Problems and Queries with Buddhism

wylo

Doc Ruby wrote: »

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.

Id say if we kept it simple, stayed out of specifics of what criteria, realizations would be expected of people in various teachings, then yea, I think your assessment is a fair one.

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.

Thats it simplified, so obviously if you were seriously interested you would find what the best techniques are out there that sit right with you, but yea, the whole thing is based around experiencing and accepting your reality as it is, as oppose to resisting it, wanting something different, so it may go much deeper than just focusing what you are doing at the moment, but I can even see how even constantly doing that alone could yield huge benefits over time, because that in itself is a form of meditation and concentration.

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?

Well firstly, theres sort of an assumption there that a person needs to be suffering to make a choice to do something else. Whereas my point is that suffering doesnt need to be in the picture at all, no matter how someone lives their life. And even though that may sound a little strange I think its very true, having a deep strong inner peace can be there whether your in an argument with someone, choosing what job what you want, choosing what hobbies you like, choosing what music you want to listen to.


Theres also another part of your question, and this gets a little more specific to aspects that are thought where real inquiry is involved and where Id imagine people get put off.

As crazy as this sounds, ultimately there is not even a self/you involved in making those choices. And I know it seems paradoxical, if theres no self , whos taking up Buddhism? Whos trying to fix themselves? Who wants peace? But as Conor said, its sort of a thorn to remove a thorn, almost like buying into a belief to inquire, until the very core of the belief itself is shed.

Sorry if thats confusing:D

What got me into this was a very sudden realization that there was no self, thats why Im into all that aspect of it. But im starting to see there are loads of routes to this stuff, and really , anyone that works their ass off and investigates their nature as often as they can will most like have at least some kind of awakening imo.

Doc Ruby

wylo wrote: »

And I know it seems paradoxical, if theres no self , whos taking up Buddhism? Whos trying to fix themselves? Who wants peace? But as Conor said, its sort of a thorn to remove a thorn, almost like buying into a belief to inquire, until the very core of the belief itself is shed.

I think self can mean a lot of different things to different people, so what self means to you might not mean the same thing to me - clearly you don't find it confusing, so perhaps it would be best for me to understand what self means in your context?

The difficulty I have isn't neccessarily about suffering. I think I understand that satisfaction isn't the same as happiness, but what motivates a Buddhist to actually set goals and complete them, when one physical state is as good as any other?

Other thoughts - intense meditation is often used by athletes as a form of self-hypnosis. They focus on their goal, see it in their minds, and make it happen. Perhaps Buddhist meditation is using the same effect to permanently alter one's personality, so rather than having to remind oneself constantly of the eightfold path and other truths, it becomes instinctive.

Thanks again for everyone's help with this, I feel like I'm slowly fumbling towards comprehension!

wylo

Doc Ruby wrote: »

I think self can mean a lot of different things to different people, so what self means to you might not mean the same thing to me - clearly you don't find it confusing, so perhaps it would be best for me to understand what self means in your context?

Admittedly it is a question ive often found difficult to answer other than describing "feelings" which can make it sound vague. Because I see it as an assumption that is not true, and all the feelings around that assumption usually point back to what a person believes their "self" is.
But anyway heres a small list
- the assumption and feeling that you are seperate from the rest of the world (from one perspective this may seem true, but ultimately its not, even from a scientific point of view)
- feelings of ownership over the body
- feelings of a you that decided to make certain decisions
- an exaggerated investment in your ego to protect the "self"
- the feeling that you are your brain
- the feeling that there is a you experiencING the world, as oppose to experience simply happening by itself.

Again, I know thats vague, but they are the features that I would consider a "self" to be that can be seen past.

But thats just my language, and my school of thought, other people talk of higher selfs, and True selfs. Its a whole debate in itself tbh. I just find "there is no self" very clear and can yield results to people that it clicks with.

The difficulty I have isn't neccessarily about suffering. I think I understand that satisfaction isn't the same as happiness, but what motivates a Buddhist to actually set goals and complete them, when one physical state is as good as any other?

Do you mean Buddhist goals in particular? Well to GET to that satisfactory way of being you must do the work, so theres your motivation. Even the Buddha had to learn how to do this stuff and eventually experience it.

But if you mean, just goals in general?
Well then, I guess theres still the truth of your current life that must be lived, putting food on the table, taking care of your kids, enjoying one thing slightly more than another.

Theres another thing, theres no need to make it so black and white. There are still a lifetime of habits built up that you arent gonna suddenly drop, its a small bit vaguer than you may making out (im speaking from a perspective of someone who sort of "gets into" later in their life as oppose to the religion)

Other thoughts - intense meditation is often used by athletes as a form of self-hypnosis. They focus on their goal, see it in their minds, and make it happen. Perhaps Buddhist meditation is using the same effect to permanently alter one's personality, so rather than having to remind oneself constantly of the eightfold path and other truths, it becomes instinctive.

Well, the core of most Buddhist practice is about clear experience of the very present, ie your actual sensations, but paradoxically the person is doing this with goals in mind, so I wouldnt really say Buddhists are doing what athlethes are doing by imagining a goal or anything like that. I guess the only time they are is when they are justifying WHY they are doing the practice. But that doesnt mean that that is the practice itself.
A weight lifter must lift some weights , not imagine himself strong if you follow!

Thanks again for everyone's help with this, I feel like I'm slowly fumbling towards comprehension!

Coo, in general though I think why it seems harder for clear answers to come is for a few reasons...

1. If you were to go into Islam or Christianity for instance, there is a set of beliefs that work from the Bible (or whatever else), not saying they dont disagree with each other either but I would imagine there is fairly clear consistency in terms of what their belief systems are so anyone can answer the questions.

2. I would say people practicing Buddhist techniques, especially people that are REALLY into it, become more passive, chilled and open minded and so are hesitant to sort of impose their stuff on you (I had an awful habit at the start of imposing my 'no self' stuff on people)

3. As has been mentioned a few times, its not a religion, yes there is the Buddhist religion and yes there is stuff like the 4 noble truths, but imo asking questions about Buddhism in general is like asking questions about fitness, its not a belief system like a religion, its a philosophy, but people throw that around alot, so ill try be more specific, one could apply SOME Buddhist techniques into their life to simply improve, hell , they could even call themselves a Buddhist if they wanted, and I really doubt much Buddhists would care, maybe im wrong, but Id say not.

And thats probably why the conversation broke down with Burt, he seemed to want answers in the same way another religious forum would have answers.

I would say even if you practiced a solid 10 mins of excellent concentrated meditation every evening, you could say you do some Buddhist practices.

Doc Ruby

Okay, I've mulled over and pondered this, and given it a little while to digest properly, trying to look at it from a variety of different angles. My comments as follows, again I am not trying to offend, merely to learn.

wylo wrote: »

Admittedly it is a question ive often found difficult to answer other than describing "feelings" which can make it sound vague. Because I see it as an assumption that is not true, and all the feelings around that assumption usually point back to what a person believes their "self" is.
But anyway heres a small list
- the assumption and feeling that you are seperate from the rest of the world (from one perspective this may seem true, but ultimately its not, even from a scientific point of view)
- feelings of ownership over the body
- feelings of a you that decided to make certain decisions
- an exaggerated investment in your ego to protect the "self"
- the feeling that you are your brain
- the feeling that there is a you experiencING the world, as oppose to experience simply happening by itself.

Again, I know thats vague, but they are the features that I would consider a "self" to be that can be seen past.

I can't find any internal consistency in that description, it references the brain, the body, the ego, the value of experience... maybe if you could provide say an example situation, what would a person without a sense of self do, and a different person with a strong sense of self?

wylo wrote: »

Well then, I guess theres still the truth of your current life that must be lived, putting food on the table, taking care of your kids, enjoying one thing slightly more than another.

But if one is enlightened, surely all things are enjoyed equally? Its as valid a life to sit meditating as it is to go forth, earn a medical qualification, and provide your services gratis to the poor if enlightened.

Is it the karmic reward in and of itself?

wylo wrote: »

3. As has been mentioned a few times, its not a religion, yes there is the Buddhist religion and yes there is stuff like the 4 noble truths, but imo asking questions about Buddhism in general is like asking questions about fitness, its not a belief system like a religion, its a philosophy, but people throw that around alot, so ill try be more specific, one could apply SOME Buddhist techniques into their life to simply improve, hell , they could even call themselves a Buddhist if they wanted, and I really doubt much Buddhists would care, maybe im wrong, but Id say not.

I think what attracts a lot of people to Buddhism is the impression of inner peace and the physical achievements associated with the practice.

As well as that of course I reckon soon there will be an influx of people who are just disaffected with the church, and they will want to know what time Buddhist mass is on! It might do no harm for Buddhist groups to prepare to reach out to these people, although I know Buddhism doesn't do evangelism. It would be good karma though. For these the religious overtones would be quite welcome, and to be honest I see nothing wrong with that.

Buddhism spread and was filtered through many different cultures in the far east, each wave taking on the religious overtones of the society it passed through, some of which are complete nonsense, like the spirit world being set up to mirror Chinese beaurocracy at the time in some beliefs, obviously social engineering. I wonder is there a Christianised version of Buddhism?

As I mentioned earler, my main interest is in figuring out how Wim Hof manages to run for five hours in his boxers north of the Arctic circle, but the more I learn the more interesting it is, I have to admit. The picture building up is one of prayer with a clear purpose as opposed to beseeching deities for help, a form of self hypnosis to focus the mind on balance and peace. Which is amazing, like hackers of the spirit.

There are three distinct strands from what I can see, the main philosophical strand, which is immensely healthy and beneficial, this is the inner peace which in turn feeds into the physical achievements (like clearing debris from the road before you run down it), the second strand, and the third strand would be the spiritual and religious elements.

On that matter I've read some very aggressive condemnation of Buddhism in particular based on the karmic rebirth cycle, in that people who are say handicapped from birth are so because they were evil in a previous life, clearly though that falls under the remit of the third strand, so Buddhists take it or leave it.

wylo wrote: »

And thats probably why the conversation broke down with Burt, he seemed to want answers in the same way another religious forum would have answers.

I'd agree, yes. I didn't see any troublemaking in his direct questions, maybe impatience.

wylo wrote: »

I would say even if you practiced a solid 10 mins of excellent concentrated meditation every evening, you could say you do some Buddhist practices.

This raises another question, which will maybe help me understand - how would the normal daily routine of a Buddhist differ from that of say a Christian? I know lots of different schools and even temples all have their own approaches, but in general.

Asiaprod

I'd agree, yes. I didn't see any troublemaking in his [Burt Lancaster] direct questions, maybe impatience.

Just want to address this issue briefly.
Burt was a serial rereg and had a long history of trolling the religion/faith based forums. I take anything he said with a grain of salt. Based on his previous dialogues, he was not here seeking answers.

Doc Ruby

Asiaprod wrote: »

Just want to address this issue briefly.
Burt was a serial rereg and had a long history of trolling the religion/faith based forums. I take anything he said with a grain of salt. Based on his previous dialogues, he was not here seeking answers.

Huh, looks like karma caught up with him. Still, at least something good seems to be coming from it.

CL7

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Huh, looks like karma caught up with him. Still, at least something good seems to be coming from it.

+1

I've found the discussion very interesting and I've started looking into Buddhism again because of it. I used to attend a meditation practice in Limerick years ago but I was put off by the mysticism I encountered there. I'm not sure if I can integrate it fully into my own philosophy but some of the practices seem really beneficial.

wylo

I can't find any internal consistency in that description, it references the brain, the body, the ego, the value of experience... maybe if you could provide say an example situation, what would a person without a sense of self do, and a different person with a strong sense of self?

Im no teacher, but I do have a year and a bit experience on ranting about no self, the response has often been one of 4:
1. Of course theres a self. (although this is one is fading with science)
2. Ah yes, I understand there is no self, but ive no interest or desire to "see" it truly. (seems to be alot of people, I can only make an assumption they are alot more satisfied with their life than I was)
3. Ah yes, I understand there is no self, and Id love to see what experiencing this is like (this was me)
4. What do you mean by self exactly??

Ive always found no.4 to be hardest to address, because the person seems interested amd obviously holds the view that there is no "soul" or "spirit" but at the same time, hasnt really discerned or questioned what it is they are referring to when they say "I".

All I can say, any sense that you are an a seperate individual that has a feeling of "I" is the sense of self. I know it may seem a little hard to believe that that sense can be dropped to a great degree, but tbh, all I can say is that its true!!

I honestly cant think of a good example of what someone with or without a sense of self would DO, its not really about personality, im really sorry and I know thats not helpful, maybe someone else will be able to cover me for that question.

All I can say is in my experience and the experience of many others of whom Ive talked to online, losing the sense of self is one of the core processes behind the total end of suffering, because what is realized after that every single thought about "self" was only a thought in itself referring to nothing.

So , to try and give a quick summary, I would say
self = mind
so when the mind subsides, all that is left is direct uninterpreted experience, which by default cannot be anything else but happiness , why? because it is realised that all suffering and negativity is entirely mind generated.


I hope that helps, but if it doesnt perhaps call out one of the other names and they may be able to contribute.

But if one is enlightened, surely all things are enjoyed equally? Its as valid a life to sit meditating as it is to go forth, earn a medical qualification, and provide your services gratis to the poor if enlightened.

Is it the karmic reward in and of itself?

But that kind of backs up what Im saying, that if you are enlightened in the Western world why would you have a sudden urge to do nothing or just sit around meditating, when whatever you were doing in the first place is just as valid. FWIW Im trying to run a business. Maybe Im not "fully" enlightened but Ive enough insight at this stage to fully understand where this is going.

I think what attracts a lot of people to Buddhism is the impression of inner peace and the physical achievements associated with the practice.

Well the message isnt a lie to be fair, its not only logical , but its fairly well presented without the requirement for dogma or a God.

As well as that of course I reckon soon there will be an influx of people who are just disaffected with the church, and they will want to know what time Buddhist mass is on! It might do no harm for Buddhist groups to prepare to reach out to these people, although I know Buddhism doesn't do evangelism. It would be good karma though. For these the religious overtones would be quite welcome, and to be honest I see nothing wrong with that.

I dont consider the practices a replacement for disillusioned catholics tbh, id say theyd have little interest, and any fairly heavily practicing buddhist wont have too much interest in teaching people who arent too eager.

Buddhism spread and was filtered through many different cultures in the far east, each wave taking on the religious overtones of the society it passed through, some of which are complete nonsense, like the spirit world being set up to mirror Chinese beaurocracy at the time in some beliefs, obviously social engineering. I wonder is there a Christianised version of Buddhism?

I would say there is definitely a vast amount of Buddhists in the east that dont give a crap about the practices. Like , after all, i have to admit, as much as I like to say its a philosophy, there still is a Buddhist religion with traditions etc. I dont know much about it, and havent too much interest in the different schools of thought, unless it has something practical and non dogmatic to offer.

As I mentioned earler, my main interest is in figuring out how Wim Hof manages to run for five hours in his boxers north of the Arctic circle, but the more I learn the more interesting it is, I have to admit. The picture building up is one of prayer with a clear purpose as opposed to beseeching deities for help, a form of self hypnosis to focus the mind on balance and peace. Which is amazing, like hackers of the spirit.

I dont like to nitpick because I know you're just trying to understand it, but from personal experience, I consider any form of hypnosis quite different to meditation, because meditation is about focusing on your experience (whether its breath or senses or whatever), whereas hypnosis is about getting into a trance and using affirmations (beliefs, suggestions). I would nearly go as far as saying they are the opposite of each other, but thats another debate.

There are three distinct strands from what I can see, the main philosophical strand, which is immensely healthy and beneficial, this is the inner peace which in turn feeds into the physical achievements (like clearing debris from the road before you run down it), the second strand, and the third strand would be the spiritual and religious elements.

I guess, tbh, ive lost all ability to discern what the word spiritual means anymore. I used to think it meant God/spirits/mystical etc etc, but it seems the more people I see into spirituality the more I realize its actually about trying to understand your reality. But I think your 3 strands analysis aint bad, now , they do fall in together at times too though.

On that matter I've read some very aggressive condemnation of Buddhism in particular based on the karmic rebirth cycle, in that people who are say handicapped from birth are so because they were evil in a previous life, clearly though that falls under the remit of the third strand, so Buddhists take it or leave it.

Well personally Im not a supporter of whatever school of thought something like that would come from. Sounds like complete dogmatic nonsense.

This raises another question, which will maybe help me understand - how would the normal daily routine of a Buddhist differ from that of say a Christian? I know lots of different schools and even temples all have their own approaches, but in general.

Do you mean day to day life in our normal Western world here in Ireland or in monasteries or what? If its the latter, I dont really know, because I dont know what happens in either types of monasteries to answer that question.

wylo

Ill just add one more thing, not that I dont like chatting etc, but , if you REALLY want to know about Buddhism, as in beyond all explanations , then Id suggest , sit down in a comfortable position in a quiet place, close your eyes, start breathing through your nose slowly, dont feel pressure to breath too heavily or too softly, you will notice loads of thoughts flowing up, allow them , but dont get caught in their content ,

Just notice that they are thoughts and mean nothing more, allow them to fade when they do, keep doing this until the thoughts start to dissipate, if you have already good patience you may be able to do this until you have barely any thoughts at all, and then maybe practically none.

This may take 20 mins , maybe more, maybe less, you may not even succeed in dissipating your thoughts at all. Open your eyes either way, and observe how the mind is quieter, if only for a minute or two. And that gives you a tiny tiny tiny tiny glimpse of what having a peaceful mind or awakening is like.

The idea of this little test is, even if you fail, you will understand how consumed you are by your thoughts. And if you dont fail, you will see that you can function perfectly well with a peaceful mind.

You could do that, or jump in the deep end like I did and try and see no self straight away, have a hard life changing awakening in the space of a few weeks, and work from there, hehe

18AD

I think one point which may be of interest in relation to the behaviour of someone who is enlightened (not that I have any authority on the subject) would be Alan Watts' analogy to modern psychotherapy. I have found this to be somewhat true in relation to self-analysis. Probably because I'm somewhat more familiar with the western terminology rather than the eastern.

His point is that self observation in buddhism acts much in the same way as modern psychoanalysis does in the western world. Perhaps we in the west were a bit late in picking up the same ball they copped on to ages ago.

Your decision making procedures are going to shift dramatically when you are more aware of your personal make up. For instance you may be aware that some of your anger is actually being misdirected from a past relationship into new ones, in which the anger actually has nothing to do with your current situation and relationships. Obviously there are thousands of varieties of these types of behaviour, this example is therefore not even exemplary. But the procedure of psychoanalysis, and if you agree with the analogy to buddhism, is very similar. To be aware of why you are doing things, why certain things make you happy or sad, and to know these cues and reflexes within yourself. And consequently allowing yourself to change through self-knowledge.



The question of hypnosis is really interesting. And perhaps I'm going to be a bit too liberal with my use of the term here, but however. wylo, I think you're mistaken in thinking that hypnosis is specifically an altered state of consciousness, or more specifically, that you think there is a regular state of consciousness that isn't "altered" already. Pretty much every belief and behaviour could be considered to be hypnotic.

Take for example the notion that you have a self. Is this not a hypnotic experience? It's not just a belief, it is experienced, or moreso, believed into existence. The experience of no-self is equally a hypnosis, but it seems to be a far more liberating hynotic effect.

I mean most of these experiences are tapped into through language use and behaviour. You can think yourself into no-self or into flying in a dream or into thinking you "are" an accountant. It seems that everything is pretty much in the realm of hynotic concepts.

I haven't given this hypnosis bit much thought. Just an idea.

wylo

18AD wrote: »

The question of hypnosis is really interesting. And perhaps I'm going to be a bit too liberal with my use of the term here, but however. wylo, I think you're mistaken in thinking that hypnosis is specifically an altered state of consciousness, or more specifically, that you think there is a regular state of consciousness that isn't "altered" already. Pretty much every belief and behaviour could be considered to be hypnotic.

Take for example the notion that you have a self. Is this not a hypnotic experience? It's not just a belief, it is experienced, or moreso, believed into existence. The experience of no-self is equally a hypnosis, but it seems to be a far more liberating hynotic effect.

I mean most of these experiences are tapped into through language use and behaviour. You can think yourself into no-self or into flying in a dream or into thinking you "are" an accountant. It seems that everything is pretty much in the realm of hynotic concepts.

I haven't given this hypnosis bit much thought. Just an idea.

I can't say I agree tbh. Hypnosis is a particular process that involves being in a trance state (removing the awareness of your surroundings and being totally focused in a highly alert but imaginative state)

That to me is the total opposite of meditation/insight where you are trying to be highly aware of your experience and be in as little an imaginative state as possible.

I think its important to highlight that just in case there's a wrong Idea given off of what this practice is about.

Hypnosis is being totally focused on the story of the movie, where meditation is seeing you that you are sitting in a room looking at a big box display 1000s of pixels.

18AD

wylo wrote: »

I can't say I agree tbh. Hypnosis is a particular process that involves being in a trance state (removing the awareness of your surroundings and being totally focused in a highly alert but imaginative state)

That to me is the total opposite of meditation/insight where you are trying to be highly aware of your experience and be in as little an imaginative state as possible.

I think its important to highlight that just in case there's a wrong Idea given off of what this practice is about.

Hypnosis is being totally focused on the story of the movie, where meditation is seeing you that you are sitting in a room looking at a big box display 1000s of pixels.

But is any perception altering technique not effectively a form of hypnosis?
Hypnosis is not just a method of making people put their hand in the air when they hear the word duck, but this sort of irrationalism is quite common without going to a hypnotist. People who believe that they have to wear a lucky t-shirt or their team will lose. Is this not a form of self-hypnosis?

I think the trance state you are talking about is only one method of achieving hypnosis and changing brain states. Is it not the actual after effects of hypnosis that matter, like stopping a fear of flying? Obviously this isn't happening in a trance state but is experienced in normal waking life.

Your example of the film is just different ways of viewing the film. If you focus on the pixels have you not just induced a hypnotic state of perception? You now view the world differently. It would be good to note that hypnosis in this sense can be positive and actually aid in inducing more focus or insight or awareness. It is not simply dealing with the imagination, but rather with all perception. the goal I guess would be to master self-hypnosis consciously instead of having to go to get hypnotised and trick yourself into thinking you need someone else to do it for you.

Hypnosis is not simply a false belief. What if you are an eternal optimist in the face of constant failure? Is this not a good form of self-hypnosis? And what if you could change your limiting hypnoses (plural for hypnosis?) and replace them with positive ones?

It would seem to me that there is at least some overlap here. Say you wanted to quit smoking. If you successfully change your behaviour into a non-smoking behaviour I think you have effectively hypnotised yourself into a more useful outlook. The example Doc Ruby gave of the endurance is a prime example of positive self-hypnosis. The same would apply for all your habits you have accumulated through your life. Are these not hypnotic effects that you have to become aware of, and re-hypnotise yourself into more useful modes of living? It seems like an effective way to look at things.

Or maybe a trivial example. Say you smile during the day and make people happy by so doing. Aren't you effectively hypnotising them into happiness?

This is all pretty speculative. But it's interesting.

wylo

Its probably just a semantics issue, in terms of what we actually mean by hypnosis. By your definition it seems like any form of experience and influence whatsoever could be considered hypnosis

As someone who was quite big into self hypnosis in the past, I personally really see a huge difference.

When I talk about hypnosis or trance states, im not talking about some guy waking up from a sleep state on stage and quacking like a duck, im talking about a highly alert and focused state where the person is more suggestible on a deeper level to beliefs and ideas (they can be very good , useful, and even real ones that represent something closer to the truth of reality, e.g. "I dont need cigarettes to be happy" <- very true)

Hence the use of it by athletes etc.

I can see how comparisons could be drawn to meditation.

Also, im not knocking hypnosis by any means, it helped two family members give up smoking.

The ONLY reason Im emphasising the difference here is because I consider the practice of Buddhism to be one in which you are discerning your conventional mind from your experiential reality, and with that , shedding ideas and beliefs as oppose to taking on new ones (even if the ideas represent something real).

And that can possibly even include ideas that you thought were good ones.

I consider awakening to be something in and of itself that may take you in a completely different direction to where you expected to go with it.

Whereas I consider hypnosis to be a tool to help you influence your behaviour and decisions to help you achieve something better with your life.

From personal experience,recently ive had to hold back saying certain things regarding death and morales at the risk of coming across like a cold hearted bastard, whereas in truth its actually coming from a place of deep joy and celebration! Im saying that because its not something I would have expected or thought I wanted out of insight meditation.

Just another comment as well, I actually doubt that there are very many really really enlightened people that would have the fire left in them to be an athlete at the top level.

But I think you're right regarding the overlaps in places, they both require alertness and focus, and in truth, people get into enlightenment to improve their lives in the long run, just like hypnosis.

Doc Ruby

I think maybe hypnosis might, for some, be a slightly pejorative term more associated with theatrics than constructive or clinical activities. Also adding to the confusion is that there appear to be numerous types of meditation, each with different goals and methods - the Tibetan mantras for example I would definetely associate with adjusting one's personality by repetition. And this is in no way a bad thing.

I'll need to try some of this myself before reaching any conclusions of course.

Asiaprod

Doc Ruby wrote: »

I'll need to try some of this myself before reaching any conclusions of course.

That would be the key, nothing like personal experience.:) See what works for you.

bou

Why bother?
Why change from how I am now? Because of a perception and/or belief that there could be a better way of seeing and being. Because as I practise, I see more clearly and can feel more a deeper truth of being. I believe in a deeper truth than that which I now understand and experience and that this can be realised. I see more the drawbacks of remaining in my ordinary way of seeing and being and have the intention to let go of the hindrances that block realisation. I suspect that this development will continue on into the future.

I believe that others are just like me, having the potential to realise a deeper truth of being.

Imagine that all dissatisfaction and suffering could end and that the potential is already there within to bring that about. Imagine that everyone can achieve that. If you had already realised this way of being and had complete understanding of how others could achieve the same, you'd probably be open to sharing that with them. Perhaps you would even devote your life to helping them realise.

The Buddha, after becoming enlightened, spent the rest of his life, ~40 years, travelling and teaching those interested to listen. He didn't waste time in other pursuits but devoted his time entirely to teaching. He must have thought it worth while helping others realise what he had discovered. And worthwhile to the extent that he did nothing else.

bou

Regarding the discussion of "life is suffering" etc, I like what wylo has said and perhaps might contribute some more if I can. Time and words are hard to find.

I think this quote of the Buddha's last words is good on this:

All compounded things, all experiences (mental and physical), all phenomena by their very nature decay and die, and are disappointing: it is through being not-blind-drunk on, obsessed by, or infatuated with, the objects of the senses that you succeed in awakening, or obtain liberation.

- http://jayarava.org/buddhas-last-words.html. Note that this translation is an effort to deconstruct the meaing of the original Pali:

vayadhammā saṅkhārā appamādena sampādetha

Cork24

how to gain enlightenment you must first lose everything..

i find that quote very true. How can some one understand something without losing it,

They say you don't understand a mothers love till she is dead.

alot of people i have talked to have change their whole outlook on life due to a death in the family, and they start to question what is it all about,

but going back to my first point, how can one become a enlighten human when we are surrounded by things that we seek that are outside our selfs ?

We buy a new car we are Happy feel on cloud nine, 1 year later we feel that car is nothing a sh*t given nothing but problems ? we then become overcome by the need to have a newer flasher car, so people would look and wish that they had your car, people like this are only fooling themselves.

wylo

Cork24 wrote: »

but going back to my first point, how can one become a enlighten human when we are surrounded by things that we seek that are outside our selfs ?

We buy a new car we are Happy feel on cloud nine, 1 year later we feel that car is nothing a sh*t given nothing but problems ? we then become overcome by the need to have a newer flasher car, so people would look and wish that they had your car, people like this are only fooling themselves.

through practice, self inquiry, direct inquiry, meditation, basically whatever technique actually gets people enlightened, and the one you feel sits right with your current common sense.

This is the issue with the word "desire" imo. It sends off this notion that to be happy you give up material things because being attached to them makes you unhappy.

Its not the material thing that's making you unhappy, its your mind, so you train your mind, or you look deeply etc to find out what the hell is going on, and THEN your attachment the flashy car drops off. Does this mean you are happy to dump to the flashy car in the river? No, it just means you dont give a crap if you have it or not. But while you have it, you might as well enjoy it.

The word desire goes very deep, it is simply the want for things to be different , at the most subtle deep levels. And suffering comes from desire.

This can get very very very subtle. A classic example of desire causing suffering is if you sit down to meditate, wait for yourself to get bored, if you're new to it and you are of a giddy nature, it will probably happen within 10/15 mins. Watch the physical tension and feelings that run through the body as you begin to feel more and more bored. Thats desire causing suffering.
It has nothing to do with material objects.

wylo

Id even go as far as to say that renouncing things is just as much an attachment as anything else. No point renouncing, its not solving the problem itself.
Perhaps others will disagree,and point out benefits to losing everything (assuming we are talking about our regular material stuff). But personally I really dont think it matters.

Its like blaming all cars for road deaths and not the people that drive them.

Asiaprod

A recommendation here.
The concept of giving up material desires is very often misunderstood, I am sure that it means many many different things to different schools. Yet, since its a key concept in Buddhism, there is a position that we can reach that can be agree on by all.
I think pinning this one down will provide great clarity.

bou

Believing in the reality of things as we perceive them is a part of the mechanism of desire/aversion.

We don't see the non-thingness of things and ourselves. Or rather, we can have an academic understanding, to a degree, of the impermanence, interdependence and non-thingness of things but don't allow this understanding to permeate our perception.

From a belief in things, we make all kinds of stories that have no real relation to the reality of how things are. We develop expectations and fears. Hence desire and aversion.

bou

We also believe in the reality of our thoughts and emotions which also arise from causes and conditions.