streaming consciousness…

Tagged: Taoism Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

• 

  hardie karges 2:56 pm on September 22, 2024 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: Abrahamic ( 2 ), binary ( 3 ), Buddhism ( 429 ), ego ( 33 ), Hardie Karges ( 240 ), Marx ( 4 ), meditation ( 190 ), Middle Path ( 54 ), religion ( 158 ), renunciation ( 15 ), Science ( 25 ), spirituality ( 27 ), Taoism   

  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.

   

  Reply Cancel reply

  Required fields are marked *

  Name *

  Email *

  Website

  Notify me of new comments via email.

  Notify me of new posts via email.

  Δ

• 

  hardie karges 3:09 am on October 21, 2023 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: anatta ( 22 ), arahat, bodhisattva ( 9 ), Brahmanism ( 8 ), Buddhism ( 429 ), Hardie Karges ( 240 ), Jainism ( 13 ), language ( 145 ), Mahayana ( 46 ), meditation ( 190 ), nirvana ( 13 ), non-dualism ( 11 ), religion ( 158 ), shunyata ( 22 ), Taoism, Theravada ( 51 )   

  Buddhism 201: Theravada and Mahayana  

  

  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. 
   
• 

  hardie karges 10:02 am on October 17, 2021 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: capitalism ( 25 ), CHRISTIANITY ( 160 ), communism ( 21 ), Hardie Karges ( 240 ), Industrial Revolution ( 6 ), religion ( 158 ), socialism ( 4 ), Taoism   

  The Meeting of West and East, Christianity and Buddhism, Passion and Passivity… 

  

  If you can’t change the world, then change your thoughts toward it. But try to change the world first. And this simple dichotomy describes the philosophical difference between East and West in a nutshell, in the traditional sense, in which Asia is more passive and the West is more aggressive. Much of that has changed as the two worlds have collided and combined over the last centuries, but much of it hasn’t, either. And that is probably best represented by the West’s predominant Christian religion and the East’s predominant Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoist philosophy. Because if Christianity doesn’t explicitly promote aggressiveness, it certainly allows it, especially with the transition from its original Rome-centered Catholicism to its later Westward-bound Protestantism.

  So, it’s no accident that this occurred exactly at the same time as the rise of Science, Capitalism, and the Industrial Revolution. Meanwhile the East mixed its Buddhism and Taoism with heavy doses of Socialism and Communism, until it realized that it was losing a lot of wars that way (and Japan proved that a country didn’t have to be Western to be Capitalist). Note also that Eastern Orthodox Christianity largely avoided the sectarian splintering that plagued the far West (except for some largely geographical distinctions). But there was another aspect to this dichotomy that doesn’t get much mention and that is the emulation also of the traditional roles of men and women.

  Thus, Western churches are defined by long sharp-pointed steeples, while Buddhism is traditionally symbolized by round bulbous stupas. I don’t think that anyone could miss the stupa’s resemblance to female breasts rising in supine submission. Contrast that with the more macho Hinduism’s steeple-like symbolism. And the virgin Mary’s preeminence in early Christianity is long gone in Protestantism. But Buddhism encapsulates the ethos of submission and adaptation perfectly. And while I don’t necessarily think that this is prima facie evidence of Buddhism’s superiority to Christianity, I do think that Buddhism is more appropriate for these times of crowds, confusion, and chaos. Buddhism is all about teaching men to be more like women: kinder and gentler, less violent…