Recent Updates Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts
-
hardie karges
-
hardie karges
-
hardie karges
Buddhism and the Present Moment
Present moment or eternal now, Einstein gave time only one dimension. If that is enough for him, then it is enough for me. And this a very popular notion in Buddhism these days, present moment, though I don’t know that the Buddha ever actually used the term, either term, nor even how exactly that would be translated into Sanskrit or his own Magadhi prakrit. It’s a good term, regardless, though, I think, and dovetails nicely into the concept of mindfulness, which is a bit boring as simple awareness, the actual translation, a bit oversimplified as simply ‘no multi-tasking, but just right as the embrace of some magical present moment, whether that does indeed or does not actually exist.
Frankly I doubt that it’s accurate with the current state-of-the-art physics, but that’s not absolutely necessary. As stated before, if time is only one dimension, then that’s close enough for me. But that’s a matter of perspective, of course, and physics mathematical necessity. I’m not sure that space is not indeed just one dimension, for that matter, nor why time couldn’t be seen as three: past, present, and future. These are all words and limited by that, which is much the problem.
If some people think that we are now slaves to our smartphones, that’s nothing compared to our slavery to language, for at least 50-60k years, AT LEAST. And that’s the true meaning of mindfulness for me, if only accomplished by circuitous logic, i.e. thought without language. Because thought has gotten a bad rap at the same time that mindfulness and the present moment’s stock has soared. At that’s not really fair, since I know that the Buddha never dissed thought, but only bad thought(s). So here we can kill two birds with one stone, revive our notions of thought, and polish our concept of mindfulness. So, if you just gotta think, then make a good one. Otherwise, silent reflection just might be better.
-
hardie karges
-
hardie karges
-
hardie karges
The Buddha’s Parting Words Revisited: Lamp or Island?
You can be an island or a lamp, on a bicycle or a ship, and the path to fruition is the same, if you plant seeds along the way. The reference is to the Buddha’s parting words in which he urges followers to be a ‘lamp’ or to be an ‘island’, or either, or both, or neither, in catuhskoti logic, subsequent narrators, translators, and explainers suggesting that the word dipa can somehow mean both, when the reality is that it can only mean either, unless you’re making a play on words in Magadhi prakrit, aka ‘Pali’.
Because big brother Sanskrit shows that the original word(s) are clearly distinct, modern transliterations being closer to dvipa than dipa for the word that means ‘island’, for which the prakrit speakers presumably simply slurred down the more complex sorta-three-syllable word into only two distinct syllables, while explainers suggest that the original meaning is essentially the same. The only problem is that they’re not the same. So, this is more than linguistic fun, notwithstanding that Buddha might have simply made a pun, which I’m sure that he was capable of, being the human that he was.
Or maybe he was simply being prescient, since being an island refuge for yourself and/or a lamp for yourself and your path (and others’, since lamps tend to radiate outward), is very similar to the difference between the Theravada approach to Buddhist practice and the most obvious approaches to a Mahayana practice, that outward radiation being obviously more diverse by design and definition, more Bodhisattva than arahant. There are many Mahayanas. There is only one Theravada. Or in my Buddhist dialectic, it can allow for two-in-one, all in good time. As I said before, save yourself then save the world.
-
hardie karges
-
hardie karges
-
hardie karges
Buddhism 499: Taming the Mind…
Treat perfect strangers with the same kindness you give your pets and the world will be a better place. And pets deserve that special treatment, of course, but don’t we all? Because all too often, kindness is transactional, tit for tat, is it not? Yes, it is, whether we even realize it or not, we’re so accustomed to that sort of reciprocity, as long as the dog is loveable, of course, and silently obedient. And many Buddhists do that, also, which is not a bad thing in itself, unless it rewards evil at the same time.
Because justice and fairness is a real thing, too, of course, and that is the flipside to the equation. Pets are a special circumstance in the hierarchy of the world, and I love them greatly, no vestigial nostalgia for the savage wilderness here, no thank you. I wish that every animal in the world could be tamed and therefore survive, rather than live a precarious existence in a world where it is commonly thought that returning an animal to the wilderness is somehow standard logical procedure.
As always, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Conscientious taming seems perfectly acceptable to me, in lieu of wilderness, but dancing bears would seem to be going too far. But the point is that the kindness so often typically displayed toward our pets de rigueur is often totally lacking in our relationships to our human equals, even when they’ve done much to deserve it. No matter that there are Buddhist websites called Wildmind and so forth, the founding principle of Buddhism is to tame the mind, and that is a very good thing…
-
hardie karges
streaming consciousness... 
Reply