The first noble truth, 'life is suffering' is outdated. Yes, it used to be that way. Nowadays if you hold on to it you create suffering. Same thing goes for Reformed Calvinistic christianity I grew up in. I've had to fight my way out of there. No Buddhas or crucifixes in my home. Yet the meditation and contemplation I still practice.

The first noble truth, 'life is suffering' is outdated. — TaySan

That's not the first noble truth ...
The Buddha didn't say that life is just suffering and nothing else.

I apologize. I must have misunderstood. What is it then?

If you have ever been involved with Buddhism in any way, to any degree, and have since distanced yourself from it:
How come? What was it that made you distance yourself from it? — baker

Two things: immaturity (18-19) and Zen was not philosophically interesting or engaging enough for me to commit daily to zazen.

Did you have trouble finding closure afterwards?

Not at all.

How did you have find closure afterwards?

No commitment, no loss (or closure needed).

You needn't apologize to me.

Some resources on the first noble truth:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca1/index.html

and

Life Isn't Just Suffering
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/lifeisnt.html

It's interesting. It does invite to study Buddhist philosophy more.

Two things: immaturity (18-19) and Zen was not philosophically interesting or engaging enough for me to commit daily to zazen. — 180 Proof

Pardon me? Nagarjuna is a Patriarch and lays out the philosophy. I struggle to see how a philosophy that solves all problems of philosophy can be uninteresting or unengaging.

Perhaps you didn't delve into the philosophy, as in Zen it is not emphasised. . . .

What made me despair is that keeping the five precepts pretty much makes one a loser or at least a target for scorn in our society (and by many Buddhists as well, actually).

No need to worry. The five precepts are impossible to keep without Higher Realization.and impossible not to keep once armed with it. It all happens in its own time if you maintain a practice. In Zen it is not even necessary to think about ethics.and precepts. These sort themselves out naturally as insight deepens. As Sadhguru says somewhere on youtube when asked about this, addictions and bad habits can only be overcome by Higher Consciousness. Buddhism proposes that we should not be too hard on ourselves. The precets assume a certain level of commitment and realisation are already in place. Most people identifying as Buddhist do not keep the precepts, but recognise them as the natural outcome of the dissipation of ignorance.

Same in psychology. Some treatments ask us to adopt a certain behaviour in order to change our mind-set, some to change our mind-set in order to change our behaviour. . .

What made me hopeless about Buddhism is that its epistemology is, essentially, a self-fulfilling prophecy: first, one takes some premises for granted; then one acts in line with those premises; and then one "sees" that those premises "are true".

This is a misunderstanding. The route you describe is one approach. But it is possible to describe and prove the epistemology in logic, and Buddhism NEVER asks us to take some premise for granted. The approach you suggest is a practical method, not the way in which Buddhism explains or justifies its epistemology. Of course, until we know that knowing is fundamental we can only assume it, but the assumption is unnecessary to discovering the facts.

Even if you take no premises for granted you'll end up knowing the truth about epistemology.

The final straw was that some notable Buddhists that I knew were/are avid Trumpistas.

I share your horror. But remember that anyone can call themselves a Buddhist. I'm amazed also that any Christian could support this man, but then anyone can call themselves a Christian.

What's your point?

What's your point? — 180 Proof

I assumed the OP was hoping for some responses, so wrote something a little reassuring. .

Why do you ask?

Because I didn't get the point of your post being linked to mine.

Have you distanced yourself from Buddhism?

Perhaps you didn't delve into the philosophy, as in Zen it is not emphasised. . . . — FrancisRay

Yes, you're right. And by the time I had become acquainted with 'Buddhism as a philosophy', I had committed myself to studying contemporary philosophy from an almost Hellenistic perspective (encountering Pierre Hadot's work some years later confirmed this approach for me). By then, as a hybrid Pyrrhonian-Epicurean with strong affinities for absurdism & (early) pragmatism, there was no need to revisit Zen practice. Also, simultaneously learning to appreciate Jazz from the roots to its fruits, as they say, helped me to fulfill my philosophical study as a "spiritual exercise" so deeply that nearly four decades later it still sustains me. Perhaps Buddhism would have done so as well but it just didn't take back then; had I not went for Zen, who knows? No regrets. As I don't recall who said it: many paths lead up that dark mountain to its summit.

"One must imagine Sisyphus happy."

:death: :flower:

Hmm. The long post is not linked to yours, and the short one quotes you and you've replied. I'm a little confused. No matter.

y
Have you distanced yourself from Buddhism? — baker

No. I replied because you asked for 'anything else of interest', and so I tried to suggest your reasons for having problems with Buddhism were poor. . .

I see we have very different ideas about what constitutes a study of philosophy.

↪180 Proof
I see we have very different ideas about what constitutes a study of philosophy. — FrancisRay

From this remark, I suspect for you "a study of philosophy" entails seeking something that transcends the human condition (i.e. a rational – reliably methodical – way to go beyond human reason) like "ultimate truth", no? Elaborate.

No. I replied because you asked for 'anything else of interest', and so I tried to suggest your reasons for having problems with Buddhism were poor. . . — FrancisRay

Of course, Buddhists will typically say that I have distanced myself from Buddhism "for the wrong reasons" or that my "reasons for having problems with Buddhism were poor". Always blame me, what else.

But there were also Buddhists who told me flat out that I had no interest in the Dharma and that my time would be better spent in other pursuits.

For me a study of philosophy must be a study of metaphysics, where metaphysics is approached as a science of logic. It's not nearly as much fun as listening to Miles Davis, but it does allow one to understand the philosophical foundation of Zen and see that it works.

Of course, Buddhists will typically say that I have distanced myself from Buddhism "for the wrong reasons" or that my "reasons for having problems with Buddhism were poor". Always blame me, what else.

But there were also Buddhists who told me flat out that I had no interest in the Dharma and that my time would be better spent in other pursuits. — baker

Might it be true that you're distancing yourself from the people calling themselves Buddhists who you've met, rather than the teachings? I gained the impression that you had no complaints about the doctrine, only the fools you had encountered. From what you say they sound like fools to me. Even fools are allowed to become Buddhists. Perhaps you would like Zen. You don't have to even meet another Buddhist.

An interest in the Dharma is an interest in your own life and death, happiness and well-being, so I refuse to believe you're not interested, or that you're time could be better spent. However, it might be better spent in more congenial company, by the sound of it, and perhaps another tradition would be more appealing. . .

Agreed, metaphysics and ethics too. Spinoza and Epicurus are two of my touchstones. Apparently, though, you've not listened deeply to much of Miles if you think his music is only "fun" and doesn't offer any ineffable, even sublime, metaphysical insights. Any acquaintance with Schopenhauer or Nietzsche, George Steiner or Albert Murray, should disabuse a person of that sort of shallowness. Also, I don't doubt or disbelieve that "Zen works" philosophically; rather, other paths have simply better suited me since. I'm still grateful for Nishida's writings I'd read during that time.

Of course Miles is more than fun. Can't disagree about that. I speak as a musician.

My point is simply that in metaphysics there is no choice of paths. There is only the results of logic and reason, and we cannot simply take or leave them. These results lead to Spinoza's world, or something very like it. . . . .

There is only the results of logic and reason, and we cannot simply take or leave them. — FrancisRay

Nonsense. If that were the case in metaphysics, then there'd be wide consensus, or agreement, of long standing on those "results", which there never has been.

Nonsense. If that were the case in metaphysics, then there'd be wide consensus, or agreement, of long standing on those "results", which there never has been. — 180 Proof

Yes. This is what is so difficult to get across. There is a firm consensus. It states that all the theories that academic philosophers can think of don't work. It does not state that the view i;m endorsing doesn't work, because the consensus is that the metaphysical basis of mysticism is not worth getting to know.

But I'll bow out.now . Thanks for the chat. .

Might it be true that you're distancing yourself from the people calling themselves Buddhists who you've met, rather than the teachings? — FrancisRay

There isn't one without the other.

I gained the impression that you had no complaints about the doctrine, only the fools you had encountered.

Maybe they are fools, but maybe they know the truth. Maybe the teachings in the Pali Canon were never meant to be taken at face value.

However, it might be better spent in more congenial company, by the sound of it, and perhaps another tradition would be more appealing. . .

Like you say:

My point is simply that in metaphysics there is no choice of paths. — FrancisRay

Maybe they are fools, but maybe they know the truth. Maybe the teachings in the Pali Canon were never meant to be taken at face value. — baker

If they knew the truth of the Pali canon they would not behave in the way you describe.

I wonder if you we're with a Theravada group. They are a bit touchy, since their Buddhism has a strong element of faith and dogma. I forgot this, since for me Buddhism is the Mahayana.

No matter. Thanks for the chat. . . . .

since for me Buddhism is the Mahayana — FrancisRay

Have you taken the Secondary Bodhisattva Vows?

Have you taken the Secondary Bodhisattva Vows? — baker

I've taken no vows. I'm not a Buddhist. .. .

I'm not a Buddhist. .. — FrancisRay

Then how can you say I misunderstood Buddhism??

One doesn't have to be a Buddhist to endorse its teachings. The Buddha was not a Buddhist.

. ,