Tagged: religion Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • 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.  

     
  • Unknown's avatar

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

    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 3:49 am on March 31, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , religion, thoughts,   

    Buddhism 499: Thought as Language and Memory…  

    The things we’re most attached to are our memories. If you can let go of them, then you can let go of anything. But the attachment here is insidious, because it is not strictly voluntary, but more customary, even essential. Because, like computers, we are in many ways defined by speed and memory, the two measurements which simultaneously both limit us and liberate us. What is more basic to our ability to think than language? Memory, of course, even if it’s always the past. Language is optional in the proto-consciousness of our lingo-less ancestors. Memory is not. 

    That’s the strict definition of thought, or awareness, but the sentimental attachments are more problematic. That’s when we become attached to our memories for purely sentimental reasons, or even worse: craving. Craving has long been identified as the chief cause of suffering in the Buddhist worldview, and that isn’t likely to change any time soon. The memories themselves aren’t usually the source of craving, of course, but the objects they represent are, insomuch as all memories are memories OF something. 

    So, here we are, featherless bipeds with a difference: we think like crazy, literally, mostly through the medium of language. In fact, in some people’s eyes, thought is indeed identified with language, as if no thought existed prior to language. I’m not sure how to prove it one way or the other, but I take it as an act of faith that that is not the case. Surely the animal kingdom conducts activities that can only be regarded as thought-driven, given the logic and forethought inferable.  

    Certainly, they have memories, and just as certainly, they have no language. But can we say that they are happier because of their lingo-less existence? Maybe. As always, the sweet spot lies somewhere in the middle. Dogs won’t cure cancer, but they may have less of it to begin with. Still, they’ll likely never live to the ripe old ages that we now consider normal. So, the best bet is to stop the thought stream periodically with meditation, and use memory as a substitute sometimes, but not as a practice of sentimental craving. Bingo. Sounds like an enlightened practice to me.  

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 4:29 am on March 24, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , religion, , , , , y-chromosome   

    Buddhism in the Bardo: Survival of the Species…  

    Some people might laugh at a monk in meditation, wasting his life away, but I laugh at the silly fools who cause global warming. Because, after living a long time in Thailand, that’s the main reason that I was reluctant to get involved with Buddhism, the perception that it was too passive, and incapable of dealing with the issues that face the world. So, for me that was an early premonition of what I might now call something like ‘socio-spiritual bypassing,’ i.e. the avoidance of social obligations by invoking the spiritual primacy of renunciation. 

     But at some point, I realized that renunciation was probably a greater tool than all the political action in the world, and, at least on some ways, likely to produce the greater impact, also. Because, for all our sociopolitical posturing, little is accomplished along those lines, and much of the developed world may soon be crisscrossed with windmills, without any detectable difference in our addiction to rapid locomotion, despite the visible degradation of our relationship to Nature. With a population of more than eight billion souls, renunciation may soon be the only avenue of survival. 

    And, if that’s a bitter pill to swallow, then so be it. Because the writing has been on the wall for at least sixty to eighty years now, and we’ve only sunk deeper in our denial of the likely results, as Elon exhorts us to make more babies, so that he can rake in more gazillions. And that’s maybe the saddest part, that the only way that we can show our love for these people on this planet is to create more babies, who must then shoulder the burden of our conundrum.  

    So suddenly renunciation is not a bad option at all, and the disappearance of the y-chromosome only seconds that emotion. Because, whatever the numbers of our reproduction and its proliferation, or not, it’s impossible to live in a world without love. But we might need to change that meaning. And that’s where Buddhism comes in, because love comes in many forms and flavors. Metta, or lovingkindness, is the preferred Buddhist flavor, and the world community is the intended recipient. That’s Buddhism. 

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 8:00 am on March 17, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , religion, , , , turn the other cheek   

    Buddhism in a Christian World, Fighting Aggression with Non-Aggression… 

    The great Buddhist dilemma, or tetralemma, is how to deal with aggression. Do you turn the other cheek? But no Christian really did that, did they? Still, the goal is the goal, the difficulty of accomplishing it notwithstanding. And surely some Christians did just that, though Buddhists are probably better at it, given their cultural conditioning, just as some Buddhists are aggressive bullies, in some emulation of the Alpha Male Syndrome, if nothing else. Boys will be boys, and many of those are aggressive by nature. 

    But is there a better way? Aren’t we guilty of another form of spiritual bypassing, if we avoid difficult social and political situations by simply retreating into our spiritual comfort zones and letting the world degenerate into madness? After all, is that any different from using our spirituality to avoid confronting our own emotions and unresolved existential crises? In fact it might be worse, much worse. So, yes, there is an opportunity here for someone to learn a lesson if only he or she wants to put the time and effort into it. 

    But we can’t lose ourselves in the affairs of others. We can only teach what we ourselves know above and beyond question and learn from everything else. The important thing is not to react, or at least not overreact. We are all baited everyday with statements designed to inflame or instill anger when we ourselves intended no such thing at all initially and desire no such thing as result. But such is the nature of aggressive modern culture. And we are in it, regardless of whether we are truly of it or not. If turning the other cheek is to invite further abuse, then nothing has been accomplished. To simply walk away and limit future involvement with the aggressor might be a better solution. 

     

← 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