Problems and Queries with Buddhism

Burt Lancaster

Hello Everyone,

I've been reading up on Buddhism and I've jotted down some problems / queries / toughts I've come across. Apologies if I have not understood some of the issues correctly. I was hoping the good folks here could help provide me with some answers / perspectives and enlighten me on the following :

1. Buddhism seems to teach that human destiny lies in reincarnating to suffer until we use the Eightfold Path to remove our individual identity ?

2. The claim that perceiving yourself as in some sense unreal will make you happier and more compassionate ?

3. That detachment from ordinary life is the surest route to salvation ?

4. It suggests that life is a problem that can be solved, a cul-de-sac that can be, and should be, escaped ?

5. Buddhists must work to convince themselves they have no personal significance, even though they live daily as though they do ?

6. The hope of nirvana seems to be eternal death and extinction ?

7. Buddha rejects the existence of the ‘soul’ or suchlike. Yet it also believes in the principle of karma and rebirth. If souls do not exist, how can there be karma? If there is no ‘soul’ or suchlike, how is rebirth possible ?

8. If life and reincarnation is 1 for 1 (one life becomes another later on), then how is it possible that there are more ‘souls’ now then there were in the past ?

9. Reincarnation seems to imply the existence of some type of inanimate force that manages to tally up our deeds before rewarding us with a particular type of rebirth or not ?

10. Buddha's first step toward enlightenment was his abandonment of his wife and child, and Buddhism still exalts male monasticism as the epitome of spirituality ?

11. Has any person living reached Nirvana besides Buddha ?

12. Also part of reaching Nirvana involves being unconditionally compassionate to everything. However, when you reach the state of Nirvana, all feelings of attachments and desires are supposedly eradicated so how can you be compassionate if that too is a personal feeling and would require a desire to do so ?

13. Why are enlightenment and nirvana desires that we should not let go of ?

14. Supporting evidence for Buddhism and its claims ?

conor.hogan.2

The answer to all those questions is right there in Zen, imo.

You do not (have to) remove yourself from reality, contrary to popular opinion.

Re-incarnation is not a central tenet in some forms of Buddhism.

Buddhism is not a religion, it does not seek to offer "proof" even if such existed.
It does not proselytize at all in any way you have to come to it on your own.

--
Personally - rest is all personal opinion more so than above.
---

I do not get caught up* in things I know nothing about, like life after death, and try to live in the moment ala Zen.
Also on top of me not knowing what is possibly after this life I do not believe I could possibly ever know what happens in this life after this life ends so I just accept that much like I do not know of life before I was born.

*Except in an academic sense, but this is more for philosophy/history sake than Buddhism.

wylo

Heres my personal take on your questions, buddhism stretches all the way to real pragmatic solid stuff where people not only have intentions on getting enlightened, but getting it done in a reasonable time frame, and even if you arent totally succesful, getting half way there will change your life incredibly, to the religious and traditional side, something I personally know nothing about tbh.
My answers come from the pragmatic side.

1. Buddhism seems to teach that human destiny lies in reincarnating to suffer until we use the Eightfold Path to remove our individual identity ?

Yes you can ignore the reincarnating bit if you like. Set a target, get enlightened in THIS life:P

2. The claim that perceiving yourself as in some sense unreal will make you happier and more compassionate ?

The claim is that you will lose your sense of self, and yes that does make you far more happy and compassionate.

3. That detachment from ordinary life is the surest route to salvation ?

You see, theres a difference between enjoying ordinary life and being attached to it. You are shedding the belief that the ordinary life is the thing that makes you happy. It doesnt mean you have to LEAVE your ordinary life, it just means you stop relying it to be happy. This comes by itself after realization.
Its not as big a deal as it sounds, I enjoy all the things I did before, be it soccer, movies, women, hobbies etc etc I just dont need them per say to be totally and utterly content.

4. It suggests that life is a problem that can be solved, a cul-de-sac that can be, and should be, escaped ?

This could be taken out of context, Id like to be accurate and say, all the conditioning that we have built up throughout our lives that we call "life", all the negative thoughts and strange human behaviour that we take for granted as normal is the problem, ie stuff that causes anxiety, fear , anger, general negativity, heavy emotional investment in ego, is realized as stuff that has arisen from incorrect and what Id now consider insane thought. A complete free natural condition would be the escape, but this isnt even something that would be noticed by someone else (just saying that to remind you this stuff is normal).

5. Buddhists must work to convince themselves they have no personal significance, even though they live daily as though they do ?

There's a truth in the fact that none of us have any personal significance whatsoever,ask any scientist that. And yes, eating, living comfortably, enjoying things, would make that realization seem contradictory so I see how that one would make sense.

6. The hope of nirvana seems to be eternal death and extinction ?

Eternal death of the self, the self is what you consider to be "you". But again, this stuff is being seen not only in Buddhism , but also in Neuroscience now, all these experiences including Nirvana can be interpreted differently depending on what teaching.

7. Buddha rejects the existence of the ‘soul’ or suchlike. Yet it also believes in the principle of karma and rebirth. If souls do not exist, how can there be karma? If there is no ‘soul’ or suchlike, how is rebirth possible ?

This stuff could be read as beliefs from traditions, or as metaphors, or completely ignored depending what teaching.

8. If life and reincarnation is 1 for 1 (one life becomes another later on), then how is it possible that there are more ‘souls’ now then there were in the past ?


9. Reincarnation seems to imply the existence of some type of inanimate force that manages to tally up our deeds before rewarding us with a particular type of rebirth or not ?

Ill pass on these two because I know that you can be a fully practicing buddhist and not care for rebirth etc.

10. Buddha's first step toward enlightenment was his abandonment of his wife and child, and Buddhism still exalts male monasticism as the epitome of spirituality ?

I dont think any of that is enough grounds to not at least look at the practice. In the Western world there are probably more women than men learning this stuff. The male monasticism is probably very tied up with it having been turned into an out and out religion, as oppose to practice and philosophy. As for the Buddha story of leaving his wife. Maybe it was her that drove him to leave (just sayin...)

11. Has any person living reached Nirvana besides Buddha ?

Again, depends on the teaching, according to one particular one that I go by, Ive already experienced fruitions, a sort of non abiding black out of peace, emptiness, non awareness, non consciousness. But alot of people argue with other (online) and some say that is not what Nirvana is. I dont think its relevent until you have made some progress tbh, and you've found the right teaching to work off.

12. Also part of reaching Nirvana involves being unconditionally compassionate to everything. However, when you reach the state of Nirvana, all feelings of attachments and desires are supposedly eradicated so how can you be compassionate if that too is a personal feeling and would require a desire to do so ?

But compassion is pretty much the polar opposite of attachment and desire.
ps attachment and desire is taken seriously out of context. Desire is effectively wanting things to be not the way they are, ie resisting what is. It takes a bit of time to start seeing this more clearly, as you discover the types of tensions and suffering that arises when you feel uncomfortable etc.
Attachment is holding onto your sense of self.

13. Why are enlightenment and nirvana desires that we should not let go of ?

Because neither of them are desires when realized, actually neither of them even exist outside of human concept. Dont get me wrong I appreciate why one wants to be enlightened, but the closer you get to your genuine experience of reality, the more you realize that even enlightenment was just another concept or idea, you cant find it or see it, its more like a process of shedding everything about yourself and your assumptions.

14. Supporting evidence for Buddhism and its claims ?

The problem with first person reports are , they are just that, first person reports. I think to believe that the changes and shifts are real you must at least try to attain some sort of initial awakening. All it takes is one change in perception for you to say "holy **** this stuff is actually real".

Regarding evidence in general? The entire practice is based on finding evidence for the claims you have made your whole life about your experience. (leaving aside traditional stuff like rebirth etc)
So , personally I think the question should be asked in the opposite direction.
If there is really a self, why has never been found by anyone? Even in neuroscience, they are beginning to demonstrate its illusory nature.

Or you could look at other teachings , like for instance, the teaching of emptiness. That nothing inherently exists in and of itself. If someone can show me in their direct experience that this is untrue, they will have done something really special.

conor.hogan.2

On the "no personal worth" or "just stop eating" point - look at the famous Self Immolation video, that monk was completely content to die horribly but only to make a point he would not give up food on a tuesday for no reason for example.

Life goes on.

My view on Buddhism is it improves my life, there is no goal really for me anything that comes comes.

wylo

Just to add one more point regarding significance,

If you look carefully, the most seemingly unhappy people, be they loud and obnoxious, or quiet , shy, anxious and nervous, believe they are more significant than they really are, and their dissatisfaction comes from the truth of reality not hitting their expectations.

If you invest your emotions into your self worth then you are making yourself more important than everyone else.
I truly believe the happiest , secure and most confident people care the least about their own sense of self worth and ego.

Burt Lancaster

Burt Lancaster wrote: »

1. Buddhism seems to teach that human destiny lies in reincarnating to suffer until we use the Eightfold Path to remove our individual identity ?

it's not a "destiny". the main starting point is that currently you are unenlightened, there are steps you can take to get there. the eightfold path is a guide to help you get there. It doesn't have to involve reincarnation and it doesn't have to be the only path.

2. The claim that perceiving yourself as in some sense unreal will make you happier and more compassionate ?

No, the idea is that you see there is no self at all to perceive in the first place.

3. That detachment from ordinary life is the surest route to salvation ?

It can be a bit of a distraction all right. On the other hand:

One should not think that lay people are tied down and hence cannot practise and propagate the Dharma. It is actually to the advantage of lay people. Buddhism is not only observances such as chanting in the monastery or giving Dharma talks and meditation. It should involve in changing and directing the world, leading the inhabitants of this world in upgrading themselves day by day.

4. It suggests that life is a problem that can be solved, a cul-de-sac that can be, and should be, escaped ?

I don't really get what you're asking here. the idea is to get rid of unhappiness, not life

5. Buddhists must work to convince themselves they have no personal significance, even though they live daily as though they do ?

Don't really get this either
your actions and speech will generally have a knock on effect... that's significant enough

6. The hope of nirvana seems to be eternal death and extinction ?

breaking the cycle of rebirth and suffering, yes

7. Buddha rejects the existence of the ‘soul’ or suchlike. Yet it also believes in the principle of karma and rebirth. If souls do not exist, how can there be karma? If there is no ‘soul’ or suchlike, how is rebirth possible ?

http://sdhammika.blogspot.ie/2008/06/anatta-and-rebirth.html
http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell09.htm

8. If life and reincarnation is 1 for 1 (one life becomes another later on), then how is it possible that there are more ‘souls’ now then there were in the past ?

there aren't souls
as for the question, you might as well ask how there are any new people born with distinct personalities now if they didn't exist in the past

9. Reincarnation seems to imply the existence of some type of inanimate force that manages to tally up our deeds before rewarding us with a particular type of rebirth or not ?

no it doesn't
karma is action and reaction
for any action or speech there will be a knock on effect: you are rude to someone, they are rude to someone else
you throw a stone at someone, they get injured, they get angry at you

there is no tallying up and final judging

10. Buddha's first step toward enlightenment was his abandonment of his wife and child, and Buddhism still exalts male monasticism as the epitome of spirituality ?

He knew he'd be distracted and wanted to go off and seek it for himself
wouldn't be something you'd want to emulate i reckon, no reason we can't use the fruits of the teachings though
no idea about exalting male monasticism - one personal role model for me is tenzin palmo
she did mention there was a lot of sexism in some groups
not surprising really, but i don't think buddhism itself does that

11. Has any person living reached Nirvana besides Buddha ?

I'd say so yes, they just didn't teach it

13. Why are enlightenment and nirvana desires that we should not let go of ?

They're not really
it's a bit of a paradox
I think if you obsess over it instead of carefully following the teachings and practising, you could find yourself in a bit of trouble with it
it's another example of "leave the bridge behind when you cross it instead of trying to take it with you"

14. Supporting evidence for Buddhism and its claims ?

Generally speaking, I think people will testify that they feel better in general and better able to cope with what life throws at them when they are practising meditation and compassion
you don't have to accept rebirth tbh, I think there are buddhists who don't, even though I do (which is how I got to buddhism in the first place)
beyond that, I think it's a case of try it and see - if it is not working for you, try something else instead

18AD

Burt Lancaster wrote: »

1. Buddhism seems to teach that human destiny lies in reincarnating to suffer until we use the Eightfold Path to remove our individual identity ?

2. The claim that perceiving yourself as in some sense unreal will make you happier and more compassionate ?

3. That detachment from ordinary life is the surest route to salvation ?

4. It suggests that life is a problem that can be solved, a cul-de-sac that can be, and should be, escaped ?

5. Buddhists must work to convince themselves they have no personal significance, even though they live daily as though they do ?

6. The hope of nirvana seems to be eternal death and extinction ?

12. Also part of reaching Nirvana involves being unconditionally compassionate to everything. However, when you reach the state of Nirvana, all feelings of attachments and desires are supposedly eradicated so how can you be compassionate if that too is a personal feeling and would require a desire to do so ?

13. Why are enlightenment and nirvana desires that we should not let go of ?

I think most of your questions hinge on the question of eradicating the self, escaping reality, detachment, the unreal, illusion etc...

From what I know, as long as you are still thinking in terms of what is real and what is not, what is self and what is not self, attached/detached, real/illusion etc... you are stuck in dual thinking. The whole point is to move beyond this dual thinking. The reality/illusion or self/no-self distinctions are another hindrance towards understanding. As long as you are striving to be detached you are still desiring. As you ask, if you desire to be enlightened or to attain nirvana you are trapped in desire. You can't desire to not desire. At some point you just have to stop thinking in terms of desire/not desire.

To escape reality means simultaneously to be in reality and to not be in reality. Abandon the concept altogether.

If you attain nirvana and stay there, you are stuck in your personal desire to be enlightened. The point of nirvana is to leave it, lest you become attached to it for your own sake.

wylo

18AD wrote: »

I think most of your questions hinge on the question of eradicating the self, escaping reality, detachment, the unreal, illusion etc...

From what I know, as long as you are still thinking in terms of what is real and what is not, what is self and what is not self, attached/detached, real/illusion etc... you are stuck in dual thinking. The whole point is to move beyond this dual thinking. The reality/illusion or self/no-self distinctions are another hindrance towards understanding. As long as you are striving to be detached you are still desiring. As you ask, if you desire to be enlightened or to attain nirvana you are trapped in desire. You can't desire to not desire. At some point you just have to stop thinking in terms of desire/not desire.

To escape reality means simultaneously to be in reality and to not be in reality. Abandon the concept altogether.

If you attain nirvana and stay there, you are stuck in your personal desire to be enlightened. The point of nirvana is to leave it, lest you become attached to it for your own sake.

Sorry for butting in and possibly causing confusion, but should it not be a sort of case of walk before running?

Sort of like realize no self, but THEN drop "no self" as its only seen as another concept?

The whole thing of using a thorn to remove the thorn if you get me.

I think it would be very difficult to jump right in and realize and fully understand what you are saying without a few pointers and processes before it.

That said, thats just a reflection on the way Ive learned it. Different for everyone I guess.

By your logic theres no point telling someone to do anything. Sort of non dual fundamentalism. I think you have to play with beliefs and use them before letting go of them.

18AD

wylo wrote: »

Sorry for butting in and possibly causing confusion, but should it not be a sort of case of walk before running?

Sort of like realize no self, but THEN drop "no self" as its only seen as another concept?

In relation to the OP's questions I thought there was some confusion as to what exactly nirvana, escaping reality and no-self were. None of them are an escape from life. You still continue "being a person" if you're enlightened or not.

“Before enlightenment; chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment; chop wood, carry water.”

In relation to your question. Striving after a self is as much a striving as striving after a no self. If you can carry a self around you can equally carry a no self around.

I have never been trained in Buddhism or anything so I'm not sure if there is a tried and tested procedure. From what little I know, pointing to no self is a preliminary exercise, so maybe you should venture through that first.

wylo

I think theres lots of ways to approach this stuff! If it works it works, Which is great, which ever one fits right at the time I guess!

Burt Lancaster

Folks, thank you very much for the answers so far. I haven't time to reply properly, but I hope to soon. Personally I've found some of them a little bit vague / skirting around the issue / contradictory. If anyone else has views, I'd be happy to hear them.

I notice some of the posters want to distance themselves from any possible spiritual aspect, including reincarnation. Fair enough. So other than being a simple concise clean living moral code, what other purpose is there to Buddhism ? and is it really Buddhism, or just highly dressed up common sense ? (Btw, before anyone says it, I’m well aware that Buddhism is closer to being a philosophy than a religion)

Cork24

It's not the soul, but the unfold of the mind, it's the mind that is the key to all karma and happiness.

wylo

Burt Lancaster wrote: »

Folks, thank you very much for the answers so far. I haven't time to reply properly, but I hope to soon. Personally I've found some of them a little bit vague / skirting around the issue / contradictory. If anyone else has views, I'd be happy to hear them.

I notice some of the posters want to distance themselves from any possible spiritual aspect, including reincarnation. Fair enough. So other than being a simple concise clean living moral code, what other purpose is there to Buddhism ? and is it really Buddhism, or just highly dressed up common sense ? (Btw, before anyone says it, I’m well aware that Buddhism is closer to being a philosophy than a religion)

The thing about this kind of practice and philosophy is, as you said yourself , its not a religion, if it seems like we're skirting around answers (im curious which ones), its not because we want you to "join us", its because we just dont know the answers.

You say you know its not a religion, yet you sort of treat it like one yourself, or at least expect us to answer like it is one.

Its an entire philosophy with a massive array of practices , teachings, methods and insights. Theres different types of "enlightenment",different levels, some of which conflict with each other, there are different takes on what Nirvana is, there are different maps, models, discussions, some that are more appealing to the West, some not.
There are different takes on what rebirth is, in some areas its completely ignored.
So by asking questions and wanting general answers that are to do with the generic word "Buddhism", you're definitely going to get vague answers.
So really, its up to you to find out what it is that interests you about it and see if you are willing to take it up.

From what Ive learned about it myself, its far more than highly dressed up common sense or moral code, its an entire practice that can induce complete perceptual shifts that allow a level of personal freedom that I dont think Ive ever experienced in the past. And this is coming from someone who would have called themselves happy in the past.

So really, no one is here is going to try convince you of anything. People will just try and answer the questions as best they can.

wylo

Itd be like going into a fitness forum and asking stuff like "When are you officially fit?", "what weights are the right amount?" "should I take creatine?", "how often should I run?" without giving any detail whatsoever of where you're at or what you're interested in fitness wise.

Burt Lancaster

? You keep jumping to an argument I'm not making. I have questions, that is all.
I'm not trying to be convinced of anything or joining anyone, or think of it as a religion.
Any philosophy I've studied has at least consistency, I'm trying to find the common ground/logic/aims and consistency in Buddhism once you go beyond the simple common sense aspects of the four noble truths and the eightfold path, and seperate it from any pseudo intellectual tangents or new ageism.

wylo

Burt Lancaster wrote: »

? You keep jumping to an argument I'm not making. I have questions, that is all.
I'm not trying to be convinced of anything or joining anyone, or think of it as a religion.
Any philosophy I've studied has at least consistency, I'm trying to find the common ground/logic/aims and consistency in Buddhism once you go beyond the simple common sense aspects of the four noble truths and the eightfold path, and seperate it from any pseudo intellectual tangents or new ageism.

ok fair point, well itll definitely be harder to find true consistency tbh, but Ill give it a go:D
common ground: humans are not experiencing their direct experience of reality as clearly and truly as they could be, and suffer as a result
logic: with practice they CAN experience it
aims: to experience reality as clearly as possible by understanding and realizing that beliefs, assumptions ,conditions, attachment , and wanting things to be not what their direct experience is cause people to be unhappy. (the reason Im reluctant to use the word desire is because Im afraid it would be taken out of context)

What seperates it from psuedo intellectual tangents or new ageism? Well heres where you might start running into inconsistency, Id probably need clear examples of what you're talking about there to be honest.

Hope that was a bit clearer.

conor.hogan.2

Burt Lancaster wrote: »

Any philosophy I've studied has at least consistency, I'm trying to find the common ground/logic/aims and consistency in Buddhism once you go beyond the simple common sense aspects of the four noble truths and the eightfold path, and seperate it from any pseudo intellectual tangents or new ageism.

I don't know that Philosophy is consistent at all really, it is philosophy and has no hard fast truths at all really.

Buddhism is not a religion, there is no cohesive single "right answer" hence the apparent contradictions.

Also considering Buddhisms age, it is devoid of "new ageism". Tolle and others of late are kind of different to "core"/older central tenets of Buddhism.

There is little anything pseudo about Buddhism, in fact a lot of modern science is backing up some "beliefs" of Buddhism.

Burt Lancaster

Hi again folks, thank you for the answers so far. As can be expected some answers lead to more questions !
I hope you can bear with me.

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Re-incarnation is not a central tenet in some forms of Buddhism.

I thought the whole point of Buddhism is self extinguishment and to attempt to avoid any possibility of re-incarnation ?

wylo wrote: »

The claim is that you will lose your sense of self, and yes that does make you far more happy and compassionate.

Is that not simply becoming less selfish ?

wylo wrote: »

Its not as big a deal as it sounds, I enjoy all the things I did before, be it soccer, movies, women, hobbies etc etc I just dont need them per say to be totally and utterly content.

But most people, especially as they get older realise that simple precept without Buddhism / Christianity / Philosophy / religion etc. ?

wylo wrote: »

There's a truth in the fact that none of us have any personal significance whatsoever,ask any scientist that. And yes, eating, living comfortably, enjoying things, would make that realization seem contradictory so I see how that one would make sense.

But its seems a contradiction in itself, and lacking compassion for others to
selfishly take up shelter and food that could be used by someone else, while at the same time seeking extinguishment of self ?

wylo wrote: »

I know that you can be a fully practicing buddhist and not care for rebirth etc.

Agreed, as I've also come across a few atheist Christians. Each to their own and all that.

But ultimately the end goal of Buddhism seems to be self extinguishment and to ensure no reincarnation of any type can occur to break free from the 'cycle'.

wylo wrote: »

I dont think any of that is enough grounds to not at least look at the practice. In the Western world there are probably more women than men learning this stuff. The male monasticism is probably very tied up with it having been turned into an out and out religion, as oppose to practice and philosophy.

But according to most Buddhism, the vast majority of lay people will not achieve Nirvana in this life. Perhaps when the women come back as male monastic’s, then they might have a better chance ?

wylo wrote: »

As for the Buddha story of leaving his wife. Maybe it was her that drove him to leave (just sayin...)

If true, it's not a great example as I don't see how leaving your wife and children to sit under a tree to ponder things for the rest of your life is truly compassionate and unselfish ?

wylo wrote: »

I truly believe the happiest , secure and most confident people care the least about their own sense of self worth and ego.

At what point to do you cease self worth, i.e. give away possessions, sit outside and refuse food, blissfully happy that you have extinguished all desire ?

bluewolf wrote: »

I don't really get what you're asking here. the idea is to get rid of unhappiness, not life

Is the ultimate goal not to break free from being attached to life, and therefore to free yourself from re-incarnation ?

"The bhikkhu Godhika is an enthusiastic meditator. He achieves ‘temporary liberation of mind’, or one or other of the higher superconscious states, but always fails to gain final liberation because he is beset by illness. After six failures he finds himself once again in a state of temporary liberation and it occurs to him to ‘take the knife’, i.e. to cut his throat.
His rationale is apparently that if he dies in an ordinary state of consciousness his rebirth is uncertain, but if he dies while in a superconscious state he will be reborn in the Brahma realm.

Mara senses what is about to happen and he knows that Godhika is likely to attain liberation by his act since it shows he is ‘unconcerned with body and life’. He approaches the Buddha and instead of his usual sneering he is very polite and even deferential, addressing the Buddha as ‘Great Hero’. He requests that the Buddha intervene to prevent Godhika from carrying out his resolution on the grounds that it is wrong for a bhikkhu to commit suicide. However, he is too late, and the Buddha says.

‘Such indeed is how the steadfast act:
They are not attached to life.
Having drawn out craving at its root
Godhika has attained final Nibbaana.'

So in this case, far from being considered an unskilful act, suicide results in Godhika’s enlightenment. Godhika is not attached to life, so he can commit suicide and not suffer any ill consequences spiritually. "

- The Connected Discourses of the Buddha, A Translation of the Sa.myutta Nikaaya, trans. Bikkhu Bodhi, Wisdom Publications

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

I don't know that Philosophy is consistent at all really, it is philosophy and has no hard fast truths at all really.

So what about the four noble truths and the eightfold path ?

Granted any consistency in Buddhism seems to seems fall apart after that, why is that ?

Red21

Burt Lancaster wrote: »

11. Has any person living reached Nirvana besides Buddha ?

wylo wrote: »

.

Again, depends on the teaching, according to one particular one that I go by, Ive already experienced fruitions, a sort of non abiding black out of peace, emptiness, non awareness, non consciousness. But alot of people argue with other (online) and some say that is not what Nirvana is. I dont think its relevent until you have made some progress tbh, and you've found the right teaching to work off.
.

bluewolf wrote: »

I'd say so yes, they just didn't teach it

Interested in more answers to question 11.

But rather than getting caught up on terms like nirvana and enlightenment let us suppose that a living person not involved in buddhism had the very same transfromation as the Buddha, was just as wise and like the Buddha this person decided to teach and hopefully bring the same transfromation about in others.
Considering that over 7 billion human beings are alive now and that the Buddha had his transformation without the aid of Buddhism isin't there a strong chance that this happens and has been happening over the years.
So would anyone like to speculate how things would pan out for a modern day Buddha?
If say she arrived at the gates of Plum Village would she have to sit behind those who sit behind Thich nhat hanh or would the monks be able spot such a person?

wylo

I believe personally there are loads of people going through what the Buddha went through today.

Ive read in places that his teachings were clear instructions and many people around him were awakening as a result, only in time and with the development of the religion most of this got lost to the point that to claim enlightenment became a taboo.

There are some very knowledgeable Buddhist forums online that work off some of the oldest teachings and address this stuff in a far more pragmatic fashion.

Enlightenment is a realistic target. And ill even dare say that im enlightened in some teachings. Not 'fully' enlightened though.

As for the OPs new questions, really cant tell if you're looking for a debate or you genuinely want to know. But ill give them a go anyway.

conor.hogan.2

Burt Lancaster wrote: »

I thought the whole point of Buddhism is self extinguishment and to attempt to avoid any possibility of re-incarnation ?

So what about the four noble truths and the eightfold path ?

Granted any consistency in Buddhism seems to seems fall apart after that, why is that ?

That is one view on it yes, there are many who do not hold much weight in re-incarnation and I would be in that school of thought.

Buddhism unlike actual religions (judeo-christian religions for example) does not like to make monumental far reaching magical claims so therefore it may seem that it "falls apart" after some basic tenets.

It seems this way because it basically does "fall apart" after this, like in pretty much every philosophy and science we do not really have much to stand on solidly but people still like to think we do in religions mainly.

wylo

Is that not simply becoming less selfish ?

Being less selfish in regular terms just means looking after other peoples interests over your own. Im talking about a complete loss of the sense of "I".

But most people, especially as they get older realise that simple precept without Buddhism / Christianity / Philosophy / religion etc. ?

They do actually, so take that philosophy and wisdom, speed it up, multiply the realization by 100 and then maybe the wisdom people seem to pick up after a lifetime could come at a much sooner time. Actually, what you say makes sense, you often hear of people finding peace right before they die, or talking of regrets and stuff they should have done .Shame it has to happen so late. Thats my point.

But its seems a contradiction in itself, and lacking compassion for others to
selfishly take up shelter and food that could be used by someone else, while at the same time seeking extinguishment of self ?

Again, when I talk of self, significance , self worth,etc im referring to a personal investment in ego, a sense of I. A tiny insect most likely doesnt hold the same level of significance about itself that a human does, but that doesnt stop it wanting to survive.
Treat the body as different to the sense of self when we're discussing this stuff.

Agreed, as I've also come across a few atheist Christians. Each to their own and all that.

What the hell is an atheist Christian?

But ultimately the end goal of Buddhism seems to be self extinguishment and to ensure no reincarnation of any type can occur to break free from the 'cycle'.

As Ive said, I dont know about that stuff.

But according to most Buddhism, the vast majority of lay people will not achieve Nirvana in this life. Perhaps when the women come back as male monastic’s, then they might have a better chance ?

Whats "most Buddhism" ? Its a philosophy not a religion.

If true, it's not a great example as I don't see how leaving your wife and children to sit under a tree to ponder things for the rest of your life is truly compassionate and unselfish ?

Well I was joking, and guessing tbh. He probably didnt give a crap about setting examples at the time, cause he was suffering and and was more interested in finding out the nature of his reality, afaik he did it in a few years and started teaching then.
(ps I dont have a clue about his story, im going by google searches of something that would have happened 2.5k years ago.

At what point to do you cease self worth, i.e. give away possessions, sit outside and refuse food, blissfully happy that you have extinguished all desire ?

lol, sit outside and refuse food? thats nothing to do with self worth or egoistic attachments or desire for your experience of reality to be something its not.
This is the reason I hate the word desire, it can be seriously taken out of context.

Granted any consistency in Buddhism seems to seems fall apart after that, why is that ?

Cause its 2500 years old and has been turned into everything from some 9-5er doing a spot of meditation in the evening to something looked at on neuroscience level , to new ageism, to various forms of teachings across the world, to hardcore religions that are learned in school in the East. So i guess its no surprise there is little consistency. As I said, the word Buddhism is VERY vague. But what Ive laid out in the post on the top of this page would be common ground that I dont think much people would disagree with.

That said, if your interest here is in the concept of reincarnation im sure others might be able to help cause I dont have a clue tbh!!!

Red21

wylo wrote: »

I believe personally there are loads of people going through what the Buddha went through today.

Ive read in places that his teachings were clear instructions and many people around him were awakening as a result, only in time and with the development of the religion most of this got lost to the point that to claim enlightenment became a taboo.

If this were true I believe it would have had a domino effect and the world would be a very differant place. Not saying he didn't give clear instructions but for whatever reason the suffering went on and still goes on.

wylo wrote: »

Enlightenment is a realistic target.

I would say it's very very rare but I do believe that some people do live without any kinda suffering along with not adding to the worlds suffering, it might just be a biological thing.
I douth very much that this can be got in the progressive way you seem to think it can. You imply that if someone makes an effort they can gradually get there, this makes no sense to me as this is the very thing that humans are good at, making an effort and getting a result, we love climbing mountains and running marathons for no real reason whatsoever just to achieve our goals.
If you consider all the millions of good clever people down the years who were willing to say endless hours of prayers in the hope of reaching some kinda salvation surely you must say that making an effort is not a problem and if making an effort is not a problem and the suffering goes on don't you then have to question, is there a path?

Burt Lancaster

wylo wrote: »

I believe personally there are loads of people going through what the Buddha went through today.

Who in particular, and why not selfishly share the wisdom as Buddha did ?

Interestingly the Dalai Lama himself says that he is not enlightened.
(Not much hope for the masses so !)

wylo wrote: »

As for the OPs new questions, really cant tell if you're looking for a debate or you genuinely want to know. But ill give them a go anyway.

I question everything, sorry that's just my nature, I'm not the type to accept any answer unconditionally, especially if I feel it does not really answer my question. As for debate, I have too many questions remaining to debate anything.

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

That is one view on it yes, there are many who do not hold much weight in re-incarnation and I would be in that school of thought.

Is that really Buddhism though ? It seems more of a western development to make Buddhism more acceptable. Escape from re-birth is very central.

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Buddhism unlike actual religions (judeo-christian religions for example) does not like to make monumental far reaching magical claims so therefore it may seem that it "falls apart" after some basic tenets.

It seems this way because it basically does "fall apart" after this, like in pretty much every philosophy and science we do not really have much to stand on solidly but people still like to think we do in religions mainly.

Hmm, whatever way you spin them, Nirvana, the four noble truths and reincarnation are some pretty far reaching claims.

wylo wrote: »

Again, when I talk of self, significance , self worth,etc im referring to a personal investment in ego, a sense of I. A tiny insect most likely doesnt hold the same level of significance about itself that a human does, but that doesnt stop it wanting to survive.

But yet that seems to make that insect more enlightened than the average human ?

wylo wrote: »

What the hell is an atheist Christian?

Someone who pratices the morality and compassion of Christianity, without believing in God or the afterlife.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism

wylo wrote: »

As Ive said, I dont know about that stuff.

I had hoped that people providing answers here would

wylo wrote: »

Whats "most Buddhism" ?

The most widly practiced Eastern Buddhism, as opposed to the western style/versions.

wylo wrote: »

Its a philosophy not a religion.

I'm not afraid of either, but you keep desperately repeating over and over and over as if someone is arguing it ?, I've never made that claim, and I don't see anyone else here making it either, and its not a question even being asked ?

wylo wrote: »

Well I was joking, and guessing tbh. He probably didnt give a crap about setting examples at the time, cause he was suffering and and was more interested in finding out the nature of his reality, afaik he did it in a few years and started teaching then.
(ps I dont have a clue about his story, im going by google searches of something that would have happened 2.5k years ago.

Sorry I really can't tell when your 'joking' or 'guessing' 'having a clue' etc.
This conversation may be a waste of both our time.

wylo wrote: »

lol, sit outside and refuse food? thats nothing to do with self worth or egoistic attachments or desire for your experience of reality to be something its not.
This is the reason I hate the word desire, it can be seriously taken out of context.

Belongings are desires, why not give them all up to others, in compassion for others ? Why be attached to them ?

wylo wrote: »

Cause its 2500 years old and has been turned into everything from some 9-5er doing a spot of meditation in the evening to something looked at on neuroscience level , to new ageism, to various forms of teachings across the world, to hardcore religions that are learned in school in the East. So i guess its no surprise there is little consistency. As I said, the word Buddhism is VERY vague. But what Ive laid out in the post on the top of this page would be common ground that I dont think much people would disagree with.

That said, if your interest here is in the concept of reincarnation im sure others might be able to help cause I dont have a clue tbh!!!

Did you just pick out the bits of Buddhism you liked ? As the Dali Lama says nothing wrong with that, as long as your not trying to present it as Buddhism. I'm looking for answers regarding Buddhism as a whole, not personal beliefs or philosophies. Apologies, I don't mean to be abrupt in any way, but I don't want to waste your time or mine with personal beliefs/philosophies.

conor.hogan.2

Burt Lancaster wrote: »

Is that really Buddhism though ? It seems more of a western development to make Buddhism more acceptable. Escape from re-birth is very central.

Hmm, whatever way you spin them, Nirvana, the four noble truths and reincarnation are some pretty far reaching claims.

Yes, it is. No it is not, but of course I have "western" readings into Buddhism much like the Chinese for example had Chinese (daoist and confucian for example) readings into Buddhism and adapted it too. No it is not, it is central in some forms of Buddhism.

I am not spinning anything, Buddhism is completely up to you to pursue. I am only trying to help you with some of your questions.

They are wide reaching, but the are not put forward as solid facts that you must accept in any way like religions do. This may be misconstrued as "falling apart" but if you see there is not much ground to stand on in the first place then you will understand it. This is from a science stand point even, not even particularly a Buddhism standpoint it just happens to back Buddhism up in some aspects.

Burt Lancaster wrote: »

I'm looking for answers regarding Buddhism as a whole, not personal beliefs or philosophies.

Impossible. You can not get a cohesive picture of something that old that has spread all over the world and has so many different schools of thought. People all read into it what they know, it happened with Zen for example.

The Dali Lama, as much as I respect him, does not speak for all of Buddhism. Far from it. If you are coming to Buddhism to find all answers, you will be disappointed.

If you want no personal beliefs, read the source material (what little is there) but realize that could potentially be one mans (or many) personal beliefs too.

The Atheist Christian thing is nonsense, I would question that first tbh.

Burt Lancaster wrote: »

Belongings are desires, why not give them all up to others, in compassion for others ? Why be attached to them ?

What belongings are you talking about? Having them and being "attached" to them are two different things.
We are not perfect, no one is for example your Dali Lama point earlier.

"Before Enlightenment chop wood carry water, after Enlightenment, chop wood carry water." You don't just give up food or possessions, you still need them. The Buddha travelled after Enlightenment, he ate food etc

wylo

Hey Burt, apologies, we're on a different page in terms of discussion tbh. I know you say that you know its a philosophy so its the general philosophy Im interested in discussing, not tradition or religion. You had said you wanted to compare that philosophy to new age and pseudo intellectual stuff but you seem interested in certain specifics of the religion.

Nobody will ever be able to tell you with certainty why he left his wife, and if they do tell you and they claim that they know that is the true reason, I wouldnt trust anything they had to say. It happened 2.5k years ago. Theres no way of knowing. Maybe she was nagging him every day and he said to himself "ive had enough of this crap, hmmmm, whats this awakening stuff all about, i think ill try that"
Sorry to make light of it, but even hardcore religious buddhists wont know for certain that that wasnt the case.

You're right, I do pick out bits of Buddhism I like. I gravitated towards this in a bid to learn more about the actual practices of awakening/insight so I naturally gravitated strongly towards the more pragmatic aspects of it, not the religious.

You say you question everything, thats great, so long as you are questioning everything about yourself first and foremost, in every single aspect of your experience of life, including the sense of "you".

Maybe Im wrong here, and Im sure you'll completely deny it, but I get the impression from your questions that you're trying to catch people out here or something, rather than actually learn peoples viewpoints on all this.

A generic Buddhist forum with no sub forums is naturally going to have everyone from someone who simply wants to learn how to meditate for 10 mins every evening to hardcore religious believers. Thats why I keep repeating "over and over and over" that it is a philosophy, so maybe its just not the right place regarding getting specific answers related to rebirth etc.

wylo

Red21 wrote: »

If this were true I believe it would have had a domino effect and the world would be a very differant place. Not saying he didn't give clear instructions but for whatever reason the suffering went on and still goes on.

Im not sure of the reasons of why it didnt continue on back then, I can only speculate that it turned into a religion after he died, but what I do know is that most people aren't interested in enlightenment nowadays. Even people that express an interest tend to lose interest once they realize that a thorough investigation and dismantling of all their beleifs is required.
Im sure if everybody saw their friends doing it, it would be fine, but sadly nobody really cares right now.

Ill give you a tiny quick example of how this could play out. Suppose you were having a big argument with your friend because of something (they didnt show up to a wedding cause they got drunk with other friends for example). Suppose this really upset you, but moreso made you angry at the friend and not want to continue communication after that. Now , suppose I told you that the way your feeling about it has absolutely nothing to do with your friend, that the way you are feeling is entirely your own projections, your own fault, your own egoic assumptions and ideas about what is right and wrong. Itd be fairly hard to stomach something like that.

People that really want to get rid of suffering are willing to do that. You'll find theres not many of them around because the ego and the "I" is more important than removing suffering.

I would say it's very very rare but I do believe that some people do live without any kinda suffering along with not adding to the worlds suffering, it might just be a biological thing.
I douth very much that this can be got in the progressive way you seem to think it can. You imply that if someone makes an effort they can gradually get there, this makes no sense to me as this is the very thing that humans are good at, making an effort and getting a result, we love climbing mountains and running marathons for no real reason whatsoever just to achieve our goals.

Ending suffering requires effort,but it is totally and realistically possible and there are people that practice this stuff all over the world and succeed.

If you consider all the millions of good clever people down the years who were willing to say endless hours of prayers in the hope of reaching some kinda salvation surely you must say that making an effort is not a problem and if making an effort is not a problem and the suffering goes on don't you then have to question, is there a path?

You're right, making an effort isnt a problem, but what kind of effort? Sitting down praying every night to a supposed God that they assume exists in the hope for enlightenment is far far different to a thorough and heavy investigation of your own experience.
This is a clear cut example of how a solid teaching/practice can turn into a religion and end up doing the very opposite thing its suppose to do.

Names Id suggest to you:
Kenneth Folk
Daniel Ingram
Shinzen Young
this blog: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/ (contains very clear instructions)
this site: http://liberationunleashed.com/nation/index.php (its not a buddhist site but applies similar methods for realizing the nature of "self")
this site: http://dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion ,excellent discussion forum where many people are very far if not complete in the ways of Theravada Buddhism.

I cant personally prove this but the guys listed above all come from a similar angle , ie working off some of the old texts where teachings and practices were less dogmatic and where results were expected.

Put it this way, why would the Buddha even bother teaching if he didnt think his method worked?

conor.hogan.2

I think it is important to note that by most accounts the Buddha was royalty in India at the time before he left and his marriage was very much unlikely for love.

Also Buddha afaik means "first enlightened one of an age" and this is important as he was not believed to be the first one by a long stretch.
But he was the first of that time (cyclic…) and that time writing in India was undergoing a change which meant greater documentation of Buddhism which lead to him being sort of "deified" and this might be one reason for few if any people coming out and saying they have become a Buddha too.

Burt Lancaster

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Yes, it is. No it is not, but of course I have "western" readings into Buddhism much like the Chinese for example had Chinese (daoist and confucian for example) readings into Buddhism and adapted it too. No it is not, it is central in some forms of Buddhism.

Ok, I could see why the emphasis on escape from reincarnation is kept low key in the west, and you could argue belief non belief in it may not affect this lifetime. How much of Buddhism can you adapt before its no longer really Buddhism ?

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

They are wide reaching, but the are not put forward as solid facts that you must accept in any way like religions do.

Hmm, and yet the four noble truths, the eight fold path, and nirvana seem to be forwarded as fairly solid claims ?

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

If you are coming to Buddhism to find all answers, you will be disappointed.

This is getting a bit defensive and pesonal at this stage, I just wish to discuss Buddhism.
I'm not 'coming to it' or following it, or trying to debunk it, I'm trying to find out about it.
No, I'm not coming to find out 'all the answers', but I'm here to try and find out more about Buddhism beyond the just four noble truths, the eightfold path, nirvana, and reincarnation. If thats all there is to Buddhism then just please say so.

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

The Atheist Christian thing is nonsense, I would question that first tbh.

It's no more nonsense that any other belief, each to their own, I'm not here to question anyone personally, I'm here to discuss the topic. I have questioned it, and if I was on the correct forum/thread I would continue to ask questions about, but I'm not, and here we are, heading off topic yet again. I don't find it any stranger than Buddhists not believing in re-incarnation etc.

My interest here is the commonly accepted aspects Buddhism, and Buddhist beliefs in the main, not anyones personal or adapted hybrid beliefs. That's only very confusing at this stage.

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

What belongings are you talking about? Having them and being "attached" to them are two different things.
We are not perfect, no one is for example your Dali Lama point earlier.

Personal non necessity belongings, etc. are these all about self ?

wylo wrote: »

Hey Burt, apologies, we're on a different page in terms of discussion tbh. I know you say that you know its a philosophy so its the general philosophy Im interested in discussing, not tradition or religion. You had said you wanted to compare that philosophy to new age and pseudo intellectual stuff but you seem interested in certain specifics of the religion.

Wylo, no, to avoid any confusion, I want to avoid any discussion of side tangents whatsoever, such as, personal beliefs, the new age and pseudo intellectual stuff, not compare it.

wylo wrote: »

You say you question everything, thats great, so long as you are questioning everything about yourself first and foremost, in every single aspect of your experience of life, including the sense of "you".

Maybe Im wrong here, and Im sure you'll completely deny it, but I get the impression from your questions that you're trying to catch people out here or something, rather than actually learn peoples viewpoints on all this.

Personally, I get suspicious of any philosophy/belief/religion that shys away from hard questions or tries to fudge the answers. There’s no 'catching out'. I'm surprised at the defensiveness, tbh, I wasn't expecting that with Buddhism. This defensiveness has got me intrigued now. I don't anyone that has 'caught out' another belief or philosophy. As I said I question everything, but I can only question Buddhism here and remain on topic. I prefer direct questions when looking for direct answers. I'm not one for beating about the bush all day. I'm trying to stick with the topic, not you, or me. The topic, i.e. Buddhism is what we should be discussing.

Thanks though to wylo and conor, you're the only ones at least trying to answer my questions about Buddhism, even though some wires are getting crossed along the way.

wylo wrote: »

You're right, making an effort isnt a problem, but what kind of effort? Sitting down praying every night to a supposed God that they assume exists in the hope for enlightenment is far far different to a thorough and heavy investigation of your own experience.
This is a clear cut example of how a solid teaching/practice can turn into a religion and end up doing the very opposite thing its suppose to do.

I thought one of the advantages of Buddhism is that it usually avoids a pissing contest between other beliefs and philosophies ?
I know lots of Christians who do 'heavy investigation' of their own experience. Eastern Buddhism doesn't seem to have an anti-God attitude, they don't seem to mind either way. Would this be a common view in western Buddhism, is it more for atheists than theists, or is this your own view again ?

18AD

If you want answers about the core precepts of buddhism, I suggest you read the source books of the religion. They are the real source of the tradition. Or maybe some good commentaries on such books.

Admittedly I haven't read many/any so I can't answer your questions.

I'm primarily interested in Zen, which is a different thing (pretty much altogether) than other forms. And even at that, I'm not even a buddhist, I just think I love it a little.

It may be helpful to clarify which type of buddhism you are looking to understand. Tibetan, Mahayana, Vedanta? Maybe someone else could help you with those.

I don't think you'll find anything beyond personal opinion anyway.

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." - Buddha.

Burt Lancaster

I know this is Ireland, and the land of the bullshyters, but I really would prefer answers from genuine Buddhists.

So far, in summary, all I've been told "its all just different personal beliefs", "read some books" and when I ask more I'm then told "I'm not really a Buddhist and I don't know" ?

So far, if this thread is representative, the only thing Irish Buddhists agree on (assuming at least someone here is a actual Buddhist to confirm ?) is the four noble truths, the eightfold path, and nirvana, the rest is make it up as you go along ?

Red21

wylo wrote: »

I cant personally prove this but the guys listed above all come from a similar angle , ie working off some of the old texts where teachings and practices were less dogmatic and where results were expected.

This is what I don't get, why would being old texts make them better any better than being new texts, if you don't believe in some deity from the past I don't understand why you would look to the past for spiritual guidance.
Let me explain, Christians get many of their spiritual teachings from Jesus Christ, the reason they accept these teachings is because they hold the belief that he was a God/Son of God so it's acceptable for them to look to the past, I don't believe that Jesus was a god but I fully understand their reasoning for looking to the past.If a person belives that the Buddha was a god it also makes sense for them to be looking back to old texts, if you don't think Buddha was a god then the only other option is that the source of Buddhism came from a human being.
Humans haven't become extinct, in fact there are more of them now than ever, the source of your spiritual guidance lives on. If you say that the Buddha was a very rare person lets say 1 in a 100 million that still gives you 70 individuals alive today. There must be over a billion teenagers alive today over the next 30/40 years why not look there for your source material, why always looking to the past as if to glorify it in some way?
If you look at Buddhism as a coming together of many enlightened people to produce the teachings, a kind of building on past teachings effort don't you get every kinda person throwing in their two pence worth then you're left with the obvious problem of trying to filter the good from the bad.
I'm not saying all this just to make a pointless attack on buddhism i've read up a little on it and do see wisdom in what i've read but these are some of the concerns/views I have.

wylo wrote: »

Put it this way, why would the Buddha even bother teaching if he didnt think his method worked?

I've considered this already, I believe however was the source of Buddhism was inconceivably wise, the fact that they made the decision to teach is the only good news concerning all this.
The idea that there is a path, meditations etc is very difficult to believe for me, it just doesn't stack up. Thats why I mentioned prayers earlier, the reason people prayed is because the suffered were afraid, they also claimed to have experieces and i'm sure they did. Doesn't this sound a lot like meditations.
What has having experiences got to do with where you're trying to get to?

Asiaprod

I am having a hard time deciding if you are genuine or just a troll Burt.
In your next post convince me that you are not and are genuinely seeking answers here.

Burt Lancaster

Now I'm a troll ?

I have questions about Buddhism, but for the most part, instead of staying on topic, I've either been presented with strawmen or thinly veiled ad hominem for asking questions, which I suppose is an answer in itself.

If you know about Buddhism, lets talk about Buddhism.

wylo

Burt Lancaster wrote: »

Now I'm a troll ?

I have questions about Buddhism, but for the most part, instead of staying on topic, I've either been presented with strawmen or thinly veiled ad hominem for asking questions, which I suppose is an answer in itself.

If you know about Buddhism, lets talk about Buddhism.

No you just seem to ignore the points being made, which are completely relevant to the discussion.

Why are you still hanging around if we're not giving you the answers you want?

Asiaprod

Burt Lancaster wrote: »

If you know about Buddhism, lets talk about Buddhism.

I know about Buddhism, I've been one for 30 years, my wife for 20, my kid for 18.
What do you want to know.

Burt Lancaster

The questions are all there

Asiaprod

You said lets talk, so talk. I have no inclination to go wandering around this thread trying to decide what you want to know.

[-0-]

I'm with Asiaprod on this one. It has to be a trolling attempt. If it's not, some of the responses by the OP are just down right rude. He/she has my forgiveness, though.

Burt Lancaster

You can continue in that vein, or you could start with the questions in the OP

Asiaprod

There is no vein, nor attitude. I respond in like manner to how you pose your questions.

There is not one question in that OP that can be answered definitively. The reason is there are too many schools of Buddhism and each may have a different take on it. For example, and this is only a partial list of schools:

"Conservative Buddhism"
an alternative name for the early Buddhist schools.

"Early Buddhist Schools"
the schools into which Buddhism became divided in its first few centuries; only one of these survives as an independent school, Theravāda

"East Asian Buddhism"
a term used by scholars[1] to cover the Buddhist traditions of Japan, Korea, Singapore and most of China and Vietnam

"Eastern Buddhism"
an alternative name used by some scholars[2][page needed] for East Asian Buddhism; also sometimes used to refer to all traditional forms of Buddhism, as distinct from Western(ized) forms.

"Esoteric Buddhism"
usually considered synonymous with "Vajrayāna".[3] Some scholars have applied the term to certain practices found within the Theravāda, particularly in Cambodia.[4][page needed]

"Hīnayāna"
literally meaning "lesser vehicle." It is considered a controversial term when applied by the Mahāyāna to mistakenly refer to the Theravāda school, and as such is widely viewed as condescending and pejorative.[5] Moreover, Hīnayāna refers to the now non extant schools with limited set of views, practices and results, prior to the development of the Mahāyāna traditions. The term is currently most often used as a way of describing a stage on the path in Tibetan Buddhism, but is often mistakenly confused with the contemporary Theravāda tradition, which is far more complex, diversified and profound, than the literal and limiting definition attributed to Hīnayāna .Its use in scholarly publications is now also considered controversial.[

"Lamaism"
an old term, still sometimes used, synonymous with Tibetan Buddhism; widely considered derogatory.

"Mahāyāna"
a movement that emerged out of early Buddhist schools, together with its later descendants, East Asian and Tibetan Buddhism. Vajrayāna traditions are sometimes listed separately. The main use of the term in East Asian and Tibetan traditions is in reference to spiritual levels,[8][page needed] regardless of school.

"Mainstream Buddhism"
a term used by some scholars for the early Buddhist schools.

"Mantrayāna"
usually considered synonymous with "Vajrayāna".[9] The Tendai school in Japan has been described as influenced by Mantrayana.[8][page needed]

"Newar Buddhism"
a non-monastic, caste based Buddhism with patrilineal descent and Sanskrit texts.

"Nikāya Buddhism" or "schools"
an alternative term for the early Buddhist schools.

"Non-Mahāyāna"
an alternative term for the early Buddhist schools.

"Northern Buddhism"
an alternative term used by some scholars[2][page needed] for Tibetan Buddhism. Also, an older term still sometimes used to encompass both East Asian and Tibetan traditions. It has even been used to refer to East Asian Buddhism alone, without Tibetan Buddhism.

"Secret Mantra"
an alternative rendering of Mantrayāna, a more literal translation of the term used by schools in Tibetan Buddhism when referring to themselves.

"Sectarian Buddhism"
an alternative name for the early Buddhist schools.

"Southeast Asian Buddhism"
an alternative name used by some scholars page needed] for Theravāda.

"Southern Buddhism"
an alternative name used by some scholars page needed for Theravāda.

"Śravakayāna"
an alternative term sometimes used for the early Buddhist schools.

"Tantrayāna" or "Tantric Buddhism"
usually considered synonymous with "Vajrayāna". However, one scholar describes the tantra divisions of some editions of theTibetan scriptures as including Śravakayāna, Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna texts . Some scholars, particularly François Bizot, have used the term "Tantric Theravāda" to refer to certain practices found particularly in Cambodia.

"Theravāda"
the traditional Buddhism of Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and parts of Vietnam, China, India, Bangladesh and Malaysia. It is the only surviving representative of the historical early Buddhist schools. The term "Theravāda" is also sometimes used to refer to all the early Buddhist schools.

"Tibetan Buddhism"
usually understood as including the Buddhism of Tibet, Mongolia, Bhutan and parts of China, India and Russia, which follow the Tibetan tradition.

"Vajrayāna"
a movement that developed out of Indian Mahāyāna, together with its later descendants. There is some disagreement on exactly which traditions fall into this category. Tibetan Buddhism is universally recognized as falling under this heading; many also include the Japanese Shingon school. Some scholarsalso apply the term to the Korean milgyo tradition, which is not a separate school. One scholar says, "Despite the efforts of generations of Buddhist thinkers, it remains exceedingly difficult to identify precisely what it is that sets the Vajrayana apart."

(Source: Wikipedia)

Burt Lancaster

Asiaprod wrote: »

There is not one question in that OP that can be answered definitively.

That’s my queries answered so, and you appear to know about Buddhism. Thank you.

Asiaprod

You are welcome. If we can help again feel free.

Doc Ruby

[-0-] wrote: »

I'm with Asiaprod on this one. It has to be a trolling attempt. If it's not, some of the responses by the OP are just down right rude. He/she has my forgiveness, though.

I found the discussion to be very interesting to be honest, and was a bit taken aback by the sudden accusations of trollery at the end. Burt appeared to be genuinely seeking answers to questions that troubled him, and he's probably not alone at all in this.

Many, many people in this country have grown deeply disillusioned with the Abrahamic faiths, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, given recent events and revelations, and are looking for a way to express their spiritualism. That might not suit the not-a-religion school of thought, but I believe that's the way it is.

So what remains? Hinduism, the association with the derisory term "sacred cow" is too strong. Taoism, Confucianism? Wicca? Maybe, but again some dodgy new age associations there. The new big-business-beliefs some immigrants are trying to import from down south? No. The old gods of our forebears are buried in the dark places for the most part. So maybe Buddhism sounds like it might be a good option.

My own newfound interest derives from studying the achievements of Wim Hof, "the Iceman", for my own reasons, a masterful practitioner of Tummo Yoga, and trying to learn about some of the spiritual beliefs underpinning this and other meditative and breathing practises. I've studied many different sources and tried to learn as much as I can, but I'd appreciate the chance to ask some questions that, like Burt, have been bothering me, in a respectful and appreciative manner.

Asiaprod

Ask away. We are alway happy to talk about it. Burt was not stopped. The user currently has a poll going.

Doc Ruby

Thanks, okay well basically my research has covered the good and bad of Buddhism, its a belief system or collection of belief systems that can be misunderstood and abused, or used for good and to make people feel better about themselves, like any other.

I also appreciate the vast number of subgroups under the broad umbrella of Buddhism, so its pointless trying to find out about specifics in many ways; everyone has a different answer.

However: the first noble truth is that life is suffering. This is an irrefutable fact that cannot be denied. It is realistic rather than pessimistic because pessimism is expecting things to be bad. lnstead, Buddhism explains how suffering can be avoided and how we can be truly happy.

This one is giving me real trouble since its the foundation stone for the whole belief system, or maybe not, but rather that part of the belief system that deals with attaining Nirvana. I find it very hard to accept that life is nothing but suffering. This then becomes a self fulfilling prophecy with the second noble truth, which indicates that even seeking happiness is only a precursor to misery.

Adjusting your wants to match the world is a better way to live than adjusting the world to meet your wants, surely that is antithetical to progress, technological and social, which is quickly on its way to providing people with very long and healthy lives where they can live very comfortably without difficulty, coming back to the first noble truth?

I have little difficulty with the five precepts, but anything in the eightfold path relating to the first noble truth is just jarring to me. The first of the second steps of the eightfold path for example, renouncing desire, seems self defeating, since that must also include the desire to fulfill the eightfold path.

I can definetely see how Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration could have given rise to all of the many remarkable disciplines that Buddhist practices have produced.

Overall it just seems like two seperate ideological stances tied together, the drive to reach nothingness and the excellent moral, mental and physical advice. They don't blend well, to my mind.

My interpretation of something similar to Nirvana, from what I can tell, is not unlike what athletes and soldiers can sometimes experience under high pressure, a stepping away from the situation and acting without knowledge, thought or understanding. Its very difficult to explain really, everything seems to come together and you succeed with little effort. Almost impossible to replicate after the event though.

Hope that wasn't too rambling!

conor.hogan.2

Life is suffering is a very simplistic common translation.

I believe the circular bind of the noble truths can be explained something like how that link explains another double bind. It is not quite the same, but similar.

I think of this all as a "thorn to remove the first thorn" once you are "done" you remove both thorns and potentially use them to kill the Buddha should you meet him again.

Your last point also reminds me of something taught in Zen, when an Archer or a swordsman does not think of when to strike or release they just act.

But again this is all my reading into mainly Zen teaching, so take it lightly.

Doc Ruby

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Life is suffering is a very simplistic common translation.

Thanks, that's a more useful definition. It still has problems though, while being true in all of its particulars - if happiness is impermanent, then certainly suffering must also be impermanent.

Rather than trying to opt out into the permanence of oblivion, would it not be better to embrace the truism that the only constant is change, and use the experiences of suffering to not only heighten enjoyment of the good times, but to learn from?

As they say, every problem brings opportunity, and this lesson is repeated many times throughout all walks of life, from natural evolution to Patton saying "fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man".

Rather than seeking to opt out, I would embrace life, warts and all, and try to make the world a better place, much more so if I'm going to be returning to it (and the writings on the particular mechanics there are some of the most fascinating in Buddhism I find). What incentive is there to achieve anything if all you want is nothing?

As with all mainstream religions, these issues have probably been discussed innumerable times over the last few thousand years, so thanks for your patience as I attempt to explore the ideas.

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Your last point also reminds me of something taught in Zen, when an Archer or a swordsman does not think of when to strike or release they just act.

I've experienced it or something very similar a couple of times myself, as I said its very difficult to put into words. Its like the world moves around you and goes where its meant to go. That may be just a psychological effect or getting lucky from time to time, but if it happens, you know it.

wylo

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Rather than trying to opt out into the permanence of oblivion, would it not be better to embrace the truism that the only constant is change, and use the experiences of suffering to not only heighten enjoyment of the good times, but to learn from?

As they say, every problem brings opportunity, and this lesson is repeated many times throughout all walks of life, from natural evolution to Patton saying "fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man".

Rather than seeking to opt out, I would embrace life, warts and all, and try to make the world a better place, much more so if I'm going to be returning to it (and the writings on the particular mechanics there are some of the most fascinating in Buddhism I find). What incentive is there to achieve anything if all you want is nothing?

As with all mainstream religions, these issues have probably been discussed innumerable times over the last few thousand years, so thanks for your patience as I attempt to explore the ideas.


I've experienced it or something very similar a couple of times myself, as I said its very difficult to put into words. Its like the world moves around you and goes where its meant to go. That may be just a psychological effect or getting lucky from time to time, but if it happens, you know it.

I think the confusion (and a fair confusion tbh) is when words like happiness rise up.


Ill try and talk about it with examples.
I see you're into bushcraft, so lets pretend you hate being stuck in an office ( maybe you do maybe you dont, for this example we'll pretend its something you hate).

Suppose when you are doing bushcraft you are "in the zone", you're at peace, you're carving out your cooking utensils, you're preparing your food etc, some things are going wrong, other things are going smoothly but the whole process has an underlying element of peace because you're thoughts are not elsewhere, you're not creating dissatisfaction, you're not creating desire for things to be different, theres an acceptance of your reality right now.

So then a week later , you're back in the office, listening to a manager talk BS, its blue sky outside and you're stuck looking at a computer and taking emails. There is a deep dissatisfaction and desire running through you, a dissatisfaction that if you examined carefully enough you would be able to feel the physical tension arising in your stomach, you cant wait till 5 o clock, you cant wait till next month when you're heading off to the forest again for more bushcraft.
I may have painted two very extreme pictures there, but once you realize more clearly that this is the case, it starts becoming more and more obvious

What the practice makes you realize is that people experience their life in the latter state alot of the time, "life is suffering", they believe its the situations fault and not a fault of thought and mind. And its gotten worse in the Western world imo. They assign certain situations to the reasons they are unhappy, and certain situations to the reasons they ARE happy. They are in a constant mode of looking for conventional stuff that should fix this. And its only natural that they wouldnt question it when every single person in their life is doing the exact same thing.


Now, realizing this stuff doesnt suddenly make you not want to do bushcraft. But it removes that underlying dissatisfaction that makes you want to cling onto one thing and stay away from other things, this is done true tremendous understanding of how tensions arise in the body, meditation (of hugely wide varieties), insight practice, and then attaining realizations(be it slowly or suddenly).

So long your example of athletes or soldiers, you are in a much higher concentrated state and not getting bogged down or confused or feeling tension as a result of thoughts.

So its not that you suddenly try and make yourself happy all the time, its that there is an underlying acceptance of all the good and bad, that leaves an underlying satisfaction with life.

So life is suffering, but it doesnt need to be. I would imagine people that get into this stuff independently have a stronger dissatisfaction with life than others. But ironically when you start to free yourself up from elements of suffering that you thought were NOT suffering, then it becomes apparent in everyone, the difference is the level of tolerance to it seems to be higher. Again, id probably suspect that this is because we've all told each other when and where we're "supposed" to be suffering.

Doc Ruby

Okay, so if I have distilled this down correctly, and it is complex, the first and second noble truths are not that the world is full of misery, but that misery exists only in the mind, and being happy in any given situation is simply a question of mental balance? And once this is attained completely one is Enlightened.

That would certainly make a lot more sense, if I've picked it up right - focus on what you're doing at the moment and don't let yourself be distracted.

If I've got that much, there are follow on questions and observations though - firstly it would explain the acceptance part of Buddhist philosophy, but then why do anything once you have achieved this state of balance? If something doesn't bring more satisfaction to one degree or another than other things, how or why does one direct one's life?

conor.hogan.2

Doc Ruby wrote: »

And once this is attained completely one is Enlightened.

That would certainly make a lot more sense, if I've picked it up right - focus on what you're doing at the moment and don't let yourself be distracted.

If I've got that much, there are follow on questions and observations though - firstly it would explain the acceptance part of Buddhist philosophy, but then why do anything once you have achieved this state of balance? If something doesn't bring more satisfaction to one degree or another than other things, how or why does one direct one's life?

imo, yes. As far as I can gather of Zen this is also true. "when hungary eat, when tired sleep".