Tagged: Hardie Karges Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 4:20 am on December 30, 2023 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , Hardie Karges, , , , , , ,   

    Buddhism in the Balance, Aware and Mindful…  

    You don’t have to fight for your religion, like Christians do. You don’t have to surrender to your religion, like Muslims do. You can just be, right in the center, with eyes open or closed, aware and mindful, with no particular judgements to make either way, good or bad, offensive or non-offensive. This is the way Buddhism works, simple yet effective, with no ribbons or bows, and no deep bows, except the ones you make to the senior monk when in his presence.  

    Christianity is a religion of passion: weeping, wailing and all that gospel. Islam is a religion of submission. Buddhism is a way of life dispassionate, quiet, serene, full of passion only in the original sense of passion as suffering, the stuff of life in this material world, long before someone decided that it could be fun, as long as someone else was suffering more or worse than you. Because suffering exists, whether we are in the throes of it or not, and the only way out is to give it no quarter.  

    So, the way to deal with suffering is to remove its source of sustenance, the craving and lust which it consumes for breakfast and lunch, hunger and thirst of the craven kind, crude and rude, cowardly and unforgiving in its lack of moral distinction. But this kind of turpitude depends on negligence for its survival, inattention to all detail and the passive acceptance of all things most easily proffered. Buddhism has no such luxury. Buddhism demands awareness, and mindfulness, and wakefulness to the sleepy dream that is all too often the standard for life. It’s never too late to meditate… 

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 3:38 am on December 23, 2023 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , Hardie Karges, , , , , ,   

    Buddhism and Non-Possession  

    I travel these lands as if I owned them, when in fact I own nothing, not even my own body parts. And that’s good, because if I owned anything really and truly then I’d be attached to them, till death do us part. That’s no good, because attachments are tantamount to craving, and clinging, Buddhist no-no’s from the word ‘go’. Why? Because they’ll always cause suffering, later if not sooner, and that’s gospel, according to the Buddha. But that’s a sharp contrast, of course, to the typical Western habit of consumption and possession, as if the more we purchase, then the happier we’ll be. 

    Nothing could be further from the truth, of course. In fact, the truth is probably just the opposite: the more we possess, the more miserable we are. But don’t try to convince a rich person of that—or a poor one. Because the truth is not to be found in stats or specs, but in the internal subjective application of deep feeling to the miscellaneous circumstances of life. Scientific proof, and much less truth, can only go so far. You can’t prove happiness, any more than you can prove compassion. But you can feel it. And you’ll know it when you feel it.  

    So, that’s what’s important, and that’s all that we should expect from any religion or philosophy. Because science is better equipped to tell us what the universe is composed of, and how it works, so Buddhism probably shouldn’t waste its time rehashing old themes and memes from two to three thousand years ago as if deep introspection were capable of the same rigorous experiments as science. It’s not. Buddhism is here to tell us how to live our lives. Be kind. Reduce suffering by reducing craving. That’s all. Merry Christmas… 

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 3:57 am on December 17, 2023 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Hardie Karges, , , , , , patanjali, , , , ,   

    Buddhism: Silence is Better than Language…  

    You can say ‘namaste’ all day and prove little. You can say nothing and prove much. Or you can sit in samadhi all day and prove everything, ‘samadhi’ being that meditative state of total absorption, in which the threads of language are locked out at the gates without credentials for entry. Because language is that element of mental activity tainted with the brush of corruption, duality at its most obvious, subjects verbing adjectivized objects so adverbially that prepositions threaten to revolt and assume post-positions, conjunctions just looking for somewhere to put an ‘and,’ ‘but’ only ‘if’ conditions can be avoided, so tenses only indicative, nothing subjunctive allowed. 

    All of which is to say that there’s more to life than language, OR logic, and often it’s even positively negative, if you care to find some meditative transcendence for even a moment in this increasingly noisy world or ours, crowded and clusterf*cked almost beyond recognition of the sublime Nature that it once was, notwithstanding the sporadic violence inherent to that same Nature.  

    Language is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it allowed homo sapiens to subdue, or outdo, all its competitors in the competition for the low-hanging fruit of life, those skills allowing multiple individuals to act as one for the purpose of being ‘firstest with the mostest,’ skills indispensable for survival when life is on the line and food is not yet on the table. This can be proven conclusively with the timelines of our competitors’ mutual demise in the face of sapiens’ overwhelming superiority. 

    On a more practical day-to-day basis, it’s simply an easy recipe for mindfulness, antidote for the common complaint of ‘monkey mind,’ during which our minds are so possessed of internal chatter that it’s virtually impossible to think properly, much less achieve some level of ‘calm abiding,’ i.e. samatha. So, ironically, the very thing that is our military strength is our existential downfall—unless we can control it. This is the unique sapiens challenge to zoological superiority and key to the future ascendance of our species—or not. Thus, Buddhist practice is more than an individual accomplishment; it’s truly intrinsic to our survival. 

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 2:33 am on December 10, 2023 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Age of Reason, , , , Hardie Karges, , rationality, reason   

    Buddhism: Rational if not Scientific  

    There is nothing mystical about Buddhism in its essence. The Middle Path is all about rationality, ratio, ratiocination, and rations. All of which is to say that Buddhism is a rational philosophy, surprise surprise. All the fancy metaphysics came later, as did the elaborate superstitions and multiple realms of heaven and hell. So, if that’s what gives your life meaning, then that is convenient. But it’s not for me, metaphysics maybe, but not superstitions. Don’t forget that the Buddha and Aristotle came from similar genetic stock, and sometimes they came to similar conclusions. 

    Rationality was quite novel in its day, if not downright radical, culminating in the European Age of Reason in the 17th century. So, it was something of a revelation in 500BCE that causes preceded effects—almost all the time, haha. But monks double down on the concept to this day, as if it were the latest thing since quantum physics. That’s how seriously the concept is taken. And, from that simple beginning, the more elaborate concept of Dependent Origination is spun like the finest weaving from the finest silk, even though the concept is very simple.  

    Everything is linked in a causal chain of dependence that spares nothing and no one, nor would you want it to. The real beauty of it is that no fancy quantum leaps of faith or judgment are needed to see how and why things happen. There is no jealous war god. There is no green-eyed monster. All that is necessary is the simple practice of kindness and goodness toward the world and the practice of meditation for oneself, i.e. non-self. Ego and selfish considerations are for the birds in their search for immediate gratification. You and I, we’ve been through that. 

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 4:05 am on December 3, 2023 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , Hardie Karges, , , Russell Brand, ,   

    Buddhism and Language: Inner Space and Outer Space…  

    How can I quiet the voices in my head, when I can’t quiet the voices all around me? That’s what meditation is for, silent meditation, no app necessary. This is the conquering conundrum for much of Buddhism, of course, as when I knowingly posted pictures on Facebook this week of my search for the Buddha ‘out there, somewhere,’ roaming in the Thai countryside. I did that just to see how many people would advise me to change my search and look inward, which is the correct approach, of course, and which they did. And that’s possibly even true of any religion, though probably more so for Buddhism. 

    But it’s especially true for the practice of meditation, regardless of the religion, particularly when the meditation is of the traditional silent type, no apps necessary nor any commentary by Russell Brand, haha, the only likely difference being that where religion might give answers, meditation would only bring calmness. Vipassana claims insight, and that may be true, but ultimately unpredictable, and unnecessary, and I would rather not place the burden of proof upon the method of inquiry. 

    Because that is not the traditional goal of meditation, nor should it be, meditation being defined as that activity erasing the slate of its burden of language, whereas insight is usually defined by the language that accompanies it. That’s why I tend to avoid guided meditation, except as a form of ‘dharma talk,’ it not really producing the ‘calm abiding’ that I expect from meditation, if I expect anything. I go there to get away from language, not to add more to it. But maybe that’s just me. For me language is just too important to ignore. 

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 4:07 am on November 26, 2023 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Calvin, , , , , Hardie Karges, hungry ghosts, , Maharshi, Mary Baker Eddy,   

    Buddhism in the Bardo Realm: Facing Reality  

    All critiques, analyses, and deep discussions of arcane doctrines fall flat in the face of reality. The only important thing is the reduction of suffering. That’s why the Buddha made suffering the focus of his Four Noble Truths, the bedrock of Buddhism, without which there would have been no Buddhism. Because this is the heart and soul of Buddhism, long before the superstitions began creeping in, the past lives and the hungry ghosts and the glittering deities and the evil wicked monsters. And don’t forget the fancy metaphysics, which can be just as superstitious as gods and demons.  

    Because metaphysicians like to talk about perfection, and duality, and free will, and ego, without a shred of proof as to the veracity of any of it—or even the empirical presence of any of it. Who’s ever seen ego? Not Freud. Who’s ever seen predestination? Not Calvin. Who’s seen perfection? Not Mary Baker Eddy. Who’s seen duality? Not Maharshi nor Maharishi. Yet they can all expound on the topics as if they really exist, verbs putting on long pants and a suit to become nouns, leave the hiking boots for tomorrow, in case the latest vehicle won’t fly. 

    But the Buddha probably knew that he was on to something so sublime that it was simple enough to satisfy the threadbare renunciant while subtle enough to satisfy the schooled philosopher—but only for a while. Because soon enough, they’ll be wanting more more, bigger bigger. Just like celebrants banging the drum, the religionists will want more dogma, and the devotees will want more karma. And Original Buddhism will become Big Rig Buddhism, and then there will be Diamond Dog Buddhism, at the same time there’s Crazy Wisdom Buddhism, and so, soon enough, we’ll be right back where we started, and someone will have to sit down and try to figure out what to do next. Hi. 

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 3:12 am on November 20, 2023 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Alexander, , , , , Gymnosophists, Hardie Karges, , , , , Pythagoras,   

    Buddhism and Christianity in the Future of the World…  

    Christianity was perhaps better to develop a raw wild unruly world. But Buddhism is better to sustain it. All of which avoids the issue of whether we will survive or not. But, isn’t it better to have developed the world and lost, than never to have developed it at all? Hmmm, I’m not sure, because it seems that we could have developed mentally, and consciously, without ever filling the landfills with so much kitchen appliance junk that our lives are full of, whether we ever perfect the perfect counter-top blender or not. Remember them? 

    But, one thing is for sure: if our civilization collapses, future archeologists will certainly have fun trying to figure it all out, assuming that the historical narrative is fundamental to that civilization, so, it, too, will also likely be lost. Only time will tell, because war is so fundamental to civilization, that to lay down arms, in an effort to reconcile our differences, would be seen as treason to many a competing contender to world dominance. Such is our world and our lives.  

    With the recognition that northern India and modern Europe are genetically related, it must have been interesting to sit around gatherings on the northern steppes when they all spoke a common language, but with apparently different opinions. Because northern Indian philosophy has offered a distinct alternative to the European analytical quest since time immemorial, and that is the milieu from which Buddhism arises, debates with the Brahminists and the Jains.  

    But the Platonists and Pythagoreans had their own issues, never the twain to meet, until Alexander sought the Gymnosophists there in India and the East and West renewed their long conversation left behind on the northern steppes. Now here we sit, trying to make sense of it all, human diversity trying to respond to natural laws, which can only be surmised and rarely proven in the first place or the second instance, and so the only satisfaction lies in trying—or not, if you’re a renunciant.  

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 4:57 am on November 6, 2023 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , donation, , giving, Hardie Karges, , scam, scammer   

    Buddhism and the Joy of Giving  

    Give without concern about what you will get in return, except for the joy of giving. This is the simplest thing in the world, but also the hardest: simple to understand, but hard to carry out. Because so many of us are accustomed to approaching life as transactional, that it’s hard to see it as empathetic, or even sympathetic, sometimes. Sure, this is a principle easy to understand in the abstract, but not so easy to put down funds with no guarantee in return, not even the joy of giving, necessarily, depending on the habits of the receiving party. 

    Because, if you’re expecting profuse appreciation and lavish attention, then you may be disappointed. One of the reasons that needy people are so needy is that they’ve sometimes, but not always, missed out on the social niceties that make life enjoyable: please, thank you, hello, goodbye, and I love you. But even those niceties can be transactional, if they are used as bargaining chips in the process of negotiation, which was probably never intended to be a negotiation in the first place. 

    But such is the status of our modern online world of scams and scammers: they’ll contact you, don’t worry. So, do you just blow them off? Or do you politely listen to them and then blow them off? Does that feel better? Because it’s always about feeling, whether they’re love scammers or orphanages in Uganda: pulling heartstrings for purse strings. You’re enticed to donate money, for which you will feel good in return. And that’s fine. This is a world of feeling, after all. But don’t get angry, if it isn’t everything you expected. Give for the joy of giving, nothing more nothing less. 

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 5:23 pm on October 29, 2023 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , Hardie Karges, , , ,   

    Buddhism, Non-duality, and the Imminent Death of Ego  

    The one who can control himself, can control the world—his world…

    Obsession with non-self can be another form of attachment to ego, though caution should probably be advised, since our modern definition of ‘ego’ is so heavily influenced by that of Freud. The Buddha was a Jungian, haha, no, I’m serious, what with the mass subconscious and all that rap. But ‘ego’ makes the rounds regularly in modern Buddhist circles, even though ‘self’ or even ‘soul’ is probably the better translation of atta. The Buddha knew nothing of id and superego, not in the Freudian sense of the tripartite personality that includes ego. 

    But the concept of personality is one that should probably get more play in the Buddhist and non-dualistic press, since that offers a convenient compromise between dualism and non-dualism, or self and non-self. Because the original issue between the Buddhists and Brahmanists (early ‘Hindus’) was whether we had permanent enduring transmigratory selves, i.e. souls, or not, not whether we have personalities. And modern non-dualists have gone too far, IMHO, in proclaiming (yes, proclaiming) that since we have no souls, or selves, then we are essentially nothing. 

    Non-dualism may be the ‘wild west’ of spirituality right now, with many vague certainties, but I think that’s an accurate assessment. But the Buddha never said that, certainly. Why would he prescribe an Eightfold Path for non-entities with no free will and capable of nothing? He wouldn’t. He laid out an Eightfold Path for these transient personalities named Hardie and Jane and Bocephus, so that we would have a clue for what to do in our short stays in this planetary existence, regardless of whether anything goes on after or not.  

    His own sympathies seemed to be divided, too, since his early doctrine of anatta, non-self, is one of the pillars of Buddhism. The Hindu doctrine of reincarnation was picking up steam, though, and the Buddha seemed influenced by it, as were many, so much so that the related concept of ‘rebirth’ found its place in the Buddhist narrative. Since that implies past lives, though, then that’s reason for doubt, given that the Buddha’s deathbed count of 100k past lives would predate Homo Sapiens. Such are the issues we deal with in an evolving faith and practice. Cool. Enjoy the ride. Just be kind, like the doctor prescribed. 

     
    • Nina Lydia's avatar

      Nina Lydia 7:19 am on October 30, 2023 Permalink | Reply

      Interesting post. I agree with “Obsession with non-self can be another form of attachment to ego.” There are many lifestyle Buddhists these days. No-self can be a difficult concept, just like rebirth. There is no separate self, and this body will transform into ashes or soil with some bones left. However, our Karma will go on and have an effect after we’re gone.

      • hardie karges's avatar

        hardie karges 5:38 am on November 6, 2023 Permalink | Reply

        Thanks for your comment, Nina…

  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 3:09 am on October 21, 2023 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , arahat, , , , Hardie Karges, , , , , , , , , ,   

    Buddhism 201: Theravada and Mahayana  

    Buddhism in Bhutan

    The difference between Theravada and Mahayana is the difference between Self and Other, if there is one. If you’re a ‘non-dualist,’ then there is none, though that defies common-sense logic, which seems to show a diversity of disparate objects. So, that is the point of the new religion, I suppose, to unify existence, since you gotta’ have something to believe in for a religion to have its raison d’etre. But Buddhism wasn’t concerned with such metaphysical stretches, or at least not in the beginning, though Mahayana was the evolution of a more metaphysical stage of Buddhism.  

    That coincided with a geographical transition from India toward Central Asia and then China, and which also coincided with the evolution of Taoism, so more fertile ground to plow right then and there. If the origins of early Buddhism were all about a debate (and competition) with the Brahmanists and Jains of India, then the evolution of Mahayana was all about a competition with the Taoists in China. By that time, with the shunyata ‘emptiness’ doctrine of Nagarjuna, Buddhist and Taoist metaphysics were not far apart, the main difference between the two apparently that the Buddhists were—and are—far superior meditators.  

    And if Theravadan anatta had evolved into Mahayana shunyata, then Theravadan arahats had evolved into Mahayanan bodhisattvas, the spiritually enlightened beings who forego nirvana until everyone is ready for that final step. Arahats were more content to keep it to themselves, each at his own pace. But the issue of Self and Other is a non-issue if there is no substantive Self; so how could there be a substantive Other? Still, we live our lives in the common-sense world of apparently diverse beings, and so it is there that we must find solutions to common-sense problems. My conclusion? Save yourself, and then save the world. Good luck out there. 

     
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