Recent Updates Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts
-
hardie karges
-
hardie karges
Buddhism and Fear of the Unknown
Fear of the unknown is not a reliable guide to life. It comes from ignorance and leads to hatred. So, in fact, it’s probably one of the major challenges in life and one of the best reasons for the existence of religion, so that not so much is unknown if we all agree to a certain set of rules, given a certain set of circumstances. Many people hate the word ‘religion’, though, recounting all the wars fought in its name, without counting all the wars prevented in the same name. The problem is getting everyone enrolled in the same program.
Religion should make us all family, and that means in a good way. That’s the idea, anyway, limited only by the fact that people often don’t get along well with their families, either, and that’s gospel, unfortunately. The point is that fear is no way to live, and if we conquered nature to the extent that we no longer must be scared of it, then it’s doubly ironic that the substitute of migratory trails in rugged bush and brush in exchange for settled life in standalone cities would bring far worse circumstances from our own species, in circumstances far removed from logic.
Fast forward to the present day, and it would seem that we’ve conquered Nature and cities, too, but the reality is far different from that apparent truth. Because the fact is that the fear never lay in the realm of Nature or cities, either, but in our own hearts and our own cravings for things that we have no right to, as explained in the Buddha’s second Noble Truth, that craving is at the core of our suffering, and that is the result of a glitch in our hearts and our minds, same thing, really, which perceives lack as endemic, when nothing could be further from the truth, We have all that we need. We just need time and space and compassion and grace, not God’s but our own.
-
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
streaming consciousness... 
Reply