Buddhism "Intro + Guide" by Donald Lopez Jr

zag

Hi all,

I put this post on my Blog this morning, just thought I would post it here, as it would make an interesting debate:

I picked up a book on the shelf that I had wanted to read for quite a while. The Title is "Buddhism, An Introduction and Guide" by Donald Lopez Jr.

I read through the life of Buddha, which I had read before from other other sources. It was different, in a way. It seemed to me that it mixed mythology with history, for example, when the Siddhartha Gautama was born, he came from under his mother's arm, lotus flowers blossomed beneath his feet, and he could walk and talk already. It's a nice story, but it suggests that Buddha was super-human somehow, which I think detracts from the ideal that Buddha was an ordinary man, like us, and attained Buddhahood, attainable by any other ordinary man.

I take everything with a pinch of salt anyway, so it doesn't matter to me if the story is embellished. It makes a better read I suppose!

I read through the Non-Virtuous Deeds, there was one which confused me a little, namely Senseless Speech. Ok, the statement in itself makes sense, you should think about what you say before saying it. But, as I read on, it included the following list of no-nos: Gossip, Bragging, Locquaciousness, Lamenting, Singing (there was more, but I forget). Why would singing be a non-virtuous deed?

maitri

zag wrote:

Why would singing be a non-virtuous deed?

I believe that it isn't. Some people are just obsessed with making a lot of rules for themselves and others. Maybe as a protection from themselves and the world, to feel "in control"? I don't know.

I guess if it is a "good" thought behind it all, I guess that thought is to take away everything that binds us to the world and to suffering, e.g. singing.

But as I see it, "obsessive renouncing" is another kind of attatchement, and a much more negative one.

A person who is really free, will not have a problem with singing, I am absolutely sure. Or with other wordly pleasures. He just doesn't "bind" his (concept of) happiness to them. He doesn't make them a premise to be happy, but I am sure he would be able to enjoy them, anyway.

In order to experience and really understand (not only as an ideology) that our happiness really doesn't lie in this or that thing we yearn so much for (success orprosperousness, nice expensive furniture, big house, money, sex, singing, dancing etc...), maybe it's not so bad that we go out and really experience it? To pursue happiness where it is not, could maybe tell us something important about happiness? At least where not to look the next time.

Asiaprod

maitri wrote:

I believe that it isn't. Some people are just obsessed with making a lot of rules for themselves and others. Maybe as a protection from themselves and the world, to feel "in control"? I don't know.

I like your answer maitri. I believe that this is probably what happened.
When Buddhism first started to be practiced after the Buddhas death it was mainly aimed at living the life of a monk. I mean, ordinary men, and especially women, thought not to be able to attain enlightenment.
Singing was probably considered bad since it was a form of distraction that could lead to other things like drinking and sex. Every belief system has had people that just become plain stupid and make very silly laws. Two examples from christianity would be 1. St Francis wanted to stop all people having sex, really dumb since it would cause humans to become extinct, 2. the medieval church tried to ban laughter claiming it was the work of the devil.

I was taught very early on to understand that what we read was written down thousands of years ago, and related to people of that time. Now that we have moved on we must therefore not get hung up on the words but must retranslate them so to speak to fit the 21st century. What count are the ideals behind and not to take everything word for word as gospel truth. A classic example would be where the Creationists are trying to debunk evolution using Genesis 1-3 (the world was made in 7 days and the flood wiped out ALL humanity. I won't even mention the fact the Adam and Eve and the incestuous relationship of their offspring created the entire human population one sees today:)
This is just the same as the story that Siddhartha Gautama was born, he came from under his mother's arm, lotus flowers blossomed beneath his feet, and he could walk and talk already. This is just fools trying to deify the Buddha for what ever reason be it good or bad.Every belief tries to make their leader special or different from common mortals. The Buddha was a man, born in the normal manner and raised as any other rich kid. How he became special was by rejecting his easy life, mixing with the lower classes, understanding suffering and attaining enlightenment.............all, as a common man

Go with the underlying message, and do not get hung up on the words has always been my approach

zag

Thanks for the answers guys. They make good sense of the whole issue for me.

maitri

Asiaprod wrote:

Go with the underlying message, and do not get hung up on the words has always been my approach

Couldn't have said it better myself!

M.