This is a spin-off from the "Civil Religious Discussion" thread, which is essentially a "compare and contrast Christianity and other views" thread. This thread can be used for other traditions; Buddhists, Hindus, Neo-Pagans, Atheists, and people of any other denomination, or none, are all equally welcome!
One of the things that appeals to me about what little I do know of Buddhism is that it puts the responsibility in our hands.
I first stumbled across the concept that responsibility equals power in The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. Accepting responsibility is not always easy. Thus far in my life though, I have found it empowering.
As I understand it, Buddhism is saying we are bringing all this suffering on ourselves by grasping at things. This makes a great deal of sense to me, however, I am not completely sold that some things should not be grasped for. Freedom. Love. Truth.
I was hoping Kirth would better explain the Buddhist position.
Once again, referring to my go to source.
Samadhi is the mental discipline required to develop mastery over one’s own mind. This is done through the practice of various contemplative and meditative practices, and includes:
vyayama (vayama): making an effort to improve
Is this not a desire which will lead to suffering?
According to the impermanence doctrine, human life embodies this flux in the aging process, the cycle of rebirth (samsara), and in any experience of loss. The doctrine further asserts that because things are impermanent, attachment to them is futile and leads to suffering (dukkha).
I can attest to this. Being a military brat and moving every two years, I learned the only thing constant is change. I began to embrace change instead of fear it.
I can hardly claim to be any great sage; I'm a Buddhist, but not a very good one. Nonetheless, I'll answer any questions I can, for whatever those answers might be worth.
...if all desire causes suffering, then would not desiring freedom for oneself or even others cause suffering? Maybe I am missing that the point is to lessen suffering and that one can never hope to completely eliminate it. Therefore, some desire will always be present.
vyayama (vayama): making an effort to improve
Is this not a desire which will lead to suffering?
You've immediately grasped what is, in several forms, a classic koan (the title of this thread is another), "If enlightenment is freedom from desire, then how can one who desires enlightenment ever attain it?" An important part of the philosophy, in fact, is that logical, linear thought is a barrier to direct experience. By focusing on apparent contradictions until one's head turns into knots and aches with the effort, you can in some cases exhaust the "chittering monkey" in your brain suffiently to just BE for a little while. Because seeing clearly is often a matter of presence, not of intellect.
If all that is simply distracting for now, and not useful, here's one possible interpretation (not necessarily the "right" one), if you're interested. Presumably when the Buddha attained enlightenment, he was able to free himself of all desire, and sit happily until he starved to death, if he so chose. Yet even he was persuaded instead to become a teacher -- the desire to help others in that respect outweighed his desire for non-being. In the former case, he accepts that "he" is not really a distinct entity from the would-be students who were still struggling. In the latter case, the emphasis that "he" was separate from them, and could thus go his own way with complete freedom, would indicate a form of attachment to self, and therefore prevent the very thing he'd be trying to do. An interesting apparent paradox, the first of many that lie at the heart of Buddhism.
At the risk of stirring another pot, embracing change has allowed me to view 4e and even my own System of Choice™’s announcement of sixth edition as an inevitable and welcomed occurance.
I admit I was disappointed in 4e (perhaps due to a desire for something different). However, I avoided any anger of the event.
An interesting apparent paradox, the first of many that lie at the heart of Buddhism.
I smell 'god works in mysterious ways.' Just being fair. :)
It seems to me, then, that there are some things worthy of being desired. Surely, the Noble Eightfold Path is/are an example.
I can hardly claim to be any great sage; I'm a Buddhist, but not a very good one. Nonetheless, I'll answer any questions I can, for whatever those answers might be worth.
That is all I am asking.
I smell 'god works in mysterious ways.'
Of course He does. How could he do otherwise? There is no God. And there are no poodles.
MU!
PS I'm not a Buddhist, I was just being helpful.
MU!
(Laughs.) Does an oak tree have a Buddha-nature?
Evidently the oak-tree-faced-avatar claims one!
Hands Kirth a polishing cloth. "Here, go clean your mirror."
"Here, go clean your mirror."
Can one polish the moon?
Points.
It seems to me, then, that there are some things worthy of being desired. Surely, the Noble Eightfold Path is/are an example.
Your own acceptance of impermanence is the key here. There is another classic Zen saying, "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him." Obviously this isn't to be taken literally; rather, it's a reminder that at some point one must stop clinging to the Buddha's teachings (even the formalized Eightfold Path itself) and rely on one's own insights. Think of the Buddha's teachings as training wheels, very useful for getting you started. But if you insist on clinging to the Buddha's words, eventually they get in the way of direct experience.
What is the Buddha?
MU!(Laughs.) Does an oak tree have a Buddha-nature?
Evidently the oak-tree-faced-avatar claims one!
From what I have understood, at least some branches of Buddhism consider all living beings to have Buddha-nature, including trees and dogs.
What is the Buddha?
From what I have understood, at least some branches of Buddhism consider all living beings to have Buddha-nature, including trees and dogs.
There are no oak trees and no dogs. There is no Buddha.
A grain of sand has a Buddha-nature.
But if you insist on clinging to the Buddha's words, eventually they get in the way of direct experience.
I can get behind this.
There is another classic Zen saying, "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him."
And it does not take itself too seriously. I can really get behind this.
Wrong!
The Buddha is a corncob.
And shit, it sure smells like Zen in this thread.
And s#@~, it sure smells like Zen in this thread.
Well, "Smells Like Teeen Spirit" was already taken... by Nirvana. (Rim shot)
Seriously, if you have some other (non-Christian, non-Buddhist) religious philosophy you wish to pontificate, this is the place for it. In the words of Thich Nhat Hanh, "Fruit salad can be delicious!"
So, as a beginner, I need training wheels and I should leave the more complicated concepts alone until I better understand. So where do I start?
So, as a beginner, I need training wheels and I should leave the more complicated concepts alone until I better understand. So where do I start?
Daily meditation is a good start. Don't go overboard; a half-hour at a time ought to do it at first. Just focus on counting your breaths and being. Thoughts will pop up constantly. That's OK; just calmly watch them go by, but don't entertain them nor hold onto them. If you find this useful, additional instruction by someone more qualified than myself can be a big help. If not... well, I don't know. I sure found it useful.
Anyone interested in this stuff might read some Wallace Stevens as well -- he's an American poet (former banker/insurance adjuster), 1920s to 1950 or so, with a very Zen-like way of viewing things.
One must have a mind of winter
To regard the frost and the boughs
Of the pine-trees crusted with snow;And have been cold a long time
To behold the junipers shagged with ice,
The spruces rough in the distant glitterOf the January sun; and not to think
Of any misery in the sound of the wind,
In the sound of a few leaves.Which is the sound of the land
Full of the same wind
That is blowing in the same bare placeFor the listener, who listens in the snow,
And nothing himself, beholds
Nothing that is not there and the nothing that is.
Would that not be a desire, though? Furthermore, is that a desirable desire? It is not a need (air, water, food, shelter) nor does it make him a better poodle.
Now if the poodle dreams of medium sizes bones for everyone…
So, as a beginner, I need training wheels and I should leave the more complicated concepts alone until I better understand. So where do I start?
At the heart of Buddhism are The Four Noble Truths. These are the teachings that Siddhartha proclaimed soon after achieving enlightenment.
The Four Noble Truths are what really got me interested in Buddhism. I like them because they appeal to my love of science. Just like a scientific theory, The Four Noble Truths make some observations about a particular phenomenon (in this case, the observation that suffering exists). Next, they propose a mechanism to explain that phenomenon (suffering is caused by craving). Finally, the Four Noble Truths provide some testable, and verifiable experiments for how to overcome sufering (follow the Eightfold Path).
By the way, in answer to your earlier question about grasping/craving, the Buddha says that the only craving we should have is for enlightenment. Love, truth, freedom... all of these things emanate from enlightenment. If you try to achieve these things without the goal of enlightenment in mind, then you will suffer.
Let me give you an example of what I mean. You can love a person, caring for her or his welfare, and Buddhists would say that is a good thing. On the other hand, you can crave the love of a person, wanting desperately for that person to love you in return, and Buddhists would say that is a bad thing. Do you see the difference?
Would that not be a desire, though? Furthermore, is that a desirable desire? It is not a need (air, water, food, shelter) nor does it make him a better poodle.
Now if the poodle dreams of medium sizes bones for everyone…
...and Buddha-shaped squeaky toys...
Dove,
Thanks for popping in! Some of that was discussed in the "Civil Religious Thread," where it was quickly lost, and I failed to excerpt it here; your adding it is a most welcome addition.
Would that not be a desire, though? Furthermore, is that a desirable desire? It is not a need (air, water, food, shelter) nor does it make him a better poodle.
Now if the poodle dreams of medium sizes bones for everyone…
Even if the poodle dreams of medium size bones for everyone, it does not necessarily mean that the poodle has achieved enlightenment. For example, what if some people don't want a medium size bone? Is the poodle's dream, then, a good thing? Also, if the poodle never acts on his dream, can it really be considered enlightened?
There's a story about a group of monks who decide to give all their money to a beggar. The beggar then takes the money and uses it to buy wine. Ultimately, the beggar drinks so much that he dies from alcohol poisoning.
The monks meant to do a good thing for this beggar, thinking that their money would alleviate his suffering. Ultimately, though, they contributed to his suffering, by giving him money to buy wine, that led to his death.
There's a story about a group of monks who decide to give all their money to a beggar.
That's a good story. And don't forget this one as well:
A Zen Master lived the simplest kind of life in a little hut at the foot of a mountain. One evening, while he was away, a thief sneaked into the hut only to find there was nothing in it to steal. The Zen Master returned and found him. "You have come a long way to visit me," he told the prowler, "and you should not return empty handed. Please take my clothes as a gift." The thief was bewildered, but he took the clothes and ran away. The Master sat naked, watching the moon. "Poor fellow," he mused, " I wish I could give him this beautiful moon."
Ideas are transient? Truth is transient? Hmmmm. I have come to accept that truth is a perception. Is it really a leap to accept truth is transient?
Nirvana is not comprehensible for those who have not attained it? Srsly? I thought we gave up “If you don’t know, I’m not gonna tell you” in grade school.
Sorry. I am getting snarky again.
If we can not comprehend Nirvana, what is the point? That sounds like trying to build something without a plan.
Even if the poodle dreams of medium size bones for everyone, it does not necessarily mean that the poodle has achieved enlightenment. For example, what if some people don't want a medium size bone? Is the poodle's dream, then, a good thing? Also, if the poodle never acts on his dream, can it really be considered enlightened?
Well, I meant what ever everyone’s equivalent to a medium sized bone. I get your meaning.
Oh, and thank you, Dove!
Ideas are transient? Truth is transient? Hmmmm. I have come to accept that truth is a perception. Is it really a leap to accept truth is transient? Nirvana is not comprehensible for those who have not attained it? Srsly? I thought we gave up “If you don’t know, I’m not gonna tell you” in grade school. Sorry. I am getting snarky again. If we can not comprehend Nirvana, what is the point? That sounds like trying to build something without a plan.
Where are you quoting this from? My own perception is too feeble to allow me to discern its source.
Still, it seems to me that one can do good without seeking to achieve enlightenment. Especially since enlightenment is incomprehensible until we get there.
My own perception is too feeble to allow me to discern its source.
Dove’s link.
Still, it seems to me that one can do good without seeking to achieve enlightenment. Especially since enlightenment is incomprehensible until we get there.
I don't 100% agree. One can look at a sample of red paint at the store before you paint the entire house in it.
Dove’s link.
That's an OK site, but I disagree with some of their views -- particularly with regards with their insistance on retaining "rebirth" and karmic reincarnation, which I consider distracting hold-overs from the Hindu culture from which Buddhism arose. They make some effort to resolve the contradiction, but from my personal viewpoint, it falls a bit flat -- clinging to a tenet when maybe letting it go would do as well.
I don't 100% agree. One can look at a sample of red paint at the store before you paint the entire house in it.
Good point.
So how does keeping a job, which I generally consider a good thing, help me become enlightened? If it does not, should I quit? Or is keeping a job not necessarily a good thing?
Ideas are transient? Truth is transient? Hmmmm. I have come to accept that truth is a perception. Is it really a leap to accept truth is transient?
I wouldn't say that truth is transient (nor does the website I linked to). If it is, then it isn't truth. For example, one can say that they do not believe in the truth of gravity. However, when they jump, gravity still pulls them back down.
Ideas, on the other hand, can be transient. For example, the Etruscans had the idea that one can read the future in a sheep's liver. That idea isn't one that many people cling to today.
That said, what is true today isn't necessarily true tomorrow. For example, while it is true that I have money in my bank account right now, it doesn't mean that there will be money in my account tomorrow. However, that doesn't negate the fact that there is money in my account today.
Of course, now I want to check my bank account balance.
So how does keeping a job, which I generally consider a good thing, help me become enlightened? If it does not, should I quit? Or is keeping a job not necessarily a good thing?
If you can immerse yourself fully in each moment of your work, whatever it is, then your job becomes part of your practice (unless your job is to create weapons of mass destruction, in which case you're probably doing yourself more harm than good). If instead you spend all day anxious to go home, some thought should be given to changing either your job or your reaction to it, or both.
Dove’s link.That's an OK site, but I disagree with some of their views -- particularly with regards with their insistance on retaining "rebirth" and karmic reincarnation, which I consider distracting hold-overs from the Hindu culture from which Buddhism arose. They make some effort to resolve the contradiction, but from my personal viewpoint, it falls a bit flat -- clinging to a tenet when maybe letting it go would do as well.
Yeah, I don't completely agree with everything they say either. I think it's a fairly reasonable site for getting a general understanding of the Four Noble Truths, but even then, I don't agree with it verbatim.
Another thing to keep in mind: There are many forms of Buddhism, and they all interpret the Buddha's teachings differently. For example, the church I go to thinks of reincarnation as more of a metaphor, and that in this life, we go from being a hungry ghost, to being a god, etc. Finally, when we achieve enlightenment, we are 'reborn' in the Pure Land, in this life.
One of the people at my church asked my reverend once, "What happens when we die?"
My reverend said, "I don't know. I've never been dead."
The greatest effort is not concerned with results.
This seems to contradict that we should strive for enlightenment. Is this another paradox I should just let go?
I really thank you, Kirth and Dove. I know I come off as snarky and nit-picky (people have told me as much). I respect your patience.
I wouldn't say that truth is transient (nor does the website I linked to). If it is, then it isn't truth.
So, truth is not an idea?
If you can immerse yourself fully in each moment of your work, whatever it is, then your job becomes part of your practice (unless your job is to create weapons of mass destruction, in which case you're probably doing yourself more harm than good).
It could be easier to practice without a job.
I happen to like my job. It is not perfect, but if it were, no one would pay me to do it.
So how does keeping a job, which I generally consider a good thing, help me become enlightened? If it does not, should I quit? Or is keeping a job not necessarily a good thing?
There is a story that I half remember about a woman slave who eventually becomes enlightened. Let me look it up, because I think it might be relevant to your question.
It could be easier to practice without a job.
Some do quit their jobs to practice more: they join a monastery.
Not every Buddhist must become a monk or a nun, however.
So, truth is not an idea?
In a word, no. Truth is not an idea. A truth is a verified, indisputable fact. An idea is a concept generated in the mind. People may stumble onto truth because of ideas, but I don't think you can say that ideas are truths in and of themselves.
For example, Isaac Newton came up with the idea of using math to describe how gravity works. However, even if he hadn't, it wouldn't make the existence of gravity any less irrefutably true. Do you see the difference?
Another thing to keep in mind: While ideas can be used to describe truths, they are not perfect. For example, Isaac Newton's mathematical formulas didn't describe the workings of gravity perfectly. However, his formulas are still incredibly precise, and can be used to predict the movement of most objects we see in our everyday lives. Similarly, words are very precise. Nevertheless, they are not perfect in describing everything we see.
Take the word 'craving.' It's translated from the Sanskrit word, tanha, which literally means 'thirst.' Figuratively, the word means 'craving' or 'desire.' However, anyone will tell you that even this English translation does not completely capture the concept behind the original word.
Even if the English translations could capture the original meaning of the Sanskrit, they would not completely describe the reality of suffering. Like Newton's formulas, they are extremely precise, but they are not 100% accurate. Does that make more sense now?