Updates from hardie karges Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 3:41 pm on June 30, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,   

    Buddhist Love is not like Falling in Love, Sorry…     

    No, Buddhist love is nothing like the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth that often accompanies Christian ceremonies, whether birth or death or the multicolor gray area in between, mostly sex. Buddhist love, metta, is just a whole lot like friendship, and there’s nothing wrong with that. So, Platonic love, then maybe? I think Plato would be cool with that, maybe too cool. And that’s what falls short for a lot of people, for whom devotion is the primary practice of their religion. 

    It just doesn’t have the feeling of total surrender required for the religious experience in many people’s minds. But that’s Buddhism: cool, baby, cool. The devotional aspects were the last major additions to the three major canons of Buddhism, and long after the original discipline orientation of Theravada and the transcendental orientation of Mahayana. So, it’s no coincidence that the Tibetans got their Vajrayana straight from the source of India, which is primarily devotional to this day, whether of Shiva or Vishnu, no matter the object. Devotion is the important thing for the devotee. 

    But whether the two additional ‘vehicles’ may or may not have added something important to Buddhism, the core practice of discipline and dana (giving) remain unchanged. Upgrade the meditative practice of anapanasati to vipassana, and BOOM! You’ve got a rebirth of the original Buddhism with or without the doctrine of Rebirth to the non-Self (?!). Ouch. Yep, that’s better now, just to avoid questions that have no good answers. Too many cooks ruin the broth. The kindness is more important than the love.  

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 3:41 am on June 23, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,   

    Buddhism: Dealing with Dukkha, Suffering…  

    Depression and sadness are not the same thing. Still Buddhism can help with both. Dukkha, suffering, is a very broad concept, as all the modern reinterpretations prove. Still, it all comes down to unhappiness, as the modern Sanskrit (and Hindi and Nepali) words confirm: दुःखी, dukhi, nothing about stress, dissatisfaction, or my favorite word ‘bummer’: haha. Thank you, Google Translate. But if you think you’re clinically, i.e. chemically, depressed, always sad, you might want to get a clinical diagnosis, and solution, in addition to anything that Buddhism might be able to do for you. 

    Because what Buddhism can do best for you is to make you feel better about your current condition, seeing it as impermanent, as it certainly is, and even unreal, as it also arguably is. More importantly, it can help you realize that many of these conditions are the result of your own kileshas, errors, defilements, or shortcomings (not sins), in particular the defilement of avarice, or craving, or attachment to the passing show of superficial satisfactions of consumption, lust, and hatred.  

    These are problems with solutions, though, specifically training your mind to find its satisfactions elsewhere. Once you’ve found satisfaction in kindness and compassion, after all, why would you want to return to the crude contrivances of drunkenness, braggadocio, and one-upmanship? If you’re like me, then you probably wouldn’t. Subtle satisfactions that ease the sufferings of others can also have the added benefit of easing your own suffering, later if not sooner. We’re all in this together. 

     
    • jmoran66's avatar

      jmoran66 4:52 am on June 23, 2024 Permalink | Reply

      Another great post. I read it several times in succession, then went back to it again later.

      • hardie karges's avatar

        hardie karges 5:17 am on June 23, 2024 Permalink | Reply

        Thank you…

  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 2:50 am on June 16, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , Tiraatana, , Triratna   

    Buddhist Basics for Beginners: Three Gems… 

    Buddha, Dharma (teaching), and Sangha (community) are the three foundations of Buddhism. The Buddha, of course, is the one enlightened being to whom the inspiration for this teaching originally came and to whom we owe the effort at consolidation and collection of the diverse teachings into one coherent body of work. This happened at a time when such a thing had hardly been done before, and a paradigm hardly existed, so Buddha had to wing it. I’d say he did well. 

    The dharma, of course, is the teaching itself, which could arguably be considered the most important part of the practice. It is often translated as ‘law’ and that seems understandable, if we understand that the intention to commit as well as submit is central to the practice. The practice itself is somewhat novel in that you really don’t have to DO much of anything at all. This is perhaps best exemplified by the practice of meditation, something of a higher practice of Buddhism, not required but highly admired. 

    It’s much more important that you don’t do certain things, e.g lie, cheat, steal, kill, commit adultery, etc., very similar to the second half of the Biblical Ten Commandments (but don’t drink). All you really have to DO is be kind and peaceful. Unlike Christianity, though, which expects you to go forth and multiply, Buddhism is quite happy if you commit your life to meditation and contemplation. The object is to reduce suffering, not find bliss (sorry, Joseph C).  

    There are other dharmas, also, notably the Hindu sanatana dharma and Jainism, which are all similar, yet also quite different in specific details. The idea is to make the Sangha as large as possible, of course, the same as any religious practice, all of which work best when they have the largest number of members, for obvious reasons. If the majority of the world’s population could ever agree on anything, then that would be a notable accomplishment. If they could all agree to keep the peace at any cost, then so much the better. Buddhism is a good starting place. 

     
    • jmoran66's avatar

      jmoran66 8:38 pm on June 16, 2024 Permalink | Reply

      You just put Buddhism In A Nutshell in to a nutshell. Nicely done.

  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 3:46 am on June 9, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , dialogues, , , , , , , ,   

    Buddhism and the Middle Path with Feeling  

    Buddhism in Bhutan

    The fact that there is always a middle position between two extremes is not Buddhist. That’s business: buy low, sell high or just split the difference and celebrate the art of the deal, haha. The fact that there is a path is Buddhist. The middle position between extremes is also fundamental to the Socratic dialogues and resulting Platonic dialectic. And this is very compatible with Buddhism, in which a thesis and corresponding antithesis result in a higher synthesis.  

    The path comes into play over the passage of time, as multiple compromises and corresponding dialectics form a pathway over time. This assumes that the accumulated decisions and compromises are of a similar nature, such that the path has meaning in and of itself and they are not a series of isolated incidents. Why is this significant? Because this is your life, by analogy, at least, a path through the wilderness.  

    And we are all searching for something, aren’t we, mostly happiness and fulfillment, in this life, the rewards for which are not always monetary nor measurable in any way? The human dimension is one of feeling, above and beyond all thought and language, all physics and metaphysics, all rhyme and reason. Because if something just doesn’t feel good and feel right, then it’s mostly worthless, at the end of the day. For all our pretenses and pretensions, we are still animals, after all, pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain. 

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 3:52 am on June 2, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: anatman, , , , , , , , Indus River, , , , , , , , , ,   

    Buddhism vs. Hinduism, Non-Self vs. Cosmic Self…  

    Anatta/anatman (non-self) doesn’t mean that we are nothing, just not much: no permanent soul, certainly nothing cosmic like Brahman. And this is where the fundamental concept comes from, the debate with the Brahmanists that we now call Hindus, though at that time (500BCE) the term was unknown, at least to Indians themselves. Because that’s all that the term ever meant, really: people of the Indus River, i.e. Sindhu or Hindu, a river now identified with Pakistan. India is now more identified with the Ganges.  

    But the distinction that the Buddha wanted to make between his worldview and that of the Brahmanists was that he saw nothing like the cosmic Atman ‘self’ that they propose to unite with the equally cosmic Brahman god-stuff that exists as the creative principle of the Universe. And while Hindus recognize Buddhism as but one of many Hindu Veda-based sects, Buddhism is having none of that, and the self/non-self debate is at the heart of that issue.  

    In fact, Buddhism relegates ‘self’ to ‘heaps’ of random qualities called ‘skandhas’ or ‘khandhas’ in Sanskrit or Pali. They are form, feeling, perception, consciousness, and reasoning, of which we all share equal and certain quantities. No one collection of such qualities is more important than any other, just as no one person is better than any other. The racist caste system of India will forever define the difference between Hinduism and Buddhism, and the atman/anatman distinction is at the heart of that.

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 4:03 am on May 26, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , dissatisfaction, , Existentialism, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,   

    Buddhism 499: Sometimes Some Things Are Lost in Translation  

    Beware re-translations. The Buddha spoke a Sanskrit-related language. Sanskrit never went extinct. ‘Dukkha’ still means ‘suffering’, sorry. Many Western Buddhists try to manipulate the message, however slightly, to make it more appealing to Western tastes, but that says as much about Western tastes as it does about Buddhism. The issue in question, of course, is the First Noble Truth, which states something as innocuous—and obvious—as the fact that suffering exists, nothing more, nothing less, UNLESS: you want to make that jagged little pill a little easier for someone from Hoboken to swallow. 

    Because if the principle of suffering is important enough to list it first and foremost as the foundational principle of your new religion, then that’s easily hyperbolized into such platitudes as ‘Life is Suffering’, ‘All Life is Suffering’, and so on, which is understandable, but somewhat depressing for many Western tastes accustomed to fast food and Ferris Wheels (for those of us raised on Existentialism, it’s not such a problem). But the easiest way to mitigate that circumstance is to soften the edges of that term ‘suffering’ to make it sound more like ‘dissatisfaction’, ‘stress’ (ahem), ‘spot of bother’ (maybe ?), or my favorite: ‘bummer’, haha. 

    Okay, so I’m joking a little bit, but the modern notion of ‘stress’ was surely unknown in 5th C. BCE India, so that’s a bit of a joke, also. But the effort at mitigation is certainly allowable under the Buddha’s own notion of ‘skillful means’, so it’s just a question of what’s appropriate. Bottom line: dukkha means ‘suffering’ as surely today as it did 2500 years ago, as a quick trip to Google Translate will quickly prove (yes, they have Sanskrit). The problem is that many Westerners see life as something ‘fun fun fun’ and so actually want rebirth or reincarnation (if not eternal life), while many traditional Easterners downplay any attachment to this cosmic play of samsara, while seeking release in Nirvana. 

    What to do? Nothing, really, because Buddhism should not be concerned with gaining adherents or scoring points, but merely offering some solace and refuge for those who need such. The world is what it is, and you’re probably going to die, regardless of any and all medical advances (though Virtual Reality is a remote possibility). Therefore, even the best scientific advances can only be limited in scope, and satisfaction with those limits is much better than trashing ourselves and/or the planet in frustration. As always, the middle path offers a practical solution: enjoy life, but don’t get too attached to the wheel. Accept some limits without total submission to them. Persevere. The middle path is long and winding.

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 4:18 am on May 19, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , harmony, , , , , , , ,   

    Buddhism 103: Sometimes the Symptoms are the Disease…   

    Sometimes the symptoms are the disease. Suffering is like that. Buddhism is the medicine. There is no cure. That implies negation. But there is cessation. And that implies a diminution, by degrees, with the possibility, and expectation, of a complete removal of the causes of all suffering and the subsequent re-establishment of complete health, harmony, and happiness. And, if that sounds somewhat simplistic, then so be it, because such is human health. Diseases are not always the result of deep causes and conditions.  

    Sometimes diseases are ephemeral, and the slightest change of equilibrium can sink or float the entire boat. That’s why the super-young and super-old are most vulnerable. We’ve either lost that protective shield of healthy disposition, or we haven’t even developed it yet. But the simple disease of unnamed random suffering is even trickier to avoid and evade. Because it is purely psychological, with few or none of the biological connections to disease which are typically the case.  

    And that is where Buddhism can help the most, those cases in which biology has little or nothing to do with the suffering. Because suffering can be caused by anything—finances, relationships, bad attitudes, or work. And the solution to those kinds of problems fall into one of two categories, external or internal. You can either change your circumstances or you can change your connection to those circumstances. For example, you can change your work, or you can learn to like it. And many things work that way, a simple attitude adjustment. Add some meditation for extra benefit. It’s that special sauce. It works. Try it.  

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 5:28 am on May 12, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,   

    Buddhism in the Back Room: Doing Laundry to do Laundry… 

    Beware a path too easy, because it may be a false one. Maybe that goes without saying, but probably not, because most people assume that if they ever find an acceptable path in life, then hopefully it should at least be easy. And I get it, me too, but good luck finding that in real life, because real life is nothing if not a challenge. And Buddhism is no different. In fact, ease and benefit may be inversely proportional, i.e. the easier it is, the less benefit you’ll derive from it. Which almost seems too obvious, that you get what you work for, but sometimes it’s necessary to spell things out. 

    This goes to karma, of course, actions, and comes back around as a sort of fate, prescribed actions based on prior performance, anything but predetermined, even when that is what some people want in their religion above all else. Many people can see no reason to believe in a religion when it offers them nothing but freedom of choice. People want magic. Except when they want certainty. Don’t worry. When they know, you’ll know, and life will be nothing if not exciting in the process. 

    And isn’t that what most people want more than anything—excitement? Unfortunately, that is the case all too often. People are more desirous of drama than dharma, and who cares if the kids must figure out what’s right and wrong in their own free time and at their own limited initiative. But Buddhism is better than that. The Buddhist Five precepts are almost identical to the Christian’s second set of Five Commandments, everything except the alcohol. The first set of five are fundamentally Islamic. Then Buddhism only gets better: Emptiness, Consciousness, Kindness, and Goodness, the Four Nesses’ even nobler truth, IMHO. You heard it here first.  

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 4:15 am on May 5, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , how-to-meditate, , mental-health, , , samma ditthi, ,   

    Buddhism for Beginners: Some Things are Best left Unspoken   

    If you examine thoughts before giving voice to them, then they will likely come out better. Maybe that’s obvious, but, as with anything, thinking something is easy, saying it is harder, while acting on it is another thing altogether, usually nothing if not a challenge. But what could be easier than looking before you leap? It goes deeper than that, though. After all, the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry. So, this is a meditative experience. And much of what meditation requires is simple observation, intransitive, i.e. awareness. 

    There are only a few differences in types of meditations, and if you’re expecting fireworks and rainbows, then you’re probably going to be disappointed. Much of the difference can be something as apparently insignificant as object-oriented meditation, transitive, or meditation that is not object-oriented, such as meditation on the breath. In either case, though, you are not really thinking, at least not actively thinking. You are simply observing thoughts as they pass by and pass through, maybe swatting them like flies if they are pesky little critters begging for food, but no more than that. Leave them alone and they will go away—eventually. 

    But that’s neither here nor there. That’s nowhere. That’s everywhere. On a more practical level, to think before you talk is simply a matter of common sense, the difference between a child crying for his mother and his mother explaining how it’s done. If you place no limits or controls on your thoughts, then people will likely be hurt in the process, simply because words are often so callous and careless. Now, I’m not one of those who believe that ‘thoughts have no thinker,’ and that’s important. The Buddha never said that. Some thoughts are random, true, but not all. Choose the good ones carefully, and let the others fall away. That’s key to right understanding, samma ditthi. That’s key to speech, sama vaca.

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 3:09 am on April 28, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,   

    Non-Violence: the Original and Noblest Truth of Buddhism…   

    ‘First do no harm,’ primum non nocere in Latin, is part of the Hippocratic Oath. It should also be part of the Buddhist Oath. Because nothing is more important, not really, than ahimsa, non-violence, even if it’s not part of the Four Noble Truths or even the Eightfold path, though it could easily be assumed in samma kammanta, samyak karmanta, i.e. right actions, so obvious is the connection. And that karmanta, of course, could also be translated as ‘good karma,’ so think of it that way if you prefer, since most people don’t know that the word karma literally means ‘actions,’ so make a note. 

    Yes, sometimes the simplest and most obvious things are the most important, whether they are ever written up that way or not. Because when the Dalai Lama says that his religion is kindness, that’s exactly what he means, non-violence, for starters, on a sliding scale ranging from sympathy to empathy. And if that sympathy gets you some basic non-violence, then high-style empathy should eventually get you some beginner-level enlightenment, at the least.  

    And from there you can dream of nirvana, if you’re ambitious, or just content yourself with a nice job and a nice family in a nice little town with an active city center and a price line that won’t break your budget. Because the details don’t really matter so much, once you’ve made your peace with the world. You can adapt it to your requirements or adapt yourself to its requirements, or you can Buddha-like split the difference and walk that meandering Middle Path in a sweet spot dialectical dance and reconciliation of opposites. I think you already know my choice. 

     
    • quantumpreceptor's avatar

      quantumpreceptor 3:40 am on May 1, 2024 Permalink | Reply

      I really like the picture one of your last lines left in my mind. “ in a sweet spot dialectical dance and reconciliation of opposites”
      I sometimes see more of a knife edge but I would rather dance and have fun.

      My take on no harm is found here:

      The Paramita of Meaningful Bahavior

      • hardie karges's avatar

        hardie karges 3:25 am on June 23, 2024 Permalink | Reply

        Nice. Thanks…

← Older posts

Newer posts →

c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel