I disagree. I believe that ‘what truth is’ a matter of perception. I point to the five blind men and the elephant. Further, I believe truth is a concept.
You put for that truth is a verified, indisputable fact. In the civil religious discussion it was stated that science admits that nothing can ever be truly proven, merely that we have a preponderance of evidence.
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?
There is a story about a monk who is sitting in meditation. The monk's teacher comes up to him and asks, "Why are you meditating, my son?"
The monk replies, "I am meditating in order to achieve enlightenment."
The teacher nods, and sits down beside the young monk. He then picks up a brick and begins to polish it.
The monk notices this and asks, "Teacher, why are you polishing the brick?"
The teacher says, "I am polishing the brick in order to make a mirror."
The young monk laughs. "You cannot make a mirror by polishing a brick."
The teacher smiles. "You cannot achieve enlightenment through meditation."
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.
Your questions may be a little snarky, but I recognize that they come from a good place; the desire to know truth. Trust that instinct. Don't let anyone tell you differently. Religion, like all things, should be questioned.
After reading the above link, I proposed the following to my friend (the one who named my chittering monkey).
Obviously, I still have not fully grasped what Chaung Tzu is suggesting as this interpretation caught me completely off guard.
So Chaung Tzu is not saying don’t try, don’t strive, but instead ride the waves of life to your goal and/or riding the waves of life is your goal. Acceptance without apathy. This makes a lot of sense to me as I started to develop my own theory that luck = opportunity + preparation. Everyone has opportunities afforded to them every day, but we are not always prepared for them. When we see someone catch a ‘lucky break’ they were given an opportunity and were prepared to seize it.
We might look at the man being flung around by the waterfall and think he got a ‘lucky break’ to get a deep breath of air before being plunged back down to the bottom. But the man sees the opportunity approaching and is prepared to take that breath knowing he will need it as he is pushed to the bottom of the river.
We can not possibly be prepared for every opportunity. So how do we find the balance of being prepared for some opportunities? Which preparations should be make? Which opportunities do we seize? Or am I striving for the external again?
We can not possibly be prepared for every opportunity. So how do we find the balance of being prepared for some opportunities? Which preparations should be make? Which opportunities do we seize? Or am I striving for the external again?
I think so. Rather than "Which preparations should be make? Which opportunities do we seize?" you might instead say, "Whatever preparations I made are correct in a sense, because they led to the opportunities I've taken. Each set is another 'me' in that sense, so really, 'I' am a range of preparations taken and an array of opportunities grasped. Throughout 'my life,' there have been an endless number of such, overlapping with everyone else's. So the continuity of 'I' merges seemlessly with that of 'everyone else'."
I do not have a problem being merely a part of everything. I can see how we are all inter-related.
I am just struggling with do nothing, want nothing.
I am just struggling with do nothing, want nothing.
Well, shucks, doing nothing is doing something, if you see what I mean. "Want nothing" is much easier to get a handle on, and ultimately a more productive approach to start with: you can start by wanting less, and as you go, there are fewer and fewer things to not want.
But, but, but…
It seems to me that ‘want nothing’ leads to sitting right here until I die of dehydration. I think that is unproductive, bad and I am fairly confident not exactly what Buddha had in mind. So how far do I go down that path before I veer? Is it when I see Buddha and kill him? How do I know when to veer?
|
I am not completely sold that some things should not be grasped for. Freedom. Love. Truth
If no one attempted to control you, you would not need to grasp for freedom.
grasping for love leads to conflict, if love comes it comes, if it goes, then it goes, enjoy that what you had when you had it, and don't grasp for what's now gone
If no one hides anything, then you need not seek truth...people hide things for power or to escape repercussions by not accepting responsibility...
...in our current physical world...this type of nirvana is not attainable for everyone...
...in our current physical world...this type of nirvana is not attainable for everyone...
So not all of my suffering comes from my desires. Some is as a result of other’s desires?
Is it when I see Buddha and kill him?
Exactly. When you get to that point, then you can decide the next step. It's a lousy answer, frankly, but I can't give you a better one. I believe there are different stages of enlightenment, a rheostat rather than an on/off switch. How far you want to jack it up is up to you, but you can decide when you get there; you don't have to program that setting in advance.
I disagree. I believe that ‘what truth is’ a matter of perception. I point to the five blind men and the elephant. Further, I believe truth is a concept.
You put for that truth is a verified, indisputable fact. In the civil religious discussion it was stated that science admits that nothing can ever be truly proven, merely that we have a preponderance of evidence.
You are absolutely correct. For that matter, so am I. If you look up the word 'truth' on dictionary.com it defines it as a verified, indisputable fact. It then defines 'fact' as a truth known by actual experience or observation. So by definition, you are correct in saying that truth is a matter of perception, and I am correct in saying that truth is a verified, indisputable fact.
Remember, our argument wasn't over whether truth is a matter of perception. Rather, it was about whether or not truth and ideas are the same.
Now I will grant you that our perceptions can be deceived. For example, you and I could both go on the Haunted Mansion ride at Disneyland and we would both see what appear to be transluscent ghosts dancing in the ballroom. Nevertheless, if we were allowed to examine them more closely, we would realize very quickly that they are, in fact, illusions.*
The same is true about our cravings. At first glance, satisfying them appears to alleviate our suffering. However, as we examine them more closely, we realize that this is an illusion.
*By the way, if you're interested in how they create the ghost illusion in the Haunted Mansion at Disneyland you should check out Doombuggies.com. It's pretty cool.
It's a lousy answer, frankly, but I can't give you a better one.
I find that a very interesting answer, actually. I would even argue, scientific. “Do this until it doesn’t work or is proven false.”
Now I will grant you that our perceptions can be deceived.
First, I was substituting concept for idea. It is a bit of a stretch, I know. As a concept, what is truth to an insect?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
“Do this until it doesn’t work or is proven false.”
That pretty well summarizes my approach. After 20 years, on and off, I'm still doing it.
Of course, that could just mean I'm a slow learner.
I propose many of our friends in the Civil Religious Discussion feel the same way.
Does this mean I have to give up hamburgers?
We can not possibly be prepared for every opportunity. So how do we find the balance of being prepared for some opportunities? Which preparations should be make? Which opportunities do we seize? Or am I striving for the external again?
There is a book, called "When Things Fall Apart," by Pema Chodron. I recommend that you pick it up. As you read the book, think about the man in the waterfall. How does his story relate to Pema Chodron's book on groundlessness?
|
|
Does this mean I have to give up hamburgers?
Why, you becoming Hindu? If so, just eat Buffalo burgers, just not White Buffalo, those are sacred to Natives...
In answer to your previous question, if you were imprisoned, and did not long for freedom, would you suffer? If you're married, and are seeking freedom from your wife, is she making you suffer or are you?
Does this mean I have to give up hamburgers?
Buddhism is the middle path. I've cut way down on them, but not cut them out entirely. Not only do I feel compassion for the animals I eat, I feel compassion for the plants, too. Something always suffers when I eat. Is a pig somehow more "worthy" to be spared than a lettuce plant? Even if I drank only water, I'd be killing all the microbes in the water.
But not eating leads to me suffering, and I'm not at the point yet where I can go without food and happily watch myself starve.
|
Does this mean I have to give up hamburgers?Buddhism is the middle path. I've cut way down on them, but not cut them out entirely. Not only do I feel compassion for the animals I eat, I feel compassion for the plants, too. Something always suffers when I eat. But not eating leads to me suffering, and I'm not at the point yet where I can go without food and happily watch myself starve.
Your knees aren't pretty enough to be a supermodel. You will never have to worry about reaching that point ;)
Your knees aren't pretty enough to be a supermodel.
Alas, I'm nowhere near dumb enough, either.
But, but, but…
It seems to me that ‘want nothing’ leads to sitting right here until I die of dehydration. I think that is unproductive, bad and I am fairly confident not exactly what Buddha had in mind. So how far do I go down that path before I veer? Is it when I see Buddha and kill him? How do I know when to veer?
Someone once asked Thich Nhat Hanh why he gardened when he could spend all his time writing beautiful prose. He answered, "If I didn't garden, I would not be able to write beautiful prose."
Similarly, if we do not eat, we cannot meditate. If we sit in meditation all the time, denying ourselves food and water, we will eventually fall unconscious and die. We can no sooner achieve enlightenment by starving ourselves in meditation, then we can if we starve ourselves while playing World of Warcraft. We need to nourish our bodies as well as our minds. If we do not, eventually there will be no mind to nourish.
Incidentally, you are right when you say that starving ourselves is not what the Buddha had in mind. Before he became enlightened, he sat with five of his companions, denying himself food and water. Eventually, he realized that this self mortification was not the way to enlightenment, and he took some rice milk from a young girl to nourish his starved body.
When his companions saw this, they thought that he had abandoned them. Eventually, though, he became their teacher, and in his first sermon, he gave them the Four Noble Truths.
...in our current physical world...this type of nirvana is not attainable for everyone...So not all of my suffering comes from my desires. Some is as a result of other’s desires?
No. Some people may show you anger, and that anger comes from their own sufferings and cravings. However, they are never the cause of your own suffering. Only you cause that.
If I understand what Xaaon is referring to, it's an idea that humanity's ability to listen to and practice the Buddha-Dharma deteriorates over time, and that eventually, there will come an age when people will be unable to listen to and practice the Buddha-Dharma at all.
I'm still a bit of a fledgeling in my studies of Buddhism, but I'm not sure I accept this philosophy. My personal feeling is that everyone is capable of achieving enlightenment, but not everyone is willing to devote the time and energy to achieve it. I could be wrong about this, of course, but again, that's my feeling.
No. Some people may show you anger, and that anger comes from their own sufferings and cravings. However, they are never the cause of your own suffering. Only you cause that.
I understand this concept. I am not sure I am ready to accept it.
That was why I was badgering Kirth with hypothetical questions.
I am not happy in my marriage but I understand it is not my wife causing my suffering. I am suffering because I believe I will be happier alone or with someone else. I understand and accept that this longing to be in a different situation is causing my suffering. Not that I am necessarily willing to act or not act on that.
However, I am just not convinced that all suffering comes from desire. Bad things happen to people for apparently no reason. I can see how a person deals with that bad thing can determine how much suffering they have. Still, it seems to me that some of that suffering comes from an outside source.
Still, it seems to me that some of that suffering comes from an outside source.
Your suffering is a response, not an independent entity. With practice, your response to those "outside stimuli" becomes more malleable. Standing out in the rain without an umbrella makes one person grumble and cuss. To one who has attained a degree of enlightenment, it's a refreshing shower.
Physical sensations are easy to adjust one's reaction to -- I hardly ever accept anaesthetic at the dentist now, which causes my dentist no end of anxiety. Emotional reactions are much more insidious, and harder to let go of.
Your suffering is a response, not an independent entity.
Aha! Bad things happen, but that is not suffering in this context. How we respond to those bad things is either suffering or not. I think I get it now. Thank you, Kirth.
I hardly ever accept anaesthetic at the dentist now…
That would be cool. I fear the dentist (talk about creating my own suffering).
It occurs to me that no religion or philosophy will ever perfectly fit anyone except the person who developed the philosophy or religion. We are so unique that no one but ourselves can tell us how to live.
I thought the saying, ‘While on the path, if you should meet the Buddha, kill him.” meant some long time down the path. But maybe we should ‘kill’ him almost immediately. Or at least beat him up and take his money.
As humans, we all have a great deal in common. We need air, water and food to survive. So a philosophy which suggest we should breathe, drink and eat will, for the most part, work for everyone. Of course, how should we breathe? What should we drink and eat? For every person this may be different.
This goes back to trying it until it does not work. Maybe the Buddha was saying, “Hey, you know what? This works for me. And it seems to be working o.k. for a bunch of others. Give it a try. If it does not work, try something else.”
I am not happy in my marriage but I understand it is not my wife causing my suffering. I am suffering because I believe I will be happier alone or with someone else. I understand and accept that this longing to be in a different situation is causing my suffering. Not that I am necessarily willing to act or not act on that.
If it matters, I struggle with this delusion as well. One thing that I find helps is taking time to appreciate all the things she does for me.
Too often, I get caught up in thinking about what she hasn't done. She didn't pick up stamps at the grocery store today, or she didn't put away the bread. Lately, I've been trying to get out of this habit, and develop the habit of recognizing what she has done. She bought me chips and salsa, or she picked up an extra shift this week to help us pay bills. The more I do it, the easier I find it is to come up with things I appreciate.
However, I am just not convinced that all suffering comes from desire. Bad things happen to people for apparently no reason. I can see how a person deals with that bad thing can determine how much suffering they have. Still, it seems to me that some of that suffering comes from an outside source.
Well, it's important to understand that there's a difference between bad things happening, and suffering. Your house could burn down, you could lose all of your money in the stock market, or a beloved family member. There's nothing you can do to stop these things, no matter how much you meditate. The only thing you can control is how you react.
Let me give you an example. I used to get very angry at the other cars on the road when I drove to school. It was a one lane highway, the speed limit was 55 MPH, and everyone would go 45 MPH (at least until they hit the passing lane, then everyone would go 80 MPH). It drove me nuts. I would yell at them, honk at them, bang on my steering wheel, flash my lights, and do all the things people do when they have road rage. Eventually, though, I realized that all of my anger, rage, and frustration was not making the cars move any faster. It was only upsetting me. So I made a very concerted effort to not get angry, to just accept the fact that everyone was only going to go 45 MPH, and that when I reached the passing lane, I would have 30 seconds of driving at 55 MPH.
It didn't take very long before I stopped getting upset at the other drivers on the road. The situation didn't change. The only difference was how I reacted to it.
Now of course, not everything is this easy. There are some cravings that are much harder to overcome. For example, I still find it very hard to overcome my craving for financial stability. It's hard for me to recognize that sometimes, through no fault of my own, I'm going to struggle financially. My wife's hours could get cut, and there's nothing I can do about it. I could lose my job tomorrow, and there's nothing I can do about it. Yet, too often, I want to blame my wife, or or myself, or whomever I can think of for what's happening, in order to avoid the pain of simply accepting that this is how it is right now. I also feel great anxiety whenever I need to take money out of my savings to pay bills. Slowly, though, I'm recognizing that, rather than fighting the current of the waterfall, I simply need to swim through it, in order to reach the still waters downstream.
Buddhism is not about trying to avoid or remove pain from your life. You can't, at least not for long. You're always going to get angry, you're always going to feel sad. You cannot avoid it. Don't try.
Buddhism is about being aware of your feelings, of recognizing what triggers you, when it triggers you, and why it triggers you. It's about trying to be aware of every moment as it comes.
If you're still struggling with this concept, I would again recommend that you read Pema Chodron's "When Things Fall Apart." It talks a lot about this concept of working with groundlessness.
My wife's hours could get cut, and there's nothing I can do about it. I could lose my job tomorrow, and there's nothing I can do about it. Yet, too often, I want to blame my wife, or or myself, or whomever I can think of for what's happening, in order to avoid the pain of simply accepting that this is how it is right now. I also feel great anxiety whenever I need to take money out of my savings to pay bills. Slowly, though, I'm recognizing that, rather than fighting the current of the waterfall, I simply need to swim through it, in order to reach the still waters downstream.
Let me add a caveat that, for anyone but a transcendently enlightened being, there's no harm in planning ahead. The point is not to cause bad things to happen to yourself through your own carelessness just so that you have a neat opportunity to act like they don't bother you -- that doesn't help you any. For example, if you have car trouble, that's one thing... but no one needs to intentionally stop changing the oil (or just stop worrying about maintenance altogether) just so they can prove how "enlightened" they are by not getting frustrated when the poor thing breaks down.
Life tosses plenty of practice our way without us needing to engineer more.
Kirth put it into perspective for me, but thank you for the elaboration. It is exactly what I took Seven Habits of Highly Effective People to mean about responsibility. Response ability gives me the power to choose how I respond to situations. There are things outside of my circle of influence and trying to control those only leads to frustration or suffering if you prefer. Control what is within your circle of influence and you will find it expands.
Now, this trying to control what is within your circle may not match up exactly with Buddhism. Buddhism seems more concerned with only controlling your attitude.
I do not hate my wife and it is not the little things that really bother me. Sure, she leaves a cabinet door open and I think to myself, “How difficult is it to shut a cabinet door.” But then it passes. I realize it is a little thing and let it go.
Here comes the TMI part, I welcome you to stop reading if you do not want to go down this path. My daughter turns six this week. My wife and I have had sex seven times since she was born. That is only if you include handjobs. This is what frustrates me.
I realize my suffering comes from the desire to have more. It is just difficult. Leaving may satisfy the desire in the short term, should I find some other partner that is more aligned with my sexual needs. But is that not just chasing after a never ending cycle of desires? On the other hand, is it right living to live with someone I feel I am incompatible with?
As I posted earlier, I do not expect anyone to have the answers for me. Only I have them. This is just where I am coming from.
That sounds very Unitarian.
I am still reveling in being an anti-christ. Don’t fence me in, man.
I thought the saying, ‘While on the path, if you should meet the Buddha, kill him.” meant some long time down the path. But maybe we should ‘kill’ him almost immediately. Or at least beat him up and take his money.
I admit that I don't fully understand this parable. However, the way it was explained to me is that you shouldn't mistake the man for the divine. The Buddha himself was a great philosopher yes, and his philosophy changed history. However, in the end, he was just a man delivering a message, and it's the message you should pay attention to. Therefore, if you meet someone claiming to be the Buddha, you should recognize that it is just a man, and not a divine being with all the answers. I don't know if that helps.
This goes back to trying it until it does not work. Maybe the Buddha was saying, “Hey, you know what? This works for me. And it seems to be working o.k. for a bunch of others. Give it a try. If it does not work, try something else.”
That's exactly it.
Let me add a caveat that, for anyone but a transcendently enlightened being, there's no harm in planning ahead. The point is not to cause bad things to happen to yourself through your own carelessness just so that you have a neat opportunity to act like they don't bother you -- that doesn't help you any. For example, if you have car trouble, that's one thing... but no one needs to intentionally stop changing the oil (or just stop worrying about maintenance altogether) just so they can prove how "enlightened" they are by not getting frustrated when the poor thing breaks down.
Life tosses plenty of practice our way without us needing to engineer more.
True dat.
Here comes the TMI part, I welcome you to stop reading if you do not want to go down this path.
CF, that to me is a temporal problem, not a spiritual one... in short, marriage counselling on that front might do more for you than any number of Buddhist parables. When the toilet floods, I call a plumber, not an exorcist!
I admit that I don't fully understand this parable.
I think we can all agree it is not meant literally. One, the Buddha is already dead, or at least, gone. Two, I seriously doubt he was suggesting murder.
I also love that it is amusing in its absurdity. Just the mental immage of monks running down the Buddha and killing him.
I agree it is important to focus on the message and not the method of delivery. I see how you could take this parable to mean that. That is not how I would at first take it. I take it as, “I do not have all the answers. So when you get to where I am, you are on your own.”
My meaning in “…beat him up and take all his money.” Is take what is useful, toss what is not. I do not buy into reincarnation. And, until today, I was not buying into all suffering comes from desire. So with Kirth’s help, I avoided tossing some important stuff.
As for how would one know what is important and what is not…when you get to where I am, you are on your own.
When the toilet floods, I call a plumber, not an exorcist!
We have tried that. She is not going to change. It is futile for me to try and change her. After all, what gives me the right to change her?
I have learned two valuable lessons in life. Two requirements are necessary to help someone. You must have the capacity to help them. For instance, if someone is drowning, you can not help them if you are also drowning. This keeps me up at night thinking about our current financial crisis and Iraq. The second requirement is that the person must want help.
You do bring up a good point in that I should not ignore the temporal for enlightenment. Not letting oneself starve does not just mean eating.
After all, what gives me the right to change her?
That is a very wise point.
All I can suggest is that you weigh options so as to create the least amount of aggregate suffering among the three of you -- your wife, your daughter, and yourself. If you and your wife would be happier apart, that is obviously not something that I can change. A separation of parents is traumatic for a child -- but is it more traumatic than growing up in a household that seems devoid of love and cooperation? None of these are questions that I can answer, or even help with. All I can do is to wish you the best possible results, which I do with great good wishes.
All I can do is to wish you the best possible results, which I do with great good wishes.
Thank you.
Here comes the TMI part, I welcome you to stop reading if you do not want to go down this path. My daughter turns six this week. My wife and I have had sex seven times since she was born.
I realize my suffering comes from the desire to have more. It is just difficult. Leaving may satisfy the desire in the short term, should I find some other partner that is more aligned with my sexual needs. But is that not just chasing after a never ending cycle of desires? On the other hand, is it right living to live with someone I feel I am incompatible with?
I don't think the two of you are incompatible. If you were, you would never have married each other. I also think that if you were incompatible, you wouldn't have a beautiful daughter together, and you wouldn't want to stay together now.
I think there's still love there. I think what's happened is that it just hasn't been tended to.
I think you should talk to your wife, or write her a letter. I think you should say something to the effect of, "My love, I am sorry that I have not tended to our relationship. I love you, and I want to share my life with you. Unfortunately, I forgot how to tell you these things. I remember now, though, and I need to tell you how much you mean to me.
"So let's start over. Let's take some time for each other, and remember how much we love each other. We can get a babysitter and go out tonight, or we can just stay here and hold each other. I love you, and I want us to be together always."
See what happens.
To many evangelical Christians, Unitarian = anti-christ.[/threadjack over]
Just for the record, I was not suggesting that conclusion.
I think you should talk to your wife, or write her a letter.
Solid advice. I find it very difficult to undertake because I have already decided (right or wrong) what the end result will be.
To many evangelical Christians, Unitarian = anti-christ.
My wife and I were married by a Unitarian minister. As one of my groomsmen concluded, "Erik, no offence, but your minister's kind of a dick!" He sure performed a nice ceremony, though -- very professional and very well-spoken.
|
To many evangelical Christians, Unitarian = anti-christ.[/threadjack over]Just for the record, I was not suggesting that conclusion.
I know, I was being facetious.
What I was suggesting is that your very logical and rational approach to religion is very Unitarian. While my knowledge is kind of spotty, I usually like what they have to say (and I'm there almost every week). They don't have any specific doctrine, but encourage their members to believe in whatever is most meaningful for them, be it Christian, Buddhist, Atheist, Humanist, etc. Your statement reminded me of that approach.
I'm a terrible threadjacker... This thread was about Buddhism. If I wasn't a celestial and therefore incapable of sin, I would be very guilty right now.
I'm a terrible threadjacker...
I have been accused of that a time or two. A thread should be like a leaf in the wind.
I'm a terrible threadjacker... This thread was about Buddhism.On the contrary:
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! 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!"
And Unitarians as well!
Solid advice. I find it very difficult to undertake because I have already decided (right or wrong) what the end result will be.
I can definitely understand where that fear comes from. It's not easy to tell someone how you feel, because it leaves you very open to being hurt. However, I still think you should write her a letter. You don't have to give it to her, but write it anyway.
If it helps, Thich Nhat Hanh provides a template for such a letter in his book, "Anger." If you want, I can write it up and post it here. Let me know.