Tagged: religion Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 4:25 am on October 6, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , religion, , , 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 5:00 am on September 29, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , religion, , , worldling   

    Buddhism 101: Freedom from Fear and Hatred 

    The best religions give herd immunity against fear and hatred. The best philosophies explain the reason why. Buddhism can do this, also, whether or not you call it religion, whether or not you’re liberal or conservative. Because whether or not you’re liberal or conservative politically, Buddhism is the opposite of that, in its acceptance, or even encouragement, to renunciation, i.e. to give up all politics, and all other concerns of ‘house holders,’ as if shelters were the special curse of ‘worldlings.’

    And while I haven’t reached that point of detachment from the world, and may very well never, I do understand it, and to a large extent even applaud it, as long as those renunciants don’t assume that they’re by necessity any better than those same householders and other worldlings, on whom they also depend for sustenance and maintenance and news from the world. Because we’re all in this together, no matter our provenance, we all have the same sustenance, rice and bread and the ideas that feed our heads.

    The important thing is to eradicate fear, anger, greed, and hatred, once and for all, forever and completely. And if that takes some constant reinforcement, then so be it, enjoy the process and the esprit de corps. Because it’s important to be part of that community that provides solace and succor, and assurance that everything will be alright, if only we all stick together, maybe not like glue, but maybe more like sticky rice, with mango and coconut milk, yum yum, peace on earth and goodwill to all men.

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 2:56 pm on September 22, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , , religion, , , ,   

    Buddhism 101: There are no Winners or Losers…  

    There are no winners or losers. There are only players and non-players. Either one is fine, but if you play, then play well. The concept of winning and losing is obviously a binary circumstance, as are players vs. non-players or even East vs. West. But sometimes binary terms are effective in conveying a message, even if they are often ineffective in organizing your life. Because, we Buddhists have long been of the opinion that the Middle Path is the best guide to living your life with or without any scientific proof. 

    But the concept of winning vs losing is especially offensive, as it suggests that some people are simply better than others, regardless of any merit displayed or accrued in the process of playing the game, which suggests racism, if not just arrogance or hubris. None of that has ever been proven, of course, and my gut hunch is exactly the opposite: the more mixed the race the more superior, but again that’s hard to prove or disprove. 

    The issue of players vs non-players is more well-defined, though, in that participation is an act of will and not an accident of birth. So, when comparing the aggressive Abrahamic traditions vs the renunciative dharma traditions, it is possible to draw some conclusions, even if they are still subject to interpretations and circumstances. Because, while India and China long ago embraced renunciative dharma and taoist traditions, their cultures are anything but. And while the abrahamic West is known for its aggressive colonialism, some of the world’s finest most peaceful cities and cultures are to be found there today. 

    So, it’s a mixed bag at best, and I myself qualify as a proponent of renunciation only in the sense that too much wrong action has already been done, and so its opposite is now often preferable. But I don’t think that humans should be passive and that’s not how I live my life. So, my conception of Buddhism is somewhat like Marx’s communism, something appropriate after the previous partial phases have occurred, i.e. its time has come. At an earlier time, something else was possibly more appropriate, but not now. So, when someone insults you or feeds bait your ego, do nothing–quickly.

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 4:11 am on July 6, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , , religion, retribution, , ,   

    Buddhism 499: Revenge is not Sweet…   

    Retribution is not necessary. Equanimity is a path for all situations and all times. This is central to Buddhism, if not foundational. Because the foundations are mostly personal, but it’s implicit that once you’ve attained some level of release from your own suffering that you will contribute to do the same for the world. And while this may be more pronounced in the Mahayana tradition of Bodhisattvas, it also applies to all the rest, in substance, if not style. 

    That’s explicit in the tradition of dana, which Theravada Buddhism relies on for its everyday existence, since monks are forbidden to work, at least not in any official capacity. That’s for ‘householders.’ Monks are homeless, by design, making a mockery of the disdain in which we in the west typically hold them, our India relations elevating the concept to a high plain of spirituality as rishis or even maharishis in the Hindu tradition, or arahant in the Buddhist Theravadin tradition. 

    Even more important is ahimsa, non-violence, which holds true for all the India-based spiritual traditions. And while I’m sure their armies have had their own mistakes and misgivings over the years, at least give them the credit for not glorifying it or reveling in it. Because that’s what revenge and retribution imply, whether stated or not. Retribution is a function of karma, which you’ve brought on yourself, so no violence against others is either implied or intended. Stay cool. Don’t react, unless someone’s life is at stake. And, even then, don’t be proud of it. Be forgiving… 

     
    • jmoran66's avatar

      jmoran66 7:14 pm on July 6, 2024 Permalink | Reply

      That’s the roots of jai yen here in Thailand, I would think.

      • hardie karges's avatar

        hardie karges 12:01 am on July 7, 2024 Permalink | Reply

        Cool heart, yes…

  • Unknown's avatar

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

    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: , , , , , , , , religion, , , 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, , , , , , , religion,   

    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, , , , , religion, , , , ,   

    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, , , , , , , , , , , , , religion, , , , ,   

    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, , , , , , religion, ,   

    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.  

     

← 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