissonance. Are you starting to doubt your beliefs after a thorough examination of them?

You are the only here getting hardcore about it. Don't ask questions if you cannot handle the answers without feeling threatened in your own belief system. And don't waste our time if you're not even willing to read what's being said, instead of making up your own version.

I'm not being hardcore about it. I just don't understand why you and other are so hellbent about an unfulfilled desire. It's not healthy.

Have you verified for yourself that it is made up and doesn't exist? If so, show me some proof. A true scientist wouldn't rule out any possibilities, even if they may prove his own theories wrong.

Have you verified for yourself that teapots don't orbit the sun, that Zeus doesn't exist, that Santa Claus doesn't exist, that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist? Please don't bring up this tired old argument. You're being just as ignorant as the rest of the religious people.

Desires are as important as you want them to be. That's why some people get worked so bad for mere futilities in the eyes of others. But glad to see you love to categorize all desires as either frivolous or not.

Glad to see you love categorizing fulfillment of desires as "suffering."

baywax

Sep23-08, 07:42 PM

Lao Tzu said....

"The greatest calamity is in not knowing how much is enough."

mal4mac

Sep24-08, 02:33 PM

Wrong. One doesn't have to at all believe in reincarnation or anything else to be a Buddhist:

That is to broaden the term "Buddhist" to make it meaningless.

[b]"Whether you believe in God or not does not matter so much, whether you believe in Buddha or not does not matter so much; as a Buddhist, whether you believe in reincarnation or not does not matter so much. You must lead a good life."

If "Buddhist" = "Good person" then why botherusing the term Buddhist? Especially with all the baggage it brings with it.

Buddhism is a philosophy, or actually, a way of life, to reach enlightenment.

So you have to believe in "enlightenment" - now you are contradicting yourself. Enlightenment is a meaningless term, like "God" or "heaven" it has no objective existence. Has it shown up in a bubble chamber or space telescope?

... Buddhism it works in much the same way as programs like Alcoholics Anonymous and so on work, that is to admit you have a problem and then to deal with it at a personal level, in order to control our lives and be aware of our surroundings. Buddhism is just more all encompassing.

And where in Buddha's original teachings does it say that Buddhists become Gods?

I was using a Christian metaphor. It's difficult to speak about "enlightened ones" in Western contexts as one good thing about the Christian religion is that it views *everyone* as fallen. Of course that view has its problems, and the humanist secular view that we are all equally human is much better.

How do you know enlightened ones exits? A physicist might say he''s has discovered the Higg's boson, but you have to reach his subjective state to see it would be laughed out of court. Wielding Ockhams' razor does away with enlightenment, and you can laugh at Chogyam Trungpa and just get on wikth living a human life...

Cite ORIGINAL scholarship, not some sects you've found.

"The Unexpected Way" by Paul Williams, the acknowledged [by the Dalai Lama etc.] expert on Mahayana Buddhism would be a place to start for more detailed & considered criticisms of the kind I am making. He used to be a leading Buddhist scholar and meditation teacher and now dismisses Buddhism in all aspects. (Although a major point agianst him is that he converted to Catholicism! A frying pan - fire situation)

baywax

Sep24-08, 02:41 PM

So you have to believe in "enlightenment" - now you are contradicting yourself. Enlightenment is a meaningless term, like "God" or "heaven" it has no objective existence. Has it shown up in a bubble chamber or space telescope?

Although I don't use the term "enlightenment" or the term "consciousness" very much because of their ambiguous nature... you have to know that terms have their use in science, literature, art, religion, and most cultural activity.

Why use the term "god particle" when it hasn't even been found in a bubble chamber, space telescope or so many metres under ground, in France?

mal4mac

Sep24-08, 02:43 PM

Even atheïsm is based upon the core belief system of the non-existance of a god and the non-existence of any of these concepts. Until evidence shows clearly one way or another, it is not any more credible than any other religion you may dismiss as nonsense.

Atheism only holds to the nonexistence of God in the same way it holds to the non-existence of fairies at the bottom of the Garden and the non-existence of the Easter Bunny. You are saying that "Until evidence shows clearly one way or another, it is not any more credible," that the Easter Bunny exists than it does not. Surely you can see how stupid such "Bunnyism" is? But in the same way any other religion is idiotic. The "son of God" or "enlightenment of the Buddha" are both as evident as the Easter Bunny gamboling down a rabbit hole with the Mad Hatter, i.e., not evident at all. All religions *are* nonsense.

baywax

Sep24-08, 03:31 PM

All religions *are* nonsense.

Religion is a kind of faery tale unto itself. But, without the moral compass and the preservation of science it provided in the past, we would probably be a nation of idiots, killing each other and everyone else... or there would be no nation here today.

Seiryuu

Sep24-08, 03:37 PM

Atheism only holds to the nonexistence of God in the same way it holds to the non-existence of fairies at the bottom of the Garden and the non-existence of the Easter Bunny. You are saying that "Until evidence shows clearly one way or another, it is not any more credible," that the Easter Bunny exists than it does not. Surely you can see how stupid such "Bunnyism" is? But in the same way any other religion is idiotic. The "son of God" or "enlightenment of the Buddha" are both as evident as the Easter Bunny gamboling down a rabbit hole with the Mad Hatter, i.e., not evident at all. All religions *are* nonsense.

You believe as much in the nonsense of religions as others may believe in their god or concepts. Seeing as people are divided in their assumptions, there is no absolute truth, only a personal truth, based upon each individual own experiences that may confirm or deny the assumptions one has made.

If people want to form a religion based on the Easter Bunny based on their personal experiences that has made them believe it really exists, then there is no way to tell for an outsider if they're really nutcases or if they actually have experienced something you have not. The only thing you can conclude is that you do not share their beliefs.

You claim there is no evidence for the existence of the "son of God" or "enlightenment of the Buddha", but it all depends on how you define your concepts of God or enlightenment. For example, if you believe that humanity itself is God, then clearly we are all sons of God and there's evidence all around you. If you believe a state of enlightenment is as a state in which you gain a new insight, then people are reaching enlightenment all over the world. Others may believe that enlightment is about being one with nature. But truth is, only Buddha knows what enlightenment means for him trough his own experiences and everything else is just an interpretation. Even when a Buddhist reaches a state that might feel like enlightenment, because it appears to match it's descriptions, he'll never know for sure if he's actually experiencing that what it is meant.

Even if all these concepts only exist in the imagination of people, can we really say that they are unreal? If they are, reality and existence somehow exclude our imagination, which makes no sense at all as we are all known to have this ability. I suppose it all depends on your definition of existence though.

OrbitalPower

Sep24-08, 03:56 PM

That is to broaden the term "Buddhist" to make it meaningless.

Not really, because they have a set of guidelines to follow, a way of life to follow. When I said "reincarnation or anything else" I mean that you don't have to believe in anything supernatural to be buddhist.

If "Buddhist" = "Good person" then why botherusing the term Buddhist? Especially with all the baggage it brings with it.

Because Buddhists have a particular method of getting to be a good person - duh! Just like other people have their own definitions of what it means to be a good person, like John Dewey for instance.

So you have to believe in "enlightenment" - now you are contradicting yourself. Enlightenment is a meaningless term, like "God" or "heaven" it has no objective existence. Has it shown up in a bubble chamber or space telescope?

Can you see free-will with a microscope or a telescope? Can you see Democracy with a microscope? Can you see justice with a microscope?

These are abstract notions - buddhist "enlightenment" is another abstract notions.

Buddhism is not a science at all, I agree. But that's completely irrelevant. "free-will" is not a science, either. Although, we could learn from science to help understand free-will, you could also learn from cognitive science how to learn the human mind.

Buddhism is an open book.

I was using a Christian metaphor. It's difficult to speak about "enlightened ones" in Western contexts as one good thing about the Christian religion is that it views *everyone* as fallen.

LOL. Not really. Considering there was a whole movement called the "Enlightenment" that was atheistic in many ways.

But, enlightenment I think, may be attainable. I've never seen it done, nor have I met a Buddhist who's actually done it, and I don't know what Siddhartha actually experienced, but I think a higher awareness than what most people experience is possible.

Hell, I think a higher ANYTHING than what most people exerience is possible - such as higher learning.

Of course that view has its problems, and the humanist secular view that we are all equally human is much better.

Well, I agree a lot with secular humanism. In fact, I don't know that I'm really a Buddhist or not yet (that's why I asked earlier how does one "become Buddhist") - but, I still think some things the ancient sages said was informative, as is many things in the Bible interesting, but I don't agree that Buddhism is truly a religion.

Actually, I think Buddhism could be closer to secular humanism than to religions such as Christianity.

In fact, Richard Dawkins, a well known scientific humanist and secularist, says this in his book God Delusion:

"[they should not be treated] as religions at all but as ethical systems or philosophies of life" (pp. 38).

I believe buddhism is a good philosophy of life, you disagree, that's fine.

How do you know enlightened ones exits? A physicist might say he''s has discovered the Higg's boson, but you have to reach his subjective state to see it would be laughed out of court. Wielding Ockhams' razor does away with enlightenment, and you can laugh at Chogyam Trungpa and just get on wikth living a human life...

Again, the nature of the question is philosophical, note scientific. It's an abstraction.

"The Unexpected Way" by Paul Williams, the acknowledged [by the Dalai Lama etc.] expert on Mahayana Buddhism would be a place to start for more detailed & considered criticisms of the kind I am making. He used to be a leading Buddhist scholar and meditation teacher and now dismisses Buddhism in all aspects. (Although a major point agianst him is that he converted to Catholicism! A frying pan - fire situation)

I am more interested in the original buddhism.

But, the quote I posted above about having no religions etc., was by the Dalai Lama in the first place.