Tagged: philosophy Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 4:40 am on December 1, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , , neuron, philosophy, , , ,   

    Buddhism 202: Thoughts and Thinkers 

    Buddhism in Bhutan

    Samma sankappa, one of the Buddhist Four Noble Truths, is Right Thought = Good Thought, not No Thought. For no thought, maybe samma samadhi is better, Right (Good) Meditation. It’s very popular for New Age-y Buddhists to talk about ‘thoughts without thinkers and/or ‘thoughts that think themselves’, as if they were both particle and wave out there floating around looking for a pickup gig, but that implies that thoughts are bad, and the Buddha never said anything like that.

    I think that the confusion comes with the role of language in thought, and its somewhat checkered past. Because no one would dare say anything bad about sati, i.e. consciousness, mindfulness, or awareness. That’s sacrosanct in Buddhism. And it’s a form of thought, also, but without language. Dogs do it; cats do it. All animals do, to a greater or lesser degree. But: like Boolean logic, we invented language, and now that we have it, it’s hard to go back, at least not full time. And there’s no real reason to.

    Because thought can be a good thing, and the linguistic variety is likely the most powerful type, BUT: it can also be destructive, both to society and to the personality, aka ‘self’. On the metaphysical plane, not only is it not ‘non-dual’, with its definitive subjects and objects, but it’s also argumentative and unsettling, arguably war’s greatest weapon. And while I don’t advocate a return to the ‘non-dual’ lives of bonobos and chimps, I do strongly advocate daily meditation. Because, no matter how powerful linguistic thought can be, its non-linguistic cousin meditation can be much more peaceful. That’s samadhi.

    But this can be a contentious subject for debate, because, on the one hand, thoughts DO just pop up sometimes unannounced and often unwanted. And we DON’T always have total recall, much less immediate recall. But that doesn’t mean that we are passive listeners and watchers of thoughts as they pass in and out of our brains or minds, for lack of better words to portray a very abstract subject. Remember the old saying: ‘Practice makes perfect’? Well, neuroscientists have one, also: ‘Neurons that fire together, wire together.’ That means that we establish neural pathways that can be considered our own, in that they are distinct from that of others. So, yes, to a certain extent, thoughts have thinkers, and thinkers have thoughts. We’re the living proof.

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 3:59 am on November 17, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , philosophy,   

    Buddhism on the Half Shell: Dharma without Dogma 

    Beware stir-fried spirituality, vague ideas tossed in a pan and stirred ‘til piping hot. Buddhism is an open doctrine, true, but it needs a compass. And the Eightfold Path is that compass, of course, the prime phenomena of our lives listed and pointed in the direction of ‘rightness’, i.e. the correct and appropriate versions of the main foundations of our lives: thought, intent, speech, action, livelihood, effort, mindfulness, and concentration. If non-duality can fit into that simple list, then fine; it is welcome. If not, then reshuffle your deck to find your place in lives where things actually exist and thoughts actually occur.

    For better or worse, Buddhism must live with the titles of its popular books, regardless of whether those actually describe the philosophy accurately or not. So, we must spend time explaining why ‘Buddhism is True’, and why there are a ‘Buddha and the Badass’ and how we can have a ‘Universe in a Single Atom’, whether any of that has anything to do with Buddhism or not. For the most part, those titles are just the consumeristic fantasies of book publishers, and the ideas inside their covers have little or nothing in common with them.

    But that’s a compromise we make. The real problem occurs when the ideas themselves get breaded and fried in almost total opposition to the original concept. So New Age Buddhists remind you to love yourself without bothering to explain, or even acknowledge, that we have no intrinsic Self, or even selves. Then they’ll tell you that our thoughts are not our own, while giving no clue as to where they actually come from, apparently just floating around, soul-like looking for a body to inhabit. But these are only minor inconveniences. The dharma can easily transcend most of that. I persevere.

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 4:13 am on November 10, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , philosophy, , ,   

    Buddhism 202: Anatman on the Installment Plan 

    The fact that I’m not the same as I was before is at least partial proof of anatta, non-self, i.e. a heap of adjectives in evolution. The Sanskrit word skandha means something like ‘heap’, of course, that of which we are composed, without clearly defining exactly what that material is, though it would appear to fall in the category of ‘causes and conditions’, so more mind than matter, more substantial than material. Thus, I prefer to think of them as adjectives rather than nouns or even verbs, mere descriptions of what is to become.

    But this is immaterial (pun intended) to the substance of the original debate, mostly between Hindu Brahmins, Jains, and Buddhists, as to the permanence—or not—of a supposed ‘self’ or ‘soul’. For Hindu Brahmanists this was a cosmic ‘soul’ on a par with a God-like ‘Brahman’, while for the Jains this was an atomic soul that inhabited everything on a granular level. In response to these two choices, early Buddhists basically said, “Naah,” then moved on to bigger and better considerations.

    And, if this seems like a severe diminution of personality to the point that we (who are writing and reading this humble script) have no intrinsic existence, then I prefer to think about the freedom that this gives us rather than the limits imposed upon us. Because this emptiness is as close as we can come to infinity or eternity, and so the very opposite of limitation. There’s only one catch, though, already mentioned. It’s empty. There can’t be any sort of unlimited physical stuff. It’s simply not possible, sorry. Look on the bright side; there appears to be no current shortage of anything important. And we are a very conscious heap, in the process of evolution.

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 4:36 am on October 27, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , asceticism, , , , , , , , , , , , , Padmasambhava, philosophy, , , Upanishads, ,   

    Buddhism is the Middle Path between Jainism and Brahmanism… 

    Brahmanism is what we now call ‘Hinduism’, but that term didn’t really exist way back when, only recently applied by the Brits to the plethora of sects and devotions which now constitute Hinduism. But it was in the midst of the Upanishad era at the time of the Buddha, which would redefine the previously Indra-based fire rituals which had reigned during the Vedic times. And with the advent of the new Upanishadic orientation, the resulting resemblance to Buddhism was profound—but still distinct.

    And so was Jainism distinct from both of them, at the same time that it shares much with them. But remember, that the ‘Hinduism’ that the Jain reacted to in the 6th century BCE is not the same as modern Hinduism, either, and that is partly because of this same three-way dialogue. Jainism was largely a reaction against the Brahmanists’ fire sacrifices, they being extreme nonviolent vegetarians. But many modern Hindus are also vegetarians, with Buddhists characteristically somewhere ‘in between.’

    That’s the Middle Path, specifically between the extreme asceticism of the Jains and the lavish rituals of the ‘Hindus’, but also between the many gods of Hinduism and the total lack of them in Jainism. Technically Buddhists don’t really have them, either, but, you know… Later versions of Buddhism were not so strict about that, such as the Tibetan version of Vajrayana, which came direct from India sometime after the 5th century and attested by Padmasambhava in the 8th century.

    But both Jains and Hindus were crazy about souls, Jains finding them everywhere and Hindus finding them cosmic, Atman, preferably in union with the cosmic dharma principle Brahman. But Buddhism found little of value in any of that, and so chose non-self anatta. So, they all evolved into different sects with different orientations, and we generally all get along nicely. The main difference is that Hinduism tilted toward a nationalism which international Buddhism could never assimilate. And Jains, ‘winners’ in Sanskrit, were ultimately the losers.

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 5:00 am on October 20, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , evangelical, , , , , philosophy, , , , ,   

    Buddhism at the Checkout Lane: the Best Rebirth is Spiritual 

    Spiritual rebirth begins within. It should never end. Samsara is something different. Samsara literally means ‘the world,’ always did, though perhaps etymologically from a distant past word connoting ‘wandering,’ but who knows? Etymology is always a best guess. As far as we know, at the time of the Buddha the word meant ‘the world,’ as it does to this day in modern Nepali, the modern language closest to its Sanskrit roots. Hindi probably got tired of the debate, so adopted the Arabic word dunia for most ordinary usage.

    But Buddhists turned the world cyclical, and so that circularity came to represent samsara more than the other aspects of the world itself. And that circularity specifically refers to the concept of rebirth, heavily borrowed from the Hindu concept of reincarnation, but without the literal transfer of the physical body from one generation to the subsequent one. In fact, Buddhism goes to great lengths to explain away the conundrum of <“What is reborn?”> at the same time that they go to equally great lengths to explain exactly what is the nature of this self that we’re denying. It’s a mess.

    Bottom line: the Christians—the evangelical Christians, of all sects—may have beat us to the punch on this issue. Because their insistence on being born again in the spirit is not only in the Bible, in multiple quotations, you may hear it loud and long at any tent revival in the lower US south from participants both black and white, in their exaltation at surviving a ‘Long Dark Night of the Soul’ as originally described by the 16th century Spaniard St. John of the Cross (not Eckhart Tolle).

    There is scarce reference to rebirth in any Buddhist text, though the Brahmanist Hindus and especially Jains would likely have many if only they had bothered to write it down. But that’s another story. The important thing is that spiritual rebirth is a very beautiful thing and idea, whereas physical reincarnation or even sorta kinda almost maybe rebirth of consciousness in a random body is a leap of logic, not to mention dubious science. And to those who say you can’t just pick and choose this and that, from assorted religions, I respectfully respond, “Why not?” They all did. Embrace it.

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 3:40 am on October 13, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , philosophy, ,   

    Buddhism 101: Pain is Our Birthright… 

    Pain is our connection to the realm of sentient being. We are all equal in this regard. But we have a path, thankfully. This refers to the First Noble Truth, of course, something like ‘There is suffering.’ Period. Full stop. That’s the foundational thesis of Buddhism, which all further dissertations struggle to assimilate, what with its apparent pessimism, which only gets worse (before it gets better). ‘Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, sickness is suffering, dissociation from the loved is suffering, not to get what one wants is suffering.’ Yeow. Yes, life’s a real sh*t-show at times. What to do?

    Oh, sure, the PhD’s try to explain it all away by saying that ‘suffering’ can mean ‘dissatisfaction’, ‘stress’, or maybe even ‘bummer’, but the result is the same: it’s not a good look, not when everybody else is bragging about their seven flavors of bliss and their multiple stairways to heaven. But that’s what the Buddha said, and that’s what he meant. But I think that he also meant that’s our connection to the world and each other. Otherwise, how would we even really know that we’re really alive? Pleasure is fleeting.

    But pain is real. And a large part of it is caused by the simple fact of our oh-so-human cravings. Bingo. There’s a path for that, and it will keep us humble in its universality. Because isn’t the underlying cause of all craving, desire, lust, and greed, our selfish assertion that we are something special and deserving of whatever we can get? Haha. Gotcha. Because we are but a bundle of causes and conditions that predictably lead to the defilements which define us: hatred, greed, anger, and those oh-so-pesky cravings. The path outta there is as simple as the decade-old Franz Ferdinand song which seconded that emotion: “Right Thoughts, Right Words, Right Action.” Simple, no? It works. Try it.

     
    • jmoran66's avatar

      jmoran66 4:25 am on October 13, 2024 Permalink | Reply

      I think you, as they say, nailed it here. There’s nothing to add.

    • hardie karges's avatar

      hardie karges 4:59 pm on October 13, 2024 Permalink | Reply

      Thank you for your comments.

  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 4:25 am on October 6, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , philosophy, , , , theft   

    Buddhism in the Bardo Realms: You Are Never Alone 

    Buddhism in Bhutan

    The existential conundrum of our lives is that we are never alone, nor can we be, nor would we likely ever want to be, even if we could. Think of it this way: Suppose you want to enjoy yourself by yourself or just take a little swim. So, you walk down to the beach, find a nice little spot, and proceed to disrobe and jump right in. There’s only one problem: when you come back, you don’t know if your stuff will still be there or not—bummer. This is what many a happy tourist deals with every day.

    Oh, sure, there are ways to mitigate the circumstances. You can go with a friend, but that friend really can’t jump right in, now, either, can they? No, they can’t, because then any potential plunderer has just doubled his payoff. Even if you have a designated watcher for a larger group, that designee still doesn’t get to have his fun (and you still must trust him not to run). So, maybe hire a professional designee? Ditto. Or you could lock it in a box, if it’s a public space with such amenities, but that would probably preclude a dip in the buff, boo hoo. And even then, would you just wrap the key around your little finger?

    Or, you could just leave the key in your pocketed swim suit, but then, why not just leave your stuff in your room, and saunter to the beach semi-nude and flip-flop friendly, because, after all, nobody will steal a pair of flip-flops, or a towel, now, will they? Or would you even care if they did? And your room is safe, right? But what about the maid? Or you could just drive, and lock everything in the trunk, if you’re American, or the boot, if you’re a Brit, but by this time you’re making quite a big show of it, so maybe just call the whole thing off?

    This is the existential conundrum: that our fates are so intertwined, that it doesn’t leave a lot of time, or space, for accidents or circumstance. So, what is the solution? In a more peaceful time, in a more peaceful world, I have it on good authority that people left their houses unlocked with no ill repercussions, and that is the way that it should be. But that was in a world less crowded than today. And many people take it as their supreme inalienable right to reproduce without limit. So, now we live in a world of eight billion with no end in sight. And there’s no place to hide. So, we must learn to live in peace. And Buddhism is nothing, if not a religion of peace.

     
  • Unknown's avatar

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

    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 2:50 am on June 16, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , philosophy, , , , 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 4:03 am on May 26, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , dissatisfaction, , Existentialism, , , , , , , , , , philosophy, , , , , , , ,   

    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.

     

← 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