March 20, 2004

• Buddhism is the way of happiness.
• Do you think so, Nostrildamus? I've always been put off Buddhism by what I take to be its central doctrine that all of human life in a world of change is necessarily painful - the pain only to be escaped by eliminating one's self and one's desires. This seems a depressing outlook, and logically flawed too, since on the face of it change is as apt to produce pleasure as pain. But I may well have it all wrong, and should welcome enlightenment.
• Plegmund, IANAB, but life is suffering, not pain. And that suffering exists because we burden ourselves with anticipation. If you become detached and don't just care about anything(sorta nihilism), then the pain you feel won't matter (and neither will the pleasure). The "happiness" of Buddhism isn't the same state as the qualia of dopaminergic pleasure.
• I thought Buddhism sounded good for a while, until I heard about the The Five Precepts. Man, that number five is a killer.
• i hung out for a week with a group of hare krishnas for a story a few years ago, and what struck me the most was the sheer happiness they experienced. everyday ecstacy, if you will.
• Plegmund: I would not say that Buddhism's central doctrine is that all of human life is necessarily painful, etc. I'd say that Buddhism's central doctrine is that suffering exists, undue suffering is caused by greed (or over-attachment), and that undue suffering can be eliminated by a particular way of life (the eightfold path: right views, right thoughts, right speech, right conduct, right livelihood, right effort, right recollection, and right absorbtion). I think the idea that Buddhism is a pessimistic philosophy is caused in large part by the difficulty of explaining its tenets in English. For example, some kinds of suffering are unaviodable as long as one exists, but Buddhism does not seek to eliminate these-- rather it seeks to eliminate the particular kind of suffering that comes from not accepting things as they are, but expecting they must be a certain way in order for a certain desired emotional state to be acheived. Likewise, Buddhism does not say that one will always suffer in the common sense of the word: obviously there are periods of happiness and unhappiness, comfort and pain. Rather it says that life will always remain unsatisfactory on some fundemental level, as long as one depends on the existance of a certain desired set of circumstances for one's happiness. Enlightenment does not mean that a person no longer has preferences or wants, but that the insistant psychological demand that things go a particular way in order for a person to feel "okay" is eliminated.
• This presents the Four Noble Truths in a way easily approached by Westerners.
• Onanist: I consider myself a Buddhist, but I'm not a very good one, and I must say, those precepts are a killer for me too. I think one does get some leeway, based on the fact that they are technically impossible (i.e. in most parts of the world one cannot refrain from killing living creatures and still live), but one does have to make some sort of good faith effort or they're not very effective in making one's life better. I find the no drugs one particularly hard too, especially in respect to caffiene. I am very attached to feeling alert and awake, I drink too much caffiene in an often fruitless attempt to acheive my desired state, and hence make myself even more attached to and dependent on caffeine, etc.
• Actually, what am I saying? They are all hard.
• Hard? Some are impossible, such as strictures against killing. Fact: Every time you wash your hands, your face, etc you kill many, many bacteria. Intention is all in Buddhism as in most religions, so I suppose if you wash your hands with the intention of only washing off dirt, you might not incur karmic consequences for the slaughter of (guesstimating) tens of thousands.
• Buddhism is punk!
• Tee hee hee! Wanting to incur only favorable karmic copnsequences is a form of attachment! /beeswacky: naughty bad Buddhist
• Thanks, folks - I feel I need to read much more about this (as many other things). Hope it doesn't seem frivolous if I say that 'dopaminergic' is a really excellent word.
• Reading this, I couldn't imagine how a mendicant tradition such as Thai Buddhism could possibly operate in the heterogenous West. Fortunately, they anticipated my questions. Nice link, beeswacky. /eats meat, drinks wine
• Buddhims adapts itself very neatly to cultures (at least Asian ones). Tibetan monks eat meat, because it's nearly impossible to get enough vegetables in the mountains for self-sustanence. Thai Buddhist men becomes monks at least once in their lives, but return back to 'normal' life after a certain times (I think an average of two to three years). Chinese Buddhists worship a huge pantheon of gods, most of which predate the influx of actual Buddhism. Buddhism does not dictate that you must do certain things, or suffer eternal damnation. Only that you do what you can, and be willing to face the consequences of your actions. Ultimately, Buddhism's central precepts do not change though. Life is suffering, because people want. In the wanting, one perceives a lack; and that lack becomes suffering. All beings are caught in a wheel of cause and effect. All actions have a cause and consequence - so when you kill, you end up creating all sorts of debts to the being you kill, and hence are caught in a cycle of cause and effect with that being. I think it's the concepts of circularity and reincarnation that is hard to translate properly into Western cultures, because Judeo-Christian religions have linear timelines. Everybody is born and dies once, and time goes from Creation to the Final Judgement. There is no cycle (at least, to the best of my knowledge).
• since all religions and philosophies of life seem to dictate a path to the godhead/enlightenment etc....and that being a wonderous state of existence/non-existence....why such demands for misery or deprivation or guilt in the process? long ago i tried going through many pre-established deprivations and rituals in a quest for understanding. when i stopped trying, i understood.
• Well, as far I understand Buddhism, it's not about guilt. Just the common-sensical logic that every action has consequences. But also every action has causes, even if we do not see it. Everything we do has certain motivations, even if we think we are doing it entirely randomly or out of sheer impulse. Misery is brought about by our own attachments. Love is an attachment. Hate is also an attachment. You create bonds with the person/thing you love/hate. Some Buddhist monks are so jovial all the time because they try to have equal compassion and love for all things, ie., not creating any specific bonds with any particular object/person. Fear is a response brought about by either a perception that one lacks something, or the perception that one may lose something. And as Yoda said in Episode One, fear leads to anger, and anger leads to hate. Um. I better stop now.
• Oh yeah, Chinese Buddhism has a figure who also taught that blind adherence to the rules of Buddhism is not necessarily the only way to be a good Buddhist. He's called Ji Gong (in Mandarin pronunciation). He drank wine, ate dog meat, never bathed and always carried a broken fan (the non-folding kind that looks like a playing card spade). You don't have to be a model follower of the precepts to be a good Buddhist, was usually his lesson. I really better stop now.
• ...Precious...
• Beeswacky, you are looking for a spanking. Not for the poem, which is pretty interesting. Not for the site, which was quite good to look through. And I like the font. Um... but you deserve a spanking anyway. oh yeah, it's for the "precious" bit. Yes.
• beeswacky: the stray dog is so good I don't even have a word to describe it. But, I do think that the first 3 of the noble truths may not resonate with some westerners, especially from the US. The 8-fold path, on the other hand, is what originally sucked me into Buddhism, along with the idea that there were thousands of paths to enlightenment (or "salvation", if you must) and each of us must find the path that's right for him or herself. Also, that it doesn't really matter whether there is one god, or are lots of gods out there, since the 8-fold path must be ok with any or all of them. And, if there are no gods, that's ok, too. What a wonderful insight!
• Another approach: Liberating Sexuality.
• Alnedra: I can't help loving ambiguity and paradox. And Rinpoche. Find the Tolkien/LOTR 'precious' connection rather funny, so no doubt I deserve spanking. Do you think JRRT was aware of this assocaition? Path: so -- always knew you are the kind of girl who likes stray dogs. [My favorite kind.] Just hope you like stray bees, too. homunculus: wondered if someone wouldn't pick that up. /beeswacky: ninny, says "woof" to all bodhisatvas
• Gollum is a good example of the Hungry Ghosts.
• I always picture the poor dears as those skin/eyelash etc mites. And let me dedicate all my demerit/merit/ego[s] now to their being fed. /oh, eeeek! Bad naughty Buddhist for sure...
• Truth, the first Ignoble: You are all my teachers, and I am most sincerely grateful.
• Life is suffering. If you learn to love suffering then life is nothing but love. Whaddya think about that?
• But if you then ascend to the realm of heaven, then there is not suffering. Wouldn't you be miserable then? Of course, to love suffering is an oxymoron. You may love pain, or loneliness or hatred, but to suffer means that you do not want to be in that situation. So you cannot love suffering, because if you did, you would not be suffering.
• Note to self: preview, preview, preview! Darn.
• Of course, to love suffering is an oxymoron. You may love pain, or loneliness or hatred, but to suffer means that you do not want to be in that situation. So you cannot love suffering, because if you did, you would not be suffering. Matter of perspecive. If you don't love something, you call it suffering. If you start loving it, it's no longer suffering. Suffering exists within time, so the scope of "suffering" can vary.
• Nice thread! Also the MeFi one!
• Meditation distanced from Buddhist roots
• A Forest Monk's Lesson in the New York Jungle