Problems and Queries with Buddhism

Red21

wylo wrote: »

I cant personally prove this but the guys listed above all come from a similar angle , ie working off some of the old texts where teachings and practices were less dogmatic and where results were expected.

This is what I don't get, why would being old texts make them better any better than being new texts, if you don't believe in some deity from the past I don't understand why you would look to the past for spiritual guidance.
Let me explain, Christians get many of their spiritual teachings from Jesus Christ, the reason they accept these teachings is because they hold the belief that he was a God/Son of God so it's acceptable for them to look to the past, I don't believe that Jesus was a god but I fully understand their reasoning for looking to the past.If a person belives that the Buddha was a god it also makes sense for them to be looking back to old texts, if you don't think Buddha was a god then the only other option is that the source of Buddhism came from a human being.
Humans haven't become extinct, in fact there are more of them now than ever, the source of your spiritual guidance lives on. If you say that the Buddha was a very rare person lets say 1 in a 100 million that still gives you 70 individuals alive today. There must be over a billion teenagers alive today over the next 30/40 years why not look there for your source material, why always looking to the past as if to glorify it in some way?
If you look at Buddhism as a coming together of many enlightened people to produce the teachings, a kind of building on past teachings effort don't you get every kinda person throwing in their two pence worth then you're left with the obvious problem of trying to filter the good from the bad.
I'm not saying all this just to make a pointless attack on buddhism i've read up a little on it and do see wisdom in what i've read but these are some of the concerns/views I have.

wylo wrote: »

Put it this way, why would the Buddha even bother teaching if he didnt think his method worked?

I've considered this already, I believe however was the source of Buddhism was inconceivably wise, the fact that they made the decision to teach is the only good news concerning all this.
The idea that there is a path, meditations etc is very difficult to believe for me, it just doesn't stack up. Thats why I mentioned prayers earlier, the reason people prayed is because the suffered were afraid, they also claimed to have experieces and i'm sure they did. Doesn't this sound a lot like meditations.
What has having experiences got to do with where you're trying to get to?

Asiaprod

I am having a hard time deciding if you are genuine or just a troll Burt.
In your next post convince me that you are not and are genuinely seeking answers here.

Burt Lancaster

Now I'm a troll ?

I have questions about Buddhism, but for the most part, instead of staying on topic, I've either been presented with strawmen or thinly veiled ad hominem for asking questions, which I suppose is an answer in itself.

If you know about Buddhism, lets talk about Buddhism.

wylo

Burt Lancaster wrote: »

Now I'm a troll ?

I have questions about Buddhism, but for the most part, instead of staying on topic, I've either been presented with strawmen or thinly veiled ad hominem for asking questions, which I suppose is an answer in itself.

If you know about Buddhism, lets talk about Buddhism.

No you just seem to ignore the points being made, which are completely relevant to the discussion.

Why are you still hanging around if we're not giving you the answers you want?

Asiaprod

Burt Lancaster wrote: »

If you know about Buddhism, lets talk about Buddhism.

I know about Buddhism, I've been one for 30 years, my wife for 20, my kid for 18.
What do you want to know.

Burt Lancaster

The questions are all there

Asiaprod

You said lets talk, so talk. I have no inclination to go wandering around this thread trying to decide what you want to know.

[-0-]

I'm with Asiaprod on this one. It has to be a trolling attempt. If it's not, some of the responses by the OP are just down right rude. He/she has my forgiveness, though.

Burt Lancaster

You can continue in that vein, or you could start with the questions in the OP

Asiaprod

There is no vein, nor attitude. I respond in like manner to how you pose your questions.

There is not one question in that OP that can be answered definitively. The reason is there are too many schools of Buddhism and each may have a different take on it. For example, and this is only a partial list of schools:

"Conservative Buddhism"
an alternative name for the early Buddhist schools.

"Early Buddhist Schools"
the schools into which Buddhism became divided in its first few centuries; only one of these survives as an independent school, Theravāda

"East Asian Buddhism"
a term used by scholars[1] to cover the Buddhist traditions of Japan, Korea, Singapore and most of China and Vietnam

"Eastern Buddhism"
an alternative name used by some scholars[2][page needed] for East Asian Buddhism; also sometimes used to refer to all traditional forms of Buddhism, as distinct from Western(ized) forms.

"Esoteric Buddhism"
usually considered synonymous with "Vajrayāna".[3] Some scholars have applied the term to certain practices found within the Theravāda, particularly in Cambodia.[4][page needed]

"Hīnayāna"
literally meaning "lesser vehicle." It is considered a controversial term when applied by the Mahāyāna to mistakenly refer to the Theravāda school, and as such is widely viewed as condescending and pejorative.[5] Moreover, Hīnayāna refers to the now non extant schools with limited set of views, practices and results, prior to the development of the Mahāyāna traditions. The term is currently most often used as a way of describing a stage on the path in Tibetan Buddhism, but is often mistakenly confused with the contemporary Theravāda tradition, which is far more complex, diversified and profound, than the literal and limiting definition attributed to Hīnayāna .Its use in scholarly publications is now also considered controversial.[

"Lamaism"
an old term, still sometimes used, synonymous with Tibetan Buddhism; widely considered derogatory.

"Mahāyāna"
a movement that emerged out of early Buddhist schools, together with its later descendants, East Asian and Tibetan Buddhism. Vajrayāna traditions are sometimes listed separately. The main use of the term in East Asian and Tibetan traditions is in reference to spiritual levels,[8][page needed] regardless of school.

"Mainstream Buddhism"
a term used by some scholars for the early Buddhist schools.

"Mantrayāna"
usually considered synonymous with "Vajrayāna".[9] The Tendai school in Japan has been described as influenced by Mantrayana.[8][page needed]

"Newar Buddhism"
a non-monastic, caste based Buddhism with patrilineal descent and Sanskrit texts.

"Nikāya Buddhism" or "schools"
an alternative term for the early Buddhist schools.

"Non-Mahāyāna"
an alternative term for the early Buddhist schools.

"Northern Buddhism"
an alternative term used by some scholars[2][page needed] for Tibetan Buddhism. Also, an older term still sometimes used to encompass both East Asian and Tibetan traditions. It has even been used to refer to East Asian Buddhism alone, without Tibetan Buddhism.

"Secret Mantra"
an alternative rendering of Mantrayāna, a more literal translation of the term used by schools in Tibetan Buddhism when referring to themselves.

"Sectarian Buddhism"
an alternative name for the early Buddhist schools.

"Southeast Asian Buddhism"
an alternative name used by some scholars page needed] for Theravāda.

"Southern Buddhism"
an alternative name used by some scholars page needed for Theravāda.

"Śravakayāna"
an alternative term sometimes used for the early Buddhist schools.

"Tantrayāna" or "Tantric Buddhism"
usually considered synonymous with "Vajrayāna". However, one scholar describes the tantra divisions of some editions of theTibetan scriptures as including Śravakayāna, Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna texts . Some scholars, particularly François Bizot, have used the term "Tantric Theravāda" to refer to certain practices found particularly in Cambodia.

"Theravāda"
the traditional Buddhism of Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and parts of Vietnam, China, India, Bangladesh and Malaysia. It is the only surviving representative of the historical early Buddhist schools. The term "Theravāda" is also sometimes used to refer to all the early Buddhist schools.

"Tibetan Buddhism"
usually understood as including the Buddhism of Tibet, Mongolia, Bhutan and parts of China, India and Russia, which follow the Tibetan tradition.

"Vajrayāna"
a movement that developed out of Indian Mahāyāna, together with its later descendants. There is some disagreement on exactly which traditions fall into this category. Tibetan Buddhism is universally recognized as falling under this heading; many also include the Japanese Shingon school. Some scholarsalso apply the term to the Korean milgyo tradition, which is not a separate school. One scholar says, "Despite the efforts of generations of Buddhist thinkers, it remains exceedingly difficult to identify precisely what it is that sets the Vajrayana apart."

(Source: Wikipedia)

Burt Lancaster

Asiaprod wrote: »

There is not one question in that OP that can be answered definitively.

That’s my queries answered so, and you appear to know about Buddhism. Thank you.

Asiaprod

You are welcome. If we can help again feel free.

Doc Ruby

[-0-] wrote: »

I'm with Asiaprod on this one. It has to be a trolling attempt. If it's not, some of the responses by the OP are just down right rude. He/she has my forgiveness, though.

I found the discussion to be very interesting to be honest, and was a bit taken aback by the sudden accusations of trollery at the end. Burt appeared to be genuinely seeking answers to questions that troubled him, and he's probably not alone at all in this.

Many, many people in this country have grown deeply disillusioned with the Abrahamic faiths, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, given recent events and revelations, and are looking for a way to express their spiritualism. That might not suit the not-a-religion school of thought, but I believe that's the way it is.

So what remains? Hinduism, the association with the derisory term "sacred cow" is too strong. Taoism, Confucianism? Wicca? Maybe, but again some dodgy new age associations there. The new big-business-beliefs some immigrants are trying to import from down south? No. The old gods of our forebears are buried in the dark places for the most part. So maybe Buddhism sounds like it might be a good option.

My own newfound interest derives from studying the achievements of Wim Hof, "the Iceman", for my own reasons, a masterful practitioner of Tummo Yoga, and trying to learn about some of the spiritual beliefs underpinning this and other meditative and breathing practises. I've studied many different sources and tried to learn as much as I can, but I'd appreciate the chance to ask some questions that, like Burt, have been bothering me, in a respectful and appreciative manner.

Asiaprod

Ask away. We are alway happy to talk about it. Burt was not stopped. The user currently has a poll going.

Doc Ruby

Thanks, okay well basically my research has covered the good and bad of Buddhism, its a belief system or collection of belief systems that can be misunderstood and abused, or used for good and to make people feel better about themselves, like any other.

I also appreciate the vast number of subgroups under the broad umbrella of Buddhism, so its pointless trying to find out about specifics in many ways; everyone has a different answer.

However: the first noble truth is that life is suffering. This is an irrefutable fact that cannot be denied. It is realistic rather than pessimistic because pessimism is expecting things to be bad. lnstead, Buddhism explains how suffering can be avoided and how we can be truly happy.

This one is giving me real trouble since its the foundation stone for the whole belief system, or maybe not, but rather that part of the belief system that deals with attaining Nirvana. I find it very hard to accept that life is nothing but suffering. This then becomes a self fulfilling prophecy with the second noble truth, which indicates that even seeking happiness is only a precursor to misery.

Adjusting your wants to match the world is a better way to live than adjusting the world to meet your wants, surely that is antithetical to progress, technological and social, which is quickly on its way to providing people with very long and healthy lives where they can live very comfortably without difficulty, coming back to the first noble truth?

I have little difficulty with the five precepts, but anything in the eightfold path relating to the first noble truth is just jarring to me. The first of the second steps of the eightfold path for example, renouncing desire, seems self defeating, since that must also include the desire to fulfill the eightfold path.

I can definetely see how Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration could have given rise to all of the many remarkable disciplines that Buddhist practices have produced.

Overall it just seems like two seperate ideological stances tied together, the drive to reach nothingness and the excellent moral, mental and physical advice. They don't blend well, to my mind.

My interpretation of something similar to Nirvana, from what I can tell, is not unlike what athletes and soldiers can sometimes experience under high pressure, a stepping away from the situation and acting without knowledge, thought or understanding. Its very difficult to explain really, everything seems to come together and you succeed with little effort. Almost impossible to replicate after the event though.

Hope that wasn't too rambling!

conor.hogan.2

Life is suffering is a very simplistic common translation.

I believe the circular bind of the noble truths can be explained something like how that link explains another double bind. It is not quite the same, but similar.

I think of this all as a "thorn to remove the first thorn" once you are "done" you remove both thorns and potentially use them to kill the Buddha should you meet him again.

Your last point also reminds me of something taught in Zen, when an Archer or a swordsman does not think of when to strike or release they just act.

But again this is all my reading into mainly Zen teaching, so take it lightly.

Doc Ruby

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Life is suffering is a very simplistic common translation.

Thanks, that's a more useful definition. It still has problems though, while being true in all of its particulars - if happiness is impermanent, then certainly suffering must also be impermanent.

Rather than trying to opt out into the permanence of oblivion, would it not be better to embrace the truism that the only constant is change, and use the experiences of suffering to not only heighten enjoyment of the good times, but to learn from?

As they say, every problem brings opportunity, and this lesson is repeated many times throughout all walks of life, from natural evolution to Patton saying "fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man".

Rather than seeking to opt out, I would embrace life, warts and all, and try to make the world a better place, much more so if I'm going to be returning to it (and the writings on the particular mechanics there are some of the most fascinating in Buddhism I find). What incentive is there to achieve anything if all you want is nothing?

As with all mainstream religions, these issues have probably been discussed innumerable times over the last few thousand years, so thanks for your patience as I attempt to explore the ideas.

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Your last point also reminds me of something taught in Zen, when an Archer or a swordsman does not think of when to strike or release they just act.

I've experienced it or something very similar a couple of times myself, as I said its very difficult to put into words. Its like the world moves around you and goes where its meant to go. That may be just a psychological effect or getting lucky from time to time, but if it happens, you know it.

wylo

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Rather than trying to opt out into the permanence of oblivion, would it not be better to embrace the truism that the only constant is change, and use the experiences of suffering to not only heighten enjoyment of the good times, but to learn from?

As they say, every problem brings opportunity, and this lesson is repeated many times throughout all walks of life, from natural evolution to Patton saying "fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man".

Rather than seeking to opt out, I would embrace life, warts and all, and try to make the world a better place, much more so if I'm going to be returning to it (and the writings on the particular mechanics there are some of the most fascinating in Buddhism I find). What incentive is there to achieve anything if all you want is nothing?

As with all mainstream religions, these issues have probably been discussed innumerable times over the last few thousand years, so thanks for your patience as I attempt to explore the ideas.


I've experienced it or something very similar a couple of times myself, as I said its very difficult to put into words. Its like the world moves around you and goes where its meant to go. That may be just a psychological effect or getting lucky from time to time, but if it happens, you know it.

I think the confusion (and a fair confusion tbh) is when words like happiness rise up.


Ill try and talk about it with examples.
I see you're into bushcraft, so lets pretend you hate being stuck in an office ( maybe you do maybe you dont, for this example we'll pretend its something you hate).

Suppose when you are doing bushcraft you are "in the zone", you're at peace, you're carving out your cooking utensils, you're preparing your food etc, some things are going wrong, other things are going smoothly but the whole process has an underlying element of peace because you're thoughts are not elsewhere, you're not creating dissatisfaction, you're not creating desire for things to be different, theres an acceptance of your reality right now.

So then a week later , you're back in the office, listening to a manager talk BS, its blue sky outside and you're stuck looking at a computer and taking emails. There is a deep dissatisfaction and desire running through you, a dissatisfaction that if you examined carefully enough you would be able to feel the physical tension arising in your stomach, you cant wait till 5 o clock, you cant wait till next month when you're heading off to the forest again for more bushcraft.
I may have painted two very extreme pictures there, but once you realize more clearly that this is the case, it starts becoming more and more obvious

What the practice makes you realize is that people experience their life in the latter state alot of the time, "life is suffering", they believe its the situations fault and not a fault of thought and mind. And its gotten worse in the Western world imo. They assign certain situations to the reasons they are unhappy, and certain situations to the reasons they ARE happy. They are in a constant mode of looking for conventional stuff that should fix this. And its only natural that they wouldnt question it when every single person in their life is doing the exact same thing.


Now, realizing this stuff doesnt suddenly make you not want to do bushcraft. But it removes that underlying dissatisfaction that makes you want to cling onto one thing and stay away from other things, this is done true tremendous understanding of how tensions arise in the body, meditation (of hugely wide varieties), insight practice, and then attaining realizations(be it slowly or suddenly).

So long your example of athletes or soldiers, you are in a much higher concentrated state and not getting bogged down or confused or feeling tension as a result of thoughts.

So its not that you suddenly try and make yourself happy all the time, its that there is an underlying acceptance of all the good and bad, that leaves an underlying satisfaction with life.

So life is suffering, but it doesnt need to be. I would imagine people that get into this stuff independently have a stronger dissatisfaction with life than others. But ironically when you start to free yourself up from elements of suffering that you thought were NOT suffering, then it becomes apparent in everyone, the difference is the level of tolerance to it seems to be higher. Again, id probably suspect that this is because we've all told each other when and where we're "supposed" to be suffering.

Doc Ruby

Okay, so if I have distilled this down correctly, and it is complex, the first and second noble truths are not that the world is full of misery, but that misery exists only in the mind, and being happy in any given situation is simply a question of mental balance? And once this is attained completely one is Enlightened.

That would certainly make a lot more sense, if I've picked it up right - focus on what you're doing at the moment and don't let yourself be distracted.

If I've got that much, there are follow on questions and observations though - firstly it would explain the acceptance part of Buddhist philosophy, but then why do anything once you have achieved this state of balance? If something doesn't bring more satisfaction to one degree or another than other things, how or why does one direct one's life?

conor.hogan.2

Doc Ruby wrote: »

And once this is attained completely one is Enlightened.

That would certainly make a lot more sense, if I've picked it up right - focus on what you're doing at the moment and don't let yourself be distracted.

If I've got that much, there are follow on questions and observations though - firstly it would explain the acceptance part of Buddhist philosophy, but then why do anything once you have achieved this state of balance? If something doesn't bring more satisfaction to one degree or another than other things, how or why does one direct one's life?

imo, yes. As far as I can gather of Zen this is also true. "when hungary eat, when tired sleep".

wylo

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Okay, so if I have distilled this down correctly, and it is complex, the first and second noble truths are not that the world is full of misery, but that misery exists only in the mind, and being happy in any given situation is simply a question of mental balance? And once this is attained completely one is Enlightened.

Id say if we kept it simple, stayed out of specifics of what criteria, realizations would be expected of people in various teachings, then yea, I think your assessment is a fair one.

That would certainly make a lot more sense, if I've picked it up right - focus on what you're doing at the moment and don't let yourself be distracted.

Thats it simplified, so obviously if you were seriously interested you would find what the best techniques are out there that sit right with you, but yea, the whole thing is based around experiencing and accepting your reality as it is, as oppose to resisting it, wanting something different, so it may go much deeper than just focusing what you are doing at the moment, but I can even see how even constantly doing that alone could yield huge benefits over time, because that in itself is a form of meditation and concentration.

but then why do anything once you have achieved this state of balance? If something doesn't bring more satisfaction to one degree or another than other things, how or why does one direct one's life?

Well firstly, theres sort of an assumption there that a person needs to be suffering to make a choice to do something else. Whereas my point is that suffering doesnt need to be in the picture at all, no matter how someone lives their life. And even though that may sound a little strange I think its very true, having a deep strong inner peace can be there whether your in an argument with someone, choosing what job what you want, choosing what hobbies you like, choosing what music you want to listen to.


Theres also another part of your question, and this gets a little more specific to aspects that are thought where real inquiry is involved and where Id imagine people get put off.

As crazy as this sounds, ultimately there is not even a self/you involved in making those choices. And I know it seems paradoxical, if theres no self , whos taking up Buddhism? Whos trying to fix themselves? Who wants peace? But as Conor said, its sort of a thorn to remove a thorn, almost like buying into a belief to inquire, until the very core of the belief itself is shed.

Sorry if thats confusing:D

What got me into this was a very sudden realization that there was no self, thats why Im into all that aspect of it. But im starting to see there are loads of routes to this stuff, and really , anyone that works their ass off and investigates their nature as often as they can will most like have at least some kind of awakening imo.

Doc Ruby

wylo wrote: »

And I know it seems paradoxical, if theres no self , whos taking up Buddhism? Whos trying to fix themselves? Who wants peace? But as Conor said, its sort of a thorn to remove a thorn, almost like buying into a belief to inquire, until the very core of the belief itself is shed.

I think self can mean a lot of different things to different people, so what self means to you might not mean the same thing to me - clearly you don't find it confusing, so perhaps it would be best for me to understand what self means in your context?

The difficulty I have isn't neccessarily about suffering. I think I understand that satisfaction isn't the same as happiness, but what motivates a Buddhist to actually set goals and complete them, when one physical state is as good as any other?

Other thoughts - intense meditation is often used by athletes as a form of self-hypnosis. They focus on their goal, see it in their minds, and make it happen. Perhaps Buddhist meditation is using the same effect to permanently alter one's personality, so rather than having to remind oneself constantly of the eightfold path and other truths, it becomes instinctive.

Thanks again for everyone's help with this, I feel like I'm slowly fumbling towards comprehension!

wylo

Doc Ruby wrote: »

I think self can mean a lot of different things to different people, so what self means to you might not mean the same thing to me - clearly you don't find it confusing, so perhaps it would be best for me to understand what self means in your context?

Admittedly it is a question ive often found difficult to answer other than describing "feelings" which can make it sound vague. Because I see it as an assumption that is not true, and all the feelings around that assumption usually point back to what a person believes their "self" is.
But anyway heres a small list
- the assumption and feeling that you are seperate from the rest of the world (from one perspective this may seem true, but ultimately its not, even from a scientific point of view)
- feelings of ownership over the body
- feelings of a you that decided to make certain decisions
- an exaggerated investment in your ego to protect the "self"
- the feeling that you are your brain
- the feeling that there is a you experiencING the world, as oppose to experience simply happening by itself.

Again, I know thats vague, but they are the features that I would consider a "self" to be that can be seen past.

But thats just my language, and my school of thought, other people talk of higher selfs, and True selfs. Its a whole debate in itself tbh. I just find "there is no self" very clear and can yield results to people that it clicks with.

The difficulty I have isn't neccessarily about suffering. I think I understand that satisfaction isn't the same as happiness, but what motivates a Buddhist to actually set goals and complete them, when one physical state is as good as any other?

Do you mean Buddhist goals in particular? Well to GET to that satisfactory way of being you must do the work, so theres your motivation. Even the Buddha had to learn how to do this stuff and eventually experience it.

But if you mean, just goals in general?
Well then, I guess theres still the truth of your current life that must be lived, putting food on the table, taking care of your kids, enjoying one thing slightly more than another.

Theres another thing, theres no need to make it so black and white. There are still a lifetime of habits built up that you arent gonna suddenly drop, its a small bit vaguer than you may making out (im speaking from a perspective of someone who sort of "gets into" later in their life as oppose to the religion)

Other thoughts - intense meditation is often used by athletes as a form of self-hypnosis. They focus on their goal, see it in their minds, and make it happen. Perhaps Buddhist meditation is using the same effect to permanently alter one's personality, so rather than having to remind oneself constantly of the eightfold path and other truths, it becomes instinctive.

Well, the core of most Buddhist practice is about clear experience of the very present, ie your actual sensations, but paradoxically the person is doing this with goals in mind, so I wouldnt really say Buddhists are doing what athlethes are doing by imagining a goal or anything like that. I guess the only time they are is when they are justifying WHY they are doing the practice. But that doesnt mean that that is the practice itself.
A weight lifter must lift some weights , not imagine himself strong if you follow!

Thanks again for everyone's help with this, I feel like I'm slowly fumbling towards comprehension!

Coo, in general though I think why it seems harder for clear answers to come is for a few reasons...

1. If you were to go into Islam or Christianity for instance, there is a set of beliefs that work from the Bible (or whatever else), not saying they dont disagree with each other either but I would imagine there is fairly clear consistency in terms of what their belief systems are so anyone can answer the questions.

2. I would say people practicing Buddhist techniques, especially people that are REALLY into it, become more passive, chilled and open minded and so are hesitant to sort of impose their stuff on you (I had an awful habit at the start of imposing my 'no self' stuff on people)

3. As has been mentioned a few times, its not a religion, yes there is the Buddhist religion and yes there is stuff like the 4 noble truths, but imo asking questions about Buddhism in general is like asking questions about fitness, its not a belief system like a religion, its a philosophy, but people throw that around alot, so ill try be more specific, one could apply SOME Buddhist techniques into their life to simply improve, hell , they could even call themselves a Buddhist if they wanted, and I really doubt much Buddhists would care, maybe im wrong, but Id say not.

And thats probably why the conversation broke down with Burt, he seemed to want answers in the same way another religious forum would have answers.

I would say even if you practiced a solid 10 mins of excellent concentrated meditation every evening, you could say you do some Buddhist practices.

Doc Ruby

Okay, I've mulled over and pondered this, and given it a little while to digest properly, trying to look at it from a variety of different angles. My comments as follows, again I am not trying to offend, merely to learn.

wylo wrote: »

Admittedly it is a question ive often found difficult to answer other than describing "feelings" which can make it sound vague. Because I see it as an assumption that is not true, and all the feelings around that assumption usually point back to what a person believes their "self" is.
But anyway heres a small list
- the assumption and feeling that you are seperate from the rest of the world (from one perspective this may seem true, but ultimately its not, even from a scientific point of view)
- feelings of ownership over the body
- feelings of a you that decided to make certain decisions
- an exaggerated investment in your ego to protect the "self"
- the feeling that you are your brain
- the feeling that there is a you experiencING the world, as oppose to experience simply happening by itself.

Again, I know thats vague, but they are the features that I would consider a "self" to be that can be seen past.

I can't find any internal consistency in that description, it references the brain, the body, the ego, the value of experience... maybe if you could provide say an example situation, what would a person without a sense of self do, and a different person with a strong sense of self?

wylo wrote: »

Well then, I guess theres still the truth of your current life that must be lived, putting food on the table, taking care of your kids, enjoying one thing slightly more than another.

But if one is enlightened, surely all things are enjoyed equally? Its as valid a life to sit meditating as it is to go forth, earn a medical qualification, and provide your services gratis to the poor if enlightened.

Is it the karmic reward in and of itself?

wylo wrote: »

3. As has been mentioned a few times, its not a religion, yes there is the Buddhist religion and yes there is stuff like the 4 noble truths, but imo asking questions about Buddhism in general is like asking questions about fitness, its not a belief system like a religion, its a philosophy, but people throw that around alot, so ill try be more specific, one could apply SOME Buddhist techniques into their life to simply improve, hell , they could even call themselves a Buddhist if they wanted, and I really doubt much Buddhists would care, maybe im wrong, but Id say not.

I think what attracts a lot of people to Buddhism is the impression of inner peace and the physical achievements associated with the practice.

As well as that of course I reckon soon there will be an influx of people who are just disaffected with the church, and they will want to know what time Buddhist mass is on! It might do no harm for Buddhist groups to prepare to reach out to these people, although I know Buddhism doesn't do evangelism. It would be good karma though. For these the religious overtones would be quite welcome, and to be honest I see nothing wrong with that.

Buddhism spread and was filtered through many different cultures in the far east, each wave taking on the religious overtones of the society it passed through, some of which are complete nonsense, like the spirit world being set up to mirror Chinese beaurocracy at the time in some beliefs, obviously social engineering. I wonder is there a Christianised version of Buddhism?

As I mentioned earler, my main interest is in figuring out how Wim Hof manages to run for five hours in his boxers north of the Arctic circle, but the more I learn the more interesting it is, I have to admit. The picture building up is one of prayer with a clear purpose as opposed to beseeching deities for help, a form of self hypnosis to focus the mind on balance and peace. Which is amazing, like hackers of the spirit.

There are three distinct strands from what I can see, the main philosophical strand, which is immensely healthy and beneficial, this is the inner peace which in turn feeds into the physical achievements (like clearing debris from the road before you run down it), the second strand, and the third strand would be the spiritual and religious elements.

On that matter I've read some very aggressive condemnation of Buddhism in particular based on the karmic rebirth cycle, in that people who are say handicapped from birth are so because they were evil in a previous life, clearly though that falls under the remit of the third strand, so Buddhists take it or leave it.

wylo wrote: »

And thats probably why the conversation broke down with Burt, he seemed to want answers in the same way another religious forum would have answers.

I'd agree, yes. I didn't see any troublemaking in his direct questions, maybe impatience.

wylo wrote: »

I would say even if you practiced a solid 10 mins of excellent concentrated meditation every evening, you could say you do some Buddhist practices.

This raises another question, which will maybe help me understand - how would the normal daily routine of a Buddhist differ from that of say a Christian? I know lots of different schools and even temples all have their own approaches, but in general.

Asiaprod

I'd agree, yes. I didn't see any troublemaking in his [Burt Lancaster] direct questions, maybe impatience.

Just want to address this issue briefly.
Burt was a serial rereg and had a long history of trolling the religion/faith based forums. I take anything he said with a grain of salt. Based on his previous dialogues, he was not here seeking answers.

Doc Ruby

Asiaprod wrote: »

Just want to address this issue briefly.
Burt was a serial rereg and had a long history of trolling the religion/faith based forums. I take anything he said with a grain of salt. Based on his previous dialogues, he was not here seeking answers.

Huh, looks like karma caught up with him. Still, at least something good seems to be coming from it.

CL7

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Huh, looks like karma caught up with him. Still, at least something good seems to be coming from it.

+1

I've found the discussion very interesting and I've started looking into Buddhism again because of it. I used to attend a meditation practice in Limerick years ago but I was put off by the mysticism I encountered there. I'm not sure if I can integrate it fully into my own philosophy but some of the practices seem really beneficial.

wylo

I can't find any internal consistency in that description, it references the brain, the body, the ego, the value of experience... maybe if you could provide say an example situation, what would a person without a sense of self do, and a different person with a strong sense of self?

Im no teacher, but I do have a year and a bit experience on ranting about no self, the response has often been one of 4:
1. Of course theres a self. (although this is one is fading with science)
2. Ah yes, I understand there is no self, but ive no interest or desire to "see" it truly. (seems to be alot of people, I can only make an assumption they are alot more satisfied with their life than I was)
3. Ah yes, I understand there is no self, and Id love to see what experiencing this is like (this was me)
4. What do you mean by self exactly??

Ive always found no.4 to be hardest to address, because the person seems interested amd obviously holds the view that there is no "soul" or "spirit" but at the same time, hasnt really discerned or questioned what it is they are referring to when they say "I".

All I can say, any sense that you are an a seperate individual that has a feeling of "I" is the sense of self. I know it may seem a little hard to believe that that sense can be dropped to a great degree, but tbh, all I can say is that its true!!

I honestly cant think of a good example of what someone with or without a sense of self would DO, its not really about personality, im really sorry and I know thats not helpful, maybe someone else will be able to cover me for that question.

All I can say is in my experience and the experience of many others of whom Ive talked to online, losing the sense of self is one of the core processes behind the total end of suffering, because what is realized after that every single thought about "self" was only a thought in itself referring to nothing.

So , to try and give a quick summary, I would say
self = mind
so when the mind subsides, all that is left is direct uninterpreted experience, which by default cannot be anything else but happiness , why? because it is realised that all suffering and negativity is entirely mind generated.


I hope that helps, but if it doesnt perhaps call out one of the other names and they may be able to contribute.

But if one is enlightened, surely all things are enjoyed equally? Its as valid a life to sit meditating as it is to go forth, earn a medical qualification, and provide your services gratis to the poor if enlightened.

Is it the karmic reward in and of itself?

But that kind of backs up what Im saying, that if you are enlightened in the Western world why would you have a sudden urge to do nothing or just sit around meditating, when whatever you were doing in the first place is just as valid. FWIW Im trying to run a business. Maybe Im not "fully" enlightened but Ive enough insight at this stage to fully understand where this is going.

I think what attracts a lot of people to Buddhism is the impression of inner peace and the physical achievements associated with the practice.

Well the message isnt a lie to be fair, its not only logical , but its fairly well presented without the requirement for dogma or a God.

As well as that of course I reckon soon there will be an influx of people who are just disaffected with the church, and they will want to know what time Buddhist mass is on! It might do no harm for Buddhist groups to prepare to reach out to these people, although I know Buddhism doesn't do evangelism. It would be good karma though. For these the religious overtones would be quite welcome, and to be honest I see nothing wrong with that.

I dont consider the practices a replacement for disillusioned catholics tbh, id say theyd have little interest, and any fairly heavily practicing buddhist wont have too much interest in teaching people who arent too eager.

Buddhism spread and was filtered through many different cultures in the far east, each wave taking on the religious overtones of the society it passed through, some of which are complete nonsense, like the spirit world being set up to mirror Chinese beaurocracy at the time in some beliefs, obviously social engineering. I wonder is there a Christianised version of Buddhism?

I would say there is definitely a vast amount of Buddhists in the east that dont give a crap about the practices. Like , after all, i have to admit, as much as I like to say its a philosophy, there still is a Buddhist religion with traditions etc. I dont know much about it, and havent too much interest in the different schools of thought, unless it has something practical and non dogmatic to offer.

As I mentioned earler, my main interest is in figuring out how Wim Hof manages to run for five hours in his boxers north of the Arctic circle, but the more I learn the more interesting it is, I have to admit. The picture building up is one of prayer with a clear purpose as opposed to beseeching deities for help, a form of self hypnosis to focus the mind on balance and peace. Which is amazing, like hackers of the spirit.

I dont like to nitpick because I know you're just trying to understand it, but from personal experience, I consider any form of hypnosis quite different to meditation, because meditation is about focusing on your experience (whether its breath or senses or whatever), whereas hypnosis is about getting into a trance and using affirmations (beliefs, suggestions). I would nearly go as far as saying they are the opposite of each other, but thats another debate.

There are three distinct strands from what I can see, the main philosophical strand, which is immensely healthy and beneficial, this is the inner peace which in turn feeds into the physical achievements (like clearing debris from the road before you run down it), the second strand, and the third strand would be the spiritual and religious elements.

I guess, tbh, ive lost all ability to discern what the word spiritual means anymore. I used to think it meant God/spirits/mystical etc etc, but it seems the more people I see into spirituality the more I realize its actually about trying to understand your reality. But I think your 3 strands analysis aint bad, now , they do fall in together at times too though.

On that matter I've read some very aggressive condemnation of Buddhism in particular based on the karmic rebirth cycle, in that people who are say handicapped from birth are so because they were evil in a previous life, clearly though that falls under the remit of the third strand, so Buddhists take it or leave it.

Well personally Im not a supporter of whatever school of thought something like that would come from. Sounds like complete dogmatic nonsense.

This raises another question, which will maybe help me understand - how would the normal daily routine of a Buddhist differ from that of say a Christian? I know lots of different schools and even temples all have their own approaches, but in general.

Do you mean day to day life in our normal Western world here in Ireland or in monasteries or what? If its the latter, I dont really know, because I dont know what happens in either types of monasteries to answer that question.

wylo

Ill just add one more thing, not that I dont like chatting etc, but , if you REALLY want to know about Buddhism, as in beyond all explanations , then Id suggest , sit down in a comfortable position in a quiet place, close your eyes, start breathing through your nose slowly, dont feel pressure to breath too heavily or too softly, you will notice loads of thoughts flowing up, allow them , but dont get caught in their content ,

Just notice that they are thoughts and mean nothing more, allow them to fade when they do, keep doing this until the thoughts start to dissipate, if you have already good patience you may be able to do this until you have barely any thoughts at all, and then maybe practically none.

This may take 20 mins , maybe more, maybe less, you may not even succeed in dissipating your thoughts at all. Open your eyes either way, and observe how the mind is quieter, if only for a minute or two. And that gives you a tiny tiny tiny tiny glimpse of what having a peaceful mind or awakening is like.

The idea of this little test is, even if you fail, you will understand how consumed you are by your thoughts. And if you dont fail, you will see that you can function perfectly well with a peaceful mind.

You could do that, or jump in the deep end like I did and try and see no self straight away, have a hard life changing awakening in the space of a few weeks, and work from there, hehe

18AD

I think one point which may be of interest in relation to the behaviour of someone who is enlightened (not that I have any authority on the subject) would be Alan Watts' analogy to modern psychotherapy. I have found this to be somewhat true in relation to self-analysis. Probably because I'm somewhat more familiar with the western terminology rather than the eastern.

His point is that self observation in buddhism acts much in the same way as modern psychoanalysis does in the western world. Perhaps we in the west were a bit late in picking up the same ball they copped on to ages ago.

Your decision making procedures are going to shift dramatically when you are more aware of your personal make up. For instance you may be aware that some of your anger is actually being misdirected from a past relationship into new ones, in which the anger actually has nothing to do with your current situation and relationships. Obviously there are thousands of varieties of these types of behaviour, this example is therefore not even exemplary. But the procedure of psychoanalysis, and if you agree with the analogy to buddhism, is very similar. To be aware of why you are doing things, why certain things make you happy or sad, and to know these cues and reflexes within yourself. And consequently allowing yourself to change through self-knowledge.



The question of hypnosis is really interesting. And perhaps I'm going to be a bit too liberal with my use of the term here, but however. wylo, I think you're mistaken in thinking that hypnosis is specifically an altered state of consciousness, or more specifically, that you think there is a regular state of consciousness that isn't "altered" already. Pretty much every belief and behaviour could be considered to be hypnotic.

Take for example the notion that you have a self. Is this not a hypnotic experience? It's not just a belief, it is experienced, or moreso, believed into existence. The experience of no-self is equally a hypnosis, but it seems to be a far more liberating hynotic effect.

I mean most of these experiences are tapped into through language use and behaviour. You can think yourself into no-self or into flying in a dream or into thinking you "are" an accountant. It seems that everything is pretty much in the realm of hynotic concepts.

I haven't given this hypnosis bit much thought. Just an idea.